Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 40
QUEST. XL. Whether or no the people have any power over the King, either by his oath, covenant, or any other way?
ARiſtotle ſaith, Ethic. 8. c. 12. foreign. A Tyrant ſeeketh his owne, a King the good of the Subjects, for he is no King who is not content, and excelleth in goodneſſe. The former part of theſe words diſtinguiſhThe peoples power over the King by reaſon of the Coronation▪ covenant. eſſentially the King by his office, from the Tyrant. Now every office requireth eſſentially a duty to be performed by him that is in office; and where there is a duty required, there is ſome obligation; if it be a politique duty, it is a politique obligation. Now amongſt politique duties betwixt equall and equall, ſuperiour and inferiour, that is not, de facto, required coaction for the performance thereof, but de jure, there is, for two neighbour Kings and two neighbour Nations, both being equall and independent, the one toward the other, the one owe a duty to the other, and if the Ammonites do … wrong to David and Iſrael, as they are equall de facto, the one cannot puniſh the other, though the Ammonites do a diſgrace to Davids meſſengers, yet de jure, David and Iſrael may compell them to politique duties of politique conſociation; (for betwixt independent kingdomes there muſt be ſome politique government, and ſome politique and civil Lawes, for two or three making a ſociety, cannot dwell together without ſome policy) and David and Iſrael as byMutuall puniſhments may be, where there be no mutuall relations of ſuperiority and inferiority. the Law of nature they may repell violence with violence, ſo if the lawes of neighbour-hood and nations be broken, the one may puniſh the other, though there be no relation of ſuperiority and inferiority betwixt them. 2. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equals, yea or ſuperiours and inferiours, the one hath ſome coactive power over the other; if the father give his bond to pay to his ſon ten thouſand pounds, as his patrimony to him, though before the giving of the bond the father was not obliged, but onelyonly by the Law of nature to give a patrimony to his ſon, yet now by a politique obligation of promiſe, covenant and writ he is obliged ſo to his ſon to pay ten thouſand pounds, that by the Law of Nations and the civil Law, the ſon hath now a coactive power by Law to compell his father, though his ſuperiour, to pay him no leſſe then ten thouſand pounds of patrimony. Though therefore the King ſhould ſtand ſimply ſuperiour to his kingdom and eſtates (which I ſhall never grant) …t if the King come under covenant with his kingdom, as I have proved at length c. 13. he muſt, by that ſame, come under ſome coactive power to fulfill his covenant, for omne promiſſum (ſaith the Law) cadit in debitum. What any doth promiſe falleth under debt, if the covenant be politique and civil, as is the covenant between King David and all Iſrael, 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3. and betweenA promiſe layeth a politique obligation on the promiſer, and giveth law to him to whom the promiſe is made, to preſſe performance, or puniſh violation, when the promiſes are betwixt man and man. King Iehoaſh and the people, 2 King. 11. 17, 18. Then the King muſt come under a civil obligation to performe the covenant, and though their be none ſuperiour to King, and the people on earth to compell them both to performe what they have promiſed, yet de jure, by the Law of Nations, each may compell the other to mutuall performance▪ This is evident,
1 By the Law of nations, if one nation break covenant to another, …ugh both be independent, yet hath the wronged nation a coactive power, de jure (by accident, becauſe they are weaker, they want ſtength to compell, yet they have right, and jus to compell them) to force the other to keep covenant, or then to puniſh them, becauſe nature teacheth to repel violence by violence, ſo it be done without deſire of revenge and malice.
2. This is proved from the nature of a promiſe or covenant, for Solomon ſaith, Prov. 6. 1. My ſon, if thou be ſurety for thy friend, if thou haſt ſtricken thy hand with a ſtranger, 2. Thou art ſnared with the words of thy mouth, & art taken with the words of thy mouth. But whence is it that a man free is now ſnared as a beaſt in a gin or trap? Certainly Solomon ſaith it is by a word and ſtriking of hands, by a word of promiſe and covenant. Now the Creditor hath coactive power, though he be an equall or an inferiour to the man who is ſurety, even by Law to force him to pay, and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the Creditor, that he may force the ſurety to pay. Hence it is cleare that a Covenant maketh a free man under the coactive power of law to an equall and to weaker, and the ſtronger is by the law of fraternity to help the weaker, with his coactive power, to cauſe the ſuperiour fulfill his covenant. If then the King (giving, and not granting, he were ſuperiour to his whole Kingdome) come under a covenant to them, to ſeek their good, not his owne, to defend true Proteſtant Religion, they have power to compell him to keep his covenant, and Scotland (if the King be ſtronger then England, and break his covenant to them) is obliged by Gods law, Prov. 24. 11. to adde their forces and coactive power to help their brethren of England.
3. The Law ſhall warrant to looſe the vaſſal from the Lord, when the Lord hath broken his covenant. Hippolitus in l. Si quis viduam col. 5. & dixit de queſt. l. Si quis major. 41. & 161. Bartol. n. 41. The Magdeburgenſ. in libel. de offic. magiſtrat. Imperatores & reges eſſe primarios vaſallos imperii, & regni, & proinde ſi feloniam contra imperium aut regnum committant, fewdo privari, proinde ut alios vaſallos.
Arniſaeus q. 6. An princeps qui jurat ſubditis, &c. n. 2. ſaith, This occaſioneth confuſion and ſedition. The Egyptians (ſaith he) caſt off P…olomeus, becauſe he affected too much the name of a King of the Romans his own friend, Dion. l. 9. The States puniſhed Archidanius becauſe he married a wife of a low ſtature, Plutarch. in Ageſ. in priſ. The ancient Burgundions thought it cauſe enough to expell their King, if matters went not well in the State, Marcel. l. 27. The Goths in Spain gave no other cauſe of expelling their King, niſi quod ſibi diſpliceret, becauſe he diſpleaſed them. Aimon. l. 2. c. 20. l. 4. c. 35.
Anſ. All theſe are not to be excuſed in people, but neither every abuſe of power in a King exautorateth a King, nor every abuſe in people, can make null their power.
Arniſaeus maketh three kinds of oathes: the firſt is, when the KingThree kindes of oathes or covenants …de by Kings as Arniſaeus thinketh. ſweareth to defend true Religion, and the Pope, and he denyeth that this is an oath of fidelitie, or by paction or covenant made to the Pope or Clergie, he ſaith it is onelyonly on oath of protection, nor doth the King receive the Crown from the Pope or Clergie.
Anſw. 1. Arniſaeus divideth oathes that are to be conjoyned, we read not that Kings ſweare to defend Religion in one oath, and to adminiſtrate judgement and juſtice in another: for David made not two Covenants, but onelyonly one with all Iſrael. 2. The King was not King while he did ſwear this oath, and therefore it muſt be a pactionall oath between him and the Kingdom, and it is true the King receiveth not a Crown from the Church, yet David received a Crowne from the Church, for this end, to feed the Lords people, and ſo conditionally. Papir Maſſe l. 3. Chron. Gal. ſaith, The kingThe King not King … … firſt …wear the o…h. was not king before the oath. 2. That he did ſweare to be a keeper not onelyonly of the firſt, but alſo of the ſecond Table of the Law. Ego N. Dei gratia, mox futur as rex Francorum, in die ordinationis meae coram Deo, & ſanctis ejus polliceor, quod ſervabo privilegia canonica, juſtitiamque & jus unicuique Praelato debitum, voſque defendam, Deo juvante, quantum potero, quemadmodum Rex ex officio in ſuo regno defendere debet, unumquemque Epiſcopum ac Eccleſiam, & adminiſtrabo populo juſtitiam & leges, uti jus poſtulat. And ſo is it ordained in the Councel of Tolet 6. c. 6. Quiſquis deinceps regni ſortitus fuerit apicem, non ante conſcendat Regiam ſedem, quam inter reliquas conditiones ſacramento policitus fuerit, quod non ſinet in regno ſuo degere …um qui non ſit Catholicus. All theſe by Scripture are oathes of Covenant, Deut. 17. ver. 17, 18. 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 Kings 11. 17, 18.
Arniſaeus maketh a ſecond oath of abſolute Kings, who ſweare they ſhall raigne according to equitie and juſtice; and he ſaith, There is no need of this oath, a promiſe is enough, for an oath encreaſeth not the obligation. L. fin. de non num. pec. Onelie it addeth the bound of Religion, for there is no uſe of an oath, where there is no paction of law againſt him that ſweareth, if he violate his oath. There followeth onelie the puniſhment of Perjurie. And the word of a Prince is as good as his oath, onelie he condeſcendeth to ſweare to pleaſe the people, out of indulgence, not out of neceſſitie. And the King doth not therefore ſweare becauſe he is made King, but becauſe he is made King he ſweareth. And he is not King becauſe he is crowned, but he is crowned becauſe he is King. Where the Crowne goeth by ſucceſſion, the King never dieth; and he is King by nature before he be crowned.
Anſw. 1. This oath is the very firſt oath ſpoken of before, included in the covenant that the King maketh with the people, 2 Sam▪ 5. 2, 3, 4. For abſolute Princes, by Arniſaeus his grant, doth ſwear to do the duties of a King, as Bodinus maketh the oath of France, de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. Iuro ego, per deum, ac promitto me juſtè regnaturum judicium, equitatem, ac miſericordiam facturum. And papir. Maſſ. l. 3. Chron. hath the ſame expreſly in the particulars. And by this a King ſweareth he ſhall not be abſolute, and if he ſwear this oath, he bindeth himſelf not to governe by the Law of the King, whereby he may play the Tyrant as Saul did, 1 Sam. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, &c. As all Royaliſts expound the place.
2. It is but a poor evaſion to diſtinguiſh betwixt the Kings promiſeIt is an evaſion onelyonly to diſtingu…ſh between the Kings promiſ…s and his oath. and his oath, for the promiſe and covenant of any man, and ſo of the King doth no leſſe bring him under a civil obligation and politique coaction, to keep his promiſe, then an oath, for he that becometh ſurety for his friend doth by no civil Law, ſweare he ſhall be good for the ſonne, or performe in liew and place of the friend, what he is to performe, he doth onelyonly covenant and promiſe, and in law and politique obligation he is taken and ſnared by that promiſe, no leſſe then if he had ſworne. Reuben offereth to be caution to bring Benjamin ſafe home to his old father, Gen. 42. 37. & Iudah alſo, Gen. 43. 9. but they do not ſwear anyoath, & i… is true that an oath adeth nothing to a contract and promiſe, but onelyonly it laies on a religious tie before God, yet ſo as conſequently, if the contractor violate both promiſe and oath, he cometh under the guilt of perjury, which a law of men may puniſh. Now that a covenant bringeth the King under a politique obligation, as well as an oath is already proved, and farther confirmed by Gal. 3. 15. Though it be a mans teſtament or covenant, no man diſanulleth and addeth thereunto; No man even by mans law can anull a confirmed covenant, and therefore the man that made the covenant bringeth himſelf under law to fulfill his own covenant; and ſo muſt the King put himſelf under mens law, by a covenant at his Coronation. Yea and David is reputed by Royalliſts, an abſolute Prince, yet he cometh under a covenant before he be made King. 3. It is but a weak reaſon to ſay, that an oath is needleſſe, where no action of law can be againſt the King who ſweareth, if it have any ſtrength of reaſon. I retort it, a legall and ſolemne promiſe then is needleſſe alſo, for there is no action of law againſt a King (as Royaliſts teach) if he violate his promiſe. So then King David needleſly made a Covenant with the people at his Coronation; for though David ſhould turne as bloody an enemie to the Church as Nero or Iulian, the people have no Law-action againſt David; and why then did Ieremiah ſeek an oath of the King of Iudah, that he would not kill him, nor deliver him into the hands of his enemies? and why did David ſeek an oath of Ionathan? It is not like Ieremiah and David could have law-action againſt a King and a Kings ſon, if they ſhould violate the oath of God. And farther, it is a begging of the queſtion, to ſay that the States can have no action againſt the king, if he ſhould violate his oath. Hugo Grotius putteth ſeven caſes inGrotius de jur▪ bel. & pat. l. 1. c. 4. which the people may have moſt reall action againſt the King to accuſe and puniſh him.
1. They may puniſh the King to death, for matters capitall, if ſo itBarclai. l. 4. c. 6. be agreed on betwixt the King and the people, as in Lacedemonia.
2. He may be puniſhed as a private man.
3. If the King make away a Kingdome given to him by ſucceſſion, his act is null, and he may be reſiſted, becauſe the Kingdome is a liferent onelyonly to him. Yea ſaith Barclay, He loſeth the Crown.
4. He loſeth his Kingdom, if with a hoſtile mind he ſe…k the deſtruction of the Kingdome.
5. If ſuch a clauſe be put in, that if he commit felonie, or doe ſuch oppreſſions, the Subjects ſhall be looſed from the bonds of ſubjection; then the King failing thus, turneth a private man.
6. If the King have the one halfe or part of the Kingdome, and the people or Senate the other halfe; if the King prey upon that half which is not his owne, he may violently be reſiſted, for in ſo farre he hath not the Empire.
7. If when the Crowne was given, this be declared, that in ſome caſes he may be reſiſted; then ſome naturall liberty is free from the Kings power, and reſerved in the peoples hand.
It is then reaſon that the King ſweare an oath. 4. That the Kings oath is but a ceremonie to pleaſe the people, and that becauſe he is king, and king by birth; therefore he ſweareth, and is crowned, is in queſtion, and denyed. No man is borne a king, as no man is borne a ſubject, and becauſe the people maketh him King, therefore he is to ſwear. The councel of Toledo ſaith, non antea conſcendat regiam ſedem quam iuret. 2 An oath is a religious obligation, no arbitrary ceremony. 3. He may ſwear in his cabinet chamber, not covenanting with the people, as David and Iehoaſh did. 4. So heA King cannot ſwear to be a juſt King, becauſe he is already King. maketh promiſes that he may be King, not becauſe he is King, it were ridiculous, he ſhould promiſe or ſwear to be a juſt King, becauſe he is a juſt King, and by the ſame reaſon the eſtates ſwear the oath of loyalty to the new King, not that they may be loyall in all time coming, but becauſe they are loyall Subjects already, for if the one half of the covenant on the Kings part be a ceremony of indulgence, not of neceſſity, by the ſame reaſon, the other half of the covenant muſt be a ceremony of indulgence alſo to the people.
Object. Arniſaeus ſaith, a contract cannot be diſſolved in law, but by conſent of two parties contracting, becauſe both are obliged. l. ab emptione 58. in pr. de pact. l. 3. de reſcind. vend. l. 80. de ſolu. Therefore if the ſubjects go from the covenant, that they have made to be loyall to the King, they ought to be puniſhed.
Anſw. A contract, the conditions whereof are violated, by neither ſide, cannot be diſſolved, but by the joynt conſent of both; and in buying and ſelling, and in all contracts unviolated, the ſole wil of neither ſide can violate the contract, of this ſpeaketh the law. But I ask the Royaliſt, if the contract betwixt the ſpies ſent to view Iericho and Rahab the harlot, had not been null, and the ſpies free from any obligation, if Rahab had neglected to keep within doors, when Iericho was taken, though Rahab and the ſpies had never conſented expreſly to break the covenant? We h…ld that the law ſaith with us, that vaſſals loſe their farme, if they pay not what is due: Now what are Kings but vaſſals to the State, who if they turne Tyrants, fallBartol. in. l. 1. n. 4. de his qui not. infam. Arniſae. cap. 6. An princeps qui iura… ſubditis, &c. from their Right?
Arniſaeus ſaith in the councell of Toledo 4. c. 74. The ſubjects ask from the King, that Kings would be meek and juſt, not upon the ground of a voluntarie Contract and Paction, but becauſe God ſhall rejoice in King and People, by ſo doing.
Anſw. Theſe two do no more fight one with another, then that two Marchants ſhould keep faith one to another, both becauſe God hath ſaid he ſhall dwell in Gods mountaine who ſweareth and covenanteth, and ſtandeth to his oath & covenant, though to his loſſe & hurt, Pſa. 15. and alſo, becauſe they made their covenant and contract thus and thus.
Arniſaeus. 16. Every Prince is ſubject to God, but not as a vaſſal: for a Maſter may commit felonie, and loſe the proprietie of his farme; can God do ſo? The Maſter cannot take the farme from the vaſſal without an expreſſe cauſe legally deduced, but cannot God take what he hath given, but by a law-Proceſſe? a vaſſall can intitle to himſelf a farme againſt the Maſters will, as ſome juriſts ſay, but can a Prince intitle a kingdom to himſelf, againſt the God of heavens will? though we grant the compariſon, yet the ſubjects have no law over the Kings, becauſe the coercive power of the vaſſal is in the Lord of the mannor, the puniſhing of Kings belongeth to God.
Anſw. We compare not the lord of a mannor and the Lord of Heaven together, all theſe diſſimilitudes we grant, but as the King is Gods vaſſal, ſo is he a noble and Princely vaſſal to the Eſtates of a kingdom, becauſe they make him. 2. They make him rather then another their noble▪ ſervant. 3. They make him for themſelves, and their own Godly, quiet, and honeſt life. 4. They, in their firſt election, limit him to ſuch a way, to governe by law, and give to him ſo much power for their good, no more, in theſe four acts they are above the Prince, and ſo have a coercive power over him.
Arniſaeus n. 9. It is to make the Princes▪ fidelity doubtfull to put him to an oath. Lawyers ſay there is no need of an oath, when a perſon is of approved fidelitie.
Anſw. Then we are not to ſeek an oath of an inferiour Magiſtrate, of a Commander in wars, of a paſtor, it is preſumed theſe are of approved fidelity, and it maketh their integritie obnoxious to ſlanders, to put them to an oath. 2. David was of more approved fidelity then any King now adayes, and to put him to a covenant ſeemed to call his fidelity in queſtion; Ionathan ſought an oath of David to deal kindly with his ſeed, when he came to the throne, Ieremiah ſought an oath of the King of Iudah, did they put any note of falſe-hood on them therefore?
Arniſaeus. You cannot prove that ever any King gave an oath to their ſubjects in Scriptures.
Anſw. What more unbeſeeming Kings is it to ſwear to do their duty, then to promiſe covenant wayes to do the ſame? and a covenant you cannot deny. 2. In a covenant for religious duties there was alwayes an oath. 2 Chro. 15. 12, 13, 14. hence the right of cuting a calf, and ſwearing in a covenant Ier. 34. 18. 3. There is an oath that the people giveth to the King to obey him, Eccleſ. 8. 2. and a covenant 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3. mutuall between the king and people, I leave it to the juditious, if the people ſwear to the king obedience in a covenant mutuall, and he ſwear not to them.
Arniſaeus ſheweth to us a third ſort of oath that limited Princes do ſwear, this oath in Denmarke, Suecia, Polonia, Hungaria, is ſworne by the kings, who may do nothing without conſent of the Senat, and according to order of Law, this is but the other two oathes ſpecified, and a Prince cannot contraveen his own contract, the law ſaith in that the Prince is but as a private man, in l. digna vox C▪ de ll. Rom. conſ. 426. n. 17. And it is known that the Emperour is conſtituted and created by the Princes Electors, ſubject to them, and by Law may be dethroned by them.
The B. of Rocheſter ſaith from Barclay, none can denude a King of…o. Ro…. de poteſt. pa. lib. 2. c. 20. his power, but he that gave him the power, or hath an expreſſe commandement ſo to do, from him that gave the power.
But God onelyonly and the people gave the King his power. Ergo, God with the people having an expreſſe commandement from God, muſt denude the King of power.
Anſw. 1. This ſhall prove that God onelyonly by an immediat action, or ſome having an expreſſe commandement from him, can deprive a preacher for ſcandals, Chriſt onelyonly, or thoſe who have an expreſſe commandement from him can excommunicate, God only or the magiſtrate with him can take away the life of man; and Numb, 11. 14, 15, 16. No inferiour Magiſtrates, who alſo have their power from God immediatly, Rom. 13. 1. If we ſpeak of the immediation of the office, can devide inferiour judges of their power. God only by the husbandmans paines maketh a fruitfull vineyard, Ergo, the husbandman cannot make his vineyard grow over with nettles and briars.
2. The argument muſt run thus, elſe the aſſumption ſhall be falſe. God onelyonly by the action of the people, as his inſtrument, and by no other action make a lawfull King. God onelyonly by the action of the people as his inſtrument can make a King, God onelyonly by the action of the people as his inſtrument can dethrone a King, for as the people making a King, are in that doing what God doth before them, and what God doth by them in that very act, ſo the people unmaking a King, doth that which God doth before the people, both the one and the other according to Gods rule obligeth, Deut. 17. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
The Prelate, whoſe tribe ſeldom ſaith truth, addeth, As a fatherlyB. Rocheſter. 16 power, by God and natures law, over a family, was in the father of a family, before the children could either transfer their power, or conſent to the tranſlation of that power to him, ſo a Kingly power (which ſucceedeth to a paternal or fatherly power) to governe many families, (yea & a Kingdom) was in that ſame father, in relation to many families, before theſe many families can transfer their power. The Kingly power floweth immediately from God, & the people doth not transfer that power, but doth onelyonly conſent to the perſon of the King, or doth onelyonly chooſe his perſon at ſome time. And though this power were principally given to the people, it is not ſo given to the people as if it were the peoples power, & not Gods for it is Gods power, neither is it any other waies given to the people, but as to a ſtreame, a beam, and an inſtrument which may confer it to another. M. Anton. de domini. l. 6. c. 2. n 23. 23. doth more ſubtilly illuſtrate the matter, if the King ſhould confer honour on a ſubject, by the hand of a ſervant, who had not power or freedom to confer that honour, or not to confer it, but by neceſſity of the Kings commandment muſt confer it, nothing ſhould hinder us to ſay, that ſuch a ſubject had his honour immediately from the King: ſo the earth is immediately illuminated by the ſun, although light be received in the earth, but by the interveening mediation of many inferiour bodies and elements, becauſe by no other thing, but by the ſun only, is the light as an efficient cauſe in a neareſt capacity to give light, ſo the Royall power in whomſoever it be is immediatly from God onelyonly, though it be applyed by men to this, or this perſon, becauſe from God onelyonly, and from no other the Kingly power is formally and effectively that which it is, and worketh that which it worketh, and if you ask by what cauſe is the tree immediatly turned in fire, none ſound in reaſon would ſay, it is made fire, not by the fire, but by him that laid the tree on the fire. Iohn P. P. would have ſtollen this argument alſo, if he had been capable thereof.
Anſ. 1. A fatherly power is in a father, not before he have a child, but indeed before his children by an act of their free-wil conſent that he be their father, yea & whether the children conſent or no, from a phyſical act of generation he muſt be the father; & let the father be the moſt wicked man & lethim be made by no moral requiſite, is he made a father, nor can heever leave off phyſically to be a father, he may leave off morally to do the duty of a father, & ſo be non pater officio, but he cannot but be pater naturae generantis vi. So there never is nor can be any need, that childrens fre conſent interveen▪ to make Kiſh the Father of Saul becauſe he is by nature a father, to make Saul a King & a moral father by analogy and improperly, a father by ruling, governing,A difference betwixt a father and a King. guiding, defending Iſrael, by good laws, in peace and godlineſſe, I hope there is ſome act of the peoples free-will required even by Spalatoes way, the people muſt approve him to be King, yea they muſt King him, or conſtitute him King, ſay we, no ſuch act is required of naturall ſons to make a phyſicall father, and ſo here is a great halt in the compariſon, and it is moſt falſe that there is a Kingly power to governe many families in the ſame father, before theſe many families can transfer their power to make him King. Put Royalliſts to their Logick, they have not found out a medium to make good, that there is a formall Kingly power, whereby Saul is King and father morally over all Iſrael before Iſrael choſe him and made him, as Kiſh was Sauls father formally, and had a fatherly power to be his father, before Saul had the uſe of free-will to conſent, that he ſhould be his father. Royaliſts are here at a ſtand; The man may have Royall gifts before the people make him King, but this is not (regia poteſtas) a Royall power, by which the man is formally King. Many have more Royal gifts then the man that beareth the Crown, yet are never Kings, nor is there formally, (regia poteſtas) kingly power in them. In this meaning Petrarcha ſaid, Plures ſunt reges quam regna.
3. He ſaith, The people doth not confer royall power, but onelyonly conſent to the perſon of the man, or choiſe of his perſon. This is non-ſenſe, for the peoples chooſing of David at Hebron to be King, and their refuſing of Sauls ſeed to be King, what was it but an act of God, by the free ſuffrages of the people, conferring royall power on David, and making him King? whereas in former times, David even anointed by Samuel at Bethleem, 1 Sam. 16. was onelyonly a private man, the ſubject of King Saul, and never tearmed by the Spirit of God, a King; nor was he King, till God, by the peoples conſent, made him King at Hebron; for Samuel neither honoured him as King, nor bowed to him as King, nor did the people ſay, God ſave King David, but after this David acknowledged Saul as his Maſter, and King. Let Royaliſts ſhew us any act of God making David King, ſave this act of the people making him formally King at Hebron, and therefore the people as Gods inſtrument transferred the power, and God by them in the ſame act transferred the power, and in the ſame they choſe the perſon; the Royaliſts affirm theſe to be different actions; affirmanti incumbit probatio.
4. This power is the peoples radically, naturally, as the Bees (as ſome think) have a power naturall to chooſe a King-Bee, ſo hath a communitie a power naturally, to defend and protect themſelves; and God hath revealed in Deut. 17. 14, 15. the way of regulating the act of chooſing Governours and Kings, which is a ſpeciall mean of defending and protecting themſelves; and the people is as principally the ſubject and fountain of Royall power, as a fountain is of water. I ſhall not contend, if you call a Fountain Gods Inſtrument to give water, as all creatures are his Inſtruments. 5. For Spalato's compariſon, he is far out, for the people chooſing one of ten to be their King, have freewill to chooſe any, and are under a Law, Deut. 17. 14, 15. In the manner of their chooſing, and thought, they erre and make a ſinfull choice; yet the man is King, and Gods King, whom they make King; but if the King command a ſervant to make A. B. a Knight, if the ſervant make C. D. a Knight, I ſhall not think C. D. is a valid Knight at all; and indeed, the honour is immediately here from the King, becauſe the Kings ſervant by no innate power maketh the Knight, but Nations by a radicall and naturall and innate power maketh this man a King, not this man: and I conceive, the man choſen by the people, oweth thanks, and gratefull ſervice to the people, who rejected others, that they had power to chooſe, and made him King. 6. The light immediately and formally, is light from the Sun, and ſo is the Office of a King, immediately inſtituted of God, Deut. 17. 14. Whether the inſtitution be naturall, or poſitive, it is no matter. 2. The man is not King, becauſe of Royall indowments, though we ſhould ſay theſe were immediately from God, to which inſtruction and education may alſo conferre not a little; but he is formally King, ratione foreign, in regard of the formall eſſence of a King, not immediately from God, as the light is from the Sun, but by the mediation of the free conſent of the people, 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3. nor is the people in making a King, as the man who onelyonly caſteth Wood in the fire; the Wood is not made fire formally, but by the fire, not by the approach of fire to Wood, or of Wood to fire; for the people do not apply the Royaltie, which is immediately in, and from God to the perſon: explicate ſuch an application; for to me it is a Fiction unconceiveable, becauſe the people hath the Royaltie radically in themſelves, as in the Fountain and Cauſe, and conferreth it on the man who is made King; yea, the people by making David King, confer the Royall power on the King: this is ſo true, that Royaliſts forgetting themſelves, inculcate frequently in aſſerting their abſolute Monarch from Ʋlpian, but miſunderſtood, that the people have reſigned all their power, libertie, right of life, death, goods, chaſtitie, a potency of rapine, homicides, unjuſt wars, &c. upon a creature called an abſolute Prince, even, ſaith Grotius, as a man may make himſelf a ſlave, by ſelling his liberty to a maſter. Now if the people make away this power to the King, and this beA people may give Royall power to the King by limitation and meaſure: but people can give no gift which is ſolely and immediately from God, by meaſure: they cannot meaſure God. nothing but the tranſcendent abſoluteneſſe of a King: certainly, this power was in the people; for how can they give to a King, that which they have not themſelves? As a man cannot make away his liberty, to a maſter, by becoming a ſlave to him, if his libertie were immediately in God, as Royaliſts ſay, Soveraigntie is immediately in God, and people can exerciſe no Act about Soveraignty, to make it over to one man, rather then to another. People onelyonly have an after-approbation, that this man to whom God hath given it immediately, ſhall have it. Furthermore, they ſay, people in making a King, may make ſuch conditions, as in ſeven caſes a King may be dethroned, at leaſt reſiſted, ſaith Hu. Grotius. Ergo, people may give more, or leſſe, half or whole, limited or abſolute Royall power to the Prince; but if this power were immediately in God, and from God; how could the people have the husbanding of it, at their need to expend it out in ounce weights, or pound weights, as they pleaſe? And that the people may be Taverners of it, to ſell, or give it, is taught by Grotius de jur. bel & pac. l. 1. c. 4. Barclai. adverſ. Monarch. l. 4. c. 6. Arniſae. cap. 6. de majeſt. an princeps qui jurat ſubditis, &c. n. 10. n. ſe Aventiun. Anal. l. 3. Chytreus, l. 23. l. 28. Saxon Sleid. lib. 1. in fi; yet Arniſaeus is not aſhamed to cite Ariſt. po. c. 12. l. 3. That he is not a true and abſolute King, who ruleth by Laws: The point black contrary of which Ariſtotle ſaith.