registred with the title of a great Hunter but whether he had that addition given him for enlarging the confines of his Dominion or for acquiring a more unbounded Prerogative or for exercising his power more insolently is not declared Besides it is left utterly uncertain whether Nimrod laid his foundation upon force or consent whether he did by his tongue or his sword drive and hunt men out of Woods and wilde Recesses into Towns and Cities for that force by which he did prevail can hardly be supposed to be it self wholly forced It is left also as dubious to conjecture how far consent was left by Nature for if order and right of succession did give the rule according to primogeniture then all mankinde must have been subjected to one Crown whereas if Primogeniture were wholly neglected and every father or brother left independent in his own family to associate or not at his pleasure then Rule would have been crumbled into Atomes To avoid therefore surmises and the dark Labyrinths of our primative-Records before the Flood and immediately following let us fall lower upon the Story of Abraham Moses David and such as succeeded them The people of God at severall times were under either several forms or several degrees of power and jurisdiction That Soveraignty which Abraham and the Patriarchs had was not the same as that which Moses and the Judges had neither had Moses and the Judges the same as Saul and the Kings nor yet had Saul and the Kings the same as Cyrus and the Persian Emperours It is disputed much by some Whether the Patriarchs and Judges before Sauls days had regal-Regal-power or no Some say Their power was Regal others say It was but Aristocraticall and others more judiciously in my opinion say It was mixt of both One says That after the Flood till Nimrods usurpation men lived under the Empire of single Commanders who neverthelesse did not govern as Kings but as Fathers Now since this is but the patern which all Kings ought to follow therefore what other meaning can this bear but that Governours in those days having small Territories did claim but moderate Prerogatives though they were as solely supreme in the State as Fathers are in the Families As for Moses and the Judges also it is truely said They were no other then Gods Vice-Roys in regard they did go forth to Battel by immediate Commission and transact many other great affairs by direction from Gods own mouth Neverthelesse this alters the case little or nothing as to the latitude of their Prerogatives this rather added than took honour grandour or jurisdiction from them this left them as sole a Sovereignty and as unbounded over the people as other Princes have who are Gods ordinary Vice-gerents It must needs be therefore That that case and freedom which the people then found under Gods immediate Substitutes was not procured by any further Right or law or from any other indifferent composition of Government which they had belowe from other Monarchies but from a Regulation above because it was impossible for their chief lord to oppresse or do injustice or to direct his thought to particular ends contrary to theirs This shews how impious and stupid a Frenzie that was in the Israelites which made them weary of Gods Headship for indeed they did not so properly create to themselves a new Government as a new Governour We cannot think that Saul being invested with Style and State of an ordinary King and discharged of such an immediate extraordinary dependence upon God as Samuel acknowledged had thereby any new Right granted him to do wrong or be oppressive to his Subjects his Diadem did not absolve him from the true end of Diadems nor did his meer Instalment so much against Gods will and advertisement cancell the Law of God which forbids Kings to amasse treasure into their private Coffers or to encrease their Cavalries or to provide extraordinary Magazines of Arms and Munition or to lift up their hearts above their brethren much more to employ their Treasure Horses or Arms against their Subjects Barclay and our Royallists offer apparant violence to Scripture when they will make God to call the usuall rapine and insolence of Kings Jus Regis whereas indeed the word in the Original signifieth nothing but Mos Regis as is plain to all that will look into the same Howsoever let the Prerogative of the Jewish Kings be taken in its utmost extent and take the restraint of Gods Morall Law not to be of any Politicall efficacie yet we shall still perceive that the very composition of that Monarchy was not without qualifications of mixture and other Limitations The Crown it was setled upon Judah and more particularly upon the House of David yet the Peoples election was not thereby wholly drowned for still before every Coronation they might assemble to give their Votes and were not necessitated to choose any individuall person in the House of David It appears also by the Story of Rehoboam that the people might capitulate for just Munities and require some Obligation for assurance of the same and in case that was not granted it was esteemed and properly it might bâ— said That the King did reject the people and deny protection not that the People did reject the King and deny subjection Next there was a great Colledge and Councell of Elders called The Sanhedrin consisting of 71 Princes who had the hearing and determining of all weighty and intricate Suits unto whom the last appeal lay from inferiour Courts and the King without tyranny could not interrupt or impeach the proceedings of this Sanhedrin If Saul will charge David with Treason and without all legall Processe take Arms against him untried and uncondemned David may leavie Forces of Voluntiers against the followers of Saul and stand upon his justification cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae Wicked Ahab stood in so much awe of such kinde of trialls in the corrupted State of Israel that when he coveted Naboths Vineyard he durst not attempt to wrest it away by force nor did he obtrude upon the Court what Sentence he pleased he was driven to hire perjured villains and so by fraud to procure an erroneous judgement It is worthy of notice also that these 71 Elders or Princes of the Tribes who had the supremacie of judgement were not eligible by the King and so the more obnoxious to his Commands but did inherite this dignity and for that cause were extirpated by Herod as the main obstacle to his Tyrannie Besides though the children of Israel had abandoned God for their chief Ruler yet God out of his unspeakable grace did not utterly cast them out of his protection but oftentimes did extraordinarily interpose by his Prophets as he had done by Princes before for relief of his Inheritance In behalf of Vriah Nathan was sent with a vindicative-Message to bridle Davids cruelty In behalf of the whole Nation groning under Solomons ponderous hand another menacing Prophet was
manner Quando statues Regem super te c. when you shall think fit to set or erect a King over you you shall chuse that man whom I shall designe And the same word statuere is divers times elsewhere used in Scripture so that though God did never interpose in any other Nation so eminently about the making of Kings as in Judea yet even there he did commend the person the people did chuse or if he did chuse the people did statuere viz. give force and sanction to the same It remains now that we try what there is of God and what of man in the limitations or mixtures of authority T is a true and old maxime in Law Qui jus suum alienat potest id jus pactis imminuere And hereupon Grotius takes a good difference betwixt imperium and imperii habendi modum and as for the manner or qualification of rule that he accounts so meerly humane that if the King seek to alter it he may be as he acknowledges opposed by the people nay he proceeds further and cites Barclayes authority who was the violentest assertor of absolute Monarchy that ever wrote to prove that Kings may have but a part in the supremacy of power and where they have but such a partiall mixt interest they may not onely be resisted but also deposed for forfeiture in case they invade the other interest The same Author also affirms That States may condition with Kings to have a power of resisting and that the same is a good condition though the Royalty be limited by no other If this be so surely the founding or new erecting of authorities at first and the circumscribing the same after by consent is so farre from being Gods sole immediate act that it is as far as any act can be mans proper and intire act for except we allow that God has left it indifferent to man to form government as he thinks most for his behoof we must needs condemne all forms except one as unlawfull and if we grant indifference t is all one as if we left it to second causes But soft to call Kings saies one loud Royalist derivatives of the people it is to disgrace them and to make them the basest extracts of the basest of rationall creatures the Community If we fix an underived Majestie in the community as in it first seat and receptacle where there is not one of a thousand an intelligent knowing man this is if not blasphemy certainly high treason against God and the King This is Oxford Divinitie God reproves Kings for his anointed peoples sake these reproach the people for Kings sakes These are the miserable Heralds of this unnaturall warre having mouthes as black as their hands are crimson but let the man fall to his Arguments A world of reasons saies he may be brought from Scripture to prove that Kings are independent from all and solely dependent from God But for brevities sake take these 1 To whom can it be more proper to give the rule over men then to him who is the onely King truly and properly of the whole world Answer To none more proper there shall be no quarrell in this provided you will no more except Kings then Subjects from this generall subjection 2 God is the immediate Author of all rule and power amongst all his creatures above or below why then should we seclude him from being the immediate Author of government and empire amongst men Answer We seclude him not We onely question whether he be so the immediate Author of our constitutions as he is of primitive order or whether or no he so extraordinarily intervene in the erecting of Governors or limiting of governments as to strangle second causes and invalidate humane acts 3 Man in his innocence received dominion over the creatures immediately from God and shall we deny that the most noble and excellent government over men it from God or say it is by humane constitution Answer God did not create so vast a distance betwixt man and man as betwixt man and other irrationall creatures and therefore there was not at first the same reason of subjection amongst the one as the other Yet we except nothing against order or a milde subjection amongst men we onely say that such servility as our Adversaries would novv fain patronize in Gods name vvas never introduced by God Nature or any good men 4 They who exercise the judgement of God must needs have their power to judge from God but Kings by themselves and their Deputies exercise their judgement from God Ergo Answer The Prince of Orange or the Duke of Venice may as well plead thus as the King of Spaine or the Emperour of Germany Besides according to this rule Quod quis per alium facit facit per se the State may as truly say it exercises judgement by the King as the King may that he exercises judgement by his inferior Courts Lastly if this be pressed upon supposition that the King is Judge next under God without any dependence from the State it begs the question if it be pressed only to prove that the King ought to be so independent 't is vain and frivolous 5. Kings are the Ministers of God not only as to their Judiciary but as to their Executory power ergo their charge is immediately from God They are called Gods Angells c. So in the Church Preachers are the Embassadors of God and this makes their function immediately divine Answ. The judiciary and executory power flowes from the same source this shall breed no dispute and as for all the glorious attributes of Majesty and irradiations of sanctity and divinity which the scripture frequently applies to Kings First We must know they are not only appropriated to Kings as they are absolute and solely supreame but to all chiefe governours also though bounded by lawes and restrained by coordinate partners Secondly They are many times affixt to Kings not quatenus Kings but quatenus religious and just Kings these sacred expressions applyed to Ahas or Jeroboam doe not sound so tunably as when they point at David or Josiah Thirdly The people and flock of God sometimes communicate in termes of the like nature not only Priests and Prophets were annointed as well as Kings but the whole nation of the Jewes was called holy and dignified with that which the ceremony of unction shadowed only Priests were not Kings nor Kings Priests but the children of God are both Kings and Priests the scripture expresly calls them a royall Priesthood Fourthly That sanctity that divine grandour which is thus shed from above upon Princes for the peoples sake in the judgement of wisemen does not so properly terminate it self in the means as in the end 6. If the grace inabling Kings for their imployment be only from God then consequently the imployment it selfe ergo Answer if God by inspiration did inable all Kings extraordinarily and none other but Kings this were of some force and yet
are more civill more religious more happy then those which are not These things are beyond all doubt and debate The question then is only whether absolute Princes that is such as have no persons to share in power with them nor no lawes to circumscribe their power for them be not as meer servants to the State and as much obliged in point of duty to pursue its publick interest as they are Lords over private persons and predominant over particular interests Many of the authorities before cited make good the affirmative and many more may be alleaged to the same purpose and the rule of finall causes makes it beyond all contradiction that there is a certain service annexed to the office of the most independent Potentate Nefas est sayes Alexander Severus à publico dispensatore prodigi quae Provinciales dederant He contents himselfe with the name of a publick Steward or Treasurer and confesses that hee cannot mispend the common stock intrusted with him without great sinne and injustice Maximus also as was before recited challenged no more in the Empire then a kind of Commission to dispense and administer they are his owne very words the affaires of the Empire with the State And therefore Seneca gives this admonition that the Emperour should make his account non suam esse Rempub. sed se Reipub. And this was that service the very word it selfe is servitus which Tiberius complained to be layed on his shoulders so miserable and burthenous as Sueton. writes in the life of Tiberius It was recorded in commendation also of Nasica that hee preferred his countrey before his owne family and did account no private thing his owne or worthy of his thoughts in comparison of those things which were publickly advantageous ut enim tutela sic procuratio Reipub. ad utilitatem eorum quibus commissi sunt non ad eorum quibus commissa est gerenda est here the office of a Magistrate is a procuration he is taken as a Guardian in Socage and the end of his office is the utility of those which are committed to his trust not his owne To conclude the lawes of the Empire were very full and cleer in this and many more histories might bee brought forth to give more light and strength in the case but there is no need of any If any honest Patriot neverthelesse think fitter to use the name of father then servant I shall not wholly gainsay therein My wish is that subjects may alwayes understand their right but not too rigorously insist upon it neither would I have them in private matters look too much upon their publick capacity Princes also may without indignity to themselves at some times condescend to such acknowledgements of the peoples due as is not so fit to be heard from any mouth but their owne Happy is that King which anticipates his subjects in submitting his own titles and happy are those subjects which anticipate their King in submitting their owne rights and happy are both when both thus comply at the same time Neverthelesse if it may be ever seasonable to urge a verity with strictnesse Princes are not to be called Fathers of their Subjects except taken divisim but are meer servants to the people taken collectim How erronious then are they and how opposite to the end of government which are so far from making Kings servants to the people that they make the people servants to Kings whereas the Lord doth not rule for the profit of his servant but by the profit of his servant compasses his own Servile power is tolerated because it tends to the safety and good of him that is subject to it but as Aristotle holds 3. Pol. c. 4. the master in protecting his servant does not look upon his servants ends herein but his own because the losse of his servant would be a losse to his family Therefore this kind of Authority is not to be indured in a State because it is incompetent with liberty provided onely for slaves and such as have no true direct interest in the State whereas finis justi imperii as Ammianus writes and as has been confirm'd by many other proofs Vtilitas obedientium aestimatur salus But you will say It is more reasonable that Subjects should remain under the condition of servants then he which has authority over those Subjects and is in place far above them I answer That end to which Princes are destin'd viz. the Common good or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as one cals or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as another cals it or cura salutis aliena as another cals it is so excellent and noble that without the inconvenience of servility they may be servile to it The truth is all things that are in the nature of means and instruments are then most perfect and intire when they are most fit and conducible to accomplish the end for which they are prepared So Aristot. delivers in the 5. Metaphys. and so Averroes and Thomas thereupon T is to quarrell against God and Nature to except against that true and proper end which God and Nature hath design'd to any person or thing The Greeks called excellence {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the Romanes called it perfectio because that is perfect or consummate which approaches nearest to its end T is not onely therefore to be said that that is a perfect or intire State wherein the Governor executes all things in order to the Common good but he also is a perfect and intire Governor which bends all his actions to that purpose For if we look up to Almighty God we must needs acknowledge that he is most truly represented and personated by such a Deputy as refers all things to publick Good For God is goodnesse it self and there is nothing more essential to goodnesse then to be diffusive and God has no end of addition or profit to himself in making Heaven or Earth Angels or men Next if we look upon Nations they ever retribute most honour and repay most dutie love and gratitude to such Princes as are most free from particular aymes That Reigne which supports it self by terror is accompanied with hatred and danger but that which found it self upon love is truly majesticall safe and durable For in part the Princes happinesse is involved in his Subjects and he does more partake in their flourishing condition then they in his private advantages If Cicero can say Nistrum dicamus esse quicquid bono principi nascatur the Prince may say as truly Principis est quicquid est omnium Therefore does Aristot. 8. Ethic. c. 10. maintain that Kings do not regard their own particulars but the community of their Subjects because there is a self-sufficiencie and perfection in good Kings whilest they cannot be said to want that which their Subjects have Queen Elizab. by her publick actions doubted not to win
nor has no being but amongst sinfull men so even amongst men it is not without its defects and inconveniences We must not expect more then a mixture of good and evill in it and if we will refuse the burden of it we must withall deny the benefit of it Nulla lex satis commodo est saith Cato id modo quaeritur si majori parti in summa prodest Wherefore it is now sufficiently apparent that order does more naturally refer to God as its Author then Jurisdiction does and that it also conveyes nothing in speciall to Kings inasmuch as the benefit of it is generall and extends to families as well as States and to popular States as well as Monarchies As to government also we must in the next place observe three things therein very distinguishable The constitution of power in generall must be sever'd from the limitation of it to this or that form and the form also must be sever'd from the designation of it to this or that person The constitution or ordinance of Jurisdiction we doe acknowledge to contain {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but this excludes not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} it may be both respectively and neither simply and St. Peter seems to affirm as much of the humanitie as St. Paul does of the divinitie of the constitution In Matrimony there is something divine the Papist makes it sacramentall beyond royall inauguration but is this any ground to infer that there is no humane consent or concurrence in it does the divine institution of marriage take away freedome of choice before or conclude either party under an absolute degree of subjection after the solemnization is there not in conjugall Jurisdiction notwithstanding the divine establishment of it a strange kind of mixture and coordination and may not the Spouse plead that divine right as much for a sweet equality as the husband does for a rigorous inequalitie Inferior matrona suo sit blanda marito Non alitèr fuerit foemina virque pares There may be a parity even in the disparity of the matrimoniall bond and these two contraries are so farre from being made contrary by any plea of divine institution that nothing else could reconcile them And if men for whose sakes women were created shall not lay hold upon the divine right of wedlock to the disadvantage of women much lesse shall Princes who were created for the peoples sake chalenge any thing from the sanctity of their offices that may derogate from the people Besides even government it self in the very constitution of it is so farre from being injoyned as divine upon any persons not before ingaged by their own or their Ancestors consent or from being necessitated by any precept or president in Scripture that we rather see an instance of the contrary in the story of Lot and Abraham Certainly there was in nature some majority or precedence due either from Lot to Abraham or from Abraham to Lot for the rules of order are no wayes failing and yet we see this is no sufficient inforcement to subject either of these Patriarks to the others jurisdiction When discords arose amongst their servants they might have been qualified and repressed by a friendly association and either one or both joyntly or by course might have had the oyer and terminer thereof Yet so it was that they rather resolved upon a dissociation and this could not but have been a great sin against the divine right of Government if any such had been originally imprinted in Nature or delivered by command from God as of more value then common liberty T is true it proved afterwards fatall to Lot that he did disjoyne from Abraham and it had been farre more politick and advantagious for both of them perhaps if they had incorporated one with another but the question is not whether it was prejudiciall or no to esteeme the priviledge of an Independent liberty before the many other fruits and advantages of a well framed principalitie but whether it was sin against God or no and a transgression against the constitution of power to pursue that which was most pleasing before that which was likely to prove more commodious I conceive that freedome being in it self good and acceptable to Nature was preferred before Government which was also good and more especially commendable but God had left the choice indifferent and arbitrarie and therefore there was no scandall or trespasse in the choice I speak not this to unsettle any form of Government already founded and composed nor against the constitution it self or intention of framing associations t is sufficient for my purpose if it be proved that before such foundation or composition every man be left free and not abridged of his own consent or forced by any Law of God to depart from his freedome and I am sure this example of Abraham and Lot does evince thus much unlesse we think good to charge them both as enemies to the politick constitution of power and will needs introduce a perpetuall yoke of authority upon all men whatsoever whether pre-obliged by consent or not which seems to me very uncharitable But enough of this I passe now from the constitution it self to the determination of power to such a line or such a person electively or hereditarily and this also is an act wherein we do not deny Gods ordinary interposition we onely deny that the peoples freedome of choice or consent is at all drowned thereby Gods chusing of Saul particularly is no generall denyall of humane choice we may rather suppose that that coronation was an act of divine providence then of any speciall command For as God remitted the matter to the decision of Lots so it is undoubted that he guided the event of those lots as gently as he guides all other second causes without violenting the nature of them So the Scepter of Judah though it was prophetically intayled upon Davids posterity yet the individuall person or line of that race was not alwayes specified by God The order of primogeniture was broken in Solomon and there was no certain rule left as often as that order was to be altred or inverted to whose choice or discretion it should be left After the Captivity there was also interruption in the lineall course of dissent and by whom the successive right was then convayed is uncertain but in probabilitie either the people or some other humane hand was the pipe of that conveyance We shall not need to prosecute this further our Adversaries do grant us that the election of Princes is not now so extraordinarie and divine as it was amongst the Jews and the Scripture it self is clear that even those Jewish Princes which God pointed out by Lots or anointed by his Prophets were yet establisht and invested by the people And therefore in the first delivery of the Law by Moses before any king was resolved upon by the people God prescribed to them in this
this proves not that Kings are more or lesse inspired by God as they are more or lesse limited by man Howsoever wee know by woefull experience that the Major part of Kings are so farre from being the best Judges the profoundest Statesmen the most expert soldiers that when they so value themselves they prove commonly most wilfull and fatall to themselves and others and that they ever govern best when they most relye upon the abilities of other good Counsellors and Ministers 7. Where Soveraigne power is as in Kings there is authority and Majesty and a ray of divine glory but this cannot be found in the people they cannot be the subject of it either jointly or severally considered not singly for all by nature are equall and if not singly not jointly for all have but the contribution of so many individuals Answ. What ridiculous things are these if Majesty and authority accompany supremacy of power then it is residing at Geneva aswell as at Constantinople or else we must take it for granted that there is no supremacy of power but in Monarchies All men will explode this but suppose the Crowne escheated in a Monarchy will you say because all have but the contribution of so many individuals therefore there is no more vertue in the consent of all then there is in the vote of one must the wheeles of government never move againe except some miraculous ordinance from heaven come to turne and actuate them must such a fond dreame as this confound us in an eternall night of Anarchy and forbid us to wind up our weights again how poore a fallacy is this you cannot subject me nor I you nor one hundred of us one hundred of other men but by consent it follows therefore that all of us joyntly consenting cannot subject ourselvs to such a law such a Prince such a condition 8. Potestas vitae necis is only his who only gives life ergo Kings which only have this can only derive this from God Answ. This destroyes all government but Monarchicall this denies all Aristocraticall or Democraticall States to bee capable of doing justice or proceeding against delinquents what can be more erroneous or pernitious the power of life and death in a legall sence is committed to man by God and not to Kings only For if the Crowne of England were escheated the community even before a new restauration of government during the inter-regnum might joyne in putting to death murderers and capitall offenders and perhaps this it was which Cain stood in feare of Nay it may be thought ex officio humani generis they ought to prosecute all the common disturbers of mankind And if this without some orderly tribunall were not lawfull or possible to bee done yet what right or power is there wanting in the people to erect such a Tribunall Grotius tells us that as man is the generall subject of the visâ—ve facu'ty though the eye of man be its particular seat so the whole body politick is the generall subject of authority though it bee more intimately contracted sometimes into such a Chaire such a Bench such an Assembly and if it be so after government setled it is much more so before 9. The actions of Kings aswell of mercy as justice are owned by God and therefore when God blesses a people hee sends good Kings when he scourges them he sends evil Kings Answer If God be said to send evill Kings and to harden them for our punishment in the same manner as he sends good Kings c. we must acknowledge the hand of God in these things but not as over-ruling secondary causes when the lot is cast into the lap the event is from the Lord but it does not alwayes so fall out from the immediate sole causality of God so as the second cause is forced thereby or interrupted in its ordinary operation Wherefore if the immediate hand of God does not violent such hidden contingent effects sure it is more gentle to more rationall and free causes and where the effect is evill we must not make it too causall 10. God is stiled a King and represented on a Throne therefore let us not make him a derivative of the people also Answer Demand what security you please for this and we will give it 11. Kings Priests Prophets were anointed but no fourth thing and since Priests and Prophets are sacred by immediate constitution why not Kings Answer Wee have instanced in a fourth thing upon which the unction of God hath been powred if not visibly yet spiritually if not in the externall ceremony yet in the internall efficacy We do not deny also but Kings are sacred by immediate constitution as well as Priests but we deny that Kings only or absolute Kings only excluding other conditionate Princes and Rulers are thus sacred and as for Priests they are not so properly a power as a function neither doe I perfectly understand how farre they disclaime all humane dependence in their functions nor is the dispute thereof any way pertinent in this case 12. Disobedience to Princes is taken as disobedience to God and therefore God sayes to Moses and Aaron they murmure not against you but me Answ. Cursed for ever bee that doctrine that countenances disobedience to Magistrates much more such disobedience against such Magistrates in such things as that was which God so severely chastised in the Israelites our dispute at this present is not about obedience but the measure of obedience for if the Kings will be the sole rule thereof wee cannot disobey God in obeying the King but this we know is false and if any other rule be either in the law of God or man to that we will conforme in our actions and to that we ought to be confin'd in our disputes 13. The last result is Priests and Kings have their offices if not personall designations immediately and solely from Gods donation and both as to their persons and functions being lawfully invested with sacred power are inviolable Answ. We need not doubt but this great ostentatious undertaker and this wide gaping promissor was some Cathedralist within orders he does so shuffle Priests and Princes together He will needs have Princes as inviolable as Priests but hee could wish much rather I believe that Priests were as unpunishable as Princes He doth admit Princes to have their offices as immediately from God as Priests but then his intent is that Priests shall claime a power too as independent as Princes Caecus fert Claudum c. If Kings will bee but as willing to carry Bishops as they are to guide Kings 't is no great matter whether any body else have legs to walk or eyes to see But what if we grant Ministers to have persons as inviolable as Magistrates and Magistrates offices as sacred as Ministers what doth this prove against limited Monarchy how doth this devest the people of God of all right and liberty Thus we see he that answers one argument answers
upon any agreement and condescension of this Nation produce the same and the true form thereof and that shall purchase you a good title if you relye upon meer force the continuation thereof to this day ought not to conclude us in a plea of this nature T is no reason we should be now remedilessely opprest because our Ancestors could not defend themselves against your oppression Let us come now to another objection for the Royalists will still say If the people be the true efficient primary cause of soveraignty yet the party constituting is not alwayes better then the constituted Still the rule is deniable Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale For the better ventilation of this truth we shall distinguish betwixt natural and moral causes for in morall causes this rule does not so constantly hold as in naturall You will say that in naturall things it does not alwayes hold for a spark may raise farre greater flames then it self and wine may intoxicate or work that in another which it has not in it self I answer The spark that inflames other combustible stuffe and so dilates it self into a greater flame works not as a cause onely but as an occasion also and we shall more truly imagine that it is multiplied and that it gathers new strength from other concauses then that it spends it self or effects something more vigorous and perfect then it self So wine it makes not drunk as it is it self drunk because drunkennesse proceeds not from wine immediately but from other neerer causes Wine heats the veines annoyes the stomack with humors and the brain with fumes and these are the immediate causes of drunkennesse the proper work of wine is heat and so it ever has a heat as intense in it self as that which it self causes elsewhere and without the accession of other joynt causes it cannot produce a greater degree of heat in another thing then it reserves in it self As to ethicall causes if they may be truly called efficients t is confest forasmuch as they work voluntarily and freely they may in their influences depart with more or lesse vigor as they please Authoritie land honour c. may be passed either absolutely or conditionally and the conditions may be more or lesse restraining as the agreement provides according to the intent of the grantor expressed by instrument or otherwise In our case then we are to inquire whether supreme signiory or command be to be reputed amongst naturall or morall things and I conceive it is of a mixt nature proceeding from principles partly ethicall and partly naturall The honour and splendor of Monarchs two main ingredients of dominion are after a physicall manner derived the more glorious and noble the people is the more glorious and noble the chief of the people is and this honour and glory is such as flows from the people without wasting it self in the act of flowing In the like manner puissance and force it has a naturall production from the people and this is another principall ingredient of Empire the more strength there is in such or such a Nation the more strong is he who commands that Nation and yet that puissance which by perpetuall consent passes into the supreme Commander does not so passe from the people but that it retains its ancient site and subject of inherence Wherefore Honor and Power though they be so great requisites in the composition of Princes yet we see they have a naturall efflux and as Honor is in Honorante not in Honorato so Potestas is in Potestante as I may use the word not in Potestato The woman is coruscant by the rayes of her husband borrowing resplendence like the Moon from the Suns aspect without losse or diminution to the fountain and cause of that coruscance In the same manner also Princes derive honour and power from their Subjects yet drain not at all the scource which derives it Tanti est rex quanti est regnum As the people increases or impairs so does the Prince and we must not expect the contrary If then a Prince be in value or excellence superiour to that community from whence all his power and honour deduces it self which can find but hard entertainment in our thoughts yet t is not because the fountain has evacuated it self in that deduction for we see the effect even after its production for I speak not of its former entity is such here that it has Aristotles condition in it it does utrique inesse it has a residence in both parties it invests the grantee without devesting the grantor To do the office of a Protector is the most proper and therefore the most excellent and incommunicable prerogative of a King yet even that power by which he is made capable of protecting issues solely from the adherence consent and unity of the people and so issues as that the people suffer no exhaustion in the busines Neverthelesse it must be granted there is something of royalty which springs from a morall principle but that is the Commission or indeed that form of qualification by which one Prince differs from another in extent of Prerogative and in respect of this principle the people does more or lesse straiten it self in point of liberty This of all other rayes of Majestie is most immediately streaming from the consent of the people but if a Nation by solemne oath or otherwise has ingaged it self to submit to the will of a Prince absolutely affirmatively reserving no priviledges but tacitly renouncing all immunities except onely at discretion I shall not seek to destroy such agreements I onely say such agreements are not the effects of Nature and t is not easie to imagine how right reason should ever mingle with such a morall principle as gave being to such an agreement especially when it renders the Prince who for honour and power has his perpetuall dependence upon the people yet more honourable and powerfull in reputation of others then the people and that by the expresse grant of the people Howsoever not to make this any part of our quarrell let such acts of communities be demonstrable positive and unquestionable as particular convayances of lands c. use to be and it shall not be denyed but the effect in these politicall affairs may be more such then that impoverisht cause which emptied it self to make it such Yet sure such acts are very rare prescription is the great plea of Princes and they themselves must be Judges of that plea the Grand Signior himself has nothing but prescription to damne his Subjects if they be to be accounted Subjects to the base villenage of arbitrary rule But you will say to such causes as remain more vertuous then their effects there is another condition also requisite they must not onely utrique inesse but they must admit of degrees also that the effect may be lesse then the cause as the water heated is lesse hot then the fire And you will
have relation to the same and utterly to forget their private advantage and in the next place to extend their care to the whole body of the Common-wealth and every part of it Our Divines on the contrary think they cannot speak more like themselves then by inverting this order making the Kings profit the sole scope of his aimes and actions and the peoples either secondary thereunto or which is worse inconsistent therewithall and so farre are they from taking any consideration of the whole body that if the major part bee not condemned to slavery and poverty they conceive the weale of the whole is exposed to great hazard It is to be noted also that we Christians are not only degenerated in our politicks and become more unnaturall then Gentiles but even we also amongst Christians which have been born under regular governments doe more preposterously let loose the raines of Soveraignty then those Gentiles which knew no such regulations Seneca under the Roman Empire sayes Non licet tibi quicquam tuâ— arbitrio facere His reason is magna fortuna magna servitus In England this would now be treason if not blasphemy against God and the King we must bee so far from saying that our King though hee pretend not to an absolute prerogative is a servant that we must not say he is universis minor wee must bee so farre from denying him an arbitrary power in any thing that we must allow him an arbitrary dissent even in those things which the States of Kingdomes after mature debate propose to him Maximus the Emperour in his oration to his souldiers uses this expression Neque enim unius tantum hominis possessiâ— principatur est sed communis totius Ro populi siquidem in illâ— urbe sita est imperij fortuna nobis autem dispensatatio tantum atque administratio principatus una vobiscum demandata est Who dares now avow at Court that the whole nation of England hath a true interest and possession of this Crowne and that there is nothing therein committed to the King but the office and charge to dispense and manage the same together with the people for the peoples best advantage That which was true at Rome when there was neither religion nor perfection of policy to bridle Tyranny is now false dangerous trayterous in England amongst the most civill and knowing Christians that ever were what can be now spoken more odious in the Court of England then this undeniable truth that the King is a servant to the State and though far greater and superiour then all particulars yet to the whole collectively taken a meer officer or Minister The objections of our adversaries against this truth are especially these two First They say the end is not more honourable and valuable then the means And Secondly it cannot be so in this case because they say it is contradictory in sense and a thing impossible in nature to be both a servant and a Lord to the same State As to the first objection whereas the example of our Saviour is produced to prove that some instruments may be of more dignity then those ends for which they are ordained we answer our Saviour though hee did by his blood purchase our redemption yet was in the nature of a free and voluntary agent he was not design'd to so great a work of humiliation by any other cause then his owne eternall choice and therefore since hee receives no ordination or designation from those whom hee came to redeem nor had no necessary impulsion from the work it selfe of redemption but was meerly moved thereunto by his owne intire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} wee say he was not our mean or instrument but his owne and whereas the example of the Angells is next alleadged we answer also that their Ministery performed unto men is rather a thing expedient then necessary and it is not their sole or chiefe Ministery neither doe they perform the same as necessarily drawne thereunto by any motive from man as being the immediate end of their Ministery but their service is injoyned immediately by God and so God not man is the true scope of their attendance Lastly whereas it is prest that the Advocate is ordained for the Client the Physitian for the Patient c. yet it is frequently seen that the Advocate is better then his Client the Physitian then his Patient c. We answer every particular Advocate or Physitian is not to be compared with every particular Client or Patient but it is true in generall that the skill and art of the Advocate and Physitian is directed in nature not so much for the benefit of him which possesses it as of him which is served by it and therefore Aristotle in the 2. Phys. cap. 1. affirmes truly that the Physitian cures himselfe by accident as the Pilot wafts himselfe by event it being impossible that he should waft others if hee were absent In all arts that which is principally intended is the common benefit of all and because the Artist himselfe is one part of the whole body consequently some part of the benefit redounds to him So after the same manner hee that sits at the helme of a State amongst others steers the same for his own ends but according to Plato and and Cicero both his maine aime his supreame law ought to bee salus populi it is a fit title for Princes to be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and wee know in a Philosophicall understanding the shepheard though by kind farre more excellent then his charge yet in quantum a shepheard considered meerly in that notion with respect to his charge is subordinate and bound to expose himselfe for his sheep It is our Saviours saying and it was crowned with our Saviours practise Bonus Pastor ponit vitam pro ovibus Besides Advocates Physitians c. as they voluntarily choose their owne professions perhaps intend their own private profit in the first place the publick in the second such is the perversenesse of humane nature but as the State designes or authorizes them that intends publick ends in the first place I passe now to the second objection which maintaines Lord and Servant to be incompatible our Tenet is that Kings may have supreame Majesty as to all individuall subjects yet acknowledge themselves subject to the whole State and to that supreame Majesty which flowes perpetually from that fountaine In briefe according to the old received maxime the greatest Monarchs in the eye of Law policy and nature may be singulis majores universis minores they may obtaine a limited Empire or sub regno graviore regnum Our adversaries though they cannot disprove yet they much disrelish this doctrine they cannot say it is impossible for all Democracies Aristocracies mixt and limited Monarchies make it visibly true nor can they say it is incommodious for there are more mixt and limited States then absolute and those which are mixt and limited
dispatched to represse his impotent pride And in the behalf of the ten Tribes recoyling from the same pressures under his son Rehoboam a third Prophet was sent to put a hook into his nostrils Lastly though the Jewish Kings by having the Militia put into their hands more arbitrarily then the Judges had before obtained greater opportunity and not right of oppressing their subjects Yet that Militia did not consist of strangers or mercenaries or such Souldiers as had no other profession or right in the State nor were there constant Armies and Garisons kept in pay like those of the Romane Praetorians or Turkish Janizaries And hence it is that if Saul in a brutish unnaturall fury will attempt against the life of his son Jonathan or seek to compasse any other thing subversive to the State he cannot finde instruments barbarous enough amongst all his Sword-men for his black purposes but he shall presently meet with opposition and forcible resistance Thus far then we finde in the world no prints or footsteps of Tyrannie or of absolute Royalty nay nor of Royalty it self till the peoples cursed ingratitude and folly introduced it We must go beyond God and Natures Workmanship and impressions before we can discover any thing but Parentall Majestie or gentle Aristocracie or compounded or mixed Monarchie Since therefore it so fared with Gods people in point of liberty and safety out of Gods unspeakable favour under Patriarks Judges and Kings Now let us enquire how it fared with them under those forraigne Emperours by whom they were subjugated and made tributary Judea being seated neere the centre of the World became obnoxious to all the great viâ—ssitudes of change which happened to the foure vast over-ruling Monarchies The Babylonian or Assyrian first and the Persian next from the East spread victorious armes almost over all Asia After from the West successively both the Grecian and Roman made irruptions and in all these generall periods of Empire the State of the Jewes had its sense and share of the calamitie As for the two first Monarchies there is little in particular recorded and left to posteritie in Writing concerning their true formes and compositions as there can no Lawes be produced by which the Subjects had resigned all right of liberty and safety so neither can there be any produced by which they had precisely compounded for the same Some instances only we find mentioned that the lawes of the Medes and Persians were unalterable by the Prince and by this it seemes that the prime ensigne of Majestie which consists in making and abrogating of Lawes was not residing in the Emperour alone without the great Councell of his Sages For if the King could not alter Law at his own pleasure there was some other extrinsecall power circumscribed that pleasure and that power must be no other then the same which made Law for the true legislative power it selfe can never put fetters or manicles upon it selfe howsoever Aristotle fancies to himselfe a kind of Monarchie which he calls Lordly and this he placeth betwixt Royaltie and Tyrannie making it more unbounded than that of Kings but not so violent as that of Tyrants And this Dominicall rule he ascribes to the Barbarians rather than unto the Grecians and amongst Barbarians rather to those of Asia than to the Europeans Asia it seemes being more rich and fertile bred a people more esseminate and disposed to luxurie and so by consequence more ignoble and prone to servilitie Hereupon the Asiaticks were ever extreamly despicable in the eyes of more magnanimous Nations especially the Greeks for adoring and postrating themselves with so much devotion before their Princes Plutarch speaking of divers unmanly slavish Customs amongst the Persians refers that Empire to the kinde of such as are absolute and equall to tyrannicall Plato calls it Despoticall and Aristotle says It was then very neer approaching to tyrannicall Institution We may well then imagine That God in bringing such a yoke upon the necks of his chosen Inheritance did it for their chastisement and out of his indignation not for their advantage and out of his wonted loving kindnesse As for the Grecian Empire we know Alexander becoming instated with successe and tainted with the luxury of Persia soon began to degenerate from the moderation of his own native Countrey and those Politicall Rudiments which his Tutour Aristotle had seasoned him withall and we read how exceeding fatall it proved he and his Empire both perhaps had been longer liv'd if he had not rendred himself odious first to Callisthenes by his insolence and to all other men afterwards for his cruelty to Callisthenes This justly administers here an occasion to us to insist a little upon great Monarchies in that Notion onely as they are great Alexander King of Persia had no more right added to be insolent than had Alexander King of Macedonia but greatnesse of Dominion did alter him for the worse and since it doth so usually other Princes we cannot but take notice how this comes to passe For either the largenesse of Dominion doth require a proportionable Prerogative and so enable Princes to do greater mischief and after by accident becomes a temptation and provocation to abuse that ability or else we must not confesse that there is any difference in this respect betwixt a large and narrow Dominion Now that there is a great difference is so clear that I will not undertake any proof of it The Scripture ever speaking of the great Monarchies of the world pensils them under the lineaments of Lions Bears Eagles c. armed for rapine with Iron-teeth Brazen-talons and sharp horns c. and the wofull experience of all Ages seconds Scripture therein testifying them to be monstrous excessives in Nature and the perpetuall plagues of mankinde Yet let not me be taxed to condemn all excessive Monarchies as utterly unlawfull for though I doubt much whether ever any one of them were at first justly purchased or after by any one man rightly administred without Tyranny yet I conceive neither of these things totally impossible and so I will passe no judgement thereupon Howsoever Nature seems to have chalked out the just dimensions of a compleat Monarchie by Mountains Seas or other lines Spain Italy France c. seems to be cut out as proportionable Paterns and few Nations have ever prospered when their pride had transported them beyond their native Barricado's Hannibal after seventeen yeers War waged with the Romanes for the Mastery of the world at last sought a Composition in humble terms from Scipio and â—lamed that dangerous fond competition which had either engaged the Carthaginians beyond the Coasts of Affrica or the Romanes beyond the Coasts of Italy But alas it is ill successe that opens the eyes of Hannibal Hanno was before held his bitter enemy and disaffected to his Countreys prosperity for seeking an honourable Peace with the Romanes and preventing the mischiefs of an over-swelling Empire Yet by the way note in the mean
warre abroad or some other designe might lawfully be done any opposition of particular Laws or formalities notwithstanding But if the Dictator himself did walk excentrically or contrary to this end he was not exempted from resistance during his terme of command nor from giving an account after the expiration of the same The last thing inquirable into is the date or commencement of this Royall Law and this also is not agreed upon of all sides Arnissaeus will needs referre the time of this Law to Augustus his reigne but his reason is exceeding weak Aliàs enim saies he injusti possessores fuissent tam Augustus quam Tiberius caeteri regnatricis domus sucsessores nec leges ferre novas jure potuissent I shall not stand to answer this I shall rather herein follow Bodin for that he was not onely a grave Statesman but a learned Lawyer also Now in his judgement and if we may credit his reading this royall Law was first passed in Vespasians dayes and he gives some proofs and quotes Authorities for confirmation of the same Besides others he cites Suetonius censuring thus of Caligula Paerum abfuit quin diadema sumeret aec speciem Prinoipatus in regnum converteret Also of Tiberius he censures thus Faedissima servitute Remp. oppressit He cals his reigne meer tyranny and oppression Bodin therefore having defined Princely government to be either a State of Optimacy or Populacy wherein some one has preeminence above all other particular persons and is called Princeps that is Primus He concludes that the Common-wealth of Rome from Augustus and his immediate successors Vsque ad Flavium Vespasianum Principatus dicebatur and he closes all with this that from the battell of Actium the State of Rome was neither popular nor Aristocraticall nor regall but mixt of all By all this we see that our great Irish Prelate when he sends us for St. Pauls meaning to the Romane Empire before Vespasians dayes there to find out what soveraigne power is irresistible He sends us not to regall power more then to Aristocraticall or Democraticall I will therefore put the case stronger against my self and make it my quaere what irresistibility is due to Domitian after his Fathers and Brothers death And here first I may except against the Royall Law it self passed in Vespasians time as not being the compleat voluntary lawfull act both of Patritians and Plebeians For besides that the Senate had been now long over-awed and corrupted many wayes by the acts of the Court we know the Tributa Comitia are also totally depraved and evirtuated by being called out of the field into the palace insomuch that all liberty of choice and suffrage is lost to that great convention and it is now turned into a ridiculous solemnity Wherefore when Nero was to be deposed and all his barbarous acts of inhumanity to be accounted for no plebiscitum could bee obtained an act of the Senate only was past to declare him an enemy of mankind But I shall not insist upon this I shall grant the royall law to be a good law and enacted in a full assembly of both the States yet still I shall maintaine that the law-makers did not passe any thing to Vespatian or his successors but only in order to the publick good and safety nor did they grant away their owne original right and power in themselves by granting a fiduciary use and administration of that right and power to the Emperors The whole body of the law will furnish testimonies to this purpose that the Emperour is not proprietary of his subjects or hath any interest at all in them to his own use meerely Give me leave to frame a case upon supposition Conceive that the major part of the Patritiaens and Plebeians all over the Roman Empire are converted to the faith of Christ conceive that Domitian whose claime is by the law past to his Father hates Christianity and being incited by his South-saying Priests his Concubines and parasiticall Libertines to eradicate true Religion and inrich himselfe by the great spoyle of the professors thereof sets up such an idol and makes such an edict for the generall adoration thereof as the Persian Monarch once did Conceive that the Christians both Senators and Plebeians petition for their lives but are rejected and seeing a number of Assasins armed ready to rush upon them betake themselves to their defence and rely upon forcible resistance Conceive further that they first acquaint Domitian with their resolutions and thus publish the justice thereof May it please your sacred imperiall Majesty the peaceable and gentle principles of our pure Religion teach us rather to suffer moderate wrongs from private hands then to offer the least injurious violence to Princes Neverthelesse since after all our vain supplications wee see our selves remorsely designed to a generall massacre for not obeying you against God and since you expect that we should tamely surrender not only out estates and such other rights as are in our arbitrary disposition but our lives also and the Gospell it selfe of neither whereof wee are masters at discretion for asmuch also as we being the major part of the State and virtually that whole Community from which you derive your Commission and for whose behoefe alone you are bound to pursue that Commission and not to decline from the maine intendment of it and whereas further wee have not so totally devested our selves by intrusting you with power but that we are to give some account to God and the law if wee oppose not generall subversion wher wee may especially we being now farther intituled to defence by the extraordinary law of generall necessity of the benefit of which iron law particular men are not wholly abridged we are compelled hereby to protest and remonstrate to all the world that we take now up these one just arms only for defence to secure our Lives Liberties and Religion against the bloody emissaries which indeed from your undue warrant can derive no authority and not to bridle any just authority of yours or to attempt any thing against that idolatrous devotion which hath been hitherto established by law And because we impute it to the wretched falsities and artifices of calumniators that your Majesty is incensed against us and our Religion and misinformed of our intentions wee crave leave farther to declare that we though we are free-men and not slaves and have some share in Empire it selfe and are not meer subjects will yet continue in the same obedience as our Ancestors payd you for peace sake if we may not be driven to extreamities And as for our Religion it is no other then a holy blessed law revealed from heaven prescribed for the good of all immortall rationall creatures more beneficiall to Princes then Paeganisme and such as without diminution of power you may submit to and cast down your Crowne before In the like manner also it will concern your imperiall office rather to protect us then those