bought and sold and doubtless, if hereditary title were sufficiently inquired, the best foundation of it would be found but either in courtesy or convenience. But suppose it to be of right hereditary, what can be more just and legal, if a subject for certain crimes be to forfeit by law from himself and posterity all his inheritance to the king, than that a king for crimes proportional should forfeit all his title and inheritance to the people? Unless the people must be thought created all for him, he not for them, and they all in one body inferior to him single; which were a kind of treason against the dignity

of mankind to affirm.

Thirdly, it follows, that, to say kings are accountable to none but God, is the overturning of all law and government. For if they may refuse to give account, then all covenants made with them at coronation, all oaths are in vain, and mere mockeries; all laws which they swear to keep, made to no purpose: for if the king fear not God, (as how many of them do not?) we hold then our lives and estates by the tenure of his mere grace and mercy, as from a God, not a mortal magistrate; a position that none but court-parasites or men besotted would maintain! Aristotle therefore, whom we commoly allow for one of the best interpreters of nature and morality, writes in the fourth of his Politics, chap. x. that "monarchy unaccountable, is the worst sort of tyranny; and least of all to be endured by freeborn men." And surely no christian prince, not drunk with high mind, and prouder than those pagan Cæsars that deified themselves, would arrogate so unreasonably above human condition, or derogate so basely from a whole nation of men his brethren, as if for him only subsisting, and to serve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute will and pleasure no more

VOL. I.

than so many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reasoned with, but to be trod on; among whom there might be found so many thousand men for wisdom, virtue, nobleness of mind, and all other respects but the fortune of his dignity, far above him. Yet some would persuade us that this absurd opinion was king David's, because in the li. palsm he cries out to God," Against thee only have I sinned;" as if David had imagined, that to murder Uriah and adulterate his wife had been no sin against his neighbour, whenas that law of Moses was to the king expressly, Deut. xvii, not to think so highly of himself above his brethren. David therefore by those words could mean no other, than either that the depth of his guiltiness was known to God only, or to so few aş had not the will or power to question him, or that the sin against God was greater beyond compare than against Uriah. Whatever his meaning were, any wise man will see, that the pathetical words of a psalm can be no certain decision to a point that hath abundantly more certain rules to go by. How much more rationally spake the Heathen king Demophoön in a tragedy of Euripides, than these interpreters would put upon king David? "I rule not my people by tyranny, as if they were barbarians, but am inyself liable, if I do unjustly, to suffer justly." Not unlike was the speech of Trajan the worthy emperor, to one whom he made general of his prætorian forces: "Take this drawn sword," saith he, "to use for me, if I reign well; if not, to use against me."” Thus Dion relates. And not Trajan only, but Theodosius the younger, a christian emperor, and one of the best, caused it to be enacted as a rule undeniable and fit to be acknowledged by all kings and emperors, that a prince is bound to the laws; that on the authority of law the authority of a prince de

pends, and to the laws ought to submit. Which edict of his remains yet unrepealed in the Code of Justinian, 1. 1, tit. 24, as a sacred constitution to all the succeeding emperors. How then can any king in Europe maintain and write himself accountable to none but God, when emperors in their own imperial statutes have written and decreed themselves accountable to law? And indeed where such account is not feared, he that bids a man reign over him above law, may bid as well a savage beast.

It follows, lastly, that since the king or magistrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own; then may the people, as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as scems to them best. This, though it cannot but stand with plain reason, shall be made good also by Scripture, Deut. xvii. 14. "When thou art come into the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations about me." These words confirm us that the right of choos ing, yea of changing their own government, is by the grant of God himself in the people. And therefore when they desired a king, though then under another form of government, and though their changing displeased him, yet he that was himself their king, and · rejected by them, would not be a hinderance to what they intended, further than by persuasion, but that they might do therein as they saw good, 1 Sam. viii, only he reserved to himself the nomination of who should reign over them. Neither did that exempt the king, as if he were to God only accountable, though by his espe

cial command anointed. Therefore" David first made a covenant with the elders of Israel, and so was by them anointed king," 2 Sam. v. 3, 1 Chron. xi. And Jehoiada the priest, making Jehoash king, made a covenant between him and the people, 2 Kings xi, 17. Therefore when Roboam, at his coming to the crown, rejected those conditions, which the Israelites brought him, hear what they answer him, "What portion have we in David, or inheritance in the son of Jesse? See to thine own house David." And for the like conditions not performed, all Israel before that time deposed Samuel; not for his own default, but for the misgovernment of his sons. But some will say to both these examples, it was evilly done. I answer, that not the latter, because it was expressly allowed them in the law, to set up a king if they pleased; and God himself joined with them in the work; though in some sort it was at that time displeasing to him, in respect of old Samuel, who had governed them uprightly. As Livy praises the Romans, who took occasion from Tarquinius, a wicked prince, to gain their liberty, which to have extorted, saith he, from Numa, or any of the good kings before, had not been seasonable. Nor was it in the former example done unlawfully; for when Roboam had prepared a huge army to reduce the Israelites, he was for"Thus saith bidden by the prophet, 1 Kings xii. 24. the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is from me." their brethren, not rebels, and forbids to be proceeded against them, owning the thing himself, not by single providence, but by approbation, and that not only of the act, as in the former example, but of the fit season also; he had not otherwise forbid to molest them. And those grave and wise counsellors, whom Rehoboam first

He calls them

advised with, spake no such thing, as our old gray headed flatterers now are wont, stand upon your birthright, scorn to capitulate, you hold of God, not of them; for they knew no such matter, unless conditionally, but gave him politic counsel, as in a civil transaction. Therefore kingdom and magistracy, whether supreme or subordinate, is called “ a human ordinance," 1 Pet. ii. 13, &c.; which we are there taught is the will of God. we should submit to, so far as for the punishment of evil doers, and the encouragement of them that do well.

66

Submit," saith he, as free men." But to any civil power unaccountable, unquestionable, and not to be resisted, no not in wickedness, and violent actions, how can we submit as free men? "There is no power but of God," saith Paul, Rom. xiii, as much as to say, God put it into man's heart to find out that way at first. for common peace and preservation, approving the exercise thereof; else it contradicts Peter, who calls the same authority an ordinance of man. It must be also understood of lawful and just power, else we read of great power in the affairs and kingdoms of the world permitted to the devil: for saith he to Christ, Luke iv. 6, all this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, for it is delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it: neither did he lie, or Christ gainsay what he affirmed; for in the thirteenth of the Revelation we read how the dragon gave to the beast his power, his seat, and great authority: which beast so authorized most expound to be the tyrannical powers and kingdoms of the earth. Therefore Saint Paul in the forecited chapter tells us, that such magistrates he means, as are not a terrour to the good, but to the evil, such as bear not the sword in vain, but to punish offenders, and to encourage the good. If such only be men