Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	2,575	5	9.7545	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96592	Jura majestatis, the rights of kings both in church and state: 1. Granted by God. 2. Violated by the rebels. 3. Vindicated by the truth. And, the wickednesses of this faction of this pretended Parliament at VVestminster. 1. Manifested by their actions. 1. Perjury. 2. Rebellion. 3. Oppression. 4. Murder. 5. Robberies. 6. Sacriledge, and the like. 2. Proved by their ordinances. 1. Against law. 2. Against Equity. 3. Against conscience. Published 1. To the eternall honour of our just God. 2. The indeleble shame of the wicked rebels. And 3. To procure the happy peace of this distressed land. Which many feare we shall never obtaine; untill 1. The rebels be destroyed, or reduced to the obedience of our King. And 2. The breaches of the Church be repaired. 1. By the restauration of Gods (now much profamed) service. And 2. The reparation of the many injuries done to Christ his now dis-esteemed servants. By Gryffith Williams, Lord Bishop of Ossory.	Williams, Gryffith, 1589?-1672.; Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1644 (1644)	Wing W2669; Thomason E14_18b	215,936	255

to make it yet more cleare that the Kings power to rule his people was arbitrary Sigonius saith most truly that the power of governing the people was given by God unto Moses before the Law was given and therefore he called the people to counsell and without either Judges or Magistrates jura eisdem reddidit he administred justice and did right to every one of them So Joshua exercised the same right and the Judges after him and after the Judges succeeded the Kings quorum potestas atque autoritas multo major ut quae non tam à legibus quàm ab arbitrio voluntate regis profecta sit Sigon de rep Heb. l. 7. c. 3. Hoc arbitrarium impertum expressit Deus 1. Sam. 8. David Ps 11. Reges eos in v●rga ferrea whose power and authority was farre greater as proceeding not so much from the Lawes as from the arbitrement and the will of the King saith Sigonius for they understood the power of a King in Aristotles sence Qui solutus legibus plenissimo jure regnaret who being freed from the Lawes or not tyed to Lawes might governe with a plenary right And so Saul judged Israel and had altogether the arbitrary power both of life and death Idem ibidem quodam modo superior legibus fuit and was after a sort above the Law undertaking and making warre pro arbitratu suo according to his owne will And in his sixth booke he saith the Jewes had three great Courts or Assemblies Cap. 2. 1. Their Councell which contained that company that handled those things especially which concerned the State of the whole Common-wealth as warre peace provision institution of Lawes creation of Magistrates and the like Cap. 3. 2. Their Synagogue or the meeting of the whole Congregation or people which no man might convocate but he which had the chiefe rule as Moses Joshua the Judges and the Kings Cap. 4. Numb 15. Plenum regnum vocatur quo cuncta rex sua voluntate gerit Idem 3. Their standing Senate which was appointed of God to be of the 70 Elders whereof he saith that although this was alwayes standing for consultation yet we must understand that the Kings which had the Common-wealth in their owne power and were not obnoxious to the Lawes made Decrees of themselves without the authority of the Senate ut qui cum summo imperio essent as men that were indued with the chiefest rule and command And we finde that the King judged the people two manner of wayes 1. Alone 2. Together with the Elders and Priests For it is said that Absolon when any man came to the King for judgement wished that he were made Judge in the Land 2. Sam. 15.2 6 and he did in this manner to all Israel that came to the King for judgement and when the people demanded a King instead of Samuel to reigne over them and God said 1. Sam. 8.7 They had cast him off from being their King he signifieth most plainly that while the Judges ruled which had their chiefest authority from the Law God raigned over them because his Law did rule them but the rule and government being translated unto Kings God raigned no longer over them Quia non penes legem Dei sed penes voluntatem unius hominis summa rerum autoritas esset futura because now all authority and all things were not in the power of the Law but in the power of one mans arbitrary will But seeing we are fallen upon the peoples desire of a King let us examine what right God saith belongeth unto him and because that place 1. Sam. 8. is contradicted by another Deut. 17. as it seemeth we will examine both places and see if Moses doth any wayes crosse Samuel Deut. 17.14 usque ad finem and truly I may say of these two places that as S. Aug. saith in the like case alii atque alii aliud atque aliud opinati sunt for some learned men say that Moses setteth downe to the King legem regendi the Law by which he should governe the people without wronging them and Samuel setteth downe to the people legem parendi the Law by which they should obey the King without resisting him whatsoever he should doe to them And other Divines say Haec est potestas legitima non tyrannica nec violenta Spalat tom 2. fol. 251. ideo quando rex propria negotia non possit expedire per proprias res ac servos G. Ocham tract 2. l. 2. c. 25. possit pro negotiis propriis tollere res servos aliorum isto modo dicebat Deus quod pertinebat ad jus regis this is the lawfull and just right of the King Therefore to finde out the truth let us a little more narrowly discusse both places And 1. In the words of Moses there I observe two speciall things 1. The charge of the people 2. The charge of the King 1. Popular election utterly forbidden 1. The people are commanded very strictly in any wise saith the Text to make choice of no King of their owne heads but to accept of him whom the Lord did chuse 2. The Kings charge 2. The King is commanded to write out the Law to study it and to practice it and he is forbidden to doe foure speciall things which are 1. Not to bring the people backe into Egypt nor to provide the means to bring them by multiplying his horses 2. Not to marry many wives that might intice him as they did Solomon unto Idolatry 3. Not to hoord up too much riches 4. Not to tyrannize over his Brethren Ioseph Anti. quit l. 4. And Josephus to the same purpose saith Si regis cupiditas vos incesserit is ex eadem gente sit curam omnino gora● justitiae allarum virtutum caveat vero ne plus legibus aut Deo sapiat nihil autem agat sine Pontificis Senator úmque sententia which Moses hath not neque nuptiis multis utatur nec copiam pecuniarum equorúmque sectetur quibus partis superleges superbia efferatur that is to be a Tyrant 2. The words of Samuel are set downe 1. Sam. 8.11 to the 18. Rex Iacobus in his true Law of free Monarchs verse whereof I confesse there are severall expositions some making the same a propheticall prediction of what some of their Kings would doe contrary to what they should doe as it was expressed by Moses So King James himselfe takes it others take it Grammatically for the true right of a King that may do all this and yet no way contradict those precepts forecited by Moses to confirme which supposition they say 1. The phrase here used must beare it out for as the Hebrew word signifieth as Pagninus noteth Morem aut modum aut consuetudinem and many other things as the place and the matter to be expressed doe require because every equivocall word of various signification

Sectaries to make the royall Dignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a humane ordinance therefore I must goe before Herodotus and looke further then blinde Homer could see and from the first King that ever was I will truly lay downe the first institution and succession of Kings and how times have wrought by corruption the alteration of their right and diminution of their power which both God and nature had first granted unto them God the first King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1.17 Apoc. 19.16 And I hope no Basileu-mastix no hater of Kings nor opposer of the royall government can deny but that God himselfe was the first King that ever the world saw that was the King of ages before all worlds and the King of Kings ever since there were any created Kings The next King that I reade of was Adam whom Cedrenus stiles the Catholique Monarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mighty King of a large Territorie of great Dominion and of unquestionable right unto his Kingdome which was the whole world the earth the Seas and all that were therein For the great King of all Kings said unto him Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Gen. 1.28 and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the Sea Adam the first King of all men and over the fowle of the aire and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth Which is a very large Commission when dominare is more then regere and therefore his royalty is so plaine that none but wilfull ignorants will deny it to be divinum institutum a divine institution and affirme it as they doe to be humanum inventum a humane ordination when you know there were no men to chuse him and you see God himselfe doth appoint him Iohan. Beda de jure regum p. 4. and after the flood the Empire of Noah was divided betwixt his 3 sonnes Japhet raigned in Europe Sem in Asia and Cham in Africa Yet I must confesse the first Kingdome that is spoken of by that name is the Kingdome of Nimrod Gen. 10.9 who notwithstanding is not himselfe termed King but in the Scripture phrase a mighty hunter because he was not onely a great King but also a mighty Tyrant or oppressour of his people in all his Kingdome or as I rather conceive it because he was the first usurper that incroached upon his neighbours rights to inlarge his owne dominions and the first King that I finde by that name in the Scripture was Amraphell King of Shinar Gen. 14.1 with whom we finde 8 other Kings named in the same chapter But we are not to contest about words or to strive about the winde when the Scripture doth first give this name unto them the plaine truth is that which we are to enquire after and so it is manifest there were Kings ever since Adam and so named ever since Noahs floud for Melchizedech which in the judgement of Master Selden Broughton and others was Sem the eldest sonne of Noah though mine owne minde is set downe otherwise was King of Salem and Justin tells us that long before Ninus which was the sonne of Nimrod there were many other Kings as Vexores King of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripides de Cyclop and Tanais King of Scythia and the like and as reason sheweth us that every one qui regit alios rex est so every master of a family that ruleth his owne houshold is a petite King as we commonly say to this very day every man is a King in his owne house and as their families were the greater so were they the greater Kings so Abraham had 300 and 18 servants Gen. 14.14 that were able men for the warre in his owne house and therefore the inhabitants of the Land tell him Princeps Dei es inter nos thou art a Prince of God that is a great ruler amongst us and yet the greatest of these rulers were rather reguli then reges Kings of some Cities or small Territories and of no large dominion Josh 12.14 as those 31 Kings which Joshua vanquished doth make it plaine Selden in his Titles of honour cap. 1. But Master Selden confesseth that civill societies beginning in particular families the heads thereof ruled as Kings and as the world increased or these Kings incroached upon their neighbours so their Kingdomes were inlarged Kings therefore they were and they were Kings from the beginning But how they came to be Kings or what right they had to that regall power from whence their authority is derived 1. Whether God ordained it or 2. Themselves assumed it or 3. The people conferred it upon them herein lyeth all the question The chiefest rights to Kingdomes either of three wayes To which I must briefly answer that the right of all Kings which have any right unto their Kingdomes is principally either 1. By birth or 2. By the sword or 3. By choice whereof The last is and may be just and good The second is so without question but The first is most just so best of all For 1. The best right wi●hout contradiction is by inheritance 1. The best right whereby the Patriarches and all the rest of the posterity of Adam injoyed their royalty was that which God hath appointed that is the right of primogeniture whereby the elder was by the law of nature to raigne and rule over the younger as God saith unto Cain though he was never so wicked an hypocrite Gen. 4.7 unto thee shall be the desire of thy brother and thou shalt rule over him though he was never so godly and syncere a server of God Gen. 25.31 which made Jacob so earnestly desirous to purchase the birth-right or the right of primogeniture from his brother And 2. The right by conquest is a just and a good right 2. When the rightfull Kings became with Nimrod to be unjust Tyrants then God that is not tyed to his Vicegerant any longer then he pleaseth but hath right and power Paramount to translate the rule and transferre the dominion of his people to whom he will Psal 89 44. So the Israelites enjoyed the kingdome of Canaan and David the territories of them that he subdued c. Esdras 1.2 Esay 45.1 2. Dan. 2. c. 4. hath oftentimes throwne downe the mighty from their seat and given away their crownes and kingdomes unto others that were more humble and meeke or some other way fitter to effect his divine purpose as he did the kingdome of Saul unto David and Belshazzar's unto Cyrus and this he doth most commonly by the power of the sword when the Conquerour shall make his strength to become the Law of justice and his ability to hold it to become his right of enjoying it for so he gave the Kingdomes of the earth to Cyrus Alexander Augustus and the like Kings and Emperours that had no ●●her right to their Dominions but

forcing the King not a word of superiority nor yet simply of equality and therefore I must say hoc argumentum nihil adrhombum these do abuse every author 3. That neither ●eeres nor Parliament are co-ordinate with the King 3. If their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I speake not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their naturall strength and power but of their right and authority be co-ordinate and equall with the Kings authority then whether given by God which they cannot prove or by the people there must be duo summa imperia two supreme powers which the Philosophers say cannot be Omnésque Philosophi jurisconsulit ponunt summum in eo terum genere quod dividi non possit Lactant. l. 1. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marc. 3.24 nam quod summum est unum est from whence they prove the unity of the God-head that there can be but one God and if this supreme power be divided betwixt King and Parliament you know what the Poët saith Omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit Or you may remember what our Saviour saith If a Kingdome be divided against it selfe it cannot stand and therefore when Tiberius out of his wonted subtilty desired the Senate to appoint a colleague and partner with him for the better administration of the Empire Asinius Gallus that was desirous enough of their Pristine liberty yet understanding well with what minde the subtle foxe spake onely to descry his ill willers after some jests answered seriously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that government must not be divided because you can never have any happinesse where the power is equally divided in two parts when according to the well knowne axiome to every one Par in parem non habet potestatem The Case of our Affaires p. 19 20. But to make the matter cleare and to shew that the Soveraignty is inseperably inherent in the person of His Majestie we have the whole current of our very Acts of Parliament acknowledging it in these very termes Our Soveraigne Lord the King The Lawes of our Land acknowledge all Soveraignty in the King and the Parliament 25. Hen. 8. saith this your Graces Realme recognizing no superiour under God but your Grace c. And the Parliament 16. Rich. 2.5 affirmeth the Crowne of England to have beene so free at all times that it hath beene in no earthly subjection but immediately to God in all things touching the regality of the said Crowne and to none other And in the 2● of Hen. 5. the Parliament declareth that it belongeth to the Kings regality to grant or deny what Petitions in Parliament he pleaseth and so indeed whatsoever authority is in the constant practice of the Kingdome or in the knowne and published Lawes and Statutes it concludeth the Soveraignty to be fixed in the King and all the Subjects virtually united in the representative body of the Parliament to be obliged in obedience and allegeance to the individuall person of the King and I doubt not but our learned Lawyers can finde much more proofe then I doe out of their Law to this purpose And therefore seeing divers supreme powers are not compatible in one State nor allowable in our State the conceit of a mixed Monarchie is but a fopperie to prove the distribution of the supreme power into two sorts of governours equally indued with the same power because the supreme power being but one must be placed in one sort of governours either in one numericall man as it is in Monarchie or in one specificall kinde of men as the optimates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in Aristocracie or in the people as in Democracie but if by a mixed Monarchie you meane that this supreme power is not simply absolute quoad omnia but a government limited and regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will not much quarrell with our Sectaries because His Majestie hath promised and we are sure he will performe it to governe his people according to the Lawes of this Land They deserve not to live in th● Kingdome that diminish the supremacy of the King And therefore they that would rob the King of this right and give any part of his supreme power to the Parliament or to any of all his inferiour Magistrates deserve as well to be expelled the Kingdome as Plato would have Homer to be banished for bringing in the Gods fighting and disagreeing among themselves when as Ovid out of him saith Jupiter in Trojam pro Troja stabat Apollo Because as the Civilians say Naturale vitium est negligi quod communiter possidetur utque se nihil habere putet qui totum non habeat fuam partem corrumpi patiatur dum invidet alienae and therefore the same Homer treating of our humane government Nec multos regnare bonum rex unicus esto Arist Metaph. lib. 12. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Aristotle doth so infinitely commend where he disputeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so doth Plato and all the wise Philosophers that followed after Statius Thebaid lib. 1. because as the Poët saith Summo dulcius unum Stare loco sociisque comes discordia regnis And as our owne most lamentable experience sheweth what abundance of miseries happened unto our selves by this renting of the Kings power and placing it in the hands of the Parliament and his owne inferiour officers and as those sad Tragedies of Etheocles and Polynices Numitor and Amulius Romulus and Remus Antoninus and Geta and almost infinite more do make it manifest to all the world §. The two chiefest parts of the regall governement the foure properties of a just warre and how the Parliamentary faction transgresse in every property 4. The chiefest parts of the Regall governement which are two 4. HAving spoken of those assistants that should further and not hinder the King in the Common-wealth it resteth that I should now speake of the chiefest parts of this government when Moses killed the Egyptian that wronged the Israelite and the next day said unto the Hebrew that did injure his fellow Exod. 2.14 Wherefore smitest thou him the oppressour answered Who made thee a Prince and a Judge over us 1. Sam. 8.20 and the people say unto Samuel we will have a King over us that our King may judge us and goe out before us and fight our battailes 2. Sam. 5.2 Out of which two places we finde two speciall parts of the Kings government 1. Principatum bellorum the charge of the warres Sigon l. 7. c. 1. in respect whereof the Kings were called Captaines as the Lord said unto Samuel concerning Saul Vnges eum ducem 1. Sam. 9.16 thou shalt annoint him to be Captaine over my people Israel 2. Curam judiciorum the care of all judgements in respect whereof David and Solomon 1. Reg. 3.9 Psal 72.2 and the other Kings are said to judge the

people So Arnisaeus saith Arnisaeus de jure Majest l. 2. c. 1. p. 214. Majestatis potestas omnis consistit vel in defendenda repub vel in regenda all the power of royalty consisteth either in defending or in governing the Common wealth according as Homer describeth a perfect King Homer Iliad γ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so you see the two principall parts of the Kings government are the Offices 1. Of a Captaine in the time of Warre 1. Ducis in bello gerendo 2. Iudicis in jure reddendo 1. Part. In the time of Warre Ordo ille naturalis mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit ut suscipiendi belli autoritas atque consilium apud principes sit Aug. cont Faust l 22. Arnis l. 2. c. 5. p. 345. Plato de legib lib. 2. Arnisaus lib. 2. cap. 5. p. 345. Luc. 14.31 Vers 32. 2. Of a Judge in the time of Peace 1. Then it is the proper right of the King and of none but the King or he that hath the regall and supreme power to make warre and to conclude peace for Plato in his Common-wealth ordained that Si quis pacem vel bellum secerit cum aliquibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Julian Law adjudgeth him guilty of High Treason Qui injussu principis bellum gesserit delectúmve habuerit exercitum vel comparaverit that either maketh Warre or raiseth an Army without his Kings command And to this part of the regall government which consisteth in the Militia in Armes for the defence of the Kingdome pertaineth 1. The proclaiming of Warre which our Saviour properly ascribeth unto the right of Kings when he saith not what State or Common-wealth but What King going to warre with another King c 2. The concluding of Peace which our Saviour ascribeth also unto the King in the same place 3. The making of leagues and confederacies with other forraigne States Aristot polit l. 7. c. 8. 4. The sending and receiving of Ambassadors 5. To raise Armes and the like which the Lawes of God and of all Nations justifie to be the proper right of Kings Arnis l. 2. c. 1. and to belong onely unto the supreame Majestie Judges 11.11 But then you will say did not the Judges Moses Joshua Gedion Jephta Barac Sampson and the rest make warre and yet they were no Kings Why then may not the Nobles make warre as well as Kings I answer that they doe indeed make warre and a miserable wretched warre but I speake of a just warre and so I say that none but the King or he that hath the Kings power can doe it for though the Judges assumed not the name of Kings nor Captaines sed à potiore parte vocati sunt judices but from the sweetest part of the royall government were termed Judges yet they had the full power ducendi judicandi populum both of warre and peace saith Sigonius and so the men of Gilead said unto Jephthe veni esto princeps noster and they made him their head by an inviolable covenant Deut. 33.5 And of Moses it is plainly said He was King in Jesurun and when there was no Judge it is said there was no King in Israel Judges 17.6.18.1.19.1 for I stand not about words when some were called Kings for the honour of the people and yet had no more power then Subjects as the Kings of Sparta and others had not the name of Kings and yet had the full power of Kings as the Dictator and the Emperour and the great Duke of Muscovie and the like But when a warre is undertaken by any Prince how shall we know which party is in the right for to make an unjust warre cannot be said to be the right of any King yet as the Poët saith Lucan lib. 1. Quis justius induit arma Scire nefas summo se judice quisque tuetur Every one pretends his cause is just he fights for God for the truth of the Gospell the faith of Christ and the liberty and Lawes of his Countrey how then shall those poore men that hazard their lives and their fortunes yea and soules too if they warre on the wrong side understand the truth of this great doubtfull and dangerous point I answer all the Divines that I reade of speaking of warre Dambo ● d in praxi criminal cap. 82. doe concurre with what Dumbauderius writeth of this point that there must be foure properties of a just warre 1. A just cause Foure properties of a just Warre 2. A right intention 3. Meet Members 4. The Kings authority Sine qua est laesa Majestas without which authority the Warriours are all Traytors And I would to God our Rebels would lay their hands upon their hearts and seriously examine these foure points in this present Warre 1. What cause have they to take Armes against their King 1. A just causes and to kill and murder so many thousands of their owne Brethren they will answer that they doe it for the defence of their Liberty Lawes and Religion but how truly let God himselfe be the Judge for His Majestie hath promised and protested they shall enjoy all these fully and freely without any manner of diminution and we know that never any rebellion was raised but these very causes were still pretended And therefore 2. Consider with what intent they doe all this 2. A right intention and I doubt not but you shall finde foule weeds under this faire cloake for under the shadow of liberty and property they tooke the liberty to rob all the Kings loyall Subjects that they could reach of all or most of their estates and to keepe them fast in prison because they would not consent to their lawlesse liberty and to be Rebels with them against their conscience And under the pretence of Lawes they aymed not to have the old Lawes well kept which was never denyed them but to have such new ones made as might quite rob the King of all his rights and transferre the same unto themselves and their friends so he should be like the King of Sparta a royall slave What Lawes and Religion the Rebels would faine hav● and they should be like the Ephori ruling and commanding Subjects And for the religion you may know by their new Synod which are a Synod not of Saints but of Rebels what religion they would faine have not that which was profest in Q. Elizabeths times that was established by the Lawes justified by the paines and confirmed by the bloud of so many worthy men and faithfull Martyrs but a new religion first hatched in Amsterdam then nourished in New England and now to be transplanted into this Kingdome 3. Meete Members 3. Who are the persons that are imployed in this warre he first of all that is the more disloyall because he was a person of honour that had so much honour conferred upon him by His

maker hath appoynted for them when as the Psalmist saith he hath given them a Law which shall not be broken therefore this must needs be a great reproofe and a mighty shame to those men that being Subjects unto their King and to be ruled by his Lawes will notwithstanding disobey the King and transgresse those Lawes that are made for their safety and resist that authority which they are bound to obey only because their weake heads or false hearts doe account the commandement of the King to be against right and what themselves doe to be most holy and just Ob. Diverse kinds of Monarchies But our City Prophets will say that although the King be the supream Monarch whom we are commanded to obey yet there are diverse kinds of Monarchies or Regall governments as usurped lawfull by conquest by inheritance by election and these are either absolute as were the Easterne Kings and the Roman Emperours or limited and mixed which they terme a Politicall Monarchie where the King or Monarch can do nothing alone but with the assistance direction of his Nobility Parliament or if he doth attempt to bring any exorbitancies to the Common-wealth or deny those things that are necessary for the preservation thereof they may lawfully resist him in the one and compell him to the other to which I answer 1. As God himselfe which is most absolute Sol. Absolute Monarchs may limit themselves liberrimum agens may notwithstanding limit himselfe and his own power as he doth when he promiseth and sweareth that he will not fail David and that the unrepentant Rebells should never enter into his rest so the Monarch may limit himselfe in some points of his administration and yet this limitation neither transferreth any power of soveraignty unto the Parliament nor denieth the Monarch to be absolute nor admitteth of any resistance against him for 1. This is a meer gull to seduce the people I cannot devise words to expresse this new devised government that cannot distinguish the poynt of a needle just like the Papist that saith he is a Roman Catholike that is a particular universall a black white a polumonarcha a many one governour when we say he is a Monarch joyned in his government with the Parliament for he can be no Monarch or supream King Soveraign that hath any sharers with him or above him in the governmēt 2. There is no Monarch that can be said to be simply absolute but only God yet where there is no superior but the soveraignty residing in the King he may be said to be an absolute Monarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. because there is none on earth that can controule him 2 Because he is free absolute in all such things wherein he is not expresly limited and therefore 3. Seeing no Monarch or Soveraigne is so absolute No Monarch so Absolute but some way limited but that he is some way limited either by the Law of God or the rules of nature or of his own concessions and grants unto his people or else by the compact that he maketh with them if he be an elective King and so admitted unto his Kingdome there is no reason they should resist their King for transgressing the limitations of one kinde more then the other or if any no doubt but he that transcendeth the limits of Gods Law or goeth against the common rules of nature ought rather to be resisted then he that observeth not his own voluntary concessions but themselves perceiving how peremptorily the Apostle speaketh against resistance of the Heathen Emperours that then ruled doe confesse that absolute Monarchs ought not to be resisted wherein also they are mistaken because the histories tell us those Emperours were not so absolute as our Kings till the time of Vespasian when the lex Regia transferred all the power of the People upon the Emperour No Monarch ought to be resisted Vlpian de constit Principis therefore indeed no Monarch ought to be resisted whatsoever limitations he hath granted unto his Subjects And the resisters of authority might understand if their more malitious then blind leaders would give them leave that this virtue of obedience to the supream power maketh good things unlawfull when we are forbidden to doe them as the eating of the forbidden tree was to Adam and the holding up of the Arke was to Vzza and it maketh evill things to be good and lawfull when they are commanded to be done as the killing of Isaack if he had done it had been commendable in Abraham and the smiting of the Prophet was very laudable in him that smote him when the Prophet commanded him to doe it and therefore Adam and Vzza were punished with death because they did those lawfull good things which they were forbidden to doe Rebels should well consider these things and the others were recompenced with blessings because they did and were ready to doe those evill things that they were commanded to doe when as he that refused to smite the Prophet 1. Reg. 20.38 being commanded to doe it was destroyed by a Lion because he did it not whereby you see that things forbidden when they are commanded è contra cannot be omitted without sinne Ob. Mandatum imperantis ●ollit peccatum obedientis Aug. Sol. You will say it is true when it is done by God whose injunction or prohibition his precept or his forbidding to doe it or not to doe it maketh all things lawfull or unlawfull I answer that we cannot think our selves obedient to God whilest we are disobedient to him whom God hath commanded us to obey and therefore if we will obey God we must obey the King because God hath commanded us to obey him and being to obey him non attendit verus obediens quale fit quod praecipitur sed hoc solo contentus quia praecipitur he that is truly obedient to him whom God commanded us to obey never regardeth what it is that is commanded so it be not simply evill for then as the Apostle saith it is better to obey God then man were he the greatest Monarch in the World but he considereth and is therewith satisfied that it is commanded Bernard in l. de praecept dispensat and therefore doth it saith St Bernard in l. de praecept dispensat CHAP. XVI Sheweth the answer to some objections against the obeying of our Soveraigne Magistrate all actions of three kinds how our Consciences may be reformed of our passive obedience to the Magistrates and of the Kings concessions how to be taken BVt against this our sectaries and Rebells will object Ob. that their conscience which is vinculum accusator testis judex their bond their accuser their witnesse and their judge against whom they can say nothing and from whom they cannot appeale unlesse it be to a severer Iudge will not give them leave to obey to doe many things that the King requireth to be done and