proper to God only to bind the conscience So sayes Calvin lib. 3. instit 9. cap. sect 15. And Sibrandus lib. 8. de pontifice Romano cap. 7. Vasques lib. 1. Illust contravers 28. 1. And these would only have the Magistrats power to reach the body or Fortunes of the subject alleadging no humane power can go further To which we oppose these following arguments 1. A man may bind his own conscience as is confessed by all in the case of Lawfull vowes they are in our own power before they are made Act. 5 4. But after that they are Gods bondes and do bind the conscience to performance Wherefore that doeth not altogether hold that God only can bind the conscience Otherwayes either vowes do not bind or else no man can ingage himself in them either of which to affirme is absurd I find Alsted Theol. cas cap. 2. reg 2. to make great use of this argument 2. In the Rom. 13. we learne that Magistrats have power and authority to enact Laws and therefore they are called powers 2. That these Lawes of the Magistrat do receive strength and force from the Law of God for the powers that are sayeth he are ordained of God 3. That the Laws made by the Magistrat have power to bind conscience v. 5. We must be subject not only for wrath but conscience sake And if we resist them we resist the ordinance of God and pull down Gods judgment and bring condemnation on our selves when we so do sayeth the Text verse 2. And therefore to contemne the Laws of men tho not expressely for then they are Gods but virtually contained in the word of God is to be disobedient to God himself 3. Consider that conscience hath relation not to God only but to man also Acts 24 16. Conscience both towards God and man it hath the principal relation to God as being the absolute binder thereof yet in and through him to man and his Laws also For it is to be here remarked that at that same instant Saint Paul was pleading before ane Heathen Magistrat 4. We must consider that we are not only to make conscience of Religion and the worship of God but of civil things also For tho things that are civil as civil do not of themselves and immediatly bind the conscience yet by vertue of ane higher Law to which they are subordinat and subjoyned being made by the Magistrat as the Minister of God and backed by his Authority which is Gods Seall so they oblidge the conscience and not to performe obedience to such Laws as for instance sumptuary Laws made for moderating expence at banquetings or burialls or in apparel or the like such as Aulus Gellius makes mention of in his 2 Book Cap. 24. out of Lucilius the old Poet and the Lex Fannea Emilia Ancia Iulia c. To contemne such Laws tho in it self be a civil fault only yet in another respect it is a moral sin the Law being made contrary both to Justice Charity Peace Saftey and Wel being of the common wealth 5. Who ever resists the ordination of God offends God but every offence of God is a wounding of conscience wherefore of necessity it must follow by the Law of contraries that we are bound in conscience to obey the Lawes of man He is the Minister of God Rom. 13. Gods Legat and Ambassador therefore what contempt he or his Laws for both are one the King being lex animata do sustaine from us it redoudes unto God whose Minister he is And God takes it done to himself what is done to or against the Magistrat Toutch not mine anointed 6. Every just and good Law flowes from the Law of God the Law of nature as the Stream from the Fountain And therefore hes an Intrinsick power of direction and obligation as a rule of life and manners The deviating from which is a sin and consequently a wounding of the conscience For if conscience be the sence of sin and fear of judgment as some discribe it tho rather by its effects then by it essential nature as else where I shall make evident then it is certain what ever induces to sin concernes conscience and brings along with it the fear of judgment but violating of a civil Law does inferr sin for every particular breach is a violation of the general Law of obeying the Magistrat and becomes a morall sin against the fifth Commandement Therefore by the rule of contraries the civil Law doth infallibly bind and inevitably oblidge the conscience 7. Every Law is either contrary to the will of God or conforme to it every Law is either just or unjust But herein we must cautiously observe a twofold injustice either intrinsick or extrinsick The intrinsick is when the mater of the Law it self is injust The extrinsick is when a thing intrinsically just in it self may be unjustly commanded and imposed upon me The first only takes away the obligation to obedience as dissolving the intrinsick ty of conscience for suppose a Prince should command something that in it self were not unjust meerly to please his own ambitious Tyrannical or covetous humor that indeed would be unjust on his part but I and every other subject were oblidged to obey tho he should sinne in commanding yet I should sinne if I obeyed it not But on the other hand no humane Laws that on the matter are unjust can obleidge the conscience for it is better to obey God than man From whence we may draw this invincible argument from the intrinsick nature of reason it self that no man at one and the same time can be oblidged to contradictories but if a man were oblidged to performe ane unjust Law he should be oblidged in conscience to that to the not performance whereof the Law of God oblidges him And to performe and not performe are contradictories Whereas humane Laws in things just oblidge the conscience by a supervenient obligation to the Law of God for obligatio prior tollit posteriorem But on the other hand if Laws be enacted by these who are not invested with lawfull power then they do not oblidge the conscience no more then a Sentence given by one who is no judge can oblidge the party to performance for where the power is wanting the efficient cause of the obligation is wanting also 8. We must distinguish betwixt a direct and indirect a mediat and immediat obligation we doe confesse the Lawes of man do not immediatly and directly oblidge the conscience but by vertue of Gods command requiring to give obedience to the Magistrat and his Laws under the paine of Gods wrath and displeasure We are bound to performe civil duties on grounds of Religion and so humane Laws tho not qua humane binds the conscience It s Gods command binds my conscience to observe mans as ye see it clearly and expressely Eccles 8 21. I Counsel you to keep the Kings commandement and that in regarde of the Oath of God It
ruere It doeth not so much runne amongst the Steep-rocks as Rush Strabo in his 14 Book and Pomponius Mela in the description of Pamphilia tells us of a River called Cataracta adeo rapidus ab alta petra descendens ut longissimè strepitus exaudiatur Here it s taken for a deludge or open flood-gate of rebellion such as overflowed us lately and the Waters are not yet fully abaited Dii talem terris avertite pestem The Hebrew word is Arrubah which signifies the Flood-gates as Gen. 7 11. The windows of Heaven were opened But in the deludge of rebellion the windowes of Hell are opened For the Devill himself was the first rebell and by our scattering is his Kingdom gathered Lin. 8. Beawtie and bandes In allusion to that of Zech. 11. and 7. which tho interpreters apply to the Government of the first and second Covenant Old and New Testament Jews and Christians as Vatabulus and others yet here in a more Politick sence it signifies the Government of Church and State Lin. 12. Isthmus Is a neck of land on each side inclosed with Seas whereof we read several in Geographie in Aegypt Chersonesus the Euxin Sea and this of Peloponesus betwixt the Aegean and the Ionian Seas where Corinth stands hence it is that Corinth is called Bimaris both by Horat. lib. 1. carm Bimarisque Corinthi menia And Ovid. Fast 4. Hadriacumque patens latè Bimaremque Corinthum And Isthmus is so called by Ovid. Eleg. 10. lib. 1. Trist At postquam Bimarem cursu superavimus Isthmum Vide Martiani Capellae Satyricon Lib. 6. de tertio sinu Europae pag. mihi 210. where he hes the Description of Isthmus and Corinth with Crotius notes which he wrote being but fourteen yeares of age But Isthmus Metaphorically may be taken for any thing that divides betwixt two extreames And some hes expressed by this word the midle part or bridge of the nose as Iunius in his nomenclatura tells us of some Physitians that so expressed narium sepimentum And the learned Budeus in his annotations on the Pandects sayes this word properly signifies the Neck or the wessand of a Man and by a Metaphore only comes to signifie that narrow part of a continent inclosed by two Seas from whence sayes he that of Peloponesus by ane Antonomasie only is so called And tho there be but five miles distance yet neither Demetrius Caesar Nero nor Caligola who all attempted it were able to break throw a passage Whence it came into a Proverb Isthmum perfodere in eum qui magno conatu sed irrito aliquid moliretur Vide Plin. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sueton in Nero Cap. 19. Et in vitam Calig Cap. 21. And so generally it is exponed interstitium intercapedo Ab jenai ire The opposite whereof is porthmos Vide Calepine in voce SECTION IV. Lin. 9. It 's non-sence That Princes hes no power of subjects conscience CAP. III. Shewing that the King hes power of the conscience of the subject and in what sence the same may safely be maintain'd FOr clearing this we must consider these three First what conscience is Secondly what the nature of the obligation is that binds the conscience Thirdly the efficacie of this obligation Conscience by the ancients generally and more particularly by Clemens Alexandrinus is called Censor Corrector and Paedagogus animae But it will not be proper here to expatiat much on this subject I having written a treatise of the nature effects properties obligation acts and consequence of conscience in several Sermons Preached at Libertoun on Act 24 16. and Acts 2 37. and Rom. 2 15. which by assistance of God and good neighbours I intend shall see the light of the World It shall only now suffice to tell that I think it is no Act either of will or understanding but a proper facultie of the Soul it self which of all the faculties of man hes received the least hurt by the fall it even in the breasts of the most unregenerat taking ordinarly Gods part It may suffice therefore to define it that facultie whereby application of general knowledge is made to particular actions followed allwayes with joy or grief In which sence the Scriptures are not the adequat rule of conscience otherwayes the Heathen which never heard the Scriptures had had no conscience contrair to Rom. 2 14 15. The second thing to be considered is what it is to bind the conscience which is brieflie this to impose a necessity of obedience upon it so that the sence of the question is whither or not humane Laws do impose such a necessity of obedience on the conscience that the contraveening thereof is not only lyable to a temporal punishment but deservedly also to the anger and offence of God The difference betwixt mandats and Laws perpetual and cursorie constant and accidental obligations we cannot stand to discusse For the third we must 1. consider that the power of making Lawes is the prerogative Royal given by God unto Kings without which it were absolutly impossible for them to attaine the ends of Government and therefore he that said by â—e Kings Reigne said also by me Princes Decree Justice that is ordaines makes and executes just and wholsome Lawes Wherefore King and Law-giver are put together in Scriptures Isa 33 22. The Lord is our King the Lord is our Law-giver Rom. 13 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2 13. shewes what power Kings are invested with and there is a great reason for it the execution of the Law being that mean whereby the publict good may both be preserved and promoved and wherein essentially the office of the Magistrat doth consist and the difference betwixt him and his subjects lyes for which end God conferrs on the Magistrat Numb 11 17. a particular Spirit of Government 1 Sam. 10 6. Samuel tells Saul that the Spirit of God shall come upon thee and thou shalt be turned into another man And this by Solomon Prov. 20 12. is called the seeing Eye as subjection is called the hearing Eare. It was the Magistrat ruling by the civill Law even before it was Christned to which we are commanded to be subject by the Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 13. and Saint Peter 1 Pet. 2. And to the Priviledge of the Roman Policie Saint Paul did appeal Acts 25 10. All which invincibly infer not only ane approbation of the Law being made but also the Magistrats power in making of it Neither was this ever denyed but by Carolostadius and the late rable of Monsters amongst our selves who would send us from our Laws as far back as the judiciall System amongst the Jews tho it be confessed by all to be abrogated as being only temporary and accommodat to certaine circumstances of times places and persons which now can have no obligation upon us 2. These Laws made and promulgat by the Magistrat are of force to bind the conscience many both Protestants and Papists are down right against this proposition affirming it
City Province Nation And from his Loyns Because the race did spring The Father of the Familie was King And Priest too in one Person which at death Joyntlie to his first borne he did bequeath So for two thousand years the World did see The Priest-hood joyn'd with Soveraignty So Numa so Augustus King and Priest So all the Kings of Malabar in th' East Which tho that God among the Jews divided Yet were all causes by their Kings decided Which did concerne the Church not State alone By Ezekia David Solomon Jehu Jehosophat Josia holy Whose power in Church was Legislative whollie To shew that this belongs in each respect Unto the ancient Mishpat-Hamelek Melchisedeck expresly is nam'd King Before he is cal'd Priest which very thing The Gallicks against Boniface do show His Crown he to the Priest-hood did not owe. Moses King in Iesurum too their type The Trumpets and the Tables both did keep And what to him pertain'd GOD doeth allowe To every other Monarch as his due This argument Eusebius doeth repeat From Moses unto Constantin the great As consequent about the convocation Of the Nice Council and its Confirmation The Law of Ceremonies as behests Moses not Aaron gave unto the Priests Long after that to shew it was in force David did constitute each Priest in 's course And Solomon that was both wise and just Did Abiathar from the Priest-hood thrust This pow'r continued till the Virgins birth When GOD was seen in flesh upon the Earth Of which authority he nee'r bereft it But as he found the Government he left it And so the Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction Of Princes is by nature not by fiction Founded on reason practice and consent Unalterable as the Firmament And this our Saviour did suppose to be Ane uncontrolable and firme decree Wherefore St. Paul to Caesar makes appeal To shew this Iurisdiction cannot faile Thus Kings doe reign as Scriptures doe confess As for our Honestie so Godliness If it be said why did our Saviour Bequeath not by his testament such a power Our Saviour lived under these ye know That did imploy their power to overthrow His Church and followers and therefore why Should he give them Commission to destroy He only to the subject did injoyn Meekness and Patience and Subjection But in no-wayes either in weight or measure Determines he the rights belong to Caesar Only according to Ius Gentium Render to Caesar what is due to him The Jurisdiction of the Magistrate In Church affaires bears a far higher date Then our blist Saviours birth Coercive power By nature lodgeth in the Governour Yea Christ and his Apostles acted then In the Capacitie of private men And left it only in the Soveraignes hand Which he forbad all subjects to command And therefore at his very dying hour He did reject all Secularie power But when the Kings grew Christian Constantine Did act in that capacitie again Which he with faith and Courage too did shew When he the Coventickles overthrew Of the Curst Donatists and stoutly he Dispell'd the mists of Arian heresie Nor was he singular in these each one Of his Successors that same way have gone 〈◊〉 the whole bodie of the civil Lawes Do shew anent th'Ecclesiastick cause And should a Monarch would ye think it meet When he turns Christian his power abate Nay word by word the Apostle he averrs Our Kings as Kings Liturgick Officers Prince of the Kings of th' Earth our Saviour is Then sure by right all Christian Kings are his This was in force until St. Peters chaire Did sleily rob this power from the Empire But at the Reformation we exprest it In our Confessions the Pope unjustly wrest it And yet there is a Spiritual exercise Of preaching Sacraments and of the Keys Which is peculiar to the Priest alone Saul that did this mistake he lost his throne All which who darr deny he needs no more Of arguments But O what hellebore VI. May not Heretical Erronious Oppressing Princes and Idolatrous Resisted be or otherwayes Religion Shall go to wrack and all shall be undone Yes if for wiser men ye needs must pass Then Moses or th' inspired Prophets was Or if your selves more holy men ye call Then Christ or yet St. Peter or St. Paul Six hundred thousand and four thousand more Under their Chiftain Moses weapons bore All men of valour on Nil's fertile plaines Whose Inundation serves in stead of raines Yet nothing's done without express consent Of Pharoah then who had the Government Tho tyrant and oppressor both And so Shadrach and Mesach and Abednego Were thrown in flamms yet not a word we hear Of stirring people to take sword or speir And Daniel cast into the Lyons den Yet praying for the King Darius then Yea with a miracles expence Our LORD Did tribut to Tiberius afford To Herod Pilat and the Sanhedrim He did submit although they sentenc't him Unto ane unjust and accursed death His Doctrine too did meek submission breath Give unto Caesar what is Caesars due And pray for those hes persecuted you And Pilats power he from above confest Iohn 19 11. And Challeng'd Peter for his furious hast Charging his Champion with that dreadful word Who takes the Sword shall Perish with the Sword And for the Apostles none amongst them all Taught to resist St. Peter or St. Paul St. Peter sayes directly contrare it To every ordinance of man submit These that dispise dominion or defame Authority Iudgement will follow them And good St. Paul obey them that you rule For Conscience sake be Subject every Soul Resisters on themselves Damnation bring Ane Item sad to Traitors to the King This Doctrine with their blood they sealing Died Paul was beheaded Peter Crucified In Julian the vile Apostats reign The Christians only tears for armes did bring They were not able to resist they 'l say Tertullian tells in his Apologie The Christians then they were in number more Then drops of raine or sands upon the Shore Cities and Countreys both they fill in swarmes They every where abound in peace and armes Yet they Submission unto armes preferr Under a Tyrant and Idolater Six thousand and six hundred sixty six In the Thebean Legion never sticks For to submit to Decimation Of Maximinian for Religion Then Traitors is' t a sport to you or laughter First to be hanged here then damn'd hereafter VII Courage Great Prince and make rogues stand in awe It 's Execution that 's the Life of Law Wherefore hes truth it self call'd Princes GODS But that they 'r Masters of rewards and rods But that they can with Majesty command Or break in pieces who doe them withstand Princes do shew how they deserve their Crowns By gracious favours or by aw-full frownes Courage and Wisdom both a Prince maintaines Undaunton'd valour must have breast and braines Your Highness still makes good your Saviours words These that are mighty are call'd bounteous Lords Patern of vertues Patron of all artes Who conquer'd Armies
commoda auxit Lin. 12. Malabar in the East Ferdinandus Lopez Lib. 1. Histor Indicarum But to come nearer home the learned Doctor Basier in his Book of the liberty of the Britannick Church in that part that he hes from Father Barns makes it out from Authentick Chronicles and Histories and statutes also within themselves that the Kingdom of England hath been ane entire Empire Governed by one head supream both in spiritualls and temporalls And this he makes out by eighteen several instances in statutes by Kenulphus Edward the Confessor Edward the first the third the fourth Richard the third Richard the second justifying the Act of Henry the eight That it was according to the ancient supremacy of all the Kings of England over all Persons and in all causes whatsomever aswell Ecclesiastick as temporal Lin. 20. Mishpat Hameleck CHAP. IV. What is the meaning of the Mishpat Hameleck amongst the Iews the jus Regium or the nature of the Prerogative Royall WHat this Mishpat Hameleck was I find it mightily debated amongst the learned some will have it to be jus Regium others only consuetudo Regia the one the allowance and ordinance of God the other the Usurpation and Tyranny of man the greatest blessing or scourge that either the mercy or Justice of God sends to mankind The first and chief place we read of it is 1 Sam. 8 11. where we have it translated the manner of the King in Deut. 17 16. we have the Kings power and Prerogative described by God himself but it is not termed there the Mishpat And how to understand it here is thought a very knotty and puzeling difficulty The perplexity whereof lyes in this that either de jure the Kings of Israel and in them all other Princes ought to do after the manner there described But this we see is directly contrary to the duty of a King prescribed by God himself in Deut. 17 16. He shall not multiply Horses but here in 1 Sam. 8 11. we have mention made of Chariots and Horse-men in multitudes which cannot be without multitudes of Horses Deut. 17 17. Ye shall not multiply Silver or Gold but here verss 14 15 16. He shall take your Fields Servants your Vine-yeard your Cattell and dispose of them to his minions and attendants Deut. 17 20. He must not be proud but here v. 17. All must be his Servants and run and walk as he pleases Ezek. 45 9. Take away your exactions from my people And Chap. 46 18. The Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance to thrust them out of their possessions Here we find the quite contrary Their Fields their Vine-yeards their Sones their Sheep their Servants and all to be disposed of by him at his pleasure Yea by the Law of God the Levits were to have the tenths as peculiar to them On the other hand if it be said that it only contains a prediction that de facto they should be so treated by their Kings on the quite contrary we do not read in all the Books and Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah or Israel that they did proceed thus farr as it is here exprest Yea even Achab that was one of the most wicked amongst them all a man that sold himself to work wickednesse yet he did not take Naboths Vine-yeard by force 1 Kings 21 25. but by Iezabells craft and wicked Policy it was pretended to be legally Forsaulted tho the taking away of Vine-yeards is expressely mentioned here as a part of the Mishpat Hameleck or the jus Regium This difficulty has being looked on by a great many learned men so inextricable that it hes made them think that God is only here describing the manner of the Heathen Kings that know not God that so he might deferr them from seeking a King or at the least that he was angry that they sought such a King as the other nations had not such a King as God allowed them as was described in Deut. 17. but this is expressely against the very words of Deut. 17 14. likeas all the nations have about me Others are of opinion that he describes not here what Kings should or may do but that they ordinarly degenerat into Tyranny and this is their Custome so to do And we see the word Mishpat is many times translated Custome and manner Iudg. 18 7. Carlessely after the manner of the Zidonians Pemishpat Gen. 40. vers 13. Former manner when thou was buttler Exod. 21 9. 1 Sam. 27 11. 2 Kings 11 14. 2 Kings 17 29. Psal 119 131. As thou used to do in the originall is according to thy manner and Custome So that the Custome of Tyrants say they is only here described Of this opinion is Bartoldus de regimine civili Num. 4. Bodinus de Republica Cap. 10. Melancton in Philosophia morali pag. 197. Brentius Hom. in 1 Sam. 27. Osiander h. l. Pezelius part ult object pag. 999. Zepperus in explicatione legum Mosaicarum Lib. 4. Cap. 8. Tossanus in notis hoc loco Rossius de Christianae Reipublicae potestate supra reges Cap. 2. Com. 103. and Hunnius in resolut disp vol. 1. pag. 73. But with reverence to so great authority and so great semblance of reason nullius addictus jurare in verba I take leave to dissent and that I may more clearly expresse my own opinion I premit these two distinctions 1. We must carefully distinguish betwixt a Kings Crown and his coveteousnesse If any covetous Kings there be they certainly are the perfect emblems of miserable happiness and rich beggary But say a King out of an avaritious lust should gripp the goods and seaze on the possessions and Lands of his Subjects for his own private Interest certainly he doeth Tyrannically and unjustly but if for the safety and advantage of the common wealth this is one of the rights of the Crown to make use of the subjects goods for that end 2. We must also distinguish betwixt the manner and measure of the thing and the thing it self The King may for the necessity of the common-wealth and peace and safety of the subject exact their service and goods if not done in a violent manner nor exacted in ane exorbitant measure not for his own private gaine and advantage but for the good of the community whereof he is the head Now in such a case all things that belongs to the subject they belong also to the power and authority of the King and he may make use of them observing that due measure in the necessity or advantage of the community by his prerogative Royal without incurring the odious name and imputation of a Tyrant This is Lyra's judgment in his Commentarie on this place of Samuel as it is Lawfull sayes he for a man to cut or mutilat himself to cut off a Hand or a Legg for the preservation of the whole body so may a King Lawfully make use of the subjects wealth in the time of necessity And this I take to
be the proper meaning of the Mishpat Hameleck in 1 Sam. 8 11. That a King not only de jure may but will in case of necessity require the goods of his subjects without any suspition of Tyranny or oppression And my arguments for this my opinion are 1. Because as I find the word Mishpat translated here and else where manner and Custome so I find it also oftentimes translated Judgment Statute Law or Right Judgment or Right from Shapat judicavit therefore may be translated the Kings Right or Prerogative Royal for this is its most proper signification as its original imports so Iudg. 16 31. He judged Israel twenty years Id est Rex erat qui jure justitia vindicaverat As Buxtorf on the word Shapat pag. 838. And so in many other places there cited to which I referre the doubter And the word Mishpat is taken many times so Psal 105 5. Ier. 4 12. Psal 72 1. The word signifies both the Sentence of a Judge and the Right that is done to a man by that Sentence as is observed by the excellent Drusius on Ioel 3 2. This being its most proper signification but the word Custome and manner but Metaphoricall there is great reason we should rather read it the Kings Right and accordingly the Vulgar hes turned it jus Regis And Iunius and Tremellius 1 Sam. 10 25. which we call the manner of the Kingdom hes turned it jus Regni so we read of a place Gen. 14 7. called Enmishpat the Fountain of Judgment as the King may properly be called And the septuagint turns this Mishpat into dikaioma tou basileos which word dikaiomad if we beleeve Beza on Rom. 1 32. will signifie sometime legem naturae vel jus gentium 2. Consider we what it was the Israelites sought it was not a Tyrant but a King Rescripta sunt interpretanda juxta petita according to the rule in the civil Law except we would say of God according to that Mat. 7 10. when we Ask a Fish he will give us a Serpent which is horrid blasphemy 3. Why should Samuel say this was the peculiar maner of Kings Is not this the custome of any other judges and Magistrats as well as of Kings to degenerat some times and be Tyrannical as we see what Iotham sayes of Abimeleck Iudg. 9 14. That he was become a Bramle in stead of a Vine See also what was said of the Sons of Eli and Samuel that were no Kings 1 Sam. 2 16. That they turn'd cruel Tyrannical Base and oppressive so that men abhorred the Offering of the Lord 1 Sam. 8 3. It s said of his Son that he turned aside after Lucre took brybes and perverted judgment Why then should this be called the maner of Kings only since it 's also incident to inferior Magistrats and perhaps much more 4. I would gladly know if by the maner of the King and Kingdom 1 Sam. 8. verss 11. and 10. and 25. Any thing that is unjust and unlawful be mean'd as Tyranny and oppression as in their opinion the words must needs importe Do they think that the excellent Samuel should have taken the paines to have written these unjust Laws in a Register and laid them up beside the Ark of the Covenant Or rather if we believe Iosephus lib. 6. antiquit Iud. Cap. 5. in the Ark it self for a perpetual memorial Nay he is so just a judge would have rather caused burn and destroy all these monuments of iniquity Wherefore this Mishpat Hameleck cannot be rationally supposed to involve any Tyrannical exactions or oppression of the People as they expone it Samuel to make a Law for oppression a man both wise and holy and to consigne it to that publick and holy repository being a monument of iniquity to preserve it to the knowledge and use of the posterity I hope scarce any sober man will be induced to admit it amongst the least atomes of his beliefe 5. I would know in effect if David Salomon and all the rest of the Kings of Iudah and Israel did not all this that is here exprest And yet no where are accused of Tyranny Had ' not they their Tables in times of peace magnificently and splendidly furnished which is intimat here by taking their Sons and Daughters to be confectioners and Cooks Had not they in time of war their Horses Chariots Footmen and Captains and Souldiers of all ranks And what disparadgment is that to be the Kings Servants who himself is the representative of God unto us And by the way we have a remarkable instance of this in Salomon who 2 Chron. 9 25. Is said to have had 4000 Stalls for Horses and the 1 King 4 26. He is said to have had fourty thousand Stalls for Horses the word translated Stalls is different in the Original yet only a Iod added And signifies either a particular standing for one Horse or else a Stable having in it many such standing places Tho I have heard some Fools bogle at this yet it may be reconciled considering 4000 Stables with ten Stalls a piece and each holding ten Horses will make just fourty thousand We read also 2 Chron. 1 14. He had 1400 Chariots and 12000 Horse-men that attended him in State But consider with me what a laborious and vast work he had in building of the Temple of God and of his own Palaces And how many Horses that great work would need And how many Queens and Concubins he had and what a number of attendants both of pride and necessity they would require Or consider also how provident so wise a man would be in case of warr In which case we read the Philistins brought to the Field 1 Sam. 13 5. thirty thousand Chariots and would Salomon think you be behind with them on these considerations It had been unjust to have imputed that to Salomon either as Tyranny or oppression But certainly rather it was the jus Regium his prerogative Royal to have and maintaine them And altho in the most strict sence these things be the Kings prerogative yet good and gracious Kings make use only of their prerogatives as Christ did of his Miracles meerly in cases of necessity and for the publict good to which they will make their Pomp and State subservient Omne culmen attigit Virtutis altae qui timeri se timet Amore fidens qui patrem se non herum Studet Vocari Baudius And for these passages of Ezekiel of Achab and the tenths bestowed on the Levits they are easily answered by what is said allready For 1. that of Ezekiel is thou shall not take away the possession of the subject by oppression not in case of necessity and conveniency of State Therefore Ezek. 44 9. what in one part of that same verse is called exactions in the other it is called violence and spoile There exactions being neither with justice nor moderation Ezek. 46 18. It s also clear as the Beames of the Sun the Prince shall not
take the inheritance of the People by oppression which is expressely added importing in point of necessity he may do it and be neither Tyrant nor Robber For Achab all the World knows it was only his lustfull and covetous humor he gratified not minding the benefite of the common-wealth And for the tithes of the Levits It s known that it was not a ceremonial precept but morall founded on the judgment of right reason according to the Law of nature it self And therefore cannot be in it self unlawfull nature teatching us that a publick Person should be served of the publick And therefore tribute jure divino belongs to the publick Magistrat Mat. 17 25. and 22. and 15. verss Therefore all things both Sacred and civil must be serviceable to the publick benefit This I take to be the true meaning of this Mishpat Hameleck But if we speak particularly of the prerogative Royal Iustinian makes it to consist in these three the power of things Sacred the power of the publick good and the power of denuncing warr Bodinus in his Book de Republica lib. 1. cap. 10. extends it to these five 1. The power of making and abrogating Lawes 2. Supremacy of jurisdiction from which can be no appeal 3. Power of establishing all inferior Magistrats and Officers of State 4. Imposition and exaction of tribute 5. The power of warr To which Arniseus adds the right of publick wayes navigable Rivers mines of Gold and Silver and any thing that hes no particular owner that it should belong to the common Master as hunting confiscation coyning of money Arniseus lib. 2. de jure Majest cap. 1. n. 8. Neither will any that remembers we swear in the Test to defend the Kings prerogatives we hope think this digression impertinent To which we shall add the Golden observation of Chrysostome upon Rom. 13. That to leavy money and exact stents for the publick good is the peculiar prerogative of the Crown and therefore sayes he the Apostle sayes not give tribute but vers 7. render tribute render Custome non dicit date but reddite For the subject nihil gratuito dat debitum siquidem est res ista quod si non feceris perfidi poenas dabis The subject gives nothing to the King its debt which if he refuse he deserves to be punished as a false Traitor But to speak yet more particularly of the Royal prerogative in the most part of all Nations We begin with the Jews whose Royal prerogative as we have seen is set down particularly in Deut. 17. and 1 Sam. 8. tho contradicted by learned men to whom forecited we are not yet afraied to add Saint Gregorie Cajetan Abulensis and Vatablus on the place and even Aquinas too who in his Book de regimine principis Cap. 11. is expressely against our interpretation and in his Summs primâ secundae quest 6. Art 1. in answer to the fifth objection Illud jus non debebatur Regi ex institutione divina sed magis praenunciabatur usurpatio Regum qui sibi jus iniquum constituunt in Tyrannidem degenerantes subditos depraedantes But considering that the most part of Papists are ill affected towards all Kings as well as our Presbyterians the one making the Pope their Presbytery and the other the Presbytery their Pope Therefore all our Fanatick writers as Lex Rex Didoclavius and the rest hes all their arguments from Papists yet we hope we have said al 's much for our opinion as will abundantly satisfie any sober and intelligent Reader To come then to particulars we find the Law of the prerogative Royal amongst the Jews after that ancient one established by God himself and promulgat by Moses and Samuel al 's fully and al 's amply as can be constitute in the Person of Simon Macabeus 1 Macab 14. chap. from 41. to the 45. Wherein is contained the Sanction of the Law And the prerogatives are reckoned out to the number of twelve which at more length may be there seen and corresponds much with our own one or two only excepted Neither may it be objected he was their Captain only and not their King For his posterity did assume both the Title and Estate of the King without any innovating of these prerogatives as is known all along their Historie But more particularly what the Royal prerogative amongst the Jews was both before and after that may be more fully gathered from the writings of Iosephus against Appion and from his antiquities from Mennochius Sigoneus Bertramus and Cunaeus to which we may add the most part of the writings of Hottingerus all which have written fully and learnedly of the Laws and Customes of that Republick but especialy in his Smegma Orientale and Epitome utriusque juris judaici The Royal prerogatives amongst the Romans are fully described by Dionysius Halycarnasseus lib. 2. which were agreed upon as he sayes betwixt Romulus and the People of Rome the care of Religion and the Laws The convocating of the People and the absolute power of warr with many others there to be read which still continued till the time of Tarquin the proud who contemning these decrees and ordinances was deprived of his Kingdom and banished the City What it was afterwards may be known by Suetonius after the death of Iulius Caesar in Tiberius Cap. 30 31 32. And Tacitus Annales especially the first Book And afterward in processe of time how they were increased and established may be seen in the Commentaries of Claudius Rangolius ordinis minimorum S. Francisci de Paula who hes described them in a collection from Hottoman and Calvin Lawyers on 1 Sam. 8 11. Yea the lex regia as he there writes gave a kind of infinit power to the Emperours in all things that concerned the preservation or amplification of the common-wealth To whose writings we may add what hes been written by Scriverius his Respublica Romana and Lipsii Roma illustrata and by Dion Appianus and Pollybius the Greek Historians of whom it must be observed that they wrote the Roman History farr more impartially then any Roman 3. For the Greeks their prerogative Royal to wit of the Lacedemonians it is fully described by Halicarnasseus in his 5 Book Of the Macedonians by Quintus Curtius in his sixth Book of the warrs of Alexander anent the death of Philotas Parmenio's Son The Royal prerogative of Agamemnon and other Princes of Grecia may be collected from Homer And of the whole Greeks both their History and Priviledges may be gathered from Pausanias and Plutarch especially in the lives of Solon and Lycurgus and his Greek Questions But most elegantly and compendiously written by the learned Vbbo Emmius de Graecorum rebus publicis And from Postellus de Magistratibus Atheniensium To which may be added Meursii Athenae Nicolai Damasceni Historia 4. The prerogative of the Egyptians Assyrians and Persians may be collected out of Herodot and Zenophon and Diodorus siculus his 2 Book Cap. 3. But above all out of the