at the sudden discharge of a peece of Ordnance behinde his back who otherwise having time to collect and summon his spirits would not fear to stand at the mouth of a charged Cannon in a good cause Thus it is with the godly and so it seems to be the Armies case a sudden gust or storme comming unawares startled them But since the Lord having drawn up their spirits filled what was empty and laid in promises on their hearts of his presence and protection Now they fear not what man can do but in the strength of God are resolved to break through all difficulties go forward in spight of all opposition hold their own and stand fast in the work making this use and advantage of their former slip to look the better to their steps and walkings and seek in their actings Gods glory the more The Second thing is The Covenant which oblieges to the preservation of the Kings Person and Authority Here as his manner is he takes out of the Remonstrance some pieces and broken sentences as that clause page 55. In the preseruation of true Religion and Liberty of the Kingdom so page 57. If it have an evil sense it cals for repentance 't was betwixt man and man Page 59. And after saith he you would exclude God from being any thing but a witness Before I come to his answer I shal propound some few things to the Readers consideration 1. A Covenant though lawfully made yet if afterwards it cannot be performed without sin in such case it binds not neither may it be kept For it is a truth without dispute we may not do evil that good may come thereof 2. That Covenant is not binding where the condition or thing is not performed upon which the promise or tye was made For instance the people oblieging themselves to preserve the Person of the King and His Authority intended withall their own Safety Liberties Rights upon this ground I say they Covenanted namely the publick safety seeing therefore the publick good is inconsistant with the preservation of his person and authority that covenant binds not for when something is promised for such a cause and afterward is found not to be that promise is void so Amesius 3. If men either implicitely or knowingly bind themselves to breake any Law of God or rule of justice in such a case the ingagement holds not specially in that particular and so farre as that clause extendeth To apply it if men oblige themselves to preserve the Kings Person and Authority c. and God in the mean time cals for justice their obligation must give place to his commandment But it will be objected how Joshua and the Elders of the Jews kept covenant with the Gibeonites Joshua 9. howsoever devoted to destruction I answer that covenant was lawfull see Deut. 2.26 Josh. 11.19 23. Judg. 2.12.14 2 Sam. 21.1 2.29 14. Deut. 20.10 By all which places it appeareth that they onely of the Canaanites were devoted to destruction who did not seek for peace for if they would sue for it upon these conditions to wit abjure their idolatry embrace the true religion of the Jews and submit themselves their land good and all they had to their dominion it was to be granted them Fourthly It is no binding oath when either there wants power and right in the administrator or the persons taking it are not capable of the thing put upon them and here to speake my minde freely I have not yet seen a cleer ground either for the one or other touching that covenant Fifthly Take notise when persons enter into covenant about things out of their power and right such covenants are neither lawfull nor to be kept I would willingly know what was meant by the preservation of the Kings person and authority whether notwithstanding all the tyranny and oppression he should commit it was yet intended to preserve him from justice and to keep him in his place of government if so then it was an unlawfull covenant protestation oath because they had no right or power to doe such a thing it being a thing against the Law of God nature and nations and so went beyond their bounds But if in taking it it was intended by preserving the person of the King his authority c. so far as it should be agreeable to justice law conscience it was tolerable and no otherwise These things premised the lesse will serve in reply to his answer 1. To that he saith God put the preservation of the Kings life and authority into the covenant on purpose to save him after all his sufferings Answ 1. This is onely his saying and we may deny it with as much reason truth and authority 2. If God save him not he means a temporall salvation or else speaks impertinently then he put him not into the covenant for such a purpose for Gods counsel and purpose shall stand But 3. Charity thinks no evil it is the rule of love when speeches or actions are doubtfull in themselves and in their report and may be taken either well or ill alwayes to interpret them in the best part The preservation of the Kings person is in the covenant but how if we will judge charitably seeing nothing is explained it is thus the covenanters intended the glory of God in the Kings preservation that is oblieged themselves so far as it be lawfull and honorable Secondly That oaths and covenants should be the main pillars of humane societies we grant but there is one thing which you still want and that makes you to erre namely distinctions doe you mean all covenants and oaths I desire to think better of you and that your meaning is onely just ones but howsoever hereafter learn to make distinction and it will prevent much stumbling in you 3. That these are the last and perillous times spoken of 2 Tim. 3 1. we will take it so and doe observe your Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} accusers you speak also of applying that text you need not goe farre to make application for certaine if your pamphlet were divided into ten parts nine of the ten would be found vile slanders and false accusations It may be the Lord will smite you and make your heart tender for it Mr. Sedgwick by this time is neer come to the proposals that the Person of the King may be brought to justice but before he takes of that he tels us This is a strange remedy against civill wars to lay aside treating Answ 1. We may well desire to have that laid aside which we assuredly know was devised and carried on to the prejudice and hurt of the publick and so a remedy worse then the disease 2. You mistake your self to say treating is laid aside for t is neither so nor so unlesse you will say that a sick man layes aside the meanes and remedy of health when he refuseth bloody and murderous mountebancks and quacksalvers and make choise of honest able and
punishment for so great an Offence And this they have since seconded in sundry other Declarations and Impeachments Fourthly For that most notorious falshood of his because his Excellency and the Councel of war crave that justice may be done to say It is the foule and black design of a few unbeleeving people I let it passe the Lord I know will rebuke him for it For as in this so in all the rest he manifests himself to be one of that number who have said with our tongue we will prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us But for the persons upon whom you have laid so grievous an aspersion this is their comfort and rejoycing in the Lord that as God knowes their hearts so he knowes the sincerity and singlenesse of them that they look at his glory in seeking after the publick good As the clouds can neither lessen the light of the sun nor let the course thereof because at the last they are scattered by the heat of the sun which shineth out most comfortable So the innocency of their persons and justnesse of their cause shal disperse and drive away all black clouds of calumniations and the mouth of him that speaketh lies shall be stopt Now we come to the great work propounded in the Remonstrance That that Capitall and grand author of our troubles the Person of the King may be brought to Justice for the Treason Blood and Mischief he is there guilty of Here I find Mr. Sedgwick in his answer to say very little to it But 1. That no Law takes hold of the King 2. The crown is his birth-right and inheritance for the rest it is either a justification of the King as to be better then they or bitter reproaches Because this is a high subject and a businesse a foote I shall therefore speak the more largely to it not de facto but de jure for the Treason Blood c. laid to the King I shall leave that charge to others more concerned in it only I shall shew what justly and lawfully may be done in such a case And for the Readers clearer information and better understanding of the point I shall here assert 5. things First That there is a supream and Soveraigne power alwayes residing in the people above Kings Secondly That all Kings in all places and at all times have been and still are subject to and under Law Thirdly That the people have the power not onely to call their Kings to an account but to censure and remove them for their tyranny and misgovernment Fourthly That no nation is so tied to any form of civill government but that it is lawfull for the people to alter it into another form or kind upon occasion Fifthly That amongst all the formes of civil Government Aristocraticall or popular is best and safest for the people For the first That every Magistrate be he Emperor or King is inferior to the whole Kingdome and people it may plainly be demonstrated 1. Because he is not only their servant but creature too being originally created by and for them now as every creator is of greater power and authority then its creature and every cause greater then its effect so the authority and power of the people which creates the Prince and his princely power and enlargeth limits or restrains it as there is cause must needs be greater then the Prince or royal power And though Principallities as generally considered be of God yet the constitution of Princes and their severall degrees of power are meerly from men hence it is that Peter speaking of Kings and their supremacy cals them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} every creature or ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2.13 because originally instituted limitted and continued by and for the use and service of the people whose creatures as we said ministers and servants they are and ought to be and from them receive their whole jurisdiction power and authority Besides howbeit principallities as generally considered be indeed of God yet the constitution of all Princes and their severall degrees of power are meerly from men and this cannot with any shew of reason be denied For if the regall authority of Princes were meerly from the Law of God and nature it should be the same and like it self in all Kingdomes but t is not the same and like it self in all kingdomes but as every people please and make a free choise of neverthelesse every form and kinde of government is equally lawfull and good in it self whether Monarchy Aristocratie or Democratie as all on all sides doe acknowledge 2ly It is a thing neither probable nor credible that any free people when they voluntarily incorporated themselves into Kingdomes of their own accord set up an elective King over them that there was such stupidity and madnesse in them as absolutely to resigne up their soveraign and popular power authority right to Kings and their heires for ever to give them an entire full and incontroulable supremacie over them and so to make the creature inferior to the creator the derivative greater then the primative the servants more potent then themselves and thus of free men to make themselves slaves and for their more safety to be more enslaved But the contrary appears by the peoples constant practise in all ages as we shall manifest hereafter But admit which with sence cannot be imagined that such a thing had been so yet the Fathers could not take in their posterity with them neither oblige them any way in point of equity and conscience to confirm and observe what they foolishly had done but their children afterwards might lawfully yea and ought to stand fast in the liberty which the law of God nature and nations had made them free and not be entangled in the slavish yoke and bondage of their fore-fathers Hence Amesius in his cases of Conscience lib 5. cap. 22. Qu. 2. resolves that all fatherly power is in procuring the good of children and shewes in the next cha. That liberty in naturall estimation is next to life it self and of many preferr'd before it 3. Common reason Law and experience manifests that the whole or greatest part in all publick or naturall bodies is of greater excellency power and jurisdiction then any one particuler member Thus in all corporations the court of Aldermen and common-councel is of greater power then the Major alone though the chief officer so the whole bench then the Lord chief Justice and the whole Councel then the President And it is Aristotles expresse determination Polit. lib. 1. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 8. lib. 4. cap. 8. what forme of government soever it be whatsoever seemes good to the major part of the people that is more excellent and to be preferred before any part or member thereof and that it is unfit the part should be before the whole and he gives for it his reason thus The people know what is profitable necessary
without any dispute For {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Justice of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to part or divide in two Hence {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Judge as it were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} because he cuts a thing in two equal parts So in the definition Justice is Perpetua constansque voluntas jussuam unicuique tribuens And for distributive justice which according to Logicians is either rewarding or punishing this later Judicatory Justice is qua Paenis debitas aequalitur unicuique distribuit which distributeth due Punishment equally to every one Again If the offender because he is great as a king or prince should therefore be spared it were directly to depart from Justice both in propriety of speech true definition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is a right judgment not respecting the person to wit for his greatnesse power place wealth c. Thirdly For Reasons I have this to say Wherefore Kings should be punished according to law if not more yet as much as other men 1 Because by their ill example they do more hurt than other men 2. Their sins do more provoke God and draw down Divine wrath upon a nation and therfore there is the greater reason that the Land should be purged of such pollutions 3. The taking of this course would be very much for the publick good and safety for if princes knew they should be punished as other men for their crimes according to law they would be as careful as other men to observe and keep the same Oderunt peccare mali formidine paenae 4. The practise of this would be a very helpfull means to save their souls for whence comes it to pass that they care not what they doe but because whatsoever they doe they know no man will punish them for it 5. If this course were taken there would not be such horrid and execrable wayes used to get Crowns as poysning and murdering of fathers brethren c. but conscience then and a desire to do good would be the chiefest motives leading men therunto 6. In constitution of a Prince whatsoever is confirmed upon a man in respect of office and authority it doth not any way make a change upon his Person neither puts him at any distance touching subjection to the Law more then he was before this relates only to a qualification that is the people judging him to be fit he is invested with a power and right to administer justice but for his personall estate that remaines the same as formerly neither is he by this exempted from Law either directive or coactive more then when a man is made a Judge Justice of peace or the like In this case Civil Magistrates and Church officers are alike what office or function soever a man hath in the Church of God he is still under the power of the Church and for his person the Church-censure can reach him still as it did before For the institution of Pastors Teachers or Elders doth not in the least exempt or priviledge such eclesiasticall officers from the highest censure of the Church more then any other member if there be just cause to proceed against them And there is something to this purpose in the Popish Cannon Law how in case of heresie the Pope ceaseth ipso facto to be Pope looseth his spirituall jurisdiction and authority and deserveth justly to be really deposed Can. si papa 40. Carer Azorius Antonine 3. part shewing that the office of a Pope adds nothing to the person of the man for howsoever he is above the rest for his place yet he is still subject to the Law and under censure yea to be deprived of jurisdiction and Papacie in case he prove an heretick For conclusion then this I positively affirm and will stand to it Where Kings are under Law and receive their Crownes from the people upon protestation and oath to keep the Laws and where the supream Soveraign power of a nation is invested in the Senate and people there Kings for their Tyranny and misgovernment may be convented judged and punished neither are they more exempted from the highest civill punishment then Eclesiasticall officers are from the highest Church-censure their persons are still in the same consideration as other mens persons are and therefore for their transgressions as other men may be judged and punished Now to come to the third particular which is That the people have power not only to convent but to censure depose and punish their Kings for their Tyranny and misgovernment For the confirmation of this I shall desire the Reader to take notise 1. What reasons there are for it 2. What Law 3. What Scripture proof 4. What prefidents and examples both of other nations and Kingdomes as likewise of our own 5. And lastly what the judgment is of learned men touching this thing Reas. 1. It is an undoubted rule of divinity and policie that it is more expedient that one man die though a Prince or King then the whole nation should perish John 11.50 18.14 If the right eye or right hand offend it must be pluckt out and cut off as in the naturall body if a member be so corrupt and putrified that unlesse it be taken away the whole body is in danger to perish in such a case for prevention and health sake every one wil allow the cutting it off so in the politick body when the safety of the whole lies in the removing of one or more unfound and bad members it must be don and it is necessary it should be so for it is a maxime in Philosophy that totum non subjicitur parti sed pars toti so again totum non regitur motu partis sed pars totius to which that is agreeable in the Poet immedicabile vulnus En se recidendum est ne pars sincera trahetur Reas. 2. Kings being the people officers ministers creatures as we said it must needs follow that they are responsable to their masters and makers and being found unfaithfull stewards they have power to displace them of their trust and office If the keeping of a city or castle be committed to a man and he betrayes the same to the enemy or dismantles the wals and fortifications to expose it unto danger is it questionable in such a case whether the State putting him into that trust may not call him to an account and punish him justly for it Reas. 3. When two men contract and covenant together upon certain conditions and termes if one party break the agreement the other is set free and no further bound to him either in point of Law or conscience When Kings break their coronation oaths and promises keep not the conditions and termes upon which they were elected and crowned but become tyrants the bond and knot between subjects and them is essentially broken neither is there any tribute duty custome or alleagance
and good for them better then their Kings who are their publick ministers and thus concluding itaque majorum rerum potestas jure populo tribuitur Therefore power of the greater things is by right the peoples 4. This may also appear by the histories and records of all Kingdoms in the world where Tyrants forc't not in by conquest and held not possession afterwards by force In the Romane state both under their Kings and Emperors the chief power in all things of highest concernment was alwayes in the Senate and people and so much Bodin grants That the people hadt he chief Soveraign power of enacting and confirming Lawes the Senates decrees being of no validity unlesse the people ratified them and if any of their Kings Consuls Emperors or Generals did things without their consent as making war concluding peace c. it did not bind but was meerly voyd unlesse the Senate and people together in a great assembly ratified the same by a publick Law But to let passe forreign examples our ancestors in this Kingdome which shewes what power was invested in the whole body of the people have not only constrained our Kings by threats yea force of armes to summon and continue Parliament but likewise compelled them to give their royal assents to Magna Charta Charta de Foresta Confirmatio Chartarum Articuli super Chart as with sundry other publick statutes of right and justice for common good and the subjects safety and to ratify them with their hands seales oathes proclamations against their will and liking which forced assents have been afterward justified and held good in law to bind these kings and their followers to the due observation thereof for where the lawes are convenient necessary or essentiall for the Kingdomes welfare the Subjects just liberty and safety and such as the King by duty and oath is bound to assent to there if they compel the King to give his assent in case of denyal the assent is binding and shall not be voyd by Duresse because the King doth no more then he is obliged by oath law and duty to condiscend unto and the people whose power is above him may justly require 5. And now in answer to Mr. Sedgwick affirming the Crown to be the Kings birth-right a thing which I utterly deny and have clear reasons against it For 1. Howsoever here in England the Crown hath gon often by discent yet never was it granted absolute successive and heretary but arbitrary and elective Hence many of our Kings have come to the crown without any hereditary title by the peoples free election and afterward obeyed as lawful Kings Thus Anno. 975. after Edgars disease not Ethelred the heir to the former King but Edward crowned So Edmund heir to King Ethelred refused and Canutus a stranger elected and crowned So Edmund and Alfred both heirs set a side and Harald and Hardiknute elected and crowned Kings I might also shew how upon the death of King Harald it was enacted by the English Nobility That none of the Danish blood should any more reign after them So after William the first not Robert the elder brother but Rufus the younger brother chosen So after the desease of Richard the first John Earl of Morton was crowned and Arthur the right heir refused The like might be manifested of other nations how their kings did not reign heretarily and by succession from father to sonne but those were chosen Kings amongst them which were held worthy which election was made by the people and revokable by them at any time and whensoever the Crown went now and then by succession it was by usurpation rather than right From humane Histories we might come to the holy Scriptures and shew that the original creation and constitution of the Isralites Kingdoms proceeded only from the authority and power of the people and that solely by Divine permission rather than institution as is apparant by Deut. 11.14 15. And howsoever the Lord did somtimes immediatly nominate the persons of those that should reign over them as Saul David Jehu Jeroboam c. yet the people did constantly confirme and make them Kings and gave them their royal authority none being made Kings by Divine appointment but such as they willingly accepted approved and confirmed to be kings Gods previous designation being but a preparative to their voluntary and free election Moreover It is very cleer that the kings of Judah and Israel were subordinate in power to the people and not only counselled but usually over-rul'd by them in al matters of publick concernment for though they asked a king yet they reserved sufficient authority to themselves to restrain him and to order and dispose of the publick affairs as they thought good But these things we have reserved to a larger treatise 2. Howsoever Bodin contrary to Aristotle Tacitus Lipsius Toloso Machavel Kirchnerus and the greatest Polititions prefers succession before election of Kings and instanceth several nations to be heretary yet this I say quo jure from the beginning it was not so for every heretary Crown is through custom not of right howsoever people have let it passe and admitted them in such a way yet this hath been still in the people a free act and it was in their liberty and power to have chosen any other 3. Whereas some Kings require an oath of their subjects that their heirs and successors shall enjoy the Crown after them and the grounds of taking this oath is upon an opinion that the Crown goes by succession from father to child so that in their understanding they give not any thing away from themselves but only acknowledg what they conceive the person already is Now this oath being given and taken upon a false ground cannot bind in point of conscience because if they knew it was not the others right they would not swear neither meant they in the least to pass away any thing of their own right for they thought it was the others properly before And here by the way observe how vain and groundlesse that common question pro and con is amongst Polititians Statists Civilians and some Divines whether succession or election be the better as if truly and rightly there were some such thing as succession whereas it is neither so nor so I confesse after a Kings desease the people may elect and crown the son and his sons son but that any such thing can be claimed or chalenged as a birth-right it is altogether untrue there is no Kingdom in the world where the crown descends from the father to the son by any true and proper succession the most that can be is not simple succession but a succession limitable and conditional that is a promise on the peoples part for some considerable causes that the son shall be crowned after the fathers death if he be fit to govern and they see it is for their good But that any people should absolutely bind themselves to have the son reign over