QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects? (1) to QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects? (2)

QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects? (1)

THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill, there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects, because there be no such equality (say Royalists) betwixt the King and his people,

as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court, to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people, or to tye him to any punishment, if he faile, yet (say they) he is under naturall obligation in Gods Court to keepe his Oath, but he is comptible only to God, if he violate his Oath.

Asser. 1. There is an Oath betwixt the King and his people, laying on, by reciprocation of bands, mutuall civill obligation upon the King to the people, and the people to the King, 2 Sam. 5.3 So all the Elders of Israel came to the King to Hebron, and King David made a Covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they annoynted David King over Israel, 1 Chron. 11.3. And David made a covenant with them before the Lord, and they annoynted David King over Israel, according to the Word of the Lord by Samuel, 2 Chron. 23.2. And they went about in Iudah and gathered the Levites out of all the Cities of Iudah, and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Ierusalem. 3. And all the congregation made a covenant with the King Ioash in the house of God, 2 King. 11.17. and Jehoiada made a covenant betwixt the Lord and the King, and the people that they should be the Lords people, between the King also and his people, Eccles. 8.2. I counsell thee to keepe the Kings commandement, and that in regard of the Oath of God; then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the King and the people. 2. That was not a covenant that did tye the King to God onely, and not to the people, 1. because the covenant betwixt the King and the people is clearly differenced from the Kings covenant with the Lord, 2 King. 11.17. 2. there were no necessity that this covenant should be made publickly before the people, if the King did not in the covenant tye and oblige himselfe to the people; nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord is the House of God. 3. It is expresly a covenant, that was between Ioash the King and his people, and David made a

covenant at his Coronation with the Princes and Elders of Israel; therefore the people give the Crown to David Covenant-wise, and upon condition that he should performe such and such duties to them; and this is cleare by all Covenants in the Word of God, even the Covenant between God and man is so mutuall; I will be your God, and yee shall be my people. The covenant is so mutuall, that if the people breake the covenant, God is loosed from his part of the covenant, Zach. 11. v. 10.2. The covenant giveth to the beleever a sort of action of Law, and jus quoddam, to plead with God, in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that bindeth him by reason of his fidelity, Esay 43.26. Es. 63.16. Daniel 9.4, 5. and farre more a covenant giveth ground of a civill action and claime to a people and the free estates against a King, seduced by wicked counsell to make war against the Land, whereas he did sweare by the most high God, that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God. 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man, yea all solemne promises bring the covenanters under a Law, and a claime before men, if the Oath of God be broken as the Covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech, Gen. 21.27. Ionathan and David, 1 Sam. 18.3. the spies professe to Rahab in the covenant that they made with him, Iosh. 2. v. 20. And if thou utter this our businesse (say they) we will be quit of thine Oath, which thou hast made us to swear. There be no mutuall contract made upon certain conditions, but if the conditions be not fulfilled, the party injured is loosed from the contract. Barclay saith, That this covenant obligeth the King to God, but not the King to the people. Ans. It is a vaine thing to say that the people and the King make a covenant, and that David made a covenant with the Elders and Princes of Israel; for if he be obliged to God only, and not to the people by a covenant made with the people, it is not made with the people at all, nay, it is no more made with the people of Israel, nor with the Chaldeans, for it bindeth David no more to Israel, nor to Chaldea, as a covenant made with men. Arnisaeus saith, when two parties contract, if one performe the duty, the other is acquitted. Sect. Ex hujusmod ubi vult just. de duob. reis, l. 3. F. because every one of them are obliged fully. Sect. 1. Iust. eod. to God, to whom the Oath is made (for that is his meaning) and if either the people performe what is sworne to the Lord, or the King, yet one of the parties remaineth still under obligation, and neither doth the peoples obedience exempt the King from punishment,

if he faile, nor the Kings obedience exempt the people, if they faile, but every one beareth the punishment of his owne sin; and there is no mutuall power in the parties to compell one another to performe the promised duty, because that belongeth to the Pretor or Magistrate, before whom the contract was made. The King hath jurisdiction over the people, if they violate their Oath, but the people hath no power over the Prince, and the ground that Arnisaeus layeth downe is that, 1. The King is not a party contracting with the people, as if there were mutuall obligations betwixt the King and the people, and a mutuall coactive power on either side. 2. That the care of Religion belongeth not to the people, for that hath no warrant in the Word (saith he) 2. We read not that the people was to command and compell the Priests and the King to reforme Religion and abolish Idolatry, as it must follow, if the covenant be mutuall. 3. Iehoiada, 2 King. 11. obligeth himselfe and the King, and the people, by a like law to serve God, and here be not two parts, but three; the high Priest, the King, the People, if this example prove any thing. 4. Both King and people shall finde the revenging hand of God against them, if they faile in the breach of their Oath; but with this difference, and every one of the two, King and people by the Oath stand obliged to God, the King for himselfe, and the people for themselves, but with this difference, the King oweth to God proper and due obedience as any of the subjects, and also to governe the people according to Gods true religion, Deut. 17. 2 Chro. 29. and in this the Kings obligation differeth from the peoples obligation, the people, as they would be saved must serve God, and the King for the same cause, 1 Sam. 12. But besides this, the King is obliged to rule and governe the people, and keepe them in obedience to God; but the people is not obliged to governe the King, and keepe him in obedience to God, for then the people should have as great power of jurisdiction over the King, as the King hath oover the people, which is against the Word of God, and the examples of the Kings of Iudah; but this commeth not from any promise or covenant that the King hath made with the people, but from a peculiar obligation whereby he is obliged to God as a man, not as a King.

This is the mystery of the businesse, but I oppose this in these Assertions.

1. Assert. As the King is obliged to God for the maintenance of true Religion, so are the people and Princes no lesse in their place obliged to maintaine true Religion, for 1. the people are rebuked because they burnt Incense in all high places, 2 King. 17.11.

2 Chron. 33.17. Hos. 4.13. And the reason why the high places are not taken away, 2 Chro. 20.33. is given, for as yet the people had not prepared their heart unto the God of their fathers; but you will reply, elicite acts of maintenance of true Religion are commanded to the people, and that the places prove; but the question is De actibus imperatis, of commanded acts of Religion, sure none but the Magistrate is to command others to worship God according to his Word. I answer, in ordinary only, Magistrates (not the King only) but all the Princes of the Land, and Iudges are to maintaine Religion by their commandements, Deut. 1.16. 2 Chro. 1.2. Deut. 16.19. Eccles. 5.8. Hab. 1.4. Mic. 3.9. Zach. 7.9. Hos. 5.10.11. and to take care of Religion; but when the Iudges decline from Gods way, and corrupt the Law, we finde the people punished and rebuked for it, Ier. 15.4. And I will cause them to be removed to all Kingdomes of the earth, because of Manasseh the sonne of Hezekiah King of Iudah, for that which he did in Ierusalem, 1 Sam. 12.24. only feare the Lord —25. But if yee doe still wickedly, yee shall be consumed, both yee and your King. And this case I grant is extraordinary, yet so as Iunius Brutus proveth well and strongly, that Religion is not given only to the King, that he only should keepe it, but to all the inferiour Iudges and people also in their kind; but because the estates never gave the King power to corrupt Religion, and presse a false and Idolatrous worship upon them, therefore when the King defendeth not true Religion, but presseth upon the people a false and Idolatrous Religion, in that they are not under the King, but are presumed to have no King catenus so farre, and are presumed to have the power in themselves, as if they had not appointed any King at all: as if we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes, and to defend the body, if the right hand should by a Palsie, or some other disease become impotent, and be withered up; when ill is comming on the body, it is presumed that the power of defence is recurred to the left hand, and to the rest of the body to defend it selfe, in this case as if the body had no right hand, and had never communicated any power to the right hand at all. So if an incorporation accused of Treason, and in danger of the sentence of death, shall appoint a Lawyer to Advocate their cause, and to give in their just defences to the Iudge; if their Advocate be stricken with dumbnesse, because they have losed their legall and representative tongue, none can say that

this incorporation hath loosed the tongues that Nature hath given them, so as by Natures law they may not plead in their own just & lawfull defence, as if they had never appointed the foresaid lawyer to plead for them. The King, as a man, is not more obliged to the publick and regall defence of the true Religion, then any other man of the land; but he is made by God and the people King, for the Church and people of God's sake, that he may defend true Religion, for the behalfe and salvation of all. If therefore he defend not Religion for the salvation of the soules of all in his publick and royall way, it is presumed as undeniable, that the people of God, who by the law of nature are to care for their own soule, are to defend in their way, true Religion, which so nearly concerneth them and their eternall happinesse.

2 Assert. When the covenant is betwixt God, on the one part, and the King, Priests, and people on the other part, it is true, if the one performe for his part to God, the whole duty, the other is acquitted; as if two men be indebted to one man ten thousand pounds, if the one pay the whole summe, the other is acquitted: but the King and People are not so, contracting parties in covenant with God, as that they are both indebted to God for one and the same sum of compleat obedience, so as if the King pay the whole summe of obedience to God, the people is acquitted; and if the People pay the whole summe, the King is acquitted: for every one standeth obliged to God for himselfe; for the people must doe all that is their part, in acquitting the King from his Royall duty, that they may free him and themselves both from punishment, if he disobey the King of Kings: Nor doth the Kings obedience acquit the people from their duty. And Arnisaeus dreamed▪ if he believed that we make King and People this way partie contracters in covenant with God. Nor can two co-partners in covenant with God, so mutually compell one another to doe their duty; for we hold, that the covenant is made betwixt the King and the People, betwixt mortall men; but they both bind themselves before God to each other. But, saith Arnisaeu[gap], It belongeth to a Pretor or Ruler,

who is above both King and People, to compell each of them; the King to performe his part of the covenant to the people, and the people to performe their part of the covenant to the King. Now there is no Ruler but God, above both King and People. But let me answer: The consequence is not needfull, no more then when the King of Iudah and the King of Israel make a covenant to perform

mutuall duties one to another: no more then it is necessarie that there should be a King and superior Ruler above the King of Israel and the King of Iudah, who should compell each one to doe a duty to his fellow King; for the King and People are each of them above, and below others in divers respects: The People, because they create the man King, they are so above the King, and have a virtuall power to compell him to doe his duty: and the King, as King, hath an authoritative power above the People, because Royaltie is formally in him, and originally and virtually only in the People; therefore may he compell them to their duty, as we shall heare anon; and therefore there is no need of an earthly Ruler higher then both, to compell both.

3 Assert. We shall hereafter prove the power of the people above the King, God willing. And so it is false that there is not mutuall coactive power on each side.

4 Assert. The obligation of the King in this covenant, floweth from the peculiar obligation nationall betwixt the King and the Estates, and it bindeth the King, as King, and not simply as he is a man. 1. Because it is a covenant betwixt the people and David, not as he is the sonne of Jesse, for then it should oblige Eliab, or any other of Davids brethren; yea, it should oblige any man, if it oblige David as a man: but it obl[gap]geth David as a King, or as he is to be their King, because it is the specifice act of a King, that he is obliged unto, to wit, to governe the people in Righteousnesse and Religion with his Royall power. And so it is false that Arnisaeus saith, that the King, as a man, is obliged to God by this covenant, not as a King. 2. He saith, by covenant the King is bound to God as a Man, not as a King. But so the man will have the King, as King, under no law of God, and so he must either be above God, as King, or coequall with God; which are manifest blasphemies: for I thought ever, the Royalists had not denyed, but the King, as King, had been obliged to keep his oath to his subjects, in relation to God, and in regard of naturall obligation; so as he sinneth before God, if he breake his covenant with his people: though they deny that he is obliged to keep his covenant in relation to his Subjects, and in regard of politique or civill obligation to men. Sure I am, this the Royalists constantly teach. 3. He would have this covenant so made with men, as it obligeth not the King to men, but to God. But the contrary is true. Beside the King and the Peoples covenant with the Lord,

QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects? (2)

King Joash made another covenant with the People, and Jehoiada the Priest was only a witnesse, or one who in Gods name performed the rite of annointing, otherwise he was a subject on the peoples side, obliged to keep allegiance to Joash, as to his Soveraigne and Master. But certainly, who ever maketh a covenant with the people, promising to governe them according to Gods word, and upon that condition and these termes receiveth a throne and crown from the people, he is obliged to what he promiseth to the people, Omnis promittens facit alteri, cui promissio facta est, jus in promittentem; Who ever maketh a promise to another, giveth to that other a sort of right or jurisdiction to challenge the promise. The covenant betwixt David and Israel were a shadow, if it tye the people to allegiance to David as their King, and if it tye not David as King to govern them in righteousnesse; but leave David loose to the people, and only tye him to God; then it is a covenant betwixt David and God only: But the Text saith, It is a covenant betwixt the King and the People, 2 King. 11.17. 2 Sam. 5.3.

Hence our second Argument. He who is made a minister of God, not simply, but for the good of the subject; and so he take heed to walk in Gods law as a King, and governe according to Gods will, he is in so far only made King by God, as he fulfilleth the condition; and in so far as he is a minister for evill to the subject, and ruleth not according to that which the book of the Law commandeth him as King, in so far he is not by God appointed King and Ruler, and so must be made a King by God conditionally: But so hath God made Kings and Rulers, Rom. 13.4. 2 Chron. 6.16. Ps. 89.30, 31. 2 Sam. 7.12. 1 Chron. 28.7, 8, 9. This argument is not brought to prove that Jeroboam or Saul leave off to be Kings, when they faile in some part of the condition; or as if they were not Gods Vicegerents to be obeyed in things lawfull, after they have gone on in wicked courses: For, the People consenting to make Saul King, they give him the Crown, pro hac vice, at his entry, absolutely: there is no condition required in him before they make him King, but only that he covenant with them to rule according to Gods law: The conditions to be performed, are consequent, and posterior to his actuall coronation, and his sitting on the Throne. But the argument presupposing that which the Lords word teacheth, to wit, that the Lord and the people giveth a crown by one and the same action; for God formally maketh David a King by the Princes and Elders of Israels

choosing of him to be their King at Hebron; and therefore seeing the people maketh him a King covenant-wise, and conditionally, so he rule according to Gods Law, and the people resigning their power to him for their safety, and for a peaceable and godly life under him, and not to destroy them, and tyrannize over them; it is certain God giveth a King that same way, by that same very act of the people; and if the King tyrannize, I cannot say it is beside the intention of God making a King, nor yet beside his intention as a just punisher of their transgressions; for to me as I conceive, nothing either good or evill falleth out beside the intention of him, who doeth all things according to the pleasure of his Will; if then the people make a King as a King conditionally for their safety, and not for their destruction (for as a King he saveth, as a man he destroyeth, and not as a King and Father) and if God by the peoples free election make a King, God maketh him a King conditionally, and so by covenant; and therefore when God promiseth 2 Sam. 7.12. 1 Chron. 28.7, 8, 9. to Davids seed, and to Solomon a Throne, he promiseth not a Throne to them immediatly, as he raised up Prophets and Apostles, without any mediate action and consent of the people, but he promiseth a Throne to them by the mediate consent, election, and covenant of the people; which condition and covenant he expresseth in the very words of the people, covenant with the King, so they walke as Kings in the Law of the Lord, and take heed to Gods Commandements and Statutes to doe them ▪ Obj. But then Solomon falling in love with many outlandish women, and so not walking according to Gods Law, loseth all royall dignity and Kingly power, and the people is not to acknowledge him as King, since the Kingly power was conferred upon him, rather then Adonijah, upon such a condition, which condition not being performed by him, it is presumed that neither God, nor the people under God, as Gods instruments in making King, conferred any royall power on him. Ans. It doth not follow, that Solomon falling in love with strange women doth lose Royall dignity, either in the Court of Heaven, or before men; because the conditions of the covenant upon which God by the people made him King must be exponed by the Law, Deut. 17. now that cannot beare, that any one act contrary to the Royall Office, yea that any one or two acts of Tyranny doth denude a man of the Royall dignity that God and the people gave him, for so David committing two acts of tyranny, one of taking his owne faithfull Subjects

wife from him, and another in killing himselfe, should denude himselfe of all the Kingly power that he had, and that therefore the people after his Adultery and Murther were not to reknowledge David as their King, which is most absurd; for as one single act of unchastity is indeed against the matrimoniall covenant, and yet doth not make the woman no wife at all, so it must be such a breach of the Royall Covenant, as maketh the King no King, that anulleth the Royall Covenant, and denudeth the Prince of his Royall authority and power, that must be interpreted a breach of the Oath of God, because it must be such a breach upon supposition, whereof the people would not have given the Crowne, but upon supposition of his destructivenesse to the Common-wealth, they would never have given to him the Crowne.

Obj. 2. Yet at least it will follow, that Saul after he is rejected of God for disobedience, in not destroying the Amalekites, as Samuel speaketh to him, 1 Sam. 15. is no longer to be acknowledged King by the people, at least after he committeth such acts of tyranny, as are 1. Sam. 8.12, 13, 14, 15. &c. and after he had killed the Priests of the Lord, and persecuted innocent David without cause, he was no longer either in the Court of Heaven, or the Court of men to be acknowledged as King, seeing he had manifestly violated the royall covenant made with the people, 1 Sam. 11. v. 14, 15. and yet after those breaches David acknowledgeth him to be his Prince, and the Lords annoynted. Ans. The Prophet Samuel his threatning, 1 Sam. 17. is it not exponed of actuall unkinging and rejecting of Saul at the present; for after that, Samuel both honoured him as King before the people, and prayed for him, and mourned to God on his behalfe as King, 1 Sam. 16.1.2. but the threatning was to have effect in Gods time, when he should bring David to the Throne, as was prophesied, upon occasion of lesse sinne, even his sacrificing and not waiting the time appointed, as God had commanded, 1 Sam. 13. v. 13, 14.

2. The people and Davids acknowledgment of Saul to be the Lords annoynted, and a King, after he had committed such acts of Tyranny as seeme destructive of the Royall Covenant, and inconsistent therewith, cannot prove that Saul was not made King by the Lord, and the people, conditionally, and that for the peoples good and safety, and not for their destruction; and it doth well prove that those acts of blood and tyranny committed by Saul, were not done by him as King, or from the principle of Royall power

given to him by God and the people. 2. That in these acts they were not to acknowledge him as King. 3. That these acts of blood were contrary to the covenant that Saul did sweare at his inauguration, and contrary to the conditions that Saul in the covenant tooke on him to perform at the making of the Royall covenant. 4. They prove not but the States who made Saul King, might lawfully dethrone him, and annoint David their King. But David had reason to hold him for his Prince, and the Lords Anointed, so long as the people recalled not their grant of Royall dignity, as David or any man is obliged to honour him as King whom the people maketh King, though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man then Saul. Any Tyrant standeth in titulo, so long as the People and Estates who made him King, have not recalled their grant; so as neither David, nor any single man, though six hundred with him, may unking him, or detract obedience from him as King; So, many acts of disloyaltie, and breachcs of lawes in the Subjects, though they be contrary to this Covenant that the States make with their Prince, doth not make them to be no Subjects: and the Covenant mutuall standeth thus.

3 Arg. If the people as Gods instruments, bestow the benefit of a Crown on their King, upon condition that he will rule them according to Gods word; then is the King made King by the people conditionally: but the former is true; Ergo, so is the latter. The assumption is proved thus: because to be a King, is to be an adopted father, tutor, a Politick servant and Royall watchman of the State; and the Royall honour, and Royall maintenance given to him, is a reward of his labours, and a Kingly hire. And this is the Apostles argument, Rom. 13.6. For this cause pay you tribute also; (there is the wages) for they are Gods ministers, attending continually upon this very thing; There is the worke. Qui non implet conditionem à se promissam, cadit beneficio. It is confirmed thus. The people either maketh the man their Prince conditionally, that he rule according to Law; or absolutely, so that he rule according to will or lust: or, 3. without any vocall transactions at all, but only brevi manu, say, Reigne thou over us, and, (God save the King.) And so there be no conditions spoken on either side; Or, 4. The King is obliged to God for the condition which he promiseth by oath to performe toward the people; but he is to make no reckoning to the people, whether he performe his promise or no; for the people being inferiour

to him, and he, solo Deo minor, only next and immediate to God, the people can have no jus, no law over him by vertue of any covenant. But the first standing, we have what we seeke; The second is contrary to Scripture. He is not Deut. 17.15, 16. made absolutely a King to rule according to his will and lust; for, [Reigne thou over us] should have this meaning; Come thou and play the Tyrant over us, and let thy lust and will be a law to us: which is against naturall sense: nor can the sense and meaning be according to the third, That the people without any expresse, vocall, and positive covenant, give a Throne to their King to rule as he pleaseth; because, 1. it is a vain thing for the Prelate and other Mancipia Aulae, Court-bellies, to say Scotland and England must produce a written authentick covenant betwixt the first King and their People, because, say they, its the Lawes word, De non apparentibus & non existentibus eadem lex; that covenant which appeareth not, it is not. For in positive covenants that is true, and in such contracts as are made according to the Civill or Municipall lawes, or the secondary law of Nations: But the generall covenant of nature is presupposed in making a King, where there is no vocall or written covenant, if there be no conditions betwixt a Christian King and his people, then those things which are just and right according to the law of God, and the rule of God in moulding the first King, are understood to regulate both King and People, as if they had been written: and here we produce our written covenant, Deut. 17.15. Josh. 1.8, 9. 2 Chr. 31, 32.1. Because this is as much against the King as the people, and more; for if the first King cannot bring forth his written and authentick tables to prove that the Crown was given to him and his heires, and his successors absolutely and without any conditions, so as his will shall be a law, cadit causa, he loseth his cause (say they) The King is in possession of the Royall power absolutely, without any condition, and you must put him from his possession by a law. I answer, this is most false; 1. Though he were in mala fide, and in unjust possession, the law of Nature will warrant the people to repeal their right, and plead for it, in a matter which concerneth their heads, lives, and soules. 2. The Parliaments of both Kingdomes standing in possession of a nomothetick power to make lawes, proveth cleerely that the King is in no possession of any Royall dignitie conferred absolutely and without any condition upon him: and therefore it is the Kings part by law to put the Estates out of possession. And so

though there were no written covenant, the standing law and practice of many hundreth acts of Parliament, is equivalent to a written covenant.

2. When the people appointeth any to be their King, the voyce of Nature exponeth their deed, though there be no vocall or written covenant; For that fact of making a King, is a morall lawfull act warranted by the word of God, Deut. 17.15, 16. Rom. 13.1.2. and the law of Nature: and therefore they having made such a man their King, they have given him power to be their father, feeder, healer, protector; and so must only have made him King conditionally, so he be a father, a feeder, and tutor. Now if this deed of making a King, must be exponed to be an investing with an absolute, and not a conditionall power; this fact shall be contrary to Scripture, and to the law of Nature: for if they have given him Royall power absolutely, and without any condition, they must have given to him power to be a father, protector, tutor, and to be a tyrant, a murtherer, a bloody lyon to waste and destroy the people of God.

3. The Law permitteth the bestower of a benefit to interpret his own mind in the bestowing of a benefit, even as a King and State must expone their own Commission given to their Ambassadour, so must the Estates expone whether they bestowed the Crown upon the first King conditionally or absolutely.

For the 4th. if it stand, then must the people give to their first elected King a power to wast and destroy themselves, so as they may never controle it, but only leave it to God and the King to reckon together, but so the condition is a Chimera (We give you a Throne, upon condition you swear by him who made heaven and earth, that you will govern us according to Gods Law; and you shall be answerable to God only, not to us, whether you keep the covenant you make with us, or violate it;) but how a covenant can be made with the people, and the King obliged to God, not to the people, I conceive not. 2. This presupposeth that the King as King cannot doe any sin, or commit any act of tyranny against the people, but against God only; because if he be obliged to God only as a King by vertue of his covenant: How can he faile against an obligation where there is no obligation? but as a King he owe no obligation of duty to the people, and indeed so doe our good men expound that Psal. 51. Against thee, thee only have I sinned, not against Vriah; for if he sinned not as King against Vriah, whose life he was obliged to conserve as a

King, he was not obliged as a King by any royall duty to conserve his life. Where there is no sin, there is no obligation not to sin, and where there is no obligation not to sin, there is no sin. By this the King as King is loosed from all duties of the second Table, being once made a King, he is above all obligation to love his neighbour as himselfe, for he is above all his neighbours, and above all mankind, and only lesse then God.