therefore termed Despoticum herile Imperium And such a Monarch seems to be that which by Aristotle is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be Princes invested with Majesty who challenge the Legislative power unto themselves will by a Proclamation or Edict command the goods of their Subjects and imprison their persons at will and pleasure These though they be limited by the fundamental Constitution and their Oaths are in the exercise of their power as absolute as the former This kind of Government may do well where the Subjects are turbulent insolent and unruly or of a base and servile spirit or rude and savage But where the people are ingenuous tractable and of a better disposition it 's very unreasonable for it will either cause Rebellions and Seditions or much debase their spirits This kind of Monarchy is apt to degenerate into a Tyranny of one person Yet if this kind of Sovereign be wise just and vertuous the people may live happily under his protection Yet such a power and so unlimited is not fit to be trusted in the hands of every one And if it be hereditary woe to the people that live under it Yet this power may be trusted in the hands of one yet so as that it may be allayed limited and justly and wisely poised and the Sovereign as a King. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifies a Governor in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is a word of great latitude and so is Rex in Latin and also Sultan in the Arabick and Mauritanian Language Yet some are such imperious Dictators and Masters of words that the word King must needs signifie an absolute Monarch That it often signifies a Monarch and one that hath the title of Majesty there is no doubt But the bare word or title not distinctly inform us of the power or the manifold differences of Kings which must be known another way as by the constitution of those particular States where the chief and most eminent Governours have that title For there is a great difference and that in respect of power between the Kings of Spain and France and the Kings of Poland Swethland and Denmark Neither doth the King of England in this respect exactly agree with any of them But if the word cannot the definition surely of a King should determine his power Yet neither will the common usual definition do it For thus he is commonly defined A King is a Monarch who governeth free men justly according to the Laws to the good of the Common-wealth The Genus is that he is a Monarch And if such in strict senc◠as such he can have neither Superiour nor Peer in his Kingdom The specifical difference is taken from the Subject the rule the end of his Government For his proper act is Regere to govern The subjects of his Government are Freemen The Rule is just Laws The end the publick good Abstract the specifical difference and lay the word King and Monarch aside and it agrees to all Governours Civil whatsoever For Civil government being grounded upon the eternal moral Law Love thy Neighbour as thy self and more particularly upon the fifth Commandment no person or persons invested with Sovereign power can be defined any other way and neither their power nor the exercise thereof is good further than it agrees with this definition And the more their government swerves from this Rule the more of the Tyrant is in them and if the violation of it be more than their observation and that habitually too then they are really Tyrants in exercitio For denominatio fit a parte praedominante But I have wondred why Authors have made this the specifical difference of a King which certainly it cannot be Yet this definition leaves many things doubtful For it determines not what liberty is and whether it can be perfect without propriety Nor doth it tell us what these Laws are according to which he must govern whether the Laws of God only or the Laws also of men and if of men whether the Laws of constitution or administration if of administration whether they must be made by himself alone or by some others without him or with him For if the Laws be made by him alone he is an absolute Despotical Sovereign if by others either with him or without him he is not such For there may be a King at least in name above Law and a King by Law and such as cannot command or bind the meanest Subject nor judge him but according to Law. Such a King is not a pure Monarch which I now treat of Therefore a King that is a pure Monarch differs from a Despotical Sovereign in respect of his Subjects and the measure of his power and according to this definition in the exercise of it The Subjects of the one are free and have propriety of person and goods the Subjects of the other have neither The power of the one is more absolute and of larger extent or rather more intensive The exercise of the power of the one is bounded by just Laws the power of the other is not limitted or directed by Laws and so tends not so much to advance the weal of his Subjects as his own greatness and in this respect can be no lawful and good Governour if he act according to his absolute and arbitrary power which God never gave him And Despotical Sovereigns if wise and just will do as Trajan did that is act according to the Rule of Justice and of a limitted power though they be not bound by man to do so section 6 An absolute and pure Monarchy is a very dangerous form of Government and very inclinable and propense to Tyranny and such a Sovereign as is invested with such transcendent power degenerates and turns Tyrant Experience in all times and places makes this evident Monarchy indeed in some respects is the best Government Yet such is the imperfection and corruption of man that it proves not to be so If Monarchs were like God or Saints and Angels it might be better But in a succession whether elective or hereditary we find in tract of time few good many bad and very wicked In Israel the first King was not right the fourth too bad and after the Kingdom was divided into the Tribe of Israel and Judah in Judah we find few like David many very wicked in the Kingdom of Israel not one good Yet the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical were made to their hands and that by God himself Sovereign power is a weighty burthen and requires much strength and excellent abilities Moses himself cannot bear it alone he hath need of one hundred and Seventy Elders and the same endued with the spirit of government to be his assistants If a Sovereign be imprudent or weak of understanding not able to judge of good counsel or negligent or timorous or wilful or destitute of good Agents and Instruments for Administrations the Government begins to
order of Government and observe it that their days may be long in the Land wherein God hath placed them and that it may go well with them section 2 But to return to the acquisition of Power the designation of Persons as it is from Man so it is from God who ruleth in the Kingdoms of the World and sets up one and puts down another so that this Power may be communicated from him and so acquired by Man that it may be taken away and lost again The Method of the Discourse following is this Majestas acquiritur juste modo extraordinario divina designatione ordinario inchoitur quae it continuatur succesione per electionem vel libera electionâ— vi armis indeterminatâ—m astrictam familiae ubi mares tantum jure quasi hereditario quast jure succedant foemina quoque jure quasi hereditario quast jure succedant injuste usurpata vel dolo malo pecuniae homicidio alio modo Amittitur modo ordinato naturaliter morte imperantis defectu successionis moraeliter voluntaria imperantis resignatione desertione violenta invasione vel ab intra extra inordinato injusta dissolatione mala administratione eujus summus gradâ—s Tyrannus 1. Acquiritur justo modo extraordinario ut divina designatione unctione Power may first be acquired and that several ways as justly or unjustly in an extraordinary or ordinary manner This extraordinary way and more immediate from God we find in Scripture For thus Moses Joshua many of the Judges Saul David Jeroboam Jehu were designed to their places of Government Some of those as Saul David Jehu were anointed by Gods appointment and the Scepter entailed upon David's Family in the Kingdom of Judah Yet two things are remarkable in the designation of Saul and David 1. That after the Divine Unction the People assemble and in a general Assembly by their Votes freely chose them and voluntarily submit and without Election they could not actually and effectually Reign This doth signify that there can be no orderly or lasting Government without consent tacit or express of the People For Men must be Governed as rational and free for such they are as Men. This was the manner of investing the Kings of England For at the Coronation amongst other things this is done The King being before them one doth ask the People Will you have this Man to be King or Reign over you This is more fully expressed in the Form of Coronation which at present I have not by me and doth signifie that they should have the voluntary consent of the People 2. That if we may believe Fortescue the Kings of England had not Regiam potestatem sed politicam a populo effluxam 3. That they did not derive that Power from the first Investiture as Hereditary but in another way The second thing to be noted is That those Kings thus designed of God were bound to govern according to the moral judicial ceremonial Laws of God. This implies that no Princes should govern by an arbitrary Power but according to Laws and them so wise so just as that they may be truly said to be rather the Laws of God than of Men. Acquiritur modo ordinario inchoative in constitutione per liberam electionem vim armorum ex causa justa section 3 God doth seldom use this extraordinary and more immediate designation for his usual way is by ordinary providence and that first in the beginning and Constitution of a Government the Foundation whereof may be laid in Peace or War. In Peace power is acquired by a free election of a Sovereign and singling out some person or persons to whom they will submit themselves Sometimes it is determined that all jointly should be Sovereign and every single person a subject This is the best most just and the wisest way and most agreeable to man as a rational Creature The parties whether one or more before their designation had no civil power at all but upon the designation when they are once agreed upon declared and submitted unto they must by divine institution of necessity have so much power as is necessary for the Government and general good of the People This Power which is now acquired is Majestas and is more from God than Man because it is a Power to do such things as God commands or such as are not contrary to his Will. In the first modelling of a State they may either compose one of their own invention or take example from some other Common-wealth and take the whole or some part and make it their own Thus the foundation of the Roman State was first laid by Romulus who in this work followed the Greeks in many things as Halicarnassaeus tells us Antiq. Rom. lib. 2. In this case whatsoever kind of State is constituted there must be some invested with Majesty personal which by the free Election and voluntary Submission of the parties who are free and have power to make this Election and Submission it is communicated and so acquired But if upon a Victory obtained by a just and necessary War a people is reduced under the power of the party conquering and they upon certain terms submit the power is acquired by the Sword and their voluntary Submission which they would not have made if they had not been Conquered And they who formerly were a free people and would have chosen another or continued under their own personal Sovereign if before the War they were under a form of Government do submit because neither they nor their Sovereign can protect them And if they be brought so low that they must either subject themselves or do worse or perish they willingly come under the protection of the Conqueror if he be willing to protect them and take them as his Subjects Majesty acquired in this manner for the most part is more despotical and absolute And that Princes are divested of Majesty and People of Liberty and fall under the power of Strangers it 's from the just Judgment of God punishing them for their Crimes And this is a most common title of most Sovereigns in the World. Yet it may be said that the inward motives of the Conquerors of the Earth are Ambition or Covetousness or Cruelty therefore this kind of Title is not good The answer is That in respect of any one or more of all these motives it 's unjust Yet if we consider this Title as given by God in making them Victorious and rewarding them for the execution of Justice which they seldom think upon and also the consent of the people and their submission When they can do no better it 's certainly just What strange Instincts from Heaven what Commands from God what suggestions from Angels or God's Messengers or Prophets Conquerors might have we know not Jehu was anointed and designed by God to cut off Ahab's Family and had a promise afterward Judah also and many Nations were perswaded and in
would gladly know whether those Authors who are so zealous for absolute hereditary Powers can give us an instance of any wise and just people that at the first constitution did give their free and full consent to such a Government They never did nor I think ever can instance in this particular section 10 The second Question is Whether Majesty acquired can be forfeited Where you must note that to forfeit any thing is to lose the right unto it For it 's one thing to lose the right another to lose the possession For as before one may lose his right and retain the possession and lose his possession and yet retain his right Therefore the Question is not de possessionis sed de juris amissione 2. The Question is not Whether they may forfeit to God for that they undoubtedly may but whether they may forfeit unto men 3. Who those Men are to whom it may be so forfeited so as they may take the forfeit and that justly For solution of this Question 1. This I take as a certain rule that whatsoever is given and held upon condition that may be lost and forfeited 2. A right once forfeited falls to the party who gave it and set down the conditions 3. They who from God give Majesty to any person or family at the first before they had any right unto it are the people and community to be governed 4. There is no rational and intelligent people in the World will bind themselves to subjection but upon condition of a just protection No a people conquered will not yield to be the subjects of the Conqueror but upon this condition And though his Sword may take away their lives yet it cannot make them his Subjects without their voluntary submission 5. No wise people if they can do otherwise will so submit themselves as to lose the propriety of their goods the liberty of their persons the enjoyment of their Religion or to be governed by an Arbitrary Power without just Laws 6. Princes Kings and Conquerors may either by themselves or their Ministers of State insensibly encroach and usurp yet these encroachments and usurpations cannot constitute a Right contrary to the fundamental Laws And there can hardly be found any other way whereby many becom absolute and arbitrary Lords but this way 7. The party to which the forfeiture is made is not the Subjects as Subjects but the people and community who only can invest one or more with Majesty and constitute a Government Neither can Magistrates as Magistrates nor any Officers as such take the forfeiture Neither can Parliaments except such as participate in the personal Majesty do any such thing Yet if the Soveraign once forfeit the Subjects cease to be Subjects Nor can a great multitude of these if they make not the whole body either actually or mutually though they cease to be Subjects challenge the forfeiture By this you may easily understand how loosely the Question between Arnisaeus and his party and Buchanan Arthusius Heno Junius Brutus and their adherents is handled 8. It 's certain that Soveraigns by Law who have not the Legislative power in themselves solely and are bound by Oath to govern according to Laws which they themselves cannot make may forfeit 9. Such personal Soveraigns as constantly act not only against the Laws of God and nature but against the fundamental Laws by which they receive and hold their power may and do forfeit And this is one reason why all Tyrants in exercise do excidere jure suo etsi haereditario which Arnisaeus himself affirms Yet as he wisely observes it 's not safe always to take the forfeiture For it is better by petitions prayers to God or patient suffering for a while so that they suffer not the State in the mean time to come to ruine to seek and expect a redress than suddenly to involve the people in blood and hazard the Common-wealth and put it in such a condition as that it shall not be able in any due time to settle Yet a real necessity of defence doth alter the case Hitherto concerning the manner how Majesty may be acquired or lost CHAP. VI. Of Power Ecclesiastical section 1 THE former Rules may easily be applied to a particular Church for it 's a Spiritual Commonwealth and must as such have Governors and them invested with a Supreme Power yet such and of the same nature as the Church is that is Spiritual and Ecclesiastical This Power as all other in Civil States is derivative from Heaven and of a very narrow scantling And that I may be more perspicuous and direct the Reader by some line or thred of method I will say something of the Power 1. As it is Spiritual 2. As Supreme 3. As divisible into several Branches section 2 In the first place it's Spiritual and that in many respects as the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis have sufficiently demonstrated For the persons rule actions and end are to be considered not under a Civil but a Spiritual notion As stiled by Divines and that according to the Spirit 's language and the phrase of Holy Writ to be Potestas Clavium And the acts thereof are opening shutting or which are the same binding loosing These are Metaphorical terms taken out of the Old into the New Testament For our Saviour did love to use the Spirit 's words The first and chief place where we read these words in a Political sense with reference to Government is that of the Evangelical Prophet And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open Where by Key is meant Dominatio or Potestas gubernandi So Fererius Schindler Mollerus according to the former use do understand it For there it 's said I will commit thy Government into his hand section 3 It 's not material to enquire whether the Power or Key of the House of David was a Power over the Family or of the Family over the Kingdom nor whether Eliakim was a Priest or a Prince over the Palace or the Temple It 's certain David was a type of Christ his House and Kingdom of the Church and his Regal Power of Christ's Regal Supremacy For he hath the Keys of Hell and Death even that Key of David which bindeth the soul and conscience and disposeth of mans spiritual and eternal estate and that by an irrevocable sentence This Power signified by Key or Keys is not Civil but that of the Kingdom of Heaven which he promised first and conveyed afterward upon the Apostles As for the acts of these Keys being exercised they are said to be sometimes shutting and opening sometimes binding and loosing And though these seem to differ yet they are the same and are acts of Government For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open is to loose as Psal. 102.20 where it 's turned by the