QUEST. XXIII. Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative, or a power to dispence with Lawes? And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie. (2) to QUEST. XXIII. Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative, or a power to dispence with Lawes? And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie. (3)

QUEST. XXIII. Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative, or a power to dispence with Lawes? And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie. (2)

power ordinary and extraordinary in men; and certainly, if you give to a King a Prerogative above a Law, it is a power to do evill, as well as good; but there is no lawfull power to do evill, and Doct. Ferne is plunged in a contradiction by this, for he saith, Sect. 9. pag. 58. I ask when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure, Was that power ordained by God? No. But an illegall will and Tyranny: But, Pag. 61. The power though abused to execute such a (wicked) commandment, is an Ordinance of God.

It is objected 1. For the lawfulnesse of an absolute Monarchy.

The Easterne, Persian, and Turkes Monarchy, maketh absolute Monarchy lawfull, for it is an Oath to a lawfull obligatory thing, and judgment, Ezech. 17.16, 18. is denounced against Iudah, for breaking the Oath of the King of Babylon, and it is called the Oath of God, and doubtlesse was an Oath of absolute subjection, and the power, Rom. 13. was absolute, and yet the Apostle calleth it an Ordinance of God. The soveraignty of Masters over servanes was absolute, and the Apostle exhorteth not to renounce that title as to ridged, but exhorteth to moderation in the use of it,

Ans. That the Persian Monarchy was absolute, is but a facto ad jus, and no rule of a lawfull Monarchy, but that it was absolute, I beleeve not. Darius who was an absolute Prince (as many think) but (I thinke not) would gladly have delivered Daniel from the power of a Law, and Dan. 6.14. And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him, and he laboured till the going downe of the Sun to deliver him, and was so sorrowfull, that he could not breake through a Law, that he interdicted himselfe of all pleasures of Musi[gap]ians, and if ever he had used the absolutenesse of a Prerogative Royall, I conceive he would have done it in this, yet he could not prevaile: But in things not established by Law, I conceive Darius was absolute, as to me is cleare, Daniel 6. v. 24. but absolute not by a Divine Law, but, De facto, quod transierat in jus humanum, by fact, which was now become a lrw.

2. It was Gods Oath, and God tyed Iudah to absolute subjection, ergo people may tye themselves. It followeth not, exeept you could make good this inference, God is absolute, ergo the King of Babylon may lawfully be absolute; this is a blasphemous consequence. 2. That Iudah was to sweare the Oath of absolute subjection in the latitude of the absolutenesse of the Kings of Chaldea, I would see proved;

their absolutenesse by the Chaldean Lawes was to command murther, Idolatry, Daniel 3.4, 5. and to make wicked Lawes, Dan. 6. v. 7, 8. I beleeve Ieremiah commanded not absolute subjection in this sence. But the contrary, Ier. 10. v. 11. They were to sweare the Oath in the point of suffering; but what if the King of Chaldea had commanded them all, the whole holy Seed, men, women and children▪ out of his Royall power, to give their neckes all in one day to his sword, were they obliged by this Oath to prayers and [gap]eares, and only to suffer? and was it against the Oath of God to defend themselves by Armes? I beleeve the Oath did not oblige to such absolute subjection, and though they had taken Armes in their owne lawfull defence, according to the Law of Nature, they had not broken the Oath of God. The Oath was not a tye to an absolute subjection of all and every one, either to worship Idols, or then to sly, or suffer death. Now the Service-booke commanded in the Kings absolute authority all Scotland to commit grosser Idolatry, in the intention of the work, if not in the intention of the Commander, then was in Babylon. (We read not that the King of Babylon pressed the consciences of Gods people to Idolatry) or that all should either sly the Kingdome, and leave their inheritances to Papists and Prelates, or then come under the mercy of the sword of Papists and Atheists by sea or land. 3. God may command against the Law of Nature; and Gods Commandement maketh subjection lawfull; so as men may not now, being under the Law of God, defend themselves. What then? Ergo we owe subjection to absolute Princes, and their power must be a lawfull power, it no waies is consequent. Gods Commandement by Ieremiah made the subjection of Iudah lawfull, and without that Commandement they might have taken Armes against the King of Babylon, as they did against the Philistines, and Gods Commandement maketh the Oath lawfull. As suppone Ireland would all rise in Armes, and come and destroy Scotland, the King of Spain leading, then we were by this Argument not to resist. 4. It is denyed, that the power, Rom. 13. as absolute, is Gods ordinance. And I deny utterly that Christ and his Apostles did sweare non-resistence absolute to the Roman Emperour.

Obj. 2. It sesmeth, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of an absolute Monarch for ill doing, and we punished, yet the Magistrates will is the command of a reasonable will, and so to be submitted unto, because such a one suffereth by Law,

where the Monarches Will is a Law, and in this case some power must judge. Now in an absolute Monarchy all judgement resolveth in the Will of the Monarch, as the supreame Law: and if Ancestors have submitted themselves by Oath, there is no repeale, or redresment.

Ans. Who ever was the Author of this Treatise, he is a bad defender of the defensive warres in England, for all the lawfulnesse of warres then must depend on this. 1. Whether England be a conquered Nation at the beginning? 2. If the Law-will of an absolute Monarch, or a Nero be a reasonable Will, to which we must submit in suffering ill, I see not but we must submit to a reasonable will; if it be reasonable will in doing ill, no lesse then in suffering ill. 3. Absolute Will in absolute Monarches is no Iudge De jure, but an unlawfull and a usurping Iudge. 4. 1 Pet. 2.18, 19. Servants are not commanded simply to suffer (I can prove suffering formally not to fall under any Law of God, but only patient suffering. I except Christ, who was under a peculiar commandement to suffer.) But servants, upon supposition that they are servants, and buffeted unjustly by their Masters, are by the Apostle Peter commanded, v. 20. to suffer patiently. But it doth not bind up a servants hand, to defend his owne life with weapons, if his Master invade him, without cause to kill him: otherwise if God call him to suffer, he is to suffer in the manner and way as Christ did, not reviling, not threatning. 4. To be a King and an absolute Master, to me are contradictory; a King essentially is a living Law. An absolute man is a creature, that they call a Tyrant, and no lawfull King; yet doe I not meane, that any that is a King, and usurpeth absolutenesse, leaveth off to be a King: but in so far as he is absolute, he is no more a King, then in so far as he is a Tyrant. But further, the King of England saith in a Declaration. 1. The Law is the measure of the Kings Power. 2. Parliaments are essentially Lord Iudges to make Lawes essentially, as the King is, ergo the King is not above the Law. 3. Magna Charta saith the King, can doe nothing,

but by Lawes, and no obedience is due to him, but by Law. 4. Prescription taketh away the title of conquests.

Obj 3. The King, not the Parliament is the Anoynted of God, Ans. The Parliament is as good, even a Congregation of Gods. Psalme 82.1.

Obj. 4. The Parliament is the Court, in their Acts, they say,

with consent of our Soveraigne Lord.

Ans. They say not, at the Commandement, and absolute pleasure of our Soveraigne Lord. 2. He is their Lord materially, not as they are formally a Parliament, for the King made them not a Parliament, but sure I am, the Parliament had power before he was King, and made him King, 1 Sam. 10.17, 18.

Obj. 5. In an absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any will as will, but to the reasonable will of the Monarch, which having the law of reason to direct it, is kept from injurious acts.

Ans. If reason be a sufficient restraint, and if God hath laid no other restraint upon some lawfull King, yee reason, Then is Magistracy a lame, a needlesse ordinance of God, for all Mankind hath reason to keepe themselves from injuries, and so there is no need of Iudges or Kings to defend them from either doing or suffering injuries. But certainly this must be admirable. If God as Author of nature should make the Lyon King of all beasts, the Lyon remaining a devouring beast, and should ordaine by nature all the sheepe and Lambs to come and submit their corps to him, by instinct of nature, and to be eaten at his will, and then say, The nature of a beast in a Lyon is a sufficient restraint to keepe the Lyon from devouring Lambs. Certainly a King being a sinfull man, and having no restraint on his power, but reason, he may thinke it reason to allow rebells to kill, drowne, hang, torture to death an hundred thousand Protestants, men, women, infants in the wombe, and sucking babes, as is clere in Pharaoh, Manasseh and other Princes.

Obj. 6. There is no Court or Iudge above the King, ergo he is absolutely supreame.

Ans. The Antecedent is false. The Court that made the King of a private man, a King, is above him; and here are limitations laid on him at his Coronation. 2. The States of Parliament are above him, to censure him. 3. In case of open Tyranny, though the States had not time to conveen in Parliament, if he bring on his people an hoast of Spaniards or forraine Rebells, his owne conscience is above him, and the conscience of the people farre more, called conscientia terrae, may judge him in so farre, as they may rise up and defend themselves.

Obj. 7. Here the Prelate borrowing from Grotius, Barclay, Arnisaus; (or its possible he be not so farre travelled) for Doct. Ferne hath the same. Soveraignty weakned in Aristocracy cannot doe

its worke, and is in the next place to Anarchy and confusion. When Zedekiah was over Lorded by his Nobles, he could neither save himselfe, nor the people, nor the Prophet the servant of God Ieremiah; nor could David punish Ioab, when he was over-awed by that power he himselfe had put in his hand. To weaken the head, is to distemper the whole body, if any good Prince or his Royall Antecessors be cheated of their sacred right by fraud or force, he may at his fittest opportunity, resume it. What a sinne is it to rob God, or the King of their due?

Ans. Aristocracy is no lesse an ordinance of God, then Royalty, for Rom. 13.1. and 1 Tim. 2.1. All in Authority are to be acknowledged as Gods Vice-gerents, the Senate, the Consuls as well as the Emperour: And so one ordinance of God cannot weaken another, nor can any but by a lawlesse Animall say, Aristocracy bordereth with confusion; but he must say, Order and Light are sister Germanes to confusion and darknesse. 2, Though Zedekiah, a man voyd of God, were over-awed with his Nobles, and so could not help Ieremiah; it followeth not, that because Kings may not do this and this good, therefore they are to be invested with power to doe all ill: if they doe all the good that they have power to doe, they'l finde way to helpe the oppressed Jeremiahes: and because power to doe both good and evill is given by the Divell to our Scottish Witches, its a poore consequent, that the States should give to the King power absolute to be a Tyrant. 3. A State must give a King more power then ordinary, especially to execute Laws, which requireth singular wisdom, when a Prince cannot alwayes have his great Councell about with him to advise him. But, 1. That is power borrowed, and by loan, and not properly his own; and therefore, it is no sacriledge in the States, to resume what the King hath by a fiduciary Title, and borrowed from them. 2. This power was given to do good, not evill. David had power over Joab, to punish him for his murther, but he executed it not upon carnall fears, and abused his power to kill innocent Vriah, which power neither God nor the States gave him. But how proveth he the States took power from David, or that Ioab took power from David, to put to death a murtherer, that I see not. 3. If Princes power to do good, be taken from them, they may resume it, when God giveth opportunity; But this is to the Prelate Perjury, that the people by Oath give away their power to their King, and resume it when he abuseth

it to Tyranny: But it is no perjurie in the King to resume a taken away power, which if it be his own, is yet lis sub judice, a great controversie, Quod in Cajo licet, in Nevio non licet. So he teacheth the King, That Perjurie and Sacriledge is lawfull to him. If Princes power to do ill, and cut the whole Land off, as one neck (which was the wicked desire of Caligula) be taken from them by the States. I am sure, 1. This power was never theirs, and never the peoples, and you cannot take the Princes power from him, which was never his power. 2. I am also sure, the Prince should never resume an unjust power, though he were cheated of it.

P. Prelate. It is a poor shift to acknowledge no more for the Royall Prerogative, then the Municipall Law hath determined, as some smatterers in the Law say. They cannot distinguish betwixt a Statute Declarative, and a Statute Constitutive: but the Statutes of a Kingdom do declare onely, what is the Prerogative Royall, but do not constitute or make it, God Almightie hath by himself constituted it: It is laughter to say, the Decalogue was not a Law, till God wrote it.

Answ. Here a profound Lawyer calleth all smatters in the Law, who cannot say, that non ens, a Prerogative Royall, that is, a power contrary to God and mans Law, to kill and destroy the innocent, came not immediately down from Heaven: but I professe my self no Lawyer, but do maintain against the Prelate, that no Municipall Law can constitute a power to do ill; nor can any Law, either justly constitute, or declare such a fancie as a Prerogative Royall; so far is it from being like the Decalogue, that is, a Law before it be written, that this Prerogative is neither Law, before it be written, nor after Court Placebo's have written for it: for it must be eternall as the Decalogue, if it have any blood from so noble a house. 2. In what Scripture hath God Almightie spoken of a fancied Prerogative Royall?

P. Prelate. Prerogative resteth not in its naturall seat, but in the King.

God saith, Reddite, not, Date, render to Kings that which is Kings, not give to Kings; it shall never be well with us, if his annointed, and his Church be wronged.

Answ. The Prelate may remember a Countrey Proverb. He and his Prelates, called the Church, (the scum of men, not the Church) are like the Tinkers dogs, they like good company, they must be ranked with the King. And 2. Here a false Prophet, It shall never

be well with the Land, while Arbitrary power, and Popery be erected, saith he, in good sense.

P. [gap]elate. The King hath his right from God, and cannot make it away to the people. Render to Caesar, the things that are Caesars. Kings persons, their Charge, their Right, their Authority, their Prerogative are by Scriptures, Fathers, Iurists, Sacred, inseparable Ordinances inherent in their Crowns, they cannot be made away; and when they are given to inferiour Judges, it is not ad minuendam majestatem, sed solicitudinem, to lessen Soveraign Majesty, but to ease them.

QUEST. XXIII. Whether the King hath any Royall prerogative, or a power to dispence with Lawes? And some other grounds against absolute Monarchie. (3)

Answ. The King hath his right from God: What then, not from the people? I read in Scripture, The people made the King; Never: That the King made the people. 2. All these are inseparably in the Crown, but he stealeth in Prerogative Royall in the clause which is now in question? Render to Caesar all Caesars: And therefore saith he, Render to him a Prerogative, that is an absolute power to pardon and sell the blood of thousands. Is power of blood, either the Kings; or inherent inseparably in his Crown? Alas, I fear Prelates have made blood an inseparable accident of his Throne. 3. When Kings by that publike power given to them, at their Coronation, maketh inferiour Iudges, they give them power to judge for the Lord, not for men, Deut. 1.17. 2 Chron. 19.6. Now they cannot both make away a power, and keep it also; for the inferiour Iudges conscience hangeth not at the Kings girdle, he hath no lesse power to judge in his sphere, then the King hath in his sphere, though the Orb and circle of Motion be larger in compasse in the one, then in the other; and if the King cannot give himself Royall Power, but God and the people must do it, how can he communicate any part of that power to inferiour Judges, except by trust? Yea, he hath not that power that other men have in many respects.

1. He may not marry whom he pleaseth, for he might give his body to a Leper woman, and so hurt the Kingdom.

2. He may not do, as Solomon and Achab, marry the daughter of a strange god, to make her the mother of the heir of the Crown. He must in this follow his great Senate. 2. He may not expose his person to hazard of Warres.

3. He may not go over Sea, and leave his Watch-Tower, without consent.

4. Many Acts of Parliament of both Kingdoms, discharge Papists to come within ten miles of the King.

5. Some pernicious Counsellours have been discharged [gap] company, by Laws.

6. He may not eat what Meats he pleaseth.

7. He may not make Wasters his Treasurers.

8. Nor Delapidate the Rents of the Crown.

9. He may not dis-inherit his eldest son of the Crown, at his own pleasure.

10. He is sworn to follow no false gods, and false religions, nor is it in his power to go to Masse.

11. If a Priest say Masse to the King, by the Law, he is hanged drawn and quartered.

12. He may not write Letters to the Pope, by Law.

13. He may not by Law pardon seducing Priests and Iesuites.

14. He may not take Physick for his health, but from Physitians sworn to be true to him.

15. He may not educate his heir, as he pleaseth.

16. He hath not power of his children, nor hath he that power that other fathers have, to marry his eldest son, as he pleaseth.

17. He may not befriend a Traytor.

18. It is high Treason for any woman to give her body to the King, except she be his married wife.

19. He ought not to build sumptuous Houses, without advice of his Councell.

20. He may not dwell constantly where he pleaseth.

21. Nor may he go to the Countrey to Hunt; farlesse, to kill his subjects, and desert the Parliament.

22. He may not confer honours and high places without his Councell.

23. He may not deprive Iudges at his will.

24. Nor is it in his power to be buried where he pleaseth, but amongst the Kings.

Now in most of these twenty four points, private persons have their own liberty, far lesse restricted then the King.