ratio the most formal and compleat Eâ—â—ence of Government The third is Whether or not Sovereignty and Royalty be in a King by Conveyance of Trust fiduciary and conditionate issuing from the People by a Trust devolved upon him in that portion it pleaseth them to proportion In which will be evident that the Trust of Sovereignty and Government is by God devolved upon the King That all Sovereignty related to God is fiduciary and conditionate but related to the People is absolute The fourth is Whether or not by divine Institution any man or men some few or many have any co-ordinate co-equal or collateral Power with the Sovereignty of Royalty Or whether or not in any case or exigent a King can be subordinate In the Resolution of which Question fitly and conveniently will be discussed that In quo formale Imperii consistit that in which the essence of Sovereignty doth consist and without which it cannot subsist as that it is supreme perpetual and freed from all coercive and coactive Power which the Hebrews call Imperium majus the Politicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fifth and last is Whether or not in any case it is lawful for Subjects one any more or all to oppose a Prince Quaestio prima Whether or not the King be only and immediately dependent from God and independent from the Body of the People diffusive collective representative or vertual CHAP. I. The Affirmative is maintained the contrary Opinion is explained the Authors and Assertors some of them with their Differences are recited WE hold the Affirmative that the King is only and immediately dependent from Almighty God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and independent in his Sovereignty and Power from the Community in what Notion soever you conceive it either as a diffusive collective representative or vertual Body The Jesuit and Puritan to depress Kings aver that all Power is originally radically and formally inherent in the People or Community and from thence is derived to the King In the explaining of this Proposition there is amongst those who lay this Foundation for the building of their Babel a great Latitude of Diversity Lately I read in one who is the Author of the Tract concerning Schism and Schismaticks pag. 29. We have believed him that hath told us that in Christ Iesus there is neither high nor low and that in giving Honour every man should be ready to prefer another before himself which saying cuts off all claim certainly of Superiority by Title of Christianity except men think that these things were spoken only to poor and private men Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them hath an hand in this Herauldry of Secundùm sub supra all this comes from Composition and Agreement amongst themselves I have given you his words I should be glad to be mistaken and crave him Mercy But as I conceive him this Position is worse than any I know of the Jesuits or more moderate Sectaries both of them acknowledge a Necessity of Government is taught by Nature and Grace and that the Distinction of Superiority and Inferiority is the dictate of common Reason and Religion Otherwise neither Nature nor Religion may avoid Confusion or Destruction God who is the God of Order and not of Confusion is the Author of this Herauldry of Secundum sub supra in the whole Universe in Church in State Hath not God in the moral Law taught it Honora Patrem c. Honour thy Father c Do not St. Paul and St. Peter Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. 14. v. command this as the Will of God And did not our Saviour practise it and his Apostles after him and after them all the Christian Church You must take away humane Society in Church and State if you take away this Herauldry of Superiority and Inferiority Sure I am the Jesuits do hold that Government is ex jure naturae by the Law of Nature I hope our Sectaries think no worse in this point than the Jesuits I return to the Jesuit and Puritan who are very like-in this Tenet but give me Leave to say for as bad as the Jesuit is in my conceiving the Puritan is worse Let us make a parallel 1. First the Jesuit says that all Power civil is radically and originally seated in the Community or Multitude God having made it the Primum subjectum the first Subject in which it is seated The Puritan joyneth hands here with the Jesuit 2. Next both of them say it is from the Multitude by way of Collation and Donation to one as in Monarchy to some as in Aristocracy to many as in Democracy so that immediately it is from the People and mediately from God and not so much by Collation as by Approbation How the Jesuit and Puritan walk along in an unequal pace See Bellarmine l. de Laicis cap. 6. Suarez Defens Doctrinae Orthod contra Sectam Anglicanam l. 3. 3. Thirdly that the People may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy or an Aristocracy into a Monarchy or Democracy or è contrae which way you will for ought I know they differ not in this neither 4. But some of our new State-Divines do hold that this Power is derived to the King from the People Cumulativè or Communicativè non Privativè by way of Communication or Cumulation but not by way of Privation that is howsoever the People communicate this Sovereignty to the King by trust yet they denude not themselves of this Sovereignty To make it plain it is in their Opinion no otherwise than as when the King of England appoints a Lieutenant Deputy or High Commissioner of Ireland or Scotland he denudes not himself of his Royal Power but delegates them with Power and Trust for his Service If this be their mind for I cannot conjecture at any other and if they have any other Sense I wish they would make it plain the King is in a poor case by such a derived Power for then as the King of England giving to his Deputy or Deputies that power only cumulativè he cannot by Reason or Law seeing Potior est delegantis quam delegati authoritas that the Principal his Authority is more excellent than he delegate's nor can he be debarred from that right the Law of Nations giveth him Anticipatione concursu or evocatione by procognition his own proper entire Right or Evocation to determine or judge in any thing that concerneth that His Kingdom If they authorize the People so let any that hath common Sense judge in what Condition these new-state-divines do put Kings 4. They aver which maketh me the more inclinable to conceive that to be their mind which before we have expressed that the same Sovereign Power is Howsoever derived from the Community to the King in the people suppletivè that is that if the King be deficient in necessary Duties of Government for the good of the Church and State the People by their innate power may do
that their heart is in the hand of the Lord as a Boat in the Rivers of Waters how God sendeth them in their Expeditions their Wars maketh them in his day his appointed day to set their face against Ierusalem or otherwise casteth his hook in their nostrils to bring them back with shame To this Argument may be referred that when God is to bless a People he sendeth them good Kings the Sons of Nobles when he is to scourge them naughty Kings weak children c. The Testimonies of Scripture for all these are infinite many and obvious which we remit to the Reader 's memory or dilligent search 10. Tenthly Nor is to be passed by that the Sovereign immense Majesty of God is expressed by stiling and denominating him King and his Supreme glory is represented by sitting on a glorious Throne See Isaiah see Daniel and the Prophets Let us beware then that we make not God a Derivative too of the People and a Creature of mens making 11. Eleventhly In the Scripture we read that onely three kinds of men were anointed Kings Priests Prophets Let any give an instance of a fourth besides those three It is granted of all that Priests and Prophets have Sacred Charges and are Sacred Persoâ—s of God's immediate making and Constitution why then shall not Kings have the same Prerogative to be immediately from God Sacred in themselves Sacred in their Charge by Divine Ordinance and Appointment 12. Lastly To close up this first part of our Proof from Scripture it is a strong Reason to perswade Sovereignty Authority and Majesty to be from God immediately and independently from any others in what consideration soever that the irreverence disobedience contempt rebellion or any wrong whatsoever offered to their Persons to their Authority is wrong and contempt offered to God himself See 1 Sam. 8. This made David say Who can touch the Lords Anointed and be innocent This made the Apostle say Rom. 13. 2. Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist receive to themselves damnation The like Phrase to the first you have of the Sacred Ministry in the Apostles 1 Thess. 4. 8. He therefore that despiseth despiseth not man but God When the People murmured against Moses and Aaron in the Law you have They murmure not against you but me The like you have in Samuel The result of all is That as the Sacred Ministry is by Collation immediately or independently from God although the designation of the Person may be by men and the Church so Kings may be personally designed and deputed to Royalty and Sovereignty by Election Succession Conquest or any other lawful possible way but their Sovereignty and Power is by Donation and Collation immediately and solely from God and refers to him as the only Donor and Author Again as the Person and Function of such as are lawfully invested with Sacred Power and in Sacred Orders is Inviolable and Sacred so are the Persons and Sovereignty of Kings Our order proposed in the beginning of this Treatise chargeth us now to produce our Proofs from Reverend Antiquity But I must beg leave of the Christian Reader to discover the weakness and wickedness of a new-devised trick of our Sectaries That the King is God's but not Christ's Vicegerent CHAP. V. All Christian Kings are dependent from Christ and may be called his Vice-gerents WHereas hitherto by express Scripture and by Arguments from thence by necessary consequence deduced we have proved That Kings and their Sovereignty are immediately dependent from God and dependent from no other Conceive it not so that hereby we seclude Christ and him considered not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personally as the Second Person in the Trinity but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Capacity as God-man the Saviour and Redeemer of the World Our Sectaries have found out a quirk or trick rather of late to hold and argue That Kings are Gods not Christ's Lieutenants upon Earth Their purpose is the same in substance with the Romanists although they differ in something for the Romanists and Puritans both of them erect in every Kingdom another Sovereign not onely besides the true Sovereign but also above In this they agree and are like Sampson's Foxes who have their Tails knit together and do carry this Fire-brand to consume Church and State In one other they differ extremely for the Romanist and Iesuit will have it to be the Pope the Puritan and Sectaries fix this Sovereignty in the Presbytery We believe with warrant of Scripture and sound Antiquity that all Crowns and Scepters Kings and States are dependent from Christ the Son of God as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man the Saviour of the World and Head of the Church We intend not at this time to discuss that curious Question Whether or not by Hereditary Right Christ was born King of the Iews We are speaking at this time of Christs Kingdom as the Head of the Church in order to all the Kingdoms of the World The Kingdom we speak of is not what was due to him as the Son of David but as he was the Saviour and Redeemer of David and all the World The right to which he had by Hypostatical Vnion and his perfect Merit and plenteous Redemption Some very Learned men do hold that Christ was not entitled to this Kingdom till his Resurrection and that then he had Ius quaesitum as the Jurists speak There is not much danger to hold this or deny it but with reverence to their great Parts and humble submission to better Reasons I dissent from them and do think however it may be granted that then he came to exercise it fully and perfectly or if you will that a new Title and Right did accrue to him that what he had before by Hypostatical Vnion onely now he had it by another supervenient Right of Merit and so had it duplioi Titulo as Saint Bernard saith of him in another case yet for any thing I could yet see I am of the mind from the first instant and moment of his Incarnation as God-man the Head of his Church By the grace of Hypostatical Vnion he was King of Kings and Lord of Lords It cannot be denied that while he was in the form and state of a Servant in statu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the state of Humiliation as by the no less mysterious than admirable and wise Oeconomy of God the Glory of his Deity did not conspicuously and ordinarily shine thorow the veil of his Flesh no more did this Majesty and Glory of his Sovereignty and Kingdom shine forth to the Eyes of men God in his unsearchable Wisdom having appointed that the Kingdom of God should not come with observation and that the Iews might be rectified in their judgment who did not expect a spiritual King and Deliverer but a Messiah to reign temporally over them and by him to enjoy all external Plenty Peace and
His Sovereignty and their own Dependency from and Subordination and Subjection to him so it is the good will and pleasure of God that all Subjects should in Testimony of their Subjection to Sovereignty and in true Acknowledgment of their Supremacy contribute some of their Means for the Maintenance and honour of the King this is the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 13. 6. For for this Cause pay you Tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing What can be more fully said They are immediately from God They are Gods Ministers for this Cause then we are bound to pay Tribute And let the for in the Frontispiece of the verse make you reflect your eyes upon that which goeth before and you will find it is not an arbitrary Right they have to this which is given upon them by a voluntary Compact or Grant or extorted by Fear the Apostle sheweth this we do not only for Wrath that is for fear of Punishment for in their Power it is to punish those who will not do this Duty but for Conscience sake This our Lord and Master both taught and practised paying Tribute to Caesar and commanding to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar's due to him as Caesar not by grant or compact from the People And Reason it self evinceth that this Maintenance should be proportioned to that high Degree and Measure as may preserve his Glory and Majesty that it be not lessened or contemned and as may sufficiently enable him to act and effect the happy works and Fruits of Royal Government to preserve all in Peace and Plenty See to this purpose Iustin Martyr Apolog. 2. and St. Chrysostom upon Rom. 13. passim This Doctrine that Kings are immediately from God and independent from all other Creatures whatsoever teacheth also that it is high Rebellion against God to oppose or resist the King This Consequence the Apostle thus deduceth Rom. 13. vers 1. The Powers that be are ordained of God vers 2. Ergo Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation Pardon me to cite Chrysostom upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeyeth not the King fighteth against God what do they then that come in Arms against him who by his Law hath established Obedience and not Resistance and the Apostle every where always and upon all Occasions endeavoureth this mainly that our Obedience to Kings is not arbitrary conditional or by compact but necessary and imposed upon us by God Holy Scripture is so careful we oppose not sacred Authority that it hath forbidden it in all it's kinds all it's degrees 1. We are not to think a bad Thought of them in our Hearts Eccles. 10. 20. 2. The Tongue is not to speak Evil of them Exod. 22. 28. Iud. 8. Consequently neither Pen nor Press are to write or print to their Disgrace and Disadvantage 3. We are not with Iudas to lift up our heel 4. David's Heart smote him when he smote Saul's Garment 5. The hand cannot stretch out it self against the Lords Anointed and the Actor be innocent 6. It is to fight against God for he that rebelleth against the King rebelleth against God He that blasphemeth the King blasphemeth God 1. Kings 21. The Prodigal in his Return acknowledgeth he sinned no less against Heaven than his Father God hath taken them in Societatem nominis in societatem numinis Psal. 82. 6. 7. The greatness of the Sin may appear that the greatest of Judgments fall upon Traytors and Rebels Scripture is plentiful in Examples of this kind and all Story witnesseth for it Remember the Story of Rudolph Duke of Suevia who sware Allegiance to Henry the fourth by Pope Hildebrand was loosed from his Oath but miserably died he and before his Death the right hand with which he sware was cut off and say he could to the Bishops This is the hand was lifted up when I sware Allegiance to my Emperour justly cut off for my Perjury and Rebellion for which you are to answer who put me upon this mischievous Course and Rebellion See Aventine and others infinite Examples may be alledged If they escape the Judgment of men by their scarce warrantable Meekness and Clemency God hath Executioners in store and ready for them He will revenge for his own Interest If the King will not do Justice against a Traytor God will make his own Friend do it and if that fail his own Breast or both of them This was Absalom's case 2 Sam. 18. 14. Thy Confederates will do it This was Sheba's case 2 Sam. 20. 22. Before an Executioner be wanting thy own hand shall do it This was Achitophel's case who hanged himself 2 Sam. 17. 23. And Zimri's case too 1 Kings 16. 18. If no man will do it Earth and Hell will do it This was the case of Korah Dathan Abiram and their Complices Numb 16. 23. This is the first Rebellion in Scripture recorded against Prince and Priest And take with you Optatus Bishop of Milevis's note upon it no Sin in Scripture recorded hath a Judgment parallel to this If all Creatures should fail to be Executioners God will do it by his immediate hand from Heaven Psalm 144. 8. To shut up this God allowed no Sanctuary for Treason and Traytors as is manifest in the case of Ioab pulled from the Altar and Justice done upon him Lastly seeing the King is sacred in his Person in his Power in his Royal Christian Prerogative it is high Sacriledge and Intrusion upon God and the King to rob him of any part of his Sacred Right The ancient Church did judge so Hosius writing to Constantius an Arrian Emperour saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Holy Father and the whole Church in his time did account it a Theft and an Opposition to God and his Ordinance by Fraud or Force to cheat or extort from a King any thing due to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Empire his Sovereignty It was not dreamed of then that an Excellency could be set up against a Majesty or a Coordinate power erected with Sovereignty In the happy time of the Christian Church this was the greatest Robbery the highest Sacriledge the most violent Intrusion upon God and his Anointed The best and readiest way for all Happiness to a Kingdom is when the King considereth that his Greatness and Glory consisteth in the Happiness of his Subjects and proportioneth all his Actions and Government to their Peace and Plenty and the People on the â—ther part when they level their Intentions Actions Enâ—eavours and Obedience to preserve his Sacred Person His Sacred Right and Royal Prerogative Let none â—ivide those things God hath conjoyned When People are thus affected it will move Kings for the good of their People with Saul to be ready to sacrifice Ionathan or with Codrus to dye himself for the Safety of his People or with David in great Judgments from God
may be compensed by that eminent Worth and Perfection is in You. I do confess I have so many ties by personal Favours received above my desert that I were the ingratest of Christians if I did not acknowledge it yet give me leave to speak truth notwithstanding all these Endowments if I had not seen and were not assured that in none in this Age there can be seen more true discreet Zeal to Christ's Church and Loyalty to Your Master our most gracious King I had never presumed to go this way I see it even there and then where and when Satan had erected his Throne and Antipas God and the King 's faithful Servant did fuffer My Lord God hath sent You to us for a comfort in these worst of Christian times who knoweth but at this time You are set at the Helm to help the Lord right his Anointed and to save a poor Church threatned with ruine Go on in Your Piety and Devotion with these Heroical Endowments God hath enabled You and be assured God will heap Honour on you and your Noble Family for ever and reward you with an uncorrupt undefiled and Eternal Crown of Glory Which shall be the fervent and constant Prayers of Your Lordships most humble and bounden Servant I. A. To the Christian Reader CHristian Reader this is an Extemporary Piece which was extorted by the importunity of Friends who prevailed so far with me that I chose rather to expose my Weakness and it to the Censure of the World than uncourteously refuse them To strengthen Truth I was able to bring more Zeal and good Affection than any other Abilities Believe I write nothing but that I am assured of in Conscience in certitudine mentis and which I believe to be really certain in certitudine entis God knows I am far from temporizing and he is of weak apprehension that in this Distemper can expect any great Reward by appearing in Publick to maintain this Sacred Truth Experience teacheth us that it is more advantageous to run the contrary course if a good Conscience could allow it If the method in handling and proposing these five ensuing Questions be not so orderly I beg pardon and that justly because I follow the Order proposed by the Observator If the Diction be not so terse and pregnant I am not able to help it for by nature I am not enabled to delicate and witty Expressions nor have I endeavoured by Industry to help those natural Defects My care was ever to study Truth and Reality more than flowers of Eloquence holding that for one as I am of small reach the better way is rather to be inter reales than inter nominales If there be any tart Expression construe it charitably as fallen by inadvertence from my Pen whereas there was no Gall in my Heart If any will be at pains to examine it critically and to answer it rationally and fully I humbly intreat him to do it in a Christian and Charitable way without Passion for which I shall heartily thank him And if I be not able with as much reason to answer him I shall not be ashamed to retract my Errours and joyn Heart Hand and Pen for him and all Christian Sacred Truth of which kind I hold those which I would maintain to be If any thing in it give thee content thank God for it and pray for Grace and Strength to the weak Author who hath resolved to be a Lover a Professor and a maintainer of Truth according to his Power at whatsoever peril to advance the true Reformed Catholick Religion and what may conduce to the Honour of our Church to the overthrow of that is truly Popery and to the regaining of all erring Sectaries to the Communion of this Church And let all of us put up our hearty and humble Prayers to Almighty God to touch our Hearts that we may endeavour to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace to do good in his good pleasure unto Sion to build up the Walls of Ierusalem to re-establish his Anointed our Sovereign in His Throne and Right to set aright what is disjoynted in Church and State that all of us may be happy here and receive that Crown of Glory which the righteous Judge hath laid up for them that love him his Truth and Christian Peace Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti si non his utere mecunt Elenchus Questionum Quaestio Prima WHether or not the King be onely and immediately dependent from God and independent from the Body of the People diffusive collective representative or virtual Affirmatur Quaestio Secunda Whether or not God is no more Author of Regal than of Aristocratical and Democratical Power Of Supreme then of Subordinate Command and whether or not that Dominion which is usurped while it remains Dominion and till it be legally divested again refers to God as its Author and Donor as much as that which is hereditaryâ— Negatur Quaestio Tertia Whether or not the nature of conveyance of Sovereignty to the King is by Trust immediately from the People and mediately onely from God and as Fiduciary so Conditionate and proportioned to what measure or portion the People please or is it intirely and immediately by a Trust devolved upon him from the King of Kings Neg. prius Aff. posterius Quaestio Quarta Whether or not be there any Jura Majestatis some Divine Prerogatives intrinsecally inherent in the Kings Crown and Sovereignty which are incommunicable to the Subjects Aff. Where is explained what they be Quaestio Quinta Whether or not in any case upon any reason just or pretended it be lawful for the Subject or Subjects in what Notion soever imaginable singly or joyntly collectively or representatively to oppose the Sacred Authority of the King by Force or Arms or to resist him either in a Defensive or Offensive way Neg. Elenchus Capitum QUESTIONIS PRIMAE THE Preface Page 1. containing the Sum Method and Order of the ensuing Treatise Chap. I. Wherein is maintained that the King is onely and immediately dependent from God and independent from the Body of the People diffusive collective representative or virtual The contrary Opinion is explained the Authors and Asserters some of them with their differences are recited Pag. 9. Chap. II. How that God is the immediate Author of Sovereignty in the King and how he is no Creature of the Peoples making is explained and proved by Scriptures 30. Chap. III. The same Truth is proved by more Arguments from Holy Scripture 57. Chap. IV. That Kings are onely dependent from God and not from the Community is further proved by Scripture The poor shifts of Suarez and Bellarmine are removed who abusing the passage Deut. 17. would have the constitution of the Kings of Israel to relate to the People as its real and proper origine and Cause and the priviledged case onely this that God reserved to himself the designation of the Person of the King 62.
to refute the Errour of the Canonists and others who hold that Directum Dominium the direct and primarie power supream whether Civil or Ecclesiastical is in the Pope as Christs Vicar upon earth immediately from Christ derived unto him and from Him to all Kings whatsoever mediately by Dependence and Subordination The Jesuits are ashamed of this and therefore will have the Pope only to have Indirectum Imporium an Indirect Directive and Coercive power over all Kings and States in ordine ad Spiritualia as civil Power and Businesses are related to Religion and Salvation It is a curious subtle quirk and nicity of Scholastick Invention and a jugling Trick to bring all Kings Christian at Least Kingdoms and States into Subordination and Subjection to the transcendent and extravagant power of the Pope nor doth this Expression differ from the other in re in the matter or extent of the Power but in modo rei in the manner of the thing as they claim it And cometh fully home that the Pope by this indirect Right of his related to Religion by which any civil Act or Business whatsoever with his School Formalities he may qualifie with such an Ordination and Relation to Spirituals that directly by this indirect power he may King and Unking at his Pleasure Our Presbyterians if they run not fully in this way they are very near to it I wish we were so happy this time as that we had not to do with other Impugners of Sacred and Royal Authority but Jesuits and Canonists That which we have proposed to our selves in this short ensuing Treatise is to consider the main grounds by which the Jesuit and Puritan endeavour by no less spurious than specious Pretexts of Liberty of the People and Subject of the reforming of Religion purging it from Error preserving it in Purity to rob Kings of their Sacred and divine Right Prerogative making them Derivatives from the People in whom they will have all Supream Power originally and radically primarily seated So that if Kings fail in Performance of their Duty the People may supply it at least in some cases may do it of themselves Nay that Kings are accountable to them as to their Superiours censurable punishable and dethronable too By which the Copy-hold of a Crown is no better than Durante beneplacito plebis or communitatis during the good Will of the Community for by these mens Principles the People are made Judges and may find exigents which will warrant them to resume and to exercise this power Puritan and Jesuit in this not only consent and concur but like Herod and Pilate are reconciled to crucifie the Lords anointed A thousand pities it is that our Sectaries pretending such a Zeal against Popery and who no less maliciously than confidently rub upon sound Protestants the Aspersions of Popery and Malignancy do joyn with the worst of Papists in the worst at least most pernicious Doctrines of Papists But ten thousand times more pity it is that the true reformed and sound Protestant Religion should suffer by such miscreants that sound Protestants should be charged with these Heresies in after Ages We will be forced to disclaim them and say with St. Iohn They were amongst us but were not of us and they have gone out from us It is not warrantable to be so large in our charitable Defence of any as to prejudice the inviolable and sacred Truth of Almighty God Our work is to examine and discuss some new devised State-principles set on foot in this distempered Age which have robbed Church and State of Peace and Happiness which these Kingdoms of late and long Continuance have plentifully enjoyed under the Government of our blessed King and his Predecessors to the Envy of other neighbour Kingdoms and States These may all of them be reduced to five great ones 1. First that Royal Authority is originally and radically in the People from them by Consent derived to Kings immediately mediately only from God That the Collation or Donation of the Power is from the Community The Approbation only from God 2. The second that God is no more Author of Regal than of Aristocratical and Democratical Power of Supreme than of Subordinate and that Dominion which is usurped and not just while it remains Dominion and till it be legally again divested refers to God as to its Author and Donor as much as that which is hereditary 3. The third that Sovereignty and Power in a King is by Conveyance from the People by a Trust devolved upon him and that it is conditionate fiduciary and proportioned according as it pleaseth the Community to entrust more or less 4. The fourth that Royal Power in a King is not simply supreme but in some cases there is a co-ordinate Power or collateral nay that in some cases the King is subordinate to the Community 5. The fifth and last is that the King in some cases may be resisted and opposed by Violence Force and Arms at least in a defensive way These are the main Foundations upon which all those impious Courses are built and which have had such Influence upon disaffected and less knowing Subjects to raise and cherish these Distempers and Rebellions for which all sound-hearted and good Subjects mourn Yet to add the more Lustre to them there be couched under them or added to them a number of specious general Maxims apt to ensnare the popular Faction which we shall by Gods help clear and demonstrate to be Untruths and popular Sophisms as they offer in their own proper place The contrary of what they aâ—firm we hold to be sound Divinity agreeable to the Truth revealed in Scripture consonant to the Tenets and Practice of the ancient Christian Church and grounded upon sound Reason deducted out of nature and the best Institutions of Policy and Government That we may the more orderly proceed we sum up all into five Questions whereof the first is this Whether or not Sovereignty or the Royal Power of a King be independent from all Creatures solely and only dependent from God immediately from him and neither from the Community the diffusive collective representative or vertual Bodie of the People In which by Gods grace we will make it appear that the King is the derivative of the primative King who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords The second is Whether or not God is no more Author of Royal Power than of Aristocratical or Democratical Of supreme than subordinate Of usurped and not just than of just Government and Regal In which it will appear that by Gods Institution Regal is graced and authorised above others that Aristocracy Democracy and Monarchy are not Species univocae regiminis sed analogicae not univocal Kinds and Species of Government but equivocal at best analogical are howsoever tolerable and not so perfect some way defective and that they degenerate from the true and most perfect Species of Government Monarchy in which is formalis completa gubernandi
's native Liberty they did run so far to the other extreme that they ascribed too much to the natural Power and Strength of mans free will and so seemed in heat of Dispute to derogate too much from the Necessity of Grace to our doing good Of which Expressions the Pelagians afterward did make use against the Orthodox Some there be who do maintain these Parisians and others that howsoever they did think Kings and Sovereignty were from the People by their Consent yet that power was immediately from God The maintainers of this Opinion I honour much for their Learning and other excellent parts But give me leave to say it I do not see how it can be maintained though I intend as much as any man to construe all men in the best Sense Do not all of them distinguish inter potestatem Civilem Ecclesiasticam betwixt Civil and Ecclesiastical power that Kings and Emperours have their Civil power at first by Donation from the People but Church-men may be chosen or deputed for sacred Orders or Functions by men but the Donation or Collation of the Power is from God Do they not hold that in fieri Kings are dependent from People but not in facto While they are instituted but not after that they are invested with that Power derived from the Community Do they not maintain that they are immediately from God but in Regard of Approbation That in some in this point they hold the Kings Power his Constitution in fieri is by the Peoples Donation transferring their innate inherent Right upon him which being immediately by God approved of they depend no more in conservari upon the People their Words are Ita quod in possidendo illo scilicet Impèrio nullum recognoscit superiorem praeter Deum that it is so that a King in possessing his Empire and Sovereignty acknowledeth no Superiour but God which in effect is no more than when any man by Industry or Donation acquireth a Right or Propriety if he come well by it he is righteous possessour of it by Gods Confirmation and Approbation yet do they hold too that the people and Community may propter crimen civile politicum destituere principem for a civil Enormity against the Common-wealth depose and dethrone a King And notwithstanding they maintain that the Pope may not cannot for any civil Crime or Transgression no nor for any Spiritual either depose a King nisi de per accidens but accidentally for they hold that the Pope cannot depose sententialiter legally judicially and orderly a King or Emperour although he may excommunicate sententialiter legally and by his own innate Power as they say finaliter or consecutive and by way of Consequence by his Sentence of Excommunication compel or move those that have power to depose him and so accidentally occasionally and by way of Consequence only he does depose not properly by himself or any Power innate and inherent in him And on the other side they hold that the Emperour de per accidens accidentally may depose the Pope for if the Pope abuse his power and place to the Damage of the Empire and Commonwealth the Emperour may forfeit his temporal estate confiscate his Goods and what else he holdeth as the Vassal of the Empire and by this means that those that have Power over the Pope which in their Sense is an Oecumenical a general Council to depose and degrade the Pope So equally keep they the Scales betwixt the Emperour Kings and Pope To demonstrate these Truths by their Grounds and Testimony it appears evidently first that when they distinguish betwixt secular and sacred power sacred they acknowledge supernatural and immediately by Donation from God but secular to be natural humane and ordinary by Donation from the Community Next that they acknowledge God to have no immediate hand in collating secular Power but by way of Approbation Thirdly that they allow the people Authority and Sovereignty not only to censure but to depose Princes as doth also Marsilius monand Patav. ad Ludovic IV. part 1. c. 12. When he hath acknowledged that Moses Ioshua Saul David and such had immediate Institution from God Almighty for other Kings and Governours their Right he saith Provenit immediatè ex arbitrio humanae mentis it is immediately from the free Election and Concession of man Iacobus Almayn in his Tract De suprema Pot. Eccles. Laica q. 2. c. 1. saith expresly in sola approbatione divina fundatur quaecunque potestas jurisdictionis Civilis Laica all secular Power and Jurisdiction is founded in the sole Approbation of God and that you mistake him not he telleth you immediately before that for the Collation of the power it is not but Aliquibus titulis creatis mediantibus by some Right or Title ordinary Scilicet vel titulo successionis vel haereditate vel venditione vel donatione vel aliqua permutatione either by the Right of Succession or the Right of Inheritance or by Alienation or by Donation or by some way of exchange See him more fully cap. 5. ibidem where he giveth you the three ways which all the Sorbonists conceive to compleat all the manner how man may be said to have any thing immediately from God Let me refer you again to another Passage of Marsilius Patavinus de Translatione Imperii cap. 6. Answering that Objection for the Popes power above Emperours and Kings that the Pope Zacharias deposed Childerick and enthroned Pipin ' saith Sed Admonius in gestis Francorum scribit verius Pipinum per Francos legitime in regem electum per regni proceres elevatum per Banifacium quoque Rhemensem Archiepiscopum inunctum Suissione in Monasterio Sancti Medardi Childericus qui tunc sub nomìne Regis in deliciis marcescebat ocio fuit in Monachum tonsuratus Vnde nen illum Zacharias deposuit sed deponentibus ut quidam aiunt consensit Nam talis depositio Regis alterius institutio propter rationabilem causam non ad Episcopum tantummodo neque ad clericorum aliquem aut clericorum collegium pertinet sed ad Vniversitatem civium inhabitantium regionem vel nobilium vel ipsorum valentiorem multitudinem The Result of all is this Pope Zacharias did not chuse Pipin King of France nor unâ—ing Childerick but the Commonalty and Peers of France did both and Boniface Arch-bishop of Rhemes anointed him at Soisson in the Abbey of St. Medard The Pope had no Authority in the one or other but a naked Consent for the deposing of such a King as Childerick who was a stupid and naughty man living beastly in his Pleasures nor the chusing of another as Pipin doth not for most considerable Reasons belong either to any Bishop Church-man or Corporation of Clergy but only to the whole Community of the Subjects or to the Nobles or to the greater and better part of the whole You see here Marsilius speaketh the Language of the Doctors of Sorbon For you
will read their Distinction in answering the very same Objection that Zacharias the Pope both in the Deposition of the one and Constitution of the other had a hand consensivè not authoritativè by â—a naked Assent not by authoritative interposing or Right in this Act. To shut up all this I refer you to one place by viewing of which you shall have explicitly three Iacobus Almayn Iohannes de Parisiis and Ockam all of them Doctors of Paris and breathing the same thing with the Patavin Doctor Marsilius Almayn hath it who writ for Ockam and in the words alledgeth Iohannes de Paris verbatim de Supr Pot. Eccles. Laic q. 2. c. 5. where with Ockam he grants that the Pope for Heresie may depose a King and the people for transgressing against the Commonwealth But that you may conceive all aright he saith Non licet Papae nec propter civile nec propter spirituale crimen deponere nisi de per accidens Et non pertinet ad Papam sententÃaliter deponere Imperatorem licet spectet sententialiter excommunicare finaliter per censuram Excommunicationis eos qui habent Authoritatem deponendi cogere ut illum deponant Et sic de per accidens deponit solummodo non directè The Sense is It is not proper nor lawful to a Pope to depose an Emperour either for any civil or spiritual Crime for Errors in Policy or Religion but only accidentally The Pope may sentence the Emperour with Excommunication but not with Deposition and so upon the bye may move the people or the multitude who have Authority over him to dethrone him And this is done by the Pope not properly but improperly not effectively but consecutively The like he subjoyns concerning the Emperours power over the Pope that if the Pope abuse the power he hath to the Disturbance and Hurt of the civil State the Emperour may forfeit his State confiscate his Goods and so indirectly make move and force those who have power above the Pope which in their Opinion is the whole Church or the Representative which is an oecumenical Council to depose the Pope and institute another To these I might add Gerson and others I refer you to Gerson's Considerations and amongst these that you will read the seventh I have insisted on this especially for two Reasons the one is that you may see these Tenets came not into the World with Luther and Calvin but were long before there was any Word of a Reformer Ioannes de Parisiis lived and taught at Paris in King Philip sirnamed Pulcher and Boniface the eighth's time about the year of our Lord 1296. Willielme Ockam an English born and Regius Professor in Paris who writ his Dialogue at the Request of King Philip and after his Death fled to the Emperour Lewis the fourth died as some think about 1320. Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris lived in the time of the Council of Constance and died about 1420. And Almayn the first and chief Professor in Sorbon who took upon him the Defence of Willielme Ockam if you will believe Flaccius Illyricus wrote Anno 1512. a book against Cajetan for the Power of a Council above the Pope which was printed Coloniae 1514. All these were prior to Luther or Calvin Our Rabbies then have drawn these Doctrines out of their polluted Cisterns The other Reason is because some too charitably and to the prejudice of Verity interpret the Authors above cited and their Kinsmen If any man will take and hold them to the better Sense I will not be contentious though I profess I cannot see it yet will it appear otherwise that those are not the Tenets of the reformed Catholick Church but the Foppery of Popery See Thomas Aquinas 1. de regim princ c. 6. where he saith Si ad jus multitudinis pertineat sibi providere de rege non injustè ab eadem Rex institutus potest destitui si potestate regni tyrannicè abutatur in which Passage you have that people may make Kings unmake them in case of Tyranny This Book is suspected and for many just and pregnant Reasons not to be Thomas Aquinas's and therefore I refer you to the genuine Thomas 1 2. q. 90. art 3. q. 97. art 3. 22 ae q. 10. art 10. And if I be mistaken of his Sense blame one of his acutest Scholars who avers it Suarez l. 3. defens orth fid adv Sect. Angliae ca. 2. And long before Thomas Aquinà s Pope Zachary taught the French this Doctrine as you may read Avent l. 3. Annal. Boiariae Princeps saith he Populo cujus beneficio possidet obnoxius est Quaecunque n. habet potentiam honorem divitias gloriam dignit aâ—em à populo accipit plebi accepta referat necesse est Regem plebs constituit eundem destituere potest He practised this about the middle of the eighth Age and for ought I know is the first Divine or Pope of Rome either that said so or writ so Some charitably plead for him and shew how averse he was from giving his Consent that at first he writ to disswade them from wronging Childerick who had his Right from God and writ thus to wash his hands in Innocency I will not take pains to vindicate him I leave that Labour to the Popes parasites yet it is worth our noting that when Pipin and his Complices were about this Treason to rob Childerick of his Crown although all things were in him that might perswade to such a Course Childerick being but a weak King a silly man drowned and buried in ease and pleasures childless nor any near to him yet at this time notwithstanding of all those Circumstances the like whereof never I think occurred before so odious a Crime it was to depose and set a King by his Throne though alâ—o all France had almost conspired with him yet fearing that the whole Christian World would cry fie upon them for such an Impiety they had Recourse to the Pope that by a specious shew of his Holiness and the Authority of that holy Church this great Impiety and Treason might be countenanced and go current This President was made a leading case in after Ages both for popish and popular Usurpation to intrude nay to invade upon the Sacred Right of Sacred Kings Nay our Puritans have from hence learned to colour and lustre their ugly Treasons and Seditions with the Cloak of Religion and Righteousness With the intimating of another Opinion of some who make regal Power resident in the People and from thence derived to the King I will close this Chapter Some do hold that all Sovereign power is primarily and naturally in the universitate civium multitude from it derived to the King immediately and mediately from God Who intending the Good Peace and Safety of Mankind which cannot be obtained without preservation of Order hath commanded and by an inviolable Ordinance and Institution appointed all to submit and subject themselves to
the Laws of Society not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake not only whilst they enjoy Peace Plenty Justice and Protection by the Benefit of Governours but also whilst they do suffer under some Inconveniences or accidental Abuses The Reason of which Obligation they make to be this because we cannot enjoy nor reap the sweet Fruits of established Government unless by compact we submit our selves to some possible and accidental Inconveniences from which grounds they extract these Consequences and Consectanes 1. First That after a people have by Contract Compact or Covenant divested themselves of that Power which was primarily and natively in them they cannot without manifest violation and breach of inviolable divine Ordinance and without Breach of publick Faith resume that Authority which they have placed in a King that being united in one it may be enabled sufficiently to protect all and to exert and exercise all necessary acts of Government 2. The second is that it were high Sin to trench upon Sovereign Authority to rob it of its Essentials and native Constitutions 3. Thirdly this ordinance of God is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without just and urgent Reasons 1. First for if that the primary and native Power which is in all and every one were not united entirely and sovereignly in one it could not have Strength enough to protect all and every one and to do all Acts and parts of necessary Government 2. Next this Ordinance of God is necessary to prevent those fatal and too too ordinary Divisions which attend Multitudes or many endued with equal Power where almost every one upon real or fancied Injuries undertaketh to right himself The Authors of this Opinion add That although before positive Constitution this is not absolutely unjust yet Reason informeth us that it must be fit by some Condition and Agreement to part with this native Right entirely for a greater good which will ensue and to prevent greater Evils which without this cannot be avoided and to restrain our selves from being our own Judges 3. Thirdly that either to resume any part of this Power of which the people have totally divested themselves or to entrench usurp upon or limit it contrary to its Nature is not only to disable Sovereignty from Government and Protection but also to loosen â—he Sinews of all Society no less than of Government by receding from that Compact which subtle disconâ—ented and disaffected men for their own private ends perswade others they might have made more to their own Advantage I was sometime in Love with this Opinion nor do I much condemn it for it enableth Sovereign Authority of a King with an entire and sufficient Power it maketh the Person and Office of the King sacred and inviolable it determineth that it is Sacriledge to denude or divest the King of any part of sacred Royalty and that the attempt or practise of any in this kind is a bad president nay a warrant for the Violation of all Contracts howsoever just upon any pretence whatsoever advantagious it reserveth Kings to the Tribunal of God only it preventeth by the law of Nature the Appointment of God all Seditions and Treasons declaring vim civium in Regem semper injustam all Opposition by force resisting of Kings by Arms whither in a defensive or offensive way to be against God and unlawful How fair soever this Opinion be yet I dare not to aver it nor maintain it for I can never see where holy Scripture or reverend and pious Antiquity hath seated this Sovereignty in the multitude or universitate civium originally or radically tanquam in subjecto primo as in its first Subject Scripture and Fathers speak it clearly frequently that Sovereignty refers to God as to its immediate Author and Donor but that it is underivedly primarily and natively in the Community from thence transferred to the Prince Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem Lucilianum not one syllable I wish from Scripture or Fathers they would make it appear that after the Peoples Constitution there is a supervenient accessory Ordinance to secure the Prince his Person and Function I leave this and come to prove by Scripture CHAP. II. That God is the immediate Author of Sovereignty in the King and that he is no Creature of the Peoples making WHen we say that Kings are constituted immediately by God and that Sovereignty is by immediate Donation and Collation from God and not from the People conceive us not to mean so grosly that this is by any special Ordinance sent from Heaven by the Ministry of Angels or Prophets The Observator if he conceive there is no other way but this whereby the Original of Royalty may be referred to God as the immediate Donor he will grant that there were but some few such as Moses Saul David c. But if he know not that some thing may immediately proceed from God and be his proper work without a Revelation or Manifestation extraordinary from Heaven he is as empty a Divine as I fear in the end he 'll prove a Politician I hope he will grant that howsoever the Designation of a person to Consecration for a sacred Function be by the Church and man yet the power of preaching administrating the Sacraments binding and loosing of Sins is immediately from Christ. To say this Power were derived from any other is not only unsound but blasphemous This Power in its nature is divine spiritual and supernatural and consequently cannot be but from such an efficient The designation of the Person to an holy Function is from man or men but the collation of the Power is immediately from God and Christ and yet this is not by any special Ordinance sent from Heaven by the Ministry of Angels and Prophets That the Apostles are of God and Christ's immediate Constitution none doth deny That Matthias was one Who will controvert That he was designed by men is clear Acts 1. Two were set apart the Decision was by Lots and yet I pray you was not Matthias an Apostle by immediate Constitution from Christ But where read you where find you any special Ordinance sent from Heaven by the Ministery of Angels or Prophets To come to Natural things If the Observator believe with the most part of Divines that the Soul of man is by Creation and Infusion not by propagation and traduction although Man and Nature begetteth the Body disposeth and prepareth it as a fit matter to be conjoyned with the Soul that the Father may well be said to have begotten the Son yet will he acknowledge that the Soul is immediately from God and believe it to be so without any special Ordinance sent from Heaven It were good for our Adversaries to consider that as the Schools see Iac. Almayn de Suprema potestate temporali quaest 2. c. 1. alibi See Gerson Ioannes Parisiensis and others and see St. Austin in re in effect saying the same although not in
School-terms in many places as namely de corrept grat c. 14. De Civit. Dei l. 4. c. 33. l. 5. c. 21. passim And to the very same purpose see Suarez lib. 3. contr Angl. Sect. err c. 2. although in his Application he erreth foully do teach us A thing may be said to be immediately from God three wayes 1. The first is when it is so solely from God as it is from no other and presupposeth no thing ordinary humane or created previous or antecedent before the obtaining of it Such was the Power Moses and Ioshua Saul and David had Such were the Apostles all of them were by God and Christ immediately instituted constituted designed to and invested with Power from above 2. The second way that any thing is said to be immediately from God is when the collation of the Power and investing of the Person in and with such Power is from God as the immediate Author and Donor although there be presupposed or interposed aliquod signum creatum some previous or antecedent Act humane or created The Power Apostolical in Matthias and appointing him to be an Apostle was immediately from Christ although some humane Acts did precede and were interposed before his Constitution as that the Apostles put two apart and did cast lots Neither of these two acts severally nor both joyntly had either vertually or formally in them that efficacy or efficiency to collate upon him the Apostolical Power and Preeminence A world of Instances may be made in this kind A man baptized by Baptism obtaineth Remission of Sins and the Grace of Regeneration yet none is so weak as to say that the immersion in or aspersion of Water effecteth or produceth these excellent Effects of Remission of Sins and Regeneration Lewis the twelfth King of Fraence authorized the Parliament of Paris when one of their number diâ—d or was removed to make choice of another in his place yet none will deny that the Authority and Power of a Judge and Senator is immediately collated upon the Person chosen by and from the King of France A King giveth to a well-deserving Servant the Favour to name any man fitted for Honour to be a Lord Baron or Earl after the Servant to whom the Trust is committed hath designed the Person or man he is made a Lord Baron or Earl Who is so stupid to aver that the Honour of a Lord Baron or Earl is from the Servant a fellow-subject immediately And who dare to deny the Honour is from the King the Fountain of all Honour This is easily discerned for when the act interposed and presupposed to the Production and working of such an Effect is such that of its own Nature it hath no natural Contingency with the effect produced but what it hath by some Resemblance or Constitution We must run to an higher and more eminent Cause of such a Work and Effect of which see more infra c. 13. where we prove that the interposing of an humane Act in the Constitution of a King as Election Succession or Conquest impedeth not the constitution and making of a King to be immediately from God 3. The third way is When titulo creato mediante a mans Right to any thing he hath power of by some ordinary humane Right or Title intervening by which he is invested with a just and full Right to that is collated upon him and the Approbation or Confirmation of this Right is immediately from God so that the possessour in possessing what he hath just Right recognosceth or acknowledgeth in the right of Propriety no Superiour but Almighty God Now to apply this for the first way we maintain not that Sovereignty is in a King immediately from God by extraordinary Revelation without any humane Act or Sign created intervening This was peculiar only to some few The second way we hold that all Kings really so are immediately from God for although some Signum creatum some humane and created act as Election Succession Conquest or what else in that kind is imaginable and possible interveneth to the Designation of the Person yet the real Constitution the Collation of Sovereignty and Royalty is immediately from God for the Act or Condition presupposed or interposed containeth not in it that power to collate Royal and Sovereign Power only by Gods appointment it is inseparably joyned with it or infallibly followeth after it so that it referreth to God as the proper donor and immediate Author As in Baptism if there be nothing repugnant in the Suscipient the baptized hath from God immediately Remission of Sins and Grace of Regenerrtion Or as in Sacred Orders the Designation of the person is from men and an humane Act but the Endowment with supernatural power to act do and exercise supernatural Acts is immediately from God and Christ Matthias his person was designed by the Apostles but Christ only made him truly and really an Apostle Just so in the Constitution of Kings Election Succession Conquest or what else is only Potestas designativa personae but the power of Royalty and Sovereignty is primarily formally and immediately from God That we may conceive things aright in this case we must distinguish three things 1. First The Sovereignty or Royal Power which is forma quaedam the specifick and formal Essence constitutive of a King 2. Next The Person of the King which is Subjectum the seat or that wherein this Sovereignty is inherent 3. Thirdly The Conjunction of the Sovereignty with the Person or the Application of Royal Power and Sovereignty to the Person The first that is Regal Power and Sovereignty is immediately from God and Christ. The second that is the individual Person taken absolutely in its specifick and individual Essence and Existence is from its natural Causes constituent But qua talis considered as a King and such a one that is as Supreme and Sovereign the Deputation or Designation of such an individual person for such a Power is by Election Succession Conquest or any other lawful way by which God in his Providence doth manifest it The third that is the joyning of the Authority to the Person is immediately from God and Christ. Election Succession or Conquest may be said in some Sense remotely and improperly to make or constitute a King although they are not the proper efficient and constituent cause of that Power To say in the third Sense that Sovereignty in the King is immediately from God by Approbation or Confirmation only it is too flat an Expression and doth not sort well with the magnifick Expressions of Holy Scripture as By me Kings reign Prov. 8. 15. The Powers that are are ordained of God Rom. 13. 2. I have said ye are Gods Psal. 82. 8. All Power is given from above John 19. God hath spoken it once twice have I heard it all Power belongeth unto the Lord Psal. 62. 11. According to this Opinion the Sense of those and other such places must be Kings have their
power from below from the People by Contract are ordained of men and only established by God and consequently we must change the Phrase The People have said you are Gods your Power is from below and Saint Paul's ordained of God is no better than confirmed or approved of God Nor is the Title or Right of a King better as related to God than the Title of what any man possesseth titulo humano orcato by humane Right by Contract or otherwise in Rents Moneys Revenues or what else is ordinary in the Commerce and Society civil of men In brief our Sense is The Royal Power and Sovereignty of the King is from God primarily formally immediately The Designation or Deputation of the Person is by Election Succession Conquest c. as Matthias was designed by the Apostles setting of him apart and the falling of the Lord upon him but the Apostolical Power and Preeminence was immediately and solely from Christ. The power of the High-priest-hood in Zadok was from God the Designation of the Person was from Solomon a pregnant proof and Illustration of this appeareth in Iephtah Judg. 4. 5 6 7. The Elders of Gilead and people by Covenant and Contract bring him home agree he be Judge and Governour and yet notwithstanding 1 Sam. 12. 11. The sending of Iephtah is no less given to God solely than the immediate and extraordinary sending of Ierubbaal Bedan and Samuel A Father begetteth the Child but God infuseth the Soul A Woman by her Choice and Consent designeth her Husband but the marital Power and Dominion is only from God for how can she confer or transfer that power which was never fixed in her nay by God and Nature she is to be ruled by her Husband It is more then than manifest that an humane Act may design the Person of a King and that the Power is conferred by God alone There is in true Judgement a main Difference betwixt Potestas deputativa designativa personae Regiae and Potestas collative potestatis Regiae betwixt Applicativum personae ad authoritatem potestatem and applicativum authoritatis ad personam Regis The first may be done by an humane Act as a mans hand may apply a Faggot to the fire but the other in our case is proper to God as the Fire only can make the Faggot burn It appeareth then clearly that Power may and doth come from God alone and immediately without extraordinary Revelation by the Voice of God of Angel or Prophet The Sense and Terms of our Tenet thus cleared we come in the next place to our Proofs from the Holy Scriptures in the first place God in Scripture by frequent pregnant and multivarious Expressions hath so vindicated to himself the making and constituting of Kings that he declareth fully that he will have none to share with him in this Work for he hath told us that Kings and their Sovereignty are by God of God from God that they are Gods The Children of the most High His Servants His Ministers His publick Ministers and Deputies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That their Throne their Crown their Sword their Scepter their Iudgment are Gods c. and hath expressed it in abstracto abstractly of their Royalty their Power and in concreto of themselves with a Connotation of their Persons to intimate that they and all in them their Power their Function their Charge their Person are of divine extract a Constitution of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and consequently to teach us that the Sovereign Authority of the King and the Person of the King both of them are sacred inviolable God in his Omniscience and Prescience did foresee that the Sons of Adam would be like to their Father in Transgression that nothing will content them but to be like God and before they fail they will justle him out of his Right run upon the Guiltiness of divine Vsurpation challenging to themselves the Prerogative of the Almighty Pope and People Anti-christ-like exalting themselves above all that is called God The Iesuit this day pleased for the Pope the Puritan for the People that he or they have underived Majesty by which they may enthrone or dethrone make or unmake Kings at their pleasure We begin first with the Law In which as God by himself prescribed the Essentials Substantials and Ceremonials of Piety and his Worship gave order for Justice and Piety so he commanded the appointing and constituting of the King to be reserved as a priviledged case a proper Prerogative for himself Deut. 17. 14 15. c. When thou shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse A Law sufficient to prove our Conclusion that the King and his Power are originally and immediately from God dependent from him alone and independent from all others The Power and Sovereignty is expressed in the words Set over thee This Thee is collective and includeth all and every one so Scripture knew not this new state-devised principle That Rex est singulis major universis minor above every one severally but subordinate to all joyntly The person is expressed in concreto in the Words Whom the Lord thy God shall chuse Neither is it to be slightly passed by that so peremptorily emphatically and authoritatively it is right-down said Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee c. Which peremptory Precepts dischargeth the People all and every one diffusively collectively representatively or in what capacity else is imaginable in them to intend attempt or practise the appointing of a King but to leave it entirely and totally to Almighty God Here we must take off some shifts which Iesuits Puritans and others make to elude this and other Texts of this kind 1. The first is That this was a priviledged case of the Iewish King So Suarez lib. 3. c. 2. defens orthod Fid. cont Sect. Angl. So Soto l. 4. de Instit. q. 2. art 1. So Navarrus cap. Novit Notab 3. num 33. 147. and many more as Abulensis and others The Sectary averreth the same Both of them strengthen their Argument by these Maxims Exempla specialia non valent ad inferendum regulam universalem imo solent esse exceptiones à Regula To the same purpose they adduce that Maxim of the Iurists Valet Argumentum à speciali ad inferendam regulam universalem or Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis The Sum and Sense is that extraordinary singular special and priviledged cases are not firm and valid antecedents to infer a general ordinary and ruled case that if we cannot make it appear that all Kings are from God by immediate Constitution the priviledged case of the Iews will infer no necessary Conclusion Suarez in the place above cited goeth a little further affirming that God amongst the Jews did reserve as peculiar to himself the election onely of the King but
that His Constitution or the collation of Royal Power was from the People properly immediately and that because the words run in the Text Deut. 17. 14 15. that the People shall set him King over them and him only whom the Lord they God shall chuse Bellarmine saith just the same To remove this first shift we deny both the one and the other We deny first that it was a proper case for the Jews to have their Kings immediately constituted and appointed by God The Scripture is for us that all Kings all Sovereign Powers are immediately from God Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign saith a King and the wisest of Kings and a King who had good reason to say so for if the People had right to constitute or make a King it had not been King Solomon but King Adonijah Adonijah durst say to King Solomon's Mother Thou knowest that the Kingdome was mine and that all Israel set their faces on me that I should reign 1 Kin. 2. 15. Solomon saith not of himself singularly That he reigned by God but indefinitely universally By me Kings that is all Kings reign The first two words Per me By me contain in them the Donor the Author the Efficient the Constituent of Kings and Sovereignty Possibly you will say this By me is spoken of Wisdom it is true but that Wisdom is to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for an Accident or Quality but for something subsistent personally And this Solomon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chochmach in the sense of the most Learned both Ancient and Modern is St. Iohn's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 1. 1. Saint Iohn's Word Christ the Son of God the brightness of his Glory and the express image of his Person Heb. 1. 2. The Text demonstrateth it for his Wisdom by which Kings reign is that Wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the right reading for the Original word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kanan possedit nor will the Greek reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bring home the Arrains conclusion which the Lord possessed in the beginning of his way before his Works of old vers 22. Which was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the Earth was v. 3. The Wisdom by which Kings reign is the same that was created of all things Kings are from God the Father but by the Son as from the Father by the Son all Spiritual blessing in heavenly things come to us so the greatest of Temporal Blessings By him we have Kings the best Blessing here for without them neither Godliness nor Honesty 1 Tim. 2. 2. This Per is Christ's Preposition It is worth your notice taking that Solomon saith not By the People Kings reign had it been so you know who had been King and not Solomon Nor he saith not By the High-Priest Kings reign you know he was engaged in Adonijah's Treason no He saith not By Israel nor by Abiathar nor by Zadoc nor by David nor by Nathan Kings reign But there is a Per me which is exclusive of all and to whom onely it is proper and peculiar to make Kings and to make Kings reign Solomon excludes Pope and People State and Presbytery He vindicates the creation of Kings no less to Christ than the creation of things This â—er me by me imparts not a naked Permission as if Kings by importunity of People were given way to as some blasphemous mouths and Pens have said and written and that Monarchy of all Governments is the least acceptable to God and to People most inconvenient Ignorants or malicious or both they are who dare to say so Monarchy was the first Government God ordained in the World and is yet founded in paterno Why if it be otherwise was it promised to Ahraham as the highest pitch and reach of Temporal Blessings that Kings should come of him Why doth God Ezech. 16. upbraiding the multitude of the People reckon in the last place as the highest of his Favours Temporal That they prospered into a Kingdom Why doth St. Peter urge obedience to the King because that is the Will of God 2 Pet. 11. 15. Why doth St. Paul say that he is tibi in bonum for thy good and for my good and for the good of all Saint Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Higher Power is nothing else but St. Peter's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King that is Supreme So Chrysostom Ambrose Haymo and others interpret it and the Government then when Saint Paul writ that Epistle was Monarchical They be a cursed brood who do maintain that this per me Reges regnant This By me Kings reign is a per me iratum by me in anger to punish a stiff-necked and rebellious People The Queen of Sheba knew it was per me propitium By me in Mercy and was better taught and sounder in this point of Divinity than the great Gamaliels amongst our Sectaries for she saith to Solomon Because the Lord thy God Loved Israel to establish them for ever therefore made he thee King over them to do judgment and justice 1 Chron. 9. 8. This per me implieth then that they are of Gods making and in mercy Kings are given to us This per me by me implieth Kings are God's and Christ's Derivatives and that God and Christ are their Institutives from God the Father by the Son their Commission their Power their Sovereignty for this cause St. Paul calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is very pregnant and signifieth an Ordinance by high Authority not revocable nor repealable In which sense it is usually read in classical Authors Sacred and Prophane So Sinesius useth the word in Epist. ad Theoph. So Aristotle in his Problems Sect. 28. 50. Lucilius Epigr. 2. So Appian in 2. and Plutarch in Marcello useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for established Decrees of Sovereignty The word from which it is derived is so used Acts 28. Stephanus a Learned Graecian is of that mind that in this very place Rom. 13. 2. it signifieth so much The Emphasis of this per me is not yet fully explained That wonder of Piety and Learning Doctor Andrews Late Bishop of Winchester hath well observed that the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bi in me and yet beareth well in me and per me the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beth signifying both So that the meaning is Kings are first in him and so come forth from him as that they are in him He parallels it a little with that passage in the Gospel My Father in me and I in him Christ in them as his Deputies They in Christ as their Author and Authoriser he by their Persons then by his Power The other two words of the Text Kings Reign contain in them the Charter the Donation Kings is in the number of many in the plural number Solomon although the wisest of men and Kings and King of Israel knew not this time what our new Doctors know that it was a priviledged
Sovereign Power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is by God from God under God and God's Appointment irrevocable ordinance irrepealable The three last are the Apostles the first is Solomon's for the Septuagint read the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This variety and plurality of Expressions how Sovereignty is of God and Gods the Spirit of God hath used that none presume sacrilegiously to usurp upon God his Prerogative who hath reserved this peculiarly for himself that all Kings upon Earth should be his immediate Creatures and Deputies by his own Letters Patent authorized Our Adversaries have been much puzled with this Text if they give us a new Bible it is like enough either this Text will be left out or we will have a Gloss upon it to destroy the original Text. It hath so tortured them that I cannot tell you how many ways they have coyned to themselves to elude it I have observed five main ones which I purpose by by Gods Grace to examine and refute quaests 5. now I content my self to take off one in which they please themselves much They say the Apostle speaketh abstractly not concretely of the power it felf not of the person cloathed and invested with the Power it is an ignorant shift Barcley in his Book de Regno who hath deserved well of all Christian Monarchs hath learnedly and truly observed that Saint Paul writing to the Romans did keep the Roman usual Diction in this with whom it was customable and ordinary by Potestates powers in the Abstract to express the persons authorized with this power He refers his Reader to classical and good Authors as to Pliny lib. 29. c. 4. Iuvenal Suet. in Claudio c. 21. Modest. lib. 27. de Pignorib Vlpian lib. 17. SS penult de Aedil edict Tertullian contr gent. I content my self with the Dialect of Canaan in Scripture in which frequently Expressions in the Abstract express existents in the Concrete Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers By Thrones Dominions Principalities and Powers uncontrovertedly Angels are meant that the Expressions are abstract is clear as the Sun-shine To say Angels were created in abstracto is to send us to search after Platonick Idea's This instance it may be is too sublime let us see then if we can hit upon one nearer us and more fitting for the Purpose in hand I pray them to cast their Eyes upon St. Peter 2. Epist. 2. 10. where giving a Character of the man with whom we have to do he saith That they despise Government are presumptuous self-willed and not afraid to speak ill of Dignities The fellow of this you have Iud. 8. These filthy Dreamers defile the Flesh despise Dominion and speak ill of Dignities In which Passages the words in abstracto Government Dominion Dignities without any Doubt do express the persons of Governours Lords and Kings It is worth your notice taking to consider how zealous St. Peter and St. Iude were for the honour and due of Sovereignty the ray of Divine Majesty upon Earth that they speak so passionately and bitterly against such as professed themselves Christians and did speak Evil of Cajus Caligula Nero monsters of men O with what a zeal would they be inflamed if living now a days they did see what we see and hear what we hear the pretended Levites expressing their Zeal to God Religion Church and State by railing against the Lords anointed the best of Kings in the World The Fathers do use the word so too St. Austin epist. 48. saith Potestas humana saepe est divinae potestati inimica humane power is too often contrary to the Power of God Almighty The holy Father was not so bad a Divine as to think that Potestas in abstracto that Government which is Gods own Ordinance can be in Opposition or Enmity with God St. Austin then infallibly by the word Potestas Power meant him or them who are authorized with power from above If this doth not content our Adversaries I would entreat them to look upon St. Paul's Text and I hope they will find that St. Paul meant by being subject to higher powers to be subject to him who is invested with the Power Doth not he term them v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers Higher Powers then and Rulers are with saint Paul equivalent terms Doth he not after call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ministers immediate and peculiar Servants of God v. 6. and even Nero himself is Gods Minister for thy Good Doth he not say v. 4. That he beareth not the Sword in vain which is non-sense if you conceive it of higher Powers in abstracto The like may be said of paying Tribute c. God did fore-see by his eternal Omniscience how apt man was to coin Distinctions to deceive himself and to wrong Gods Ordinance that mercifully to us he hath expressed in Scripture that both Sovereignty and the person cloathed with Sovereignty are of him by him and from him immediately and this that both the one and the other may be reverenced by us as sacred and inviolable The Apostle speaketh in abstracto Be subject to the Higher Powers The Powers that are are ordained of God He that resisteth c. Again the Spirit of God by Solomon saith In concreto with the Connotation of the Subject By me Kings reign I have said you are Gods c. What shall we judge then of this new-coyned Distinction to make a Difference betwixt the King and his Authority betwixt his personal Will and his Royal and Authoritative Will to pursue his Person with a Cannon-bullet at Edge-hill and to preserve his Authority at London or elsewhere These Fig-tree Leaves will not cover our Rebellion and Treason in the day of our Accounts before the Lord of Lords and King of Kings Remember his strait Charge Touch not mine anointed and do my Prophet no harm CHAP. III. The same Truth is proved by more Arguments from Holy Scripture THE Scripture hath not delivered any truth more purposely more apertly more frequently than this The Spirit of God knew well that if the Sacred Sovereignty of Kings be not preserved Religion Justice and Peace cannot be maintained This is the reason St. Paul gives to perswade us to pray for Kings That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. It is observable that Solomon Prov. 8. speaketh first of the establishment of Government before he speaks of the Works of Creation to intimate it is better not to be at all than to be without Government For the same reason God fixed Government in the Person of Adam before Evah or any else came into the World and how Government shall be and we enjoy the happy fruits of it it is not conceivable except we preserve
not terrae filii Cadmus off-spring sprung out of the Earth Kings then are not made provided chosen found exalted anointed adopted by Saints by People by Pope by Presbytery by any diffusive collective representative virtual Body of the Community but by and of God alone for their Power their Sovereignty they are dii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elohim the manner of Propagation Derivation Communication is by Filiation by Adoption they are filii Excelsi the Sons of the most High and for eminency above all they are the first born this is the Language of Canaan it is the Language of Ashdod to say that a King is minor universis singulis major Scripture Reason speak the contrary primogenitus the first-born is not above every Brother severally but if there were thousands millions numberless numbers he is above all in Dignity in Precedency in Power It is statuted by God in the beginning of the World that the younger Brother and Brethren all of them sub te erit appetitus ejus tu dominaberis illius Vnto thee or subject unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him Gen. 4. 7. To return a little to the Practice of the Law in constituting David King you find it was not the diffusive the collective Body of Israel that found David chose him exalted him anointed him c. It was God alone it was not the Elders of Bethlehem his own City neither they nor the other knew of it 1 Sam. 16. 4. Nor were the Saints sharers in this work with God they knew nothing of it Psal. 89. 19. Nay not Samuel the Prophet had it been he it had not been King David but King Eliab It is worthy of our labour to take notice how the anointing of Kings is wholly attributed to God in Scripture and other Kings besides the Kings of Iudea are called The Lords Anointed Which is more than evident by what is before expressed the phrase of Scripture is very emphatical They are anointed with his holy Oyl the Act is his He anoints The holy Oyl is his He anoints with his Oyl this Oyl is sacred too it is not every Oyl but his Oyl and his sacred Oyl Sacred Oyl it is which how it can be so denominated and come from the People as its first subject and Seat its Origine and Source is not conceivable in Reason Sacred it is in three respects First from a sacred Fountain a sacred Efficient from God himself 2. Next for its sacred Influence upon the Person it makes the Person of the King Sacred 3. For its influence upon the Charge the Function his Power his Authority is Sacred too And both the Person and the Charge are Supreme which is most fitly resembled in the Sacramental Ceremony of Oyl put Oyl in whatsoever Liquor you will it swimmeth above in the surface Now all this is so intirely and solely given to God that neither Priest nor People Pope nor Presbytery have any part in it Psal. 89. 20. With mine holy Oyl have I anointed him God finds the Oyl and the hand to do it You will say Samuel's hand did it The Principle of the Law will take away this Scruple Quod quis facit per alium facit per se What one doth by another he doth that by himself Samuel was onely the Delegate God was the Principal and Delegant and in reason the Act must be referred to the Principal The Oyl was God's too not from the Apothecaries shop nor the Priest's Vial this Oyl descended from the Holy Ghost who is no less the true Olive than Christ is the true Vine Yet I pray you mistake it not to account it of the holy Oyl of Gratia gratum faciens Saving Grace as some Fanaticks and Fantasticks fondly imagine this is a sacred Oyl to make the Person and Function Sacred as we have said Our seventh Argument to prove that Sovereignty in a King is immediately from God and not from the diffusive collective representative or virtual Body of the Community is that all Royal Ensigns and Acts of Kings are ascribed to God If Kings were the Derivatives of the People and Community in whom is that fansied underived Majesty how comes it to pass that the holy Spirit hath not in any place or syllable of Scripture intimated it and how cometh it to pass that in such a particular way and enumeration all are given to God 1. Their Crown is of God by putting it on their head Isai 62. 3. The Royal Diadem is in the hand of the Lord. Psal. 21. 3. Thou puttest a Crown of pure Gold upon his head Hence it was that the Emperour's Coin of old was printed with an hand coming out of Heaven and putting it on their head The very Heathen did term them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having and holding their Crowns from God Their Sword is God's and he girdeth them with it David Professeth so much Psal. 18. 39. For thou hast girded me with strength the Sword is the Emblem of strength unto the Battel See Iudges 7. 17. 3. Their Scepter is the Scepter of God Exod. 4. 20. and 17. 9. The Hebrew word Sebet signifieth no less Scepter than Rod. It is a miraculous one too We read onely of two miraculous Rods Moses's and Aaron's By Moses's rod what wonders were wrought in Egypt and what a Miracle was it that the rod of Aaron budded and none else of the twelve Tribes and for what purpose was it that God made both the one and the other miraculous Was it not to manifest to the World that the Sovereign Power of a King as Moses was King of Ieshurun and high Sacred Power of the High Priest and the Tribe of Levi were not by Derivation by Translation by Communication from the People but immediately independently from God himself He is well nigh out of his Wits that will make any thing miraculous the Work and Effect of the Multitude 4. Their judgment is the judgment of the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 6. Again 5. Their Throne is the Throne of God 1 Chron. 19. 21. The ancient Fathers and Councels used the same diction they called 1. Their Writings sacri apices 2. Their Presence sacra vestigia 3. Their Majesty sacra Majestas 4. Their Words their Commands divalis jussio The Law speaketh the same Language and whatsoever goods belonged to them they are called res sacrae See Brissonius his Lexicon lib. 7. in the Sacras Being that in Holy Scripture in reverend Antiquity and in the Law all their Ensigns all their Royal Acts their Persons their Right their Goods are denominated Sacred and given to God himself how can our new Statists against the expressions of the Holy Spirit of the Holy Fathers and of Jurists honour Kings no better but to call them Derivatives of the People Is this to ennoble them No truly it disgraces Kings it maketh them the basest Extract of the basest of Rational Creatures the Multitude the Community It is certainly untrue
Rulers both of them are of God immediately by the hearing Ear understanding the actual Obedience of the Subject and by the seeing eye the actual Government and Empire of the Sovereign the interpretation is according to the analogy of sacred and divine Truth If any be contentious to hold it is not the native Sense of the Text we will not contest or contend unnecessarily seeing we have plain places to the same Purpose David professeth and acknowledgeth that the Subjection of his People to him was the immediate Work of God Psal. 144. 2. The like see 1 Sam. 10. 26. when Saul was constituted King some despised him but those whose hearts God had touched followed and reverenced him 7. Seventhly where Sovereign power is as in Kings there is Authority and Majesty a ray of divine Glory But this cannot be found in people they cannot be the subject of it whether you consider them joyntly or singly If you consider them singly it cannot be for this is not to be found in every individual and according to our Antimonarchical Sectaries all by native Right are equally equal born with a like Freedom If it be not in the People considered singly it cannot be derived from them being considered joyntly for all the Contribution in this compact and Contract which they fancie to be humane Composition and voluntary Constitution is only by a Surrender of the native Right every individual hath in himself from whence then can this Majesty and Authority be derived Again where the Obligation is amongst equals by Compact and Contract Violation of the Faith plighted in the Contract cannot in proper Terms be called Disobedience or Contempt of Authority it is no more but a receding from and Violation of that which was promised as it may be in States or Cantons confederate Nature Reason Conscience Scripture teach that Disobedience to sovereign Power is not only Violation of Truth Breach of Covenant but also high Disobedience and Contempt That this Authority is in Princes it is evident by sense by Experience by Scripture by the Confession of the Heathen The passage we did alledge before proveth this 1 Sam. 10. 26. To that Passage add that cap. 11. that when Saul hewed a Yoke of Oxen in pieces and intimated that whosoever came not forth after him so it should be done as to his Oxen such was the Authority that the Text saith The Fear of the Lord fell on the People and they came out with one Consent 1 Sam. 11. 7. This is well expressed by Iob cap. 12. vers 18. He looseth the Bond of Kings and girdeth their Loins with a Girdle By the first Expression He looseth the Bond of Kings Iob meaneth that when God is to cast off Kings and to throw their Honour in the dust He looseth their Authority and bringeth them and it in Contempt By the other Phrase and girdeth their Loyns with a Girdle Iob intimateth that when he is to preserve Kings and their Rights that he strengthneth them with Authority and maketh people reverence them That this is the meaning you may conceive it by what he saith v. 21. He poureth Contempt upon Princes and weakneth the Strength of the Mighty By this Authority and Majesty Solomon invested in Royalty dissipated Adonijah and all his treacherous Complices The Heathen have observed that in Princes there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something divine above the reach of man which cannot be derived from them If we may believe prophane Story this Majesty was so eminent in Alexander the Great that it was a Terrour to his Enemies a Power strong enough to compose seditious Counsels and Attempts a powerful Load-stone to draw the Counsels of his most experienced Commanders to imbrace and obey his Counsels his Commands Some Stories write that this Majesty was resplendent upon great Exigents in the Eyes of Scipio What was that which kept Pharaoh from lifting up his hand against Moses who charged him so boldly with his Sins denounced and brought so terrible so great Plagues upon him What was 〈◊〉 I pray you but this Authority and Majesty resplendent in him which was a curb to the Tyranny of his Malice and Power When Moses did speak face to face with God in the Mount and when he came down that his Face shined so that the People could not behold it till it was covered with a Veil what else was it but this resolendent Glory of Majesty Exod. 34. What else was it that repressed the Fury of the People enraged against Gideon for destroying their Idol but this Majesty Iudg. 6. And as by Gods Ordinance we set that the Fear and Terrour of man is upon all the Creatures living below Gen. 9. So what else can this Fear and Reverence which is innate in the Hearts of all Subjects towards their Sovereigns be but the Ordinance unrepealable of God and the natural Effect of that Majesty in Princes with which they are endowed from above 8. Eighthly this seemeth or rather is an Argument unanswerable to prove sovereign Power to be independently and immediately from above That Sovereign Power is armed with Pâ—â—estus vitae necis Power of Life and Death which cannot flow or issue from man for no man hath it None can lay claim to it but the living God the Author of Life who killeth and giveth Life again That Sovereign Power hath this power is so certain as it cannot be denied Gen. 9. in the restoring of the World after the Flood 1. First God reiterates the Blessing of increasing and multiplying v. 1. The same which in his Bounty he bestowed on Adam and Evah Gen. 1. 28. 2. Next he establisheth mans Sovereignty over the Creatures here beneath v. 2 3. 3. Thirdly he establisheth the civil Government v. 5 6. where first he challengeth the Power to himself in one main thing explicitly in the punishing or shedding of mans Blood to Death but implicitly in all Government for the parts of Government being all homogeneous of one kind we must refer all to one Origine which is God The words are v. 5. Surely the Blood of your Lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of man and at the hand of every mans Brother will I require the Life of man In which words clearly it is told the Right is Gods primarily properly thrice in the words God vindicates it I will require it I will require it I will require it Lest any should think that God is to do it immediately by his own hand and not otherwise v. 6. it is added Who so sheddeth mans Blood by man shall his Blood be shed again for in the Image of God made he man Here is the Institution of Sovereignty and here the Sovereign is invested as Gods Deputy to punish the Slayer of man by Death I hope none will conceive it so that any man whatsoever may do this and is invested with this Power This were a mighty disorder and Confusion
Constitutions 1. The one is when Constitutio ab initio est voluntatis ejus effectus perpetuo pendet à voluntate constituentis when the Constitution is voluntary at first flowing from the free elicite act of the Will and whose Effect and Force dependeth ever from the Liberty and free Will of the Constituent as when a King maketh a Viceroy or Judge durante beneplacito enduring Pleasure or when a man maketh a Legacy and leaveth so much to such a one after his death he may make it void to morrow if Death prevent him not except he hath appended the last Codicil as Lawyers speak in such like things Voluntas hominis est ambulatoria a man's Will is not denuded of it's Liberty to reâ—ile or change the Will of man being as Philosophers speak Domina sui actûs Mistress and Queen of all her elicite and commanded Acts. It is a ruled Case in Law Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum accipit No Obligation can absolutely tye where all its Strength dependeth merely upon the free Will of him that promiseth 2. The other Constitution is Quae ab initio est voluntatis posteà verò effectum habet necessitatis which at the first is by the free Elect and commanded Act of the Will but afterward is attended with an Effect of Necessity that maketh it irrepealable irrevocable as when a man maketh over the Right of his proper Goods to another this is at first a voluntary Action but the Donor having denuded himself of jus proprietatis of his entire Right and the Donee hath jus possessionis hath apprehended Possession this act is firm and stable whether the way of making over be titulo lucrativo or titulo onerosa freely done by gift or for money and as good in Exchange or any other way lawful this act is no ways revocable although it be made to the Disadvantage of the Donor If any should attempt to resume this again it were an Act against common Equity Scripture pleadeth for this Truth Psal. 15. 4. He shall dwell in the Mountain of the Lord whoâ— sweareth to his hurt and changeth not Ananias and Sapphira might without Sin have kept their Goods which they consecrated to God and his Church if they had not interposed the act of devoting or consecrating them but this done to detain but a part of it and it may be for some exigent case of Necessity they preconceived it was high Sacriledge and they payed dear for it Acts. 5. There can be no civil Commerce no Truth or Faith in dealing in bargaining if you open this back door than when a man hath contracted covenanted to his Disadvantage he may resume it and put himself in statu quo If it were granted that Royalty in a King were by Contract betwixt him and his People and resumable by the People upon the Appearance of Disadvantage it cannot stand but in all inferiour Contracts of less Concernment the like should hold Is there any act more freely done than when a woman not subject to paternal Authority of perfect Age under no Guardian maketh Choice of an Husband and as she fancyeth And I pray you may she afterward shake him off at Pleasure God forbid By Moses Law we know the Husband for Jealousie or Discontent might have given to his Wife a Bill of Divorcement that the Woman had the like Power we read it not In Gods case which most nearly concerneth himself in the case of Idolatry the Husband was bound to dilate accuse and witness against his Wife the Father against the Children but there is no Charge to the Wife to accuse or witness against the Husband or the Children against the Father a clear Evidence how God Almighty would have the Inferiour in Reverence Duty and Obedience to carry towards the Superiour that if Idolatry against God otherwise could not be made appear God would have no Remonstrance this way God chused rather to suffer in his own Cause than that lawful Authority should be wronged Deut. 13. The tye betwixt King and People Prince and Subject is greater is stricter than any betwixt man and Wife Father and Son If our Adversaries will believe Iurists they were of a contrary Opinion and did not imagine that the People transferring all their Right upon the Prince did habitually or in any case retain it or any part of it that in case of male-administration they might supply it and in any Exigent resume it or make over the Right to whom they would over-lording their Prince but that they were totally and irrevocably invested with all power conceivable to be in the People Although this Opinion hath not the Truth of all the Kings Right in it divinely enough yet is it a safer Opinion than that of late days hath been taken up and maintained Vlpian a renowned Jurist L. 1. ad Sc. Tupil saith Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de ejus imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Vlpian knew no better but that The legislative Power was in the Prince and that because the King is entirely invested with all the Power and Empire was in the People It is probable he reflecteth upon the Democratical Government which was before the Empire and so determineth that what Sovereignty was in the Democracy was with its full Extent as entirely and properly in the Prince Vlpian reserveth no Power to the People for the saith expresly Populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem confert which ground laid it is absurd to say that in any case or upon any Exigent the people or Communinity diffusive collective or representative can re-estate themselves into that Sovereignty so entirely irreversibly made over Ex ore duum trium Take another witness for in Law Singularis testis nullus and a great one too Bartolus ad L. Hostes. 24. F. de eapt post saith Tertio modo indicitur bellum publicum quando indicitur à populo Ramano vel ab Imperatore in quem translata est omnis jurisdictio populi Romani Bartolus knew not any Power was reserved in any Case or Exigent to the People and if you consider him well upon the place cited the Militia and Iura belli belong to the Prince To these two add Seneca who knew no mixed government but only three Speces Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy Epist. 4. he writeth thus Interdum populus est quem timere 〈◊〉 interdum si ea civitatis disciplina est ut plurima per Senatum transigantur gratiosi in ea timentur viri interduâ— singuli quibus potestas populi in populum data est Seneca who knew not Monarchy to be from God immâ—diately knew so much that coming from the People the King was so invested with the Power of the People and Power over the People that the People were totally divested of
or State who that hath read Scripture or by Experience hath remarked the Temper and Constitution of the Multitude can believe that Almighty God hath committed such a Trust to them Is there one of a thousand if you trust Iob or Solomon amongst them of understanding Was ever any act done by them but in a tumultuary way And is not their Reformation attended with Fury and Violence Impiety against God sacred Persons sacred Places sacred Things Have not these mis-called Reformations been acted prosecuted with open and crying Injustice not only against innocent but well deserving men Secondly I desire them to shew me in Scripture or in Ecclesiastical and authentick Story any popular Reformations of Church or State happy and successful what they alledge in this last Age are the Instances controverted and till they give instances extra propositum not questioned by their Favour they only beg the Question When God established both Policy and Church after the Deliverance of his People from the House of Bondage he would not do it but by Moses his Sovereign Viceroy King of Ieshurun Deut. 33. Ioshua did the like Ios. 24. The Judges raised by God as they delivered the people from their Slavery so they rectified what was amiss in Church and State What Desolations were there in Church and State in Saul's Reign Both State and Church in the Solemnity and Sincerity of the Worship in the days of David came to their Zenith to their highest Perfection aâ—d Beauty Read you I pray you of any doing in it but by David the King with the Advice and Direction of some Church-men Afterwards when it was corrupted who made the Reformation None but he who was King or Sovereign as Ioash 2 Chron. 24. Ezechias 2 Chron. 29 30 31. Iosias 2 Chron. 34. 35. Ezra Esd. To make Covenants against King or Sovereign pretending or intending if you will so the Reformation of Religion where read you it The first Covenant of a people formed into a politick Body is that you read Exod. 34. Had either the Community the collective or representative Body any other hand in it than to obey as Moses King of Ioshurun commanded Ioshua made another Iosh. 24. consider the place and see if either Tables or Parliament framed it urged it You have another 2 Chron. 15. but it is done and pressed by the royal Authority of Asa the King You have another 2 Chron. 34. but it is the Act of Iosiah the King The like you read of Esdra Esd. 10. If any object the Covenant of Iehojada in the Non-age of Ioash Let them be pleased to remember that this was the High Priests act not as High Priest but as Governour to the King By the same Power he did it by which he dethroned Athaliah armed the Subjects and enthroned Ioash Shew me one Covenant in the book of God which was made without the King except it be a Covenant with Hell and Death or as Iudas covenanted with the Iews to sell and betray his Master Or such a Covenant as the Prophet Hosea speaketh of Chap. 10. vers 3 4. For now they shall say we have no King because we feared not the Lord what then should a King do unto us They have spoken words swearing falsely in making a Covenant thus Iudgment springeth up as Hemlock in the furrows of the field Lastly Reflect upon Popular acts invading Sovereignty and attempting Reformation and you will find them as sinful as little successful as Kings of Popular Election It is recorded in Exodus that Moses the Sovereign of the People of Israel being absent forty dayes in the Mountain with God the People notwithstanding that they had lately sworn a lawful Covenant forced Aaron to make them Gods a molten Calf and forsake the true and living God Exod 11. Here you have a glorious popular Reformation in Religion Take another Reformation in the State and see if it be better The People of Israel living under the happy Government of David by the suggestions of Absalom and his fellow-Traytors possessed a Prejudice of David and his Government that Justice was not done and the State might be better ordered assemble without Warrant of the King a Treason if any thing else if we look on Scripture to Absalom under pretence of a Vow shake off David and acknowledge themselves Subjects to Absalom the Traytor the Usurper 1 Sam. 15. The ten Tribes after the death of Solomon supplicate Reboboam for a Redress of their Grievances not answered to their mind rebel against Rehoboam To strengthen their Kingdom and Policy they set up a new Religion make new Priests of their own Their Religion is the same their Fathers attempted in the Wilderness Exod. 32. and this is the second glorious Reformation of Calvesworship what was the issue I pray you it pursued them to their utter extirpation What can be said oâ— that abominable act of the Iews who to save themselves condemned Christ Are not Communities subject to dangerous Inclinations from private Incitements Are not their Representatives subject to mis-leading Factions and ambitions of private ends They are too much transported with the love of a popular estate who can so over-rule their Understandings as to force themselves to think that Communities or their Representative bodies are not molested or transported with corrupt judgments and affections for private ends To conclude Seeing then to establish the People to be the last and best Remedy to rectifie all Errours in State in Church establisheth so many Absurdities and Paradoxes and hath no warrant by Scripture sound Reason or Experience we can neither believe it nor approve it for to aver and affirm that a Community diffusive collective or representative is a perfect Republick to preserve it self and to right what is amiss abstracting the notion of a Republick from the Sovereign Governour or Governours is a notion not imaginable nor ever used by any who ever wrote or spoke right in Policy It secureth the multitude from Errour both in matters concerning Church and State There is neither Precept nor Practice in Holy Writ to warrant that the multitude have such a superintendent Power above their Sovereign Nay Scripture commandeth us the contrary not to assume this Power or to resist the Higher Powers under no less pain than Damnation This Maxim resolves into infidelity that we trust not God can do it or will do it and into Impatience that we will not wait patiently till he do it Christian obedience and Sobriety teacheth us to reserve the rectifying of the Sovereign and his Errours in Government to God himself We must not serve God against his Will nor without an express Warrant for our doing so By doing as our new Statists warrant us we run into Rebellion and lose a good Conscience in dutiful obedience and humble submission and prejudice God of that glory he expects by our tryals We must not do evil that good may come of it nor upon pretences of good intentions and good effects
esteem more than our selves although we cannot do it intensivè with the same intension and degree of affection David's Subjects said to him Thou shalt not go forth with us to battel for thou art better than a thousand of us that is in sound meaning than all of us The Observator hath a quirk or trick rather for this that the King is not a Father to his People taken universally but singly Nothing could be said more absurdly I pray you is not the Father of many Sons no less Father universally to all than to every one Is not the King bound no less to protect all his Subjects universally than to protect every one severally singly Are not all bound no less universally than singly to honour the King 's sacred Person obey his sacred Commands and contribute to the maintenance of his Honour Wealth and Power to assist and defend him in all Difficulties If you will not acknowledge a subjection upon all universally how can you tye the King to a protection of all universally In Philosophy this is most absurd for hereby you make tot civitates in regno quot subditos as many Kingdoms as there be particular and single Subjects because the King and every Subject make up a perfect City or Kingdom If it were not more absurd in Divinity and contrary to God's Ordinance we would not plead much nor press much the Absurdities of Philosophy Saul and David in the holy diction of Scripture are called Heads and Captains of all the Tribes and People of God Let never these consequences be more heard 4. The fourth consequence is as impious and absurd as the other three which is this That a Prince ought not to account it a strength and profit to him which is a loss and wasting to the People I agree to this with all my heart but that which followeth I cannot relish nor ought he to think that perisheth to him which is granted to the People This is most false Hath not the King his own Right from Almighty God Can he make it away without betraying Gods Right and the Trust he hath put upon him he being God's Vicegerent onely and Feoffee in trust How can the Subject be free of Sacrilegious guiltiness to take it from him if lavishly or inconsiderately he will make it away This is not onely robbing of Sovereignty of its due but Divine usurpation and intrusion upon Almighty God What one hath by trust from another he cannot intitle another to it till he have warrant from him who hath given the Trust. That the King hath some right incommunicable to the Subject is so manifest that he that will deny it must deny Scripture Our Lord and Master in the Gospel hath commanded to Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars as unto God the things that are Gods This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render imports something peculiar nay it hath more in it that if we will detain it if we have assumed it or would assume it that by Christs Precept we are to restore him to his Right again This the word Render intimates and commands and consequently the King cannot part with it and if the Subject hath usurped upon this Right it is high Sacrilege to detain it In this sense Kings their Persons their Charge their Right their Authority their Prerogative are by Scripture by Fathers by Jurists called Sacred because by Gods sacred Ordinance they are inherent in their Crowns inseparably adherent to their Scepters which if he grant away he is no more King than the Body is a living Creature after the separation of the Soul and the Robbers and Cheaters of Kings out of these Rights are Regicides Nor are these Prerogatives onely for the Excellency Preheminency and Honour of the King above his Subjects but also to enable him for actuating his high Charge to Gods Glory and the Subjects good These as we shall by Gods Grace speak Quaest. 4. are as the Lawyers speak In indivisibili posita quae distrahi non possunt alienari non possunt minui non possunt that are so indivisible in themselves and naturally and intrinsecally inherent in the Crown in his Sovereignty and Supremacy that they cannot be made away or so communicated to the Subject ut defluat radix supremae potestatis to divest himself of them ad minuendam Majestatem to lessen Sovereign Majesty although by Trust and delegate Power the Execution may be entrusted to others ad minuendam solicitudinem to ease him of unsupportable burthen These are fitly resembled by the Royal Crown from which if you take away the least part you spoil it so in its nature and shape that it is no more a Crown as King Iames of blessed Memory and others have well expressed By what is said I refer it to the Judgment of any that hath reason or common sense whether or not it be true that a King cannot make away to the Subject any of his Right without disadvantage for by what we have said it is more than apparent that he hath a Right personally inherent in himself and his Successors as a depositum a trust from God which he cannot part with without betraying the Trust God hath committed to him with which the Subject cannot meddle without Sacrilege in the highest kind and which cannot be done without disabling Sovereignty from doing that Service to God and his People with which he hath charged him Lest any mistake us I resume what before I have said That we maintain not that our King by this Right from Almighty God hath Dominium despoticu◠or herile we plead onely for paternum that is that 〈◊〉 the Subject cannot without Sacrilege Royal and Divine Usurpation trench upon Sacred Prerogative of the King no more can the King by any Right from Almighty God trench upon the Liberty of the Person and the Propriety of the Goods of his Subjects without presupposal of a lawful act of Iurisdiction That is if any or many of his Subjects transgress against him his Laws or common Equity he may commit their Persons take from them their Lives seize upon their whole or a part of their State proportionable to the demerit of their Offence Our Gracious Sovereign blessed be God for it will never wave that saying of Seneca's Imperium unius Proprietas singulorum The Sacred Prerogative is the Kings but it derogateth not from the Liberty and Property of the Subject it must be entirely secured that it may secure our Liberty and Property How unequal and partial are we to think the King may prodigally waste away his Prerogative and we may lawfully invade it because no Grant made to his People perisheth to him and yet upon the other part will maintain that the King cannot trenoh upon our Liberty and Property without highest Tyranny and Oppression Medio tutissimus ibis Hold both practise both Let the King have his and the People their Right and Peace shall be upon Israel King and People have
up a state upon the Ruines of the Church or better a prior estate they care not although Levites usurp upon Priests Presbyters upon Bishops and Christ and his Patrimony be both put out of the World Ten shekels of Silver and a Sute of Apparel Micah's allowance Iudges 17. 10. is enough and too much for the best of God and Christ's Servants All in the end will prove Aurum Tholosanum like the collop the Eagle brought from the Altar to feed her young ones so much Fire came with it that it consumed the Nest and the young ones too When the Church of God is in this distress it is not onely sin to be accessary to these Counsels and Courses but such as may and are able to prevent these mischiefs and do it not God will charge them with it Some there be who profess that they like not the course against the Church but for reason of State way must be given to the current of the stream and a fit opportunity waited to right what was amiss I will not search the hearts of such men I leave them to him who trieth the reins and knoweth our thoughts afar off onely let me put them in mind that sins of Omission of necessary Duties are high sins in the balance of the Sanctuary Meroz is cursed that came not out to help the Lord and Matth. 25. They are to be condemned in the last Day who fed not Christ when he was hungry no less than those who robbed him of his Food It is the highest Service to God with the Church of Thyatira not to deny the Faith where Satan's seat is where Antipas sufereth for the truth Rev. 11. 13. If God hath endowed any with Wisdom Power and Trust by Princes and in such time they withdraw their help from God and his Church it is like they will call to him in the day of their trouble and God will not hear them Remember after the reducing of the People from the Captivity the Prophets did charge the re-building of the House of God the Princes of Iudah answered The time is not come the time wherein the Lord's House should be built None was so impudent to come directly contrary to this Charge but they meant we are poor newly come out of Captivity we have strong Enemies about us we must wait a better opportunity a more seasonable time a jugling trick it is to cross good Works and crush them substantially by opposing them onely circumstantially Notwithstanding all this the Prophet chargeth them Is it time for you O yee this compellation is very emphatical to dwell in your cieled Houses and this House lie waste Read the Judgments I cease to repeat it I love not to apply it and wish it be not the Judgment of our Times See Hag. 1. vers 1 2 3. Ã vers 6. ad vers 12. Do not deceive your selves with that imposture that you will wait upon an opportunity to right all that is disjoynted in Church you are not to tempt God to put him to extraordinary Providence when he has put you in the ordinary way to serve him and to prevent these mischiefs Is it lawful and warrantable to you to do Evil or give way to Evil and to wait opportunity to do good afterward to salve all this Or can you expect that God will honour you to make you fit instruments to repair again what is wrong Certainly you neither deserve it nor can lay any claim or interest to it If these men fear Covenants and Associations I desire them to remember that as in Scripture the first and happiest Covenant is the Covenant of Mercy and Grace so in the next place we have in Holy Writ mentioned A Covenant of Levi which is the means ordinary God hath appointed to preserve the other The Scripture telleth us that it is an high impiety to corrupt the Covenant of Levi Mal. 11. 8. Both the one and the other Covenant are Covenants of Salt that is of everlasting durance from which it followeth necessarily that whatsoever Covenant destroyeth the Ordinance of God in the necessary Government of the Church the Ordinances of the Worship and its Solemnities cannot be from God from whence then it comes you may easily guess Of all impieties in this kind there is no higher transgression than if the Tribe of Levi for some subsistence to themselves and theirs and to gain popular applause and credit with the Faction assure Kings they may give way to a popular current and flood to suffer God's Ordinances to be destroyed the Solemnity of the Worship defaced till a better opportunity offer I beg pardon to speak truth in humility and reverence and first to Kings that although Church-men advise Kings upon such exigents to do such unwarrantable Acts yet it will not excuse them in the Day of their Accounts no more than it excused Achab that had the warrant of Zedekiah 1 Kings 22. 11. Nor did it excuse Pilate who had the representative Body of Priests and State to warrant him they had a Law and by their Law Christ was a Malefactor and worthy to dye Next let me tell the Tribe of Levi who for their own good and popular applause do comply with a popular Eaction and set their brains on work to make specious shews of Reason and inducements to perswade or warrant Kings by permission and giving way or by actual concurrence with their Authority to permit and do Acts destructive to Christ's Ordinances or derogatory to the Worship are near to the sin of Apostacy and another of an higher degree which I fear to name But of all Levites those are the most miserable who being advanced to the highest of Sacred Orders having enriched themselves by the Patrimony of the Church to keep their purchase have abjured that Sacred Order as Antichristian and yet make not restitution of what they have purchased I wonder how such mens Repentance could be admitted for in such cases they cannot truly repent without Restitution Non dimittetur peccatum nisi restituetur ablatum These men come short of Iudas this Repentance who was not onely contrite for betraying his Master but restored the Money which unjustly he had purchased by his Villany By the detention of their purchase their Converts declare themselves Mercenary and their Fathers by receiving them into their Communion publish to the World they care not what they lose in truth if they can deceive the People to make them think by such a goodly access their evil Cause is strengthened I refer these Apostate Bishops to read the story of Ecebolus I wish them not to be in like condition and cease to apply the story I thank God there is no rancour in my heart against them nor their Fathers Converters my imprecations are no other but to pray Almighty God to give them true Repentance and to forgive them The sum of what we have said is this that neither King nor Kingdom can be happy if Kings fear not