sad effect and consequence of such flattering falsities But now having clearely evidenced it that our King is no absolute Monarch and so hath no power over the lives liberties or estates of his Subjects more then the law alloweth You shall now heare severall reasons given in my Author totally to oppose this opinion of absolute Monarchy which with the favour of the curteous Reader are no way answered by the contra-disputant and for my part I thinke that absolute Monarchy is much like Sir Tho. Mores Eutopiae no where to be found And first you shall heare how one of their owne inveighes against this opinion Sayes he Those things that are done by this clause of supreame power not by way of iustice but because it so pleased the Prince and no man could say to him Cur it a facis why doe you so It is no other then violence which sayes he by a more honest title is called the supreame power Pag. 15. I must acknowledge it ever was and shall be my opinion that though Princes are stiled Gods here on earth yet their power is so qualified that they ought not to live according to their own will but the rule of reason and religion and if they passe these let flatterers qualifie their actions as they can more sound and honest judgements wil say that they are but violence tyranny Againe saies the same Author Pag. 16. Your great Governors Counsellors lay snares every where in the way that is to catch and intrap their Prince Your Divines they erre and make their Prince doe the like And your Lawyers they faune and flatter and all perswade their Prince that all things are lawfull for him and that be hath free and absolute power to doe what he list And is not this the very dialect of these times Hath not Bristow Digby and Cottington and such like perfideous Counsellors seduced his Majestie from his Parliament and perswaded him that it is lawfull for him to take up Armes against them and to state himselfe if possibly he may in an absolute Monarchy Doe not your Divines preach prerogative in stead of Divinity and by consequence detrude the Subjects liberty And now I could wish that our great Lawyers could puill their necks out of the halter the coller I should say But it is sad newes that the Ship-mony is againe revived The King must be sole Judge I and that in his owne case too when the Kingdome is indangered and so by this slight might dive into his Subjects purses when and as often as he himselfe pleased Now pray what doth the negative voyce in Parliament so stiffely defended by our Lawyres of Oxford differ from this if the King shal be sole Judge of the necessity or conveniency of any Lawes presented unto him by his people doe but support this ground of the Kings being Judge in his owne case down goes all the fundamentalls of our Lawe presently No way more exact or absolute to bring in Quod Principi placet c. and to obtrude the liberty of the Subject But that you may see how farre this absolute power is laboured for at this day they have derived this very principle from this unreasonable Law of liberty as I shall make it appeare hereafter But now let us reason the point and heare what is objected against this absolute power of Princes Sais one all Dominion or Soveraignetie is for the publique profit of the Citisent or Subiects not of those that raigne or rule Pag. 16. To this Albericus saies that it is a false foundation in those principalities or dominions that are got by force and not totally true in those who are induced or brought in by the people For he saies that due honour was given to the vertues of those Princes that were chosen For my part I never read or heard Albericus Pag. 16. that a Prince who hath gained a Kingdome by Conquest is disobliged from the rule of Reason and Religion The Scripture doth no where warrant that I know of any Prince whatsoever to be a Tyrant which I am sure he must needs bee that seekes his owne not his peoples good This is but just that due honour should be given to the vertues of those Princes that are elected but such as reverence them so far as to attribute an absolutenesse of power unto them and give them liberty to do what they list doe dishonour God in ascribing that power that was never given debase their Prince by making him to degenerate from true Soveraignety into Tyranny Though Aristotle by way of Dirision faith Pag. 16. that wee make our Princes like Physitians whose rule or power is for the sake of those only who are their Patients My opinion is that Princes cannot be more properly compared or assimulated then unto Physitians the one is the Physitian for the body naturall the other for the body politique A Prince ought to purge out all ill humours that is ill members out of the Common wealth hee ought to tender the lives and happinesse of his people as much as a Physitian the life and good of his Patient Nay as a Physitian ought to have an eye more to the good and safety of his Patient then his owne benefit so ought this great Physition of the Common wealth The Princes happinesse is involved in the good of his people therefore they doe but teach him how to ruine himself that instruct him to undoe his people But Albericus reasons further by way of admittance what sais he if all Dominion or Power were ordained for the onely benefit of Subiects Ergo plenitudo potestatis non est is there not therefore a plenitude of power Sir wee doe not denie but that Princes have full power and authority to governe their people but we doe and shall ever deny that they have an absolute power to Tyrannize over them But he saies further that it is for the benefit and profit of Subiects ' that a Prince should have this power I marry Sir witnesse the great utility Pag. 16. that accrues to the Subject at this day by the exercise of the like power That their lives and estates should be at the sole will beck and command of their Soveraigne this is for the benefit of the Subject Pray give me leave to put you a plaine case in Law A. gives land to B. in trust and for the onely use of C. B. breakes the trust and disposes of the Land at his owne pleasure resolve me this question is not this for the benefit of C Such and only such benefit accrues to the Subject by giving of an absolute power to the Prince But so much for this argument The next position that is discussed Page 17. is that absolutenesse of power is only in God and is not communicable to any other To this Albericus answers that this doth not make the Prince equall to God Page 17. for neverthelesse he is under God and
That this absolute power of which he treats and which be confesses to be at will must be taken ta the will of a good man A very good distinction why then belike a prince that is an unjust and corrupt man cannot use this supreame and arbitrary power O yes for immediatly after he doth affirme the Prince to be this good man As if it were an absolute and uncontrollable consequence that every Prince must be a good man Whereas the Scripture holds out cleare testimony of the wickednesse corruption of Princes Ezek. 45.9 Job 34.30 Amos 4.1 And such was the tyranny of the Princes of Jerusalem that in Zeph. 3.3 they are called roaring Lyons Observe but his way of reasoning Every Prince that is a good man hath this arbytrary power But every Prince is a good man Therefore every Prince hath this arbitrary power The falsest Sillogisme and the most pure implicite contradiction that ever was For the Major propositiō clearely implies that every Prince is not good the Minor concludes every one to be good But here you may see the sencelesse daubing Sophistry of these men who are resolved to put a good glosse upon the foulest actions and rather then their Prince shall not be what they would have him they will most boldly affirme to be that which he is not But woe be to you that call good evill or evill good I shall say no more but this Happy England were greatnesse and goodnesse inseperable concomitants But he steps a little neater to us and saies Though the Prince hath a plenitude of power Pag. yet the ought to use this iustly otherwise it will be a plenitude of stormes and tempests And he further sates That this clause of the fullnesse of power is under stood of a good and laudable power not a power to ill or iniury What strange and unparallel'd contradictions are these How can this stand with the former positions that the King may doe what he list that his will is a sufficient reason and his reason a positive law if the King may be said to doe that which is unjust ill or injurious The doing of ill or injury are not things compatible to absolute Monarchy give me leave a little to reason the case out of Albericus himselfe Those that have not power to doe what they list have no absolute power But Kings cannot doe what they list Therefore Kings have no absolute power But here the Minor preposition will be denied that Kings may doe what they list To this I answer with Albericus that Kings cannot doe wrong or injury therefore Kings cannot doe what they list And hence the consequence is very evident that Kings have no absolute power But he doth yet approach nearer to us in denying the opinion of some of their owne formerly delivered for he saies Pag. 27. That the Prince by this plenitude or absolutenes of power cannot deprive his Subiects of their dominions or properties sine causa iusta without just cause tendered Why now Albericus secundumte according to your owne argument if Kings cannot take away their Subjects properties but are bound to regulate their actions according to the rule of justice How can Kings be said to have an absolute power Why yes you shall heare how for he doth afterwards if what he saies would hold make good whatsoever he hath delivered or indeed can deliver in the defence of this tyrannicall absolute Monarchy For he saies That of the iustnesse of this cause this absolute Prince is the sole Judge and Arbitor Now you know upon what foundation that principle of the Shipmony was built that the King only ought to be Judge of the imminent danger then pretended This is that which was taught by evill Councellors one whereof with whom the dominion of Ireland was intrusted was wont to say that he had the law lockt up in scrinio pectoris in the closset of his owne brest which expressed in plainer language speakes clearely this that his will was a law But he that then thought to have advanced his Soveraigne by consequence himselfe above law hath sence undergone his just demerit and the law still lives in spite of its enemies But who would have thought that our grave fathers and sage determiners the lex loquens or walking Libraries of our law should have beene so perfidious to their own principles as to borrow grounds of the Civill law to make up a judgement so distructive to the Common And that that was so give me leave to reason the case a little I will make it evident For first they themselves say that to bee the only discrimen or true difference betwixtabsolute if any such thing there be and quallified or limitted Monarchy For say they the first doth judge de causis of causes and the latter ex legibus by the lawes So that give but the King leave to be judge in his owne case you presently mount him into absolute monarchy if this were law the King might take away any mans estate upon just cause I and whether it were just or no he would doe it for he himselfe should be judge of the cause and then it would not be difficult to determine on whose side the judgement should be given T is an undoubted Maxime that no man can be acompetent judge in his owne case and it is all one to give the King libetty to take away his Subiects rights uniustly as to say he cannot doe it but upon iust ground and yet to leave that to his sole sudgement and determination Might not the King in that case as often as he himselfe pleased have exhausted his Subiects treasure upon pretence of an imminent danger and if he be sole Judge of the necessity who could oppose it But you see the absurdity and ill consequence of this principle and therefore so I shall leave it But then speaking how farre the law should be obligatory to the Prince Page 2.8 he takes these distinctions saies he There is Lex honestatis the law of honesty and Lex necessitatis the law of necessity The law of honesty that binds the King that is the King in point of honesty may if he will observe the law if he will not he may make his will his law The law of necessity that bindes the Subiect so that will he nill he he must submit and give obedience to it Others he saies say That there is the law of honesty and the law of the precept and he saies the one doth not lesse oblige then the other yet there is this difference that the law of honesty depends onely upon the will of the prince what an absurdity is this to say that the one doth as strongly bind as the other and yet that the one must observe the law and the other is at his liberty whether he will or no. Others he saies say That there is necessitas rei the necessity of the thing necessitas personae the necessity of
is bound by the Lawes of God God saies he is simply absolute not bound to any Law but the Prince onely absolute to some respects for though he be above the Civill Law yet he is under the Law of God of Nature and of Nations We will allow this absolute power that you speake of if you canevince us out of holy Writ to which Princes as well as people owe subjection that ever such power was communicated to any just Prince that he might dispose of the lives and estates of his Subjects at his owne will and pleasure what is this but Tyrranny and if God who only hath absolute power over his people did sometimes in his wrath for the sinnes of his people put a Tyrannicall King over them yet this is no warrant for others to be so God who is the only proprietor and free dispenser of all things and giveth what he pleaseth and to whom and when he pleaseth what he out of his bounty doth bestow upon his meanest servant he doth invest him in as pure and absolute a right as he doth the greatest Prince in his Monarchy and therefore it lies not in the power of his Prince to dispossesse him of it We have a most exact and perfect discription of a Tyrant in the word of God 1 Sam. 8. where when the people of Israel not contented with that Governement that God had appointed over them asked a King of Samuell God in his anger and as a judgement upon the people for their sin gave them a King to rule over them but such a one who according to the discription of Samuell would make his will his Law for saies Samuell to the people This will be the manner of the King that shall reigne over you he will take your sonnes and appoint them for himselfe for his Charets c. And he will appoint him Captaines over thousands c. And he will take your daughters to be confectioners c. And hee will take your fields and your vineyards and give them to his servants And he will take your servants and cattle and put them to worke c. Here you have a compleate delineation of a Tyrant For marke Samuell tells the people what he will doe not what he ought to doe thus and thus he will doe saith he and he will render no better reason for what he doth stat pro ratione voluntas his will is reason sufficient to deprive you of your substance and to inslave you and your postetity for ever This was the judgement of God and therefore not to be drawne in example or made a president for others And therefore let every unjust Prince take heede that whilest hee is made the Rod and scourge of God for his peoples sinnes hee himselfe be not at the last throwne into the fire But now you shall heare the duty of a good Prince set forth in Deut. 17 He shall not multiply horses to himselfe c. Neither shall he multiply wives nor silver and gold He shall write him a coppie of this Law in a Booke c. And it shall be with him and hee shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that hee may learne to feare the Lord his God to keepe all the words of this Law and these statutes to doe them Now marke what followes all That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren c. For my part I do not find here that the Kings will is a Law or that he hath power to open shut the purses of his Subjects at his pleasure A just Prince must not multiply silver gold why then doubtlesse he must not doe it upon the ruines of his Subjects Hee must keepe this law and I am sure this Law doth not make him lawlesse or justifie Tyranny And lastly his heart must not bee lifted up above his brethren that is he must not so exalt his owne power as to depresse and destroy his people Another Argument is this that the people did transferre this power to the King that by it they might be more commodiously governed Page 24. but this is not that supreame power sic volo sic jubeo but an ordinary power directed by law To this Albericus answers with his distinction before taken that there is an ordinary and an extraordinary power in the Prince and he saies that the people sometimes by this extraordinary power which is the supreame and absolute power may be governed more commodiously for he saies That people of indomitable and rigid spirits are better governed by this extraordinary then an ordinary power and those Subjects are to be governed by an Iron Rod that will not yeeld to the ferula Certainly Albericus when he wrote this booke thought he had been tutering of children I confesse that I have often read and heard that the government by Monarchy is much to be preferred and set before Oligarchy Democracy or Aristocracy‑ but I never heard that tyranny might be more apt commodious then a just and lawfull governement neither did I ever read of any people of so savedge and barbarous a nature who would not rather stoope to a just and legall then an unjust and tyrannicall dominion No question it is most commodious both for King and people that the one should have a certain positive rule by which he might governe and the other by which he might obey And that Prince who governs his people by the rule of justice shall find more faithfull and loyall Subjects then he that swayes them by the Scepter of an extraordinary and tyrannicall power But heare what Albericus doth determin to be tyranny That sayes he Pag. 25. is tyrannous which in a tyrant is wonted and ordinary in aiust Prince extraordinary and casuall To take away famous and excellent men to expell or drive away those that are wise to exterminate studies to have and countenance such about him as are envious private calumniators and accusers of others to follow delight in bloody warres these others of that kind he saies to be tyrannous How Albericus are these tyrannous I thought the supreame power had beene unlimitted why so it is for he saies that even these very actions which imediatly before he styles tyrannous Possunt aliquandoetiam esse justa may sometimes be just May tyrannous actions be just what a diametricall contradiction is this he may as well call darkenesse light or light darkenesse good evill or evill good In vaine doth he labour to make this good by strange and tyrannous actions as he would have them which are done by Princes for the good of the common wealth neither is this malum necessariun a necessary evill as he calls it for whatsoever is simply tyranous cannot be said to be just and whatsoever is done and in truth is so for the common good cannot beare the infamous scandall of tyrannous But this saying of Albericus savours more of Machavilians Politiques then of just and legall governement Pag. 27.