to be attended with these qualifications 1 They are meerly heroick and ambitious So were the Giants before the Flood Gen. 6. Beros Antiq. l. 1. Nimrod after the Flood Gen. 10. Bern. Antiq. l. 4. and all the rest of the great Heroes Arist pol. 3. c. 10. 2 They are meerly tyrannous and cruel So we find that Pharaoh had an arbitrary power over the People of Israel Exod. 1 and 5. Nebuchad-nezzar had the like power over his Kingdoms Dan. 2. and 3. By vertue of Ahasuerus absolute power Haman was licenced to exercise tyranny on the People of the Jews Est 3. We might alledge many examples to this purpose But the point is most clear in it self for those who are of a tyrannous disposition can endure no Law but their will Otherwise they could never get their tyranny exercised 3 Those whom we find chief pleaders for absolute Monarchy are either concerned therein themselves as Alexander M. and M. Aurelius and such like or else Flatterers and Court-Parasites as Lyricus Rom. Virgil and such like And of this sort we find none more violent in this matter than Dr. Fern Hugo Grotius Arnisaeus Spalato c. whose foot-steps with his ful-speed Salmasius doth trace But although men by way of flattery and by-respect may act and plead for arbitrary Monarchy yet let me tell you I do not imagin but they may act and plead for it through simple error and delusion And so I conclude that Aristotle Xiphilin Salust and the foresaid Lawyers do much run this way though they be more moderate in the matter then the rest And as afterward is shewed we find the Talmudick and Rabbinick Writers this way somewhat inclining to the lawless and arbitrary power of absolute Monarchy Assert 2. The King hath not a power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason Firstly Such an arbitrary and vast power is repugnant to the first Institution and Scripture-mould of Kings According to the Holy Ghost's way of moulding the King he is thus qualified 1 He is an Elective King chosen by the People in subordination to God Thou shalt in any wayes set him King over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose Deut. 17. 2 A Brother-King and not a stranger-King One from amongst thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou mayest not set a stranger over thee who is not thy Brother Ibid. 3 He must not tyrannize over the People by Leavying Forces and by strength of hand drawing them into Egyptian slavery He shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the People to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you Ye shall henceforth return no more that way Ibid. These words properly and in their emphatick sense can import nothing else but a discharging of the King by Forces and Armies to tyrannize over his People that bringing them into bondage and upon their ruines he may not strengthen himself and multiply his Forces So the King of Egypt did with the People of Israel whileas they were in Egypt under his tyrannons yoke 4 Not a Leacherous King given to women for drawing him on into temptation Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away Ibid. 5 Nor Covetous given to enrich himself and to build-up his own estate upon the ruins of his People Nether shall he greatly multiply to himself Silver and Gold Ibid. 6 But he must be a King acquiring the Scriptures of GOD meditating on them his whole life-time thereby learning to fear the LORD to observe his Commandments and to practise them that he may be humble and lowly not turning aside either to the right-hand or to the left And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his Kingdom that he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levits And it shall be with him and he shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD his God to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them That his heart be not lifted up above his Brethren and that he turn not aside from the Commandment to the right-hand or to the left Ibid. Here from we draw this Argument The power of him is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law whose power according to the Law and Word of GOD is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law But the power of the King according to the Law and Word of God is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law Ergo the Power of the King is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law The Major cannot be denyed unlesse men will be so bold as to deny a Regulating and squaring of their Acts and Institutions according to the Word and Law of God Sure I am none will deny it but such as will contradict Scripture it self and decline it as the rule and pattern of their Actions The Minor is manifest from the Text above Cited Barclay the Royallist distinguisheth between the Office and power of the King and so the man endeavoureth to elude our Argument thus The Office of the King quoth he is set down Deut. 17. and the King's power is spoken of 1 Sam. 8 where saith he an Arbitrary power is conferred upon the King and laid upon his shoulders But this distinction serveth not for his purpose For either the power of the King is according to the Word and Law of God or not If it be then as the Office of the King is regulated in like manner his power also is kept within the compasse of Law For his Office spoken of Deut. 17. admitteth bounds and is kept within marches That which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. in terminis doth subject the King to Law and taketh-away Arbitrarines in his Government So then that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. doth either contradict that which is spoken Deut. 17. or else it giveth him no power and liberty of governing above Law at random If it be not then it is not a Divine but a diabolick power Moreover what the King doth according to his power either he doth it by vertue of his Office or contrary to it If by vertue of his Office Ergo the Kingly power cannot be absolute unlesse his Office be also absolute for so the exercise of his power dependeth from his Office In such a case he can do nothing according to his power but what he hath Authority for from his Office But his Office Deut. 17 is not absolute but Regulated according to Law If contrary to it Ergo it is not the Kings Office to exercise an absolute power and consequently the Kings Authority is not absolute Furthermore either the King as King is absolute or not If he be absolute as King Ergo the Royall
either by the command of the King or of the People it was holden null unlesse it had been ratified by the Parliament In it every one whether King or other Members thereof have alike and equal power of speaking And withall nothing spoken in it is of validity and force unlesse it be concluded on by the major part together with the approbation of the King Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 11. It is observable That by the authority of the Parliament it was ordained That Steven so long as he lived should remain King of England and that Henry 2. afterward should succeed him By whose mediation and authority the debate between Henry and Steven touching the Crown was decided And I pray you how could these things have been unlesse the Parliament had been above the King Inst 4. But saith Salmasius the power af convocating and dissolving the Parliament belongeth to the King of England The power of the Parliament is extraordinary and pro tunc But the power of the King is ordinary and perpetual And likewise the King of England in Parliament hath a negative voice And therefore in many Acts of Parliament he is called the King and Lord of the Parliament and what is ordained is enacted in his Name And so saith he though the King of England doth act according to the Laws of the Kingdom and concurrence of his Parliament yet notwithstanding he is an absolute King Otherwise the Kings of the Jews had not been absolute who had power to do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin And Artaxerxes had not been absolute who could not be reconciled to Vasthi because the Law discharged it Yea if Kings were not absolute because they act according to the Law and the advice of their Parliament then Cambyses had not been absolute who conveened a Councel whileas be intended to marry his german sister and demanded of them if there was any such law for allowing such a marriage Def. Reg. cap. 8. 9. Answ Salmasius shall do well to consider these few things 1. What the power of the English Parliament is Which is defined by Camdenus to be made-up of three Estates having the highest and most sovereign power in making Laws confirming Laws annulling Laws interpreting Laws and in doing every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is concerned Brit. chorog de Tribun Ang. This is far from Salmasius mind who Def. Reg. cap. 9. opinionateth that the Parliament hath not power over every thing in the Kingdom But Polydore summeth-up the power of the Parliament under these notions First Every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is interested is referred to it Secondly Whatsoever is done at the command whether of King or People is of none effect unless it be authorized by the Parliament Thirdly It establisheth and taketh away Laws as it judgeth fit Fourthly Every Member of it hath a-like power and freedom in voicing And what is decreed and enacted by Parliament he calleth it the proper and municipal Law of the Kingdom Seing then the Parliament is the most sovereign and supream power in the Kingdom of England according as it was in old how can it be said That the King of England hath power over it If it be so then you admit two Supream powers and a power above a Supream power which is contradicent The Lacedemonian Ephori were no otherwise above their Kings but because they were invested with the highest and supream power All things were referred to the Parliament even as the Roman Consuls as Festus out of Coelidus saith did refer every thing to the Senate Now because of this the Senate had the highest power and was above the Consuls Ergo seing all matters of the Commonwealth in old in the Kingdom of England were referred to the Parliament no question it had power above the King The Roman Senate is therefore said to have been of the supreamest power Fenest de Magistrat Rom. cap. 1. because neither Kings nor Consuls nor Dictators nor any other Magistrate could do any thing without their advice and counsel Ergo seing whatsoever the King of England or any other of that Kingdom did in old was to no purpose without the authority and approbation of Parliament without all controversie the King of England was subjected to the Parliament Salmasius concludeth the King to be above the Parliament because he alledgeth the Parliament can do nothing without the King Why may not I then conclude the Parliament to be above the King because re ipsa and according to the Law of the Kingdom the King can do nothing without the authority and consent of the Parliament Where then I pray you is the King 's negative voice There is not a Member in Parliament cui aequa loquendi potestas non competit So saith Polyd. Angl. hist lib. 11. What Do you imagine that ever the Parliament could by their authority have drawen-up the foresaid agreement between Steven and Henry 2. unlesse they had had power above the King What they did therein was a direct acting both over Steven their present King and Henry 2. their future King But will you tell me whileas the States of England did seek of K. John to be governed by the ancient Lawes made by Edward the Confessour whether or not were these Lawes Acts of meer pleasure giving the King a liberty to do as he would either to tyrannize over the people or not You can not hold the affirmative because what they demanded of the King was to be restored to liberty to be freed of tyranny Polyd. Vir. Angl. hist lib. 15. And if you hold the negative part then do the ancient Laws of England pull absolutenesse out of the king's hands and subject him to Law Magna charta saith The King can do nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law And the States of England were so far from permitting John to rule at randome and not according to the ancient Lawes of the kingdom that contrarywise they combined against him entering in oath together to pursue him still on till he should govern according to Law and establish the ancient Lawes of the kingdom Yea albeit that Pope Innocent commanded them to lay-down arms and though upon their deniall thereof they were declared enemies by the Pope they notwithstanding followed on their purpose and cryed-out that they would be avenged by fire and sword on such a wicked tyrant who did so much slight the people Aye which is more they sent into France and from thence brought Ludovick the French king's son and created him king notwithstanding any thing either John or the Pope could do in the contrary Thus they never rested till in sorrow they brought John's head into the grave Where I pray you is the absolutenesse of the king of England whenas the States would not suffer him to govern but according to Law and in denying to do so pursued him in arms unkinging him enkinging another in his room
in Rufus Henry 1. Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though saith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derogated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am notwithstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conflicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Vnder Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgmet-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Vnder Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But notwithstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to erect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first saith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17. 1532. But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim
but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he be approved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or forensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i. e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self essentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successours to act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotland had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the foresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain power to defend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Lord of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King with the consent or it the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go confer them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the
Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denie not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of Scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear our purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be sive sic sive non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am causa est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat quod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power he ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24. sect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8. lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Angliae libera fuit omni tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratiam agnoscat Fuit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum humanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parasit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for Salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examine the strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood-relation therefore flattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater
Impune quae libet facere id est Regem esse But Memmius thereby endeavoureth to disswade the Romans to keep themselves by all means possible from the yoke of King Jugurtha hereby insinuating the dangerousnesse and inconveniency of Monarchy just so as Oâ—tanes did to the Persians But neither of them did allow this but taxed it as an unjust and hurtful power in Kings I must needs say Salmasius quoteth Memmius and Ottanes their words as the Devil quoted in tempting Christ Matth. 4. David's words Psa 91. v. 11. That which directly made against the Devil's temptation he held-out and only expressed that which he thought made for his purpose So doth Salmasius straight-forth in quoting the words of Ottanes and Memmius The thing that maketh against him he suppresseth and that which in shew maketh for him he expresseth SUBSECT 2. The rest of the Arguments for enforcing the second Assertion propounded and followed-forth HAving at length discussed all that Salmasius doth or can reply against our second Argument we make ready now to propound the rest of our Arguments whereby the King 's arbitrary power is dismissed And what further may be objected against our second Argument as indeed Royallists do we shall take it off by the way in prosecuting the rest of our Arguments And so by the way we shall meet with these Royallists who with Salmasius do directly militar against our second Argument Now Thirdly we make good our purpose from the power that the Kings of Israel and Judah had And for clearing this you shall be pleased to take notice of these Conclusions Conclus 1. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. For proof of this see 1 Sam. 13.14 15.22.23 c. 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 12.14.15.16.20.22 2 King 3.8.10.13.14.15.16.17.21.24 2 Chr. 10.11.12.18.21.22.24.25.26.27.28.33.36 Conclus 2. The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick There is reason for this for such did reign against Law And why did they not also rule against Law And what can tyrannous Kings do but reduce the people to slavery Now it is known that the Kings of Israel for the most part were of this temper Many of them were cruel tyrants and vile usurpers Therefore is it said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non dicit testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur In cod Sanh 11. This Maimonides expoundeth concerning the kings of Israel in Gemar tract de synedr cap. 11. And this I take to be very true concerning the usurping and tyrannous kings of Israel They did not judge because tyrannous and usurping kings delight in cruelty They seek nothing but their own case and if they act any thing according to Law it is only for the fashion as the tyrant Cambyses did in seeking his german sister in marriage What Such hold will for Law They know nothing but Hoc volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione voluntas Juv. Satyr 6. Such Kings do not judge according to the Law of the Kingdom Neither is there power according to the Law of the Kindom laid upon such What they do is done by themselves unanswerable to any They act will-way and not Law-way They were not judged because they did take power to themselves above all Law It cannot be denied but Salmastus concludeth well from 1 Sam. 8. and 2 Sam. 8. that the King of Israel judged Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he will do well to advert that though this be true Rex judicat concerning the King of Israel according to God's institution the Law of the Nation and the practice of some of their Kings yet this is as true Rex non judicat concerning the ordinary practice of their Kings And it is very observable that Jannaeus whom they called Alexander all the while he did reign over the people of the Jews acted nothing according to Law but tyrannized over them Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 21.22 But in Gem. tract de Syned cap. 11. it is said that because of Jannaeus it was enacted that the king should neither judge nor be judged And if it be true that it was enacted then then do I not think that it was upon that fabalous ground which doth not so much as relish to Salmasius of which the Rabbinick writers speak but because of the tyranny and cruelty of the man who did not govern law-way but will-way And as Alexander so the tyrant Herod had an arbitrary power though we suppose it did depend much from the concession of Antonius Jos Ant. lib. 15. cap. 4. Conclus 3. The good Kings of the Jews because of personall endowments had exemption and immunity from Law This is manifest in the examples of David and Solomon There were two things chiefly in David which were against the Law 1. Multiplication of wives Whereof David had very many 1 Chr. 3. and 14.2 Murder upon the back of adultery 2 Sam. 11. And Solomon did many things contrary to the Law 1. He multiplied gold and silver 2. Horses and Charets 1 Kin. 10. 2 Chron. 9. 3. Wives And 4 he fell into adultery 1. Kin. 11. And yet we read not that either David or Solomon were judged therefore by the Sanhedrin And what I pray you could be the reason of this Not because the king de jure hath immunity from Law Nor because they over-awed the Sanhedrin by force of armes We read nothing of that And you shall not make me believe that the Sanhedrin durst not attempt the executing of justice upon them 1. You thereby put a great note of reproach upon David and Solomon You do no lesse then insinuate a disposition in them for rebellion if you alleadge that the Sanhedrin which de jure as both already and afterward doth appear had power over them durst not for fear of their resistance execute judgment on them That had been a disposition to resist the higer powers which the Holy Ghost condemneth Rom. 13. And I will not think that such men had the Spirit of rebellion to repine against the execution of justice 2. We find that the Sanhedrin did execute justice on Amaziah And the people did so against Athaliah 2 Kin. 11.2 Chr. 23. Which maketh me think that it was not for want of power that David and Solomon were spared Other Kings of Judah were punished for their faults The Sanhedrin and people had power to execute justice on them And why not also on David and Solomon They were all Kings alike And it is very remarkable that after Solomon's death ten tribes declined the house of David because of Solomon's heavy exactions and tributes he laid upon the people 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. I believe they were as powerfull to revolt from Solomon as from Rehoboam And seing the people took so heavily with Solomon's yoke that therefore they did revolt from his son it maketh me think that the Sanhedrin did not spare him for fear
cod San. cap. 11. he saith That it is true in respect of the Kings of Israel but not in respect of the Kings of Judah And in what sense it is true concerning the Kings of Israel is already explicated by us The Gemarick Writers from these words Oh house of David execute judgment in the morning and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour Jerem. 21. move this Question Nisi in jus vocari possent quomodo judicarent i. e. How could the house of David judge unlesse they were judged This they prove because in Scripture we are commanded to search and try our wayes i. e. as they say Corrige te ipsum deinde alios corrige Salmasius rageth at this and he denieth what they infer I shall not take it upon me to make good their consequences Let Salmasius impugn them as much as he will My purpose is only to shew That they are not of his opinion They are contented not only to say That the king of the Jews at-least of Judah as Salmasius himself out of Sichardus R. Lakises hath was subjected to Law but also they dispute for that and endeavour to enforce it by Arguments Secondly from their acting with the concurrence of their Princes And David consulted with the Captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader And David said unto all the Congregation of Israel If it seem good unto you let us send abroad unto our brethren that they may gather themselves unto us 1 Chron. 13. There is much in this If it seem good unto you This insinuateth that as David would not act without the advice and counsel of his people so his acting depended from their determination For the King had taken counsel and his Priests and all the Congregation in Jerusalem to keep the Pass-over in the second moneth He doth it not of his own head without advice And the thing pleased the King and all the Congregation It is a thing done by common consent So they established a decree Mark it is not said So the King established a decree But the Authority both of King and Princes is interposed The decree floweth from the joynt-authority of both Therefore it is added So the posts went with Letters from the King and the Princes 2 Chron. 30. They go not forth as commissioned only from the King but also from the Princes And it is most remarkable that which Zedekiah said unto the Princes The King is not he that can do any thing against you Jerem. 38. Ergo if the King could do nothing against the will of the Princes he had not an arbitrary power to dispose upon matters as he pleased Inst The King delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes saith Salmasius not because he was inferiour to them but by way of courtesie and gratification and perhaps for fear of sedition Def. reg cap. 4. Ans I confesse Josephus ant lib. 10. cap. 10. doth insinuate as much But by your leave I must needs say that Zedekiah might have delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes whether through gratification or through jealousie and yet he needed not to say that he could do nothing against them And sure I am if he had had an arbitrary power over them he would never have said so 1. Because it had been a known and manifest lie Which he would have been ashamed to have spoken in the presence of the Princes 2. He should have done altogether against gallantry and wisdom Against gallantry because if he should have denied his power by way of gratification then should he have been simple And if through jealousie then he had been base and cowardly Against wisedome because the high way of fomenting sedition is to dash upon suspition thereof The seditious party is encouraged upon the fainting and relenting of the other Well I do not dispute upon what grounds Zedekiah delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes Whether it be the one way or the other it is not materiall Yet you must give me leave to add that you can assign no reason whether from gratification or from jealousie why he should have said that he could do nothing against the will of the Princes if he had had an arbitrary and boundlesse power Nay but the words are so clear that they need no commentary Thirdly from the councell of the old men given to Rehoboam who said to him If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day and wilt serve them and speak good words to them then they will be thy servants for ever 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. They perswade the king to keep himself within bounds and not to rule at randome They would have the King to carry himself as a servant toward the people This is far from an arbitrary and lording power It came to this that either Rehoboam behoved to govern according to Law and dimit of the power which his father had although it was not boundlesse and arbitrary in the full vastnesse of arbitrary power or else the people would leave him and revolt from him Thus it was not in Rehoboam's option to lessen or not to lessen the yoke of his father which he held upon the peoples neck No verily Neither did the old men counsell him to dimit any thing of his father's power as meerly depending from his own arbitriment but in relation to the people's desire And that not onely because of necessity but also because of conveniency Verily the old men had been far in the wrong to Rehoboam to have counselled him to dimit any thing of his power if he might have retained it justly No necessity lawfully could have moved the old men to perswade Rehoboam to dimit his power if he had had such a power of GOD and if the desire of the people had been unhonest and unjust No evill should be done that good may come of it Rom. 3. Verily the young mens counsell had been more just and reasonable then the counsell of the old men if Rehoboam lawfully might have kept the people under his fathers yoke and if the peoples desire had been unlawfull But it is known as Salmasius himself confesseth that Solomon unjustly keeped the people under heavy pressures 1 Kin. 11. and the counsell of the old men was just and reasonable yea and the desire of the people was honest and equitable 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. Ios an t Jud. lib 8. cap. 3. Now tell me whether or not the Kings of the Jewes de jure had an arbitrary and lording power over the people If they had such a power de jure then did the people contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to dimit his father's power which of the most can be called nothing but absolute and uncircumscribed and the old men did also contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to satisfie the people's desire Salmasius himself will not say so But he acknowledgeth that the peopl's desire was just and the old mens counsell
seasonable Yet I remit it to any indifferent reader to judge whether or not the people could have desired Rehoboam to lessen the yoke of his father and the old men could have counselled him to serve the people and satisfie their desire without the note of highest treason if he had been their absolute lord And if you deny that de jure they had any such power then do I gain the point Inst Salmasius hath no more to say against this But 1 they did not accuse condemn and bring Rehoboam to death as the English rebels dealt with K. Charles 2. There is none who will not condemn Jeroboam as an apostate and rebell and impute rebellion to all his successours Def. reg cap. 4. Ans This is a meer shifting of the question What is it to the purpose that the people of Israel did not accuse condemn and cut-off Rehoboam Will it therefore follow that he had an arbitrary and lording power or that they went not about to eclipse his power and to keep it within bounds The contrary of that is shewed already And I think Salmasius will say that they had not reason to cut-off Rehoboam He did no more but threatned them with heavy pressures and grievous impositions and that through the suggestion of wicked and evill counsell We read not that he had tyrannized over them and had put any thing in action which he threatened them with And yet they say What portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse Every man to your tents O Israel and now David see to thine own house 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. My friend were they any thing behinde with Rehoboam in this And I am sure they did as much against Rehoboam in revolting from him and in setting another King over them upon his threatning them with tyranny as if they should have cut him off if at any time he had actually exercised tyranny upon them Consideratis considerandis the case is just one They declined him upon his profession of tyranny And I pray imagine you but they would have dealt far more roughly with him if he had put it in action Did they not stone Adoram to death who was sent out by the King to them And was not the King constrained to flee to Jerusalem for fear of his life after they had revolted from him Yea were they not alwaies in a posture to have withstood the King if he had come against them in arms 1 King 12. 13. 2 Chron. 10. 11. I cannot stand here to dispute whether or not they did lawfully revolt from him But sure I am I may very justly determine upon either of these two 1. That Jeroboam was a vile idolater and was not worthy to be a King 2. That the people justly desired Rehoboam to dimit of the power which his father had and that the old men did arightly counsel Rehoboam to do so Neither of these doth Salmasius deny And so I gain the point as is already proved Fourthly from the People of the Jews processing their Kings So did they against Athaliah 2 King 11. 2 Chron. 23. and Amaziah 2 King 14. 2 Chron. 25. See subsect 2. prop. 1. And as they processed their Kings so did they resist them as afterward is shewed But I pray you could they have done such things lawfully if their Kings had had an arbitrary power over them And that they did such things according to Law and Reason is proved by us Fifthly If Ahab had had an absolute power I see no reason how he could have been refused of Naboth's Vineyard 1 King 21 Sure I am if he had had a prerogative above Law and a power to dispose according to his pleasure either upon the goods or the person of the subject he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard at his own hand without so much as demanding it with Naboth's leave And yet the text saith That Naboth having refused to give it him he went home much dismaid and refused to eat bread because Naboth had denied it to him And which is more he could not get it till a false processe was led against Naboth by the craft of Jezebel But is it imaginable that ever such things would have been done if Ahab's power had been arbitrary and uncircumscribed No verily No question if his power had been boundlesse by vertue of a Royal Act he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard either without grieving himself or without leading a false processe against Naboth And therefore Mr. Withers al. Tom Plain-man saith notably Why I pray Did Ahab grieve that Naboth said him nay Why made he not this answer thereunto If what the Prophet said some Kings would do Were justly to be done Thy Vineyard's mine And at my pleasure Naboth all that 's thine Assume I may Why like a Turkey-chick Did he so foolishly grow sullen sick And get possession by a wicked fact Of what might have been his by Royal Act If such Divinity as this were true The Queen should not have needed to pursue Poor Naboth as she did or so contrive His death since by the King's Prerogative She might have got his Vineyard nor would God Have scourg'd that murder with so keen a rod On Ahab had he asked but his due For he did neither plot nor yet pursue The murder nor for ought that we can tell Had knowledge of the deed of Jezebel Till God reveal'd it by the Prophet to him Nor is it said that Naboth wrong did do him Or disrespect in that he did not yeeld To sell or give or to exchange his field Brit. Remembr Cant. 8. Now hereby is made to appear That the Kings of the Jews were not absolute whether according to the Law of God or the Law of the Kingdom And why then do Royallists plead so much for the King 's arbitrary power seing the Jewish Kings de jure had it not Which maketh me think other Kings far lesse should have it for the ordination of the Jewish Kings did depend from God in a most special way and God therein was most intimatly concerned We must not think that the Kings of Judah after the captivity de jure had any priviledge above Law more then those who preceded them According to the Law of God they had no such priviledge as is shewed already And that according to the Law of the Nation they had it not is also evident 1. Because after the captivity the state of the Government was changed And they had not so much as Kingly Government much lesse absolute Monarchy till Aristobulus firstly usurped the Crown Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 19. 2. Because the people did withstand the tyrant Alexander And while as he was dying he was necessitate to exhort his wife who succeeded to him to dimit of his power and to promise to govern according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours and Pharisees Ant. Jud. lib. 13. cap. 22 23. Which she did accordingly
Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 141 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free Vâ—NDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i. e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey
and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the Parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Laet. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum praelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praef stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i. e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit ita praeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodem die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i. e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensatotius Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i. e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wisely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well lest he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius
Hercules Ber. lib. 5. and Orestes Dict. de bel Tro. lib 6. Secondly by way of conquest So did the extraordinary Heroes as is shewed already concl 1. Ordinary Heroes who subdued Kingdoms be these Amongst the Assyrians Arius Baleus c. Beros an t lib. 5. Amongst the Grecians the Heraclids who subdued Mycenae and Alemeon who subdued the Kingdom of Thebes Diod. lib. 5. cap. 4. and 6. 3. Because of the benevolence and bountifulnesse of ancestours So Crana and Cranus were dignified with the swaying of the Scepter amongst the Razenues because of the singular benevolence and courtesie of Janus their father toward the Italians For the same reason also Thuscus son to Hercules the Egyptian was graciously admitted by the Arnites Libarnites Musarnites to reign over them Beros an t lib. 5. 4 By cunning and art This may be taken two wayes Firstly as it implieth a conferring of the Kingly power because of engine and invention Thus the Thebans advanced Oedipus to reign over them Sophocl in Oed. tyr Diod. lib. 5. cap. 6. Secondly as it implieth a cunning and subtil way of obtaining the Kingdom So Camesenuus obtained the Kingdom of Bactria Ber. lib. 5. and Neoptolemus acquired the Kingdom of Thessaly which belonged to his father Achilles Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 6. 5 By acquisition This is taken three wayes Firstly by way of emption Thus Agamemnon obtained the military power over all the Grecian Princes in the Trojan expedition by letting-out amongst the Souldiers a huge masse of money Dict. Cret lib. 1. Secondly by way of compensation So Antenor was created King of Dardany in compensation of his pains in betraying Troy to the Grecians Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 5. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. Thirdly by way of meer purchase and simple acquisition Thus did Aeneas acquire Melena with its Continent Dict. Cret loc cit Salust conjur Catel So did Iolaus purchase a Kingdom to himself in Sardinia Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. These things being thus illustrated by example I do nextly desire the Reader carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Heroes and between those of them who were in the precedent times and those who were in the subsequent times of Heroicism For my-self I cannot say but extraordinary Heroes at least and the founders of primary Colonies were invested with a vast and arbitrary power But as for the ordinary Heroes and the after-founders of Colonies I am contented with Aristotle to say That their power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law We find several examples amongst the after-heroes to this purpose Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did therein either firstly or lastly was according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours Dict Cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. 5. Dar. Phr. de excid Tro. lib. And though Dares Phrygius reporteth that Priamus determined and voiced otherwise then they who followed Antenor and Aeneas who appear to us to have been the major part of the Senat for we gather from both these Historians that not only the greatest part of the Senate but also the whole body of the People were for the concluding and drawing up peace with the Grecians I confesse Dares Phrygius in plain terms saith that Priamus voiced against peace and truce taking-up with the Grecians and what he voiced was established and holden as a thing concluded-on by all Indeed he carried it contrary to all who opposed him as Dares will have it Yet Dictys storieth the just contrary and saith that Priamus followed the advice and determination of the Senat. And indeed Q. Calaber lib. 12. and Tryphiâ—dor de Il. exc insinuate no lesse for they observe Dictys way which he hath in storying the Grecian stratagem which ensued upon terms of peace concluded-on between the Trojans and Grecians Howsoever albeit I think my-self rather oblidged to encline to Dares relation yet lose I nothing thereby if I do so I am not of that opinion to think that Priamus was so hemmed-in by Law as the Lacedemonian Kings Let it be so he had a negative voice in Senate as Dares insinuateth yet sure I am none will say that the Senate was a cypher having no authority at all You will learn from these fore-cited historians the contrary of that And in so far as Priamus did act according to the advice counsel of the Senat in as far he did act according to Law Thus he did not simply act according to pleasure and in an arbitrary way No verily In this his power was somewhat limited And this is all that both Aristotle and we do crave And so we must not think but Alcinous was some way or other regulated by his Princes and Rulers as you may read Hom. odys 8. And how much Agamemnon was subjected to Law is shewed already Of him is made good that which Aristotle speaketh of the tying of the King to the People by the elevation of the Scepter as by Oath and Covenant Hom. Il. 2. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10. We need not think it strange to say that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were somewhat subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no lesse subjected to Law as is shewed already then the Lacedemonian kings 'T is observable that Orestes son to Agamemnon and King of Mycenae was judged and absolved by the Councel of Areopagus Him Mnestheus son to Theseus and King of Athens could not get set free till firstly he was examined by the Areopagites whom Dictys calleth most strict Justiciaries de bel Tro. lib. 6. Mark that the Mycenan King was judged by the Athenian Judicatory Then tell me seing a King of another Kingdom in the dayes of the Heroes was subjected to the Law and Judicatory of Athens shall we not think that Kings in those dayes in some things at least were restricted and subjected to Law Verily this is an argument from the greater to the lesser But hear what Alexander ab Alexandro saith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubitarit lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisistratus doubted not to undergo judgment there And I would have Royallists to observe that in this matter I give them more of their will then Aristotle doth for according to this last sense and exposition his words insinuate That all Kings in the dayes of the Heroes in some things were rest icted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yea in the latter part of the fourth species he saith That Kings in ancient time had but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-governing power But we go further-on with the Malignant and say That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Yet precisely
saith so because God only could pardon him But saith Salmasius this cannot be for the remission of sins obtained by the blood of Christ under the new Testament unto life eternal had no place under the old Testament O! saith he what ignorance and wickednesse go hand in hand in these knaves Def. Reg. cap. 3. This glosse which Salmasius so much hisseth-at is the very words of Lyra. And it is cited by our dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 26. Well then let that Anonymus be what he will whom I take not to be the authour of Lex Rex Salmasius hath no reason for that interpretation to call him ignorant unlesse he call Lyra ignorant also And I must needs say Hell and the Devil never invented worse then what now Salmasius speaketh I wonder if he dare deny but Christ was also mediatour under the old Testament aswell as under the new Dare he say That under the old Testament remission of sins unto life eternal was not centred upon Christ and acquired by him Hath this man a face to deny Christ to be the Redeemer of Beleevers under the Law By whose mediation I pray you did they pass from death to life if not by the righteousness of Christ who is the only Advocat before the Father for the sins of all the Elect I confesse those who were under the Law beleeved in Christ who was to be incarnated and who was about to shed his blood on the Crosse for the Redemption of Beleevers But doth this take-away Christ's blood shed under the new Testament as the ground and center of Salvation and remission of sins to Beleevers under the old Testament Howsoever sure I am this Gentleman cannot deny but under the old Testament God only could pardon sin Now this Authour whom he calleth an ignorant and pestilent knave saith no more but this And I shall let any indifferent Reader judge between Salmasius and him whether or not Salmasius hath reason to fail so much against him because he saith That under the old Testament GOD only could pardon David's sin Oh! that this poor wretch is not ashamed to speak so blasphemously This truth is old enough and can speak for it self And sure I am there is no honest heart who will allow Salmasius in this Royallists need not to brag much because David was unpunishable by man for his murder and adultery Arguing from this the state of the Question between us and them is changed And thus the Question is moved Whether or not a man according to God's own heart one worth ten thousand and as in qualification so in station above every one of the People should be cut-off and punished by the State for committing adultery with a privat woman and committing murder against a privat man And what if I should hold the negative of the Question as indeed I make it a great case and do spare to determine upon either of the parts at this time yet would Royallists gain just nothing The Question between them and us is this Whether or not the King is unpunishable by man though turned a positive tyrant and forthwith a destroyer of the Commonwealth Friends shew me the like practice in David and the Sanhedrin's sparing him notwithstanding and I shall yeeld to you Ye are so far from being able to do so that weighing David's murder in a square ballance you will find it lighter then is supposed for neither he nor his had formally but virtually a hand in the murder of Uriah This is far from a destroying of the People 'T is not like Nero's wish that all Rome had but one Neck that he might cut it off Now Royallists must object from the Sanhedrin's sparing a Nero. Otherwise they beat the air and change the state of the Question Conclus 4. The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power This we make good firstly from divine institution and God's moulding of the King Deut. 17. from which is already proved Subsect 1. Assert 2. That the power of the Jewish king is hedged-in by Law And Josephus on the place saith That he should do nothing without the consent and advice of the Priest and Sanhedrin Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 8. 'T is but vanity in Saâ—nasius to clude Josephus speech saying That his meaning is only concerning the Kings of the Jews after the captivity Def. Reg. cap. 2. Is he not blind that seeth not this man's deceit Sure I am that which is spoken of the King Deut. 17. was spoken long before the Kings of the Jews after the captivity yea long before there was any King in Israel 'T is the very positive rule and pattern of all Kings And Josephus in the place above cited as it were commenting on Moses words giveth the meaning of them Nay but you shall further observe the fallacy of this Gentleman He studieth to put his own construction as most beseemeth his honour upon Josephus words And yet notwithstanding he refelleth Josephus and cannot rest satisfied with his own construction Yea which is more he fleeth cap. 9. to what Josephus saith as to a main truth in respect of all the Kings of Israel both before and after the Captivity Then tell me what manner of man can he be who cap. 2. declineth from and cap. 9. enclineth to Josephus In the one place he plainly denieth That the Kings of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity were tied to do nothing without the consent of the high-Priest and Sanhedrin And yet in the other place he affirmeth the contrary But he loseth all his labour whether to deny what Josephus saith or to glosse it according to his own humour for as afterward is shewed Josephus was no friend to Monarchy And which is more what Josephus saith is the common judgment of Jewish Writers Rex obediat curiae senatus majoris i. e. The King let him be obedient to the authority of the higher Sanhedrin Deut. 17. Senatus major interficiendi gladio jus habeat i. e. Let the higher Sanhedrin have the right and power of killing by the sword Exod. 21. Nemo sese opponat decretis sanctioris Senatus i. e. Let none withstand and resist the Statutes of the greater Sandedrin Deut. 17. R. Mos Egypt praec aff 176. and 225. praec neg 316. It cannot be denied but the Jewish King was regulated seing not only he was oblidged to give obedience to the higher Sanhedrin but also every one without exception was tied not to contraveen the Acts and Sentence thereof He had not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The power of the sword was not in his hand but in the Sanhedrin's Thus his power was restricted as was the authority of the Lacedemonian king and the power of other Kings as is spoken-of already at length Yea Maimonides saith Qui ex familia Davidis sunt judicant judicantur And so in expounding that Rex neque judicat neque judicatur
as the name of a King much lesse the power So it was amongst the Cretians Athenians Cyrenians Romans and other Republicks Yet observe this distinction there is a threefold kind of people 1. Haughty and malignant 2. Ignorant and servil 3. Witty and politick The first sort can endure no Government but kingly And that not only because they would be great Courtiers themselves and promoted to dignity but also because they cannot endure to be governed by their equals The second sort Stoically are incapable of the sence of slavery and apprehend some deified lustre in the King They are silly base common spirits And because of their sillinesse they are contented to live in slavery And as they are base so they are ignorant And because of their ignorance they apprehend all their slavishnesse abundantly to be made-up with a glimpse of the King's countenance for in their delusion they look upon it as some deified species apprehending him to be much more then a man And the third sort upon no terms can away with kingly Government And that because they delight in freedom and the enriching of the Commonwealth We see that the most witty and politick Kingdoms we read of did either extreamly lessen the power of their Kings or else did shake-off their yoke altogether and that both in former and after-times So the Egyptian Ethiopian Indian Athenian Lacedemonian Cretian Cyrentan Carthaginian and Roman Kingdoms And to day know we not that the most witty and politick Kingdoms of the world which delight in the liberty of the Subject and wealth of the Republick cannot away with kingly Government So Venice Florence Holland and England What I pray you can be the reason that England cannot away with kingly Government and Scotland so much thirsteth after it Speaking naturally there can be no reason given but because England is a witty and politick Nation and Scotland is not What doth not Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 11. Pol. 4 cap. 13. impute it to the ignorance and unpolitickness of people that in old they did set-up Kings to reign over them And in the same places he saith That Policy abounding and Commonwealth's-men encreasing Kings were suffered no longer to govern But although this be true That people in after-times do not so much prize Monarchy as in former times and though even to day some kingdoms be lesse disposed for it then other kingdoms having shaken it off altogether yet notwithstanding I am constrained to say That in respect of the general and common disposition of the people nothing doth relish so much to them as kingly government No wonder forsooth for there are moe who are malignant and haughty desiring to set their feet upon the necks of others then are politick and witty And besides this the general and common sort of people are meerly ignorant and insensible of slavery There are far more indeed of the first and second sort then the third Assert 4. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments This we make good Firstly from example It cannot be denied but the good Kings who in old did reign over the Jews did set-up most glorious and eminent Reformations amongst the people They most nobly reformed both Church and State 2 Sam. 6 and 7. 1 King 8 1 Chron. 13.15.16.17.22 28. Psa 101. So much of David Of Solomon 1 Kin. 1.2.5.6 7. 8. 1 Chr. 5.6.7.24.28 29. 2 Chr. 2.3 4. 8. Of Asa 1 Kin. 15. 2 Chr. 14. 15. Of Jehoshaphat 2. Chron. 17. 19. Of Hezekiah 2 King 18. 2 Chr. 29.30 31. There is much also spoken of Josiah in acting for Reformation 2 King 23. 2 Chron. 34 35. See also Joseph Ant. lib. 7.8 9. concerning the actings of these Kings They were so instrumental in setting-up the Work of God amongst the people that therein they did far exceed the Judges Hence is it we do not read the people of the Jews at any time so cheerfully so fully so speedily and with such a plenary consent to have gone about duty as under the reign of these Kings Under the conduct of the best Judges we read of great grudgings altercations and slips amongst the people notwithstanding the non-consent of the Rulers thereto Exod. 32. Numb 11.12.13.14.16.20 25. Josh 7. Jud. 2. But we read not of any such slips amongst the people under these reforming Kings Secondly Monarchy is attended with many noble proprieties wherein it exceedeth any other kind of Government By vertue of which now and then here and there it produceth more noble and eminent effects then any other Government In reckoning-up these proprieties we observe Bellarmin's method 1. Order 2. Intense Authority Whereby it preventeth division and speedily attaineth its purpose In this sense the Poet saith well componitur Orbis Regis ad exemplum From the second propriety Darius disputing for Monarchy against Ottanes concludeth it to be the choicest of Governments Herod lib. 3. It made Ulysses to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Il. 2. In English That many rule it is not a good thing One Prince let be and let there be one King And therefore he sharply rebuked the dividing and murmuring Grecians saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. ibid. In English We shall not Grecians in this place All reign indeed in any case From this Isocrates concludeth Monarchy of all Governments simply to be the best ad Nic. So do Seneca lib. 2. cap. 20. Athanasius Orat. adv Idol Hieronymus par 3. tract 9. epist 39. and Plutarch in Num. Sol. But they are far mistaken for this only concludeth Monarchy secundum quid to be the choicest of Governments Yea Plato in Polit. Aristotle Eth. 8. cap. 10. Justine in Or. exhort Cyprian tract de idol van in this respect call Monarchy the chiefest of Governments Yet not simply and absolutely as do Isocrates Darius and others 3. Power and strength For in so far as Monarchick Government is lesse obnoxious to division and more attended with union then any of the rest in as far it secureth and strengtheneth the Commonwealth more then any of them The strength of the Kingdom dependeth from union consent and harmony The contrary of this is the ruin of it Mat. 12. Whence after Kingly Government had perished amongst the Romans many intestine divisions did ensue as D. Halicarnassius Val. maximus T. Livius Fenestella Plutarch L. Annaeus c. do report 4. Stability and diuturnity Now it is attended with this propriety for these reasons Firstly because it is most authoritative and farthest from the subjects reach Secondly because it is lesse liable to division and confusion then any of the rest of Governments Because of these things it is more free then any other Government whether from forrain or intestine jars Hence is it that amongst all Governments it hath endured longest as is agreed on by all Historians I confesse
he did not protest against the power but whereas he should have disswaded the the people from seeking after it he tacitely perswadeth them thereto for how much more the excellency and goodnesse of a thing is pointed-out so much more it is desired-after And to say that Samuel did not disswade them therefrom but perswaded them thereto is to avouch that either he did argue against himself and militate against his own purpose or else that he acted contrary to his Commission from GOD. The LORD commanded him solemnly to protest and disswade them from their purpose He would have him to lay-out before their eyes the dangerousnesse of Kingly power to strike terrour in their hearts that they might forbear longer to desire it If you come to my hand and say that the Prophet in this place onely speaketh of unlawfull power or of the bad of a lawful power I obtain my desire I seek no more then that you say he speaketh here of the abuse and not the use of Kingly power And I trow the abuse of Kingly power is not the right but the wrong of it 2. Because the Prophet in describing the manner of the King setteth down acts of tyranny not of lawfull authority We take up the description it-self under a general and particular notion The generall Ye shall be his servants He shall beslave you and make you serve him according to his pleasure Which made Josephus say And that I may speak it in a word ye together with all yours shall serve the King no otherwaies then his own domestick servants Ant. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 4. See plain language in Brent to this purpose hom 27. in 1 Sam. 8. The particular notion hath several parts in it Firstly in order to the King 's tyrannizing over the sons of the people He will take your sons c. As if he had said your King shall make you sonlesse He shall beslave them to his service imploying some in one office and some in another And in all these employments whether base or not neither ye nor your sons shall be holden as free-men but all the fruits of your labours shall turn-over into the King's privat advantage Whereupon Josephus himself bringeth-in Samuel speaking that he would declare to them who should be their king but adding that he would first shew them what things they would suffer under a king and with how great disadvantages they would live under him Therefore ye shall firstly know that he will take from you your children and he shall make some of them drivers of Chariots c. So that there shall be nothing which he shall not constrain them to do after the manner of bought slaves Ant. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 4. In this Josephus much agreeth with these words in the original text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which in their proper rigorous signification are rendered he will quite take-away your sons But we judge it not to be an Act of Regal power but of meer tyranny to denude the parent altogether of his child and the King to dispose of him at his pleasure For this Brent gallantly speaketh loc cit Secondly In order to the King 's away-taking of the daughters of the people He will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be cooks and to be bakers As if he had said He shall not only make you sonlesse but daughterlesse also And as he will make slaves of the one so likewise of the other Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also in the original of this text And it proporteth a ravenous and cruel away-taking But hear Josephus Kings will make confectionaries of your daughters for their own use kitchen-women dressers of cloath and they shall compel them to do any other service which damsels for fear of strokes do perform Loc. cit Nay but Brent loc cit is more full and plain Thirdly in order to the King 's away-taking of their possessions And he will take your fields c. It may be you think that your sons and your daughters will be well taken-off your hands and though he should wrong them he will not wrong your selves Peradventure you imagine his tyranny will take a stand there Nay but I 'll tell you if he take-away your sons and daughters he will also take-away your substance And well know I if you get any courtesie at his hand ye'll have little reason to boast of it He will take the tenth from you Sure I am he will have so little respect to you to your children that serve him and to your pains in gathering riches together that what ye gain through the sweat of your brows he wil let it out to any base fellow in his Court and ye dare not say it is evil done If this be not an act of tyranny saith Piscator then had not God punished Ahab for taking-away Naboth's vineyard Ahab according to Law should have possessed it Schol. in 1 Sam. 8. See Josephus Brent loc cit Fourthly In order to his away-taking of the people's servants And he will take your men-servants and your maid-servants and your goodliest young-men and put them to his work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also in the original of this text His tyranny shall not end at your sons and daughters and at your possessions but he shall violently rob you of your servants And if he take not all of them be sure he will take the chiefest of them See plain Brent ibid. Fifthly In relation to his away-taking of their sheep He will take away the tenth of your sheep He will not leave you so much as a sheep's tail At least he will take the tenth of them 3. The consequent and event both of the general and particular part of the description is the effect of tyranny not of lawful authority Ye shall cry-out in that day because of your King whom ye shall have chosen you We are sure that the people would never cry-out for exercising the just and lawful Acts of Regal Authority Thereby justice is promoted and vice is punished Which is a blessing and not a bondage for people to make them cry-out in bitternesse of spirit Thus it is abundantly made good that Samuel here doth not describe the power but the tyranny of the King Now in-starteth another question Whether or not doth the Prophet in this place disswade the Jews from seeking a King as a King To which we answer affirmatively and prove it thus If the Prophet doth not disswade the people from seeking a King under the notion of a King then either because he only taxeth carnal confidence in them or arogancy and pride or precipitation only or else because they sought a King after the manner of the Nations But none of these Reasons whether conjunctly or severally are the adaequat object of the Prophet's disswasion Firstly Because it is said That Samuel was displeased because they sought a King The text is not But the thing displeased Samuel when they
said We will have confidence in a King c. But it is The thing displeased Samuel when they said Give us a King 'T is wrong Logick to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King in esse accidentali At least 't is very far fetch'd Philosophy to take it under some extrinsecal and adjunctive notion or other See Josephus loc cit Brent hom 27. in 1 Sam. 8. Secondly Because God expresly commandeth Samuel solemnly to protest against the election of a King But if the Prophet should only have taxed them for incredulity arrogancy c. then should the Lord only have given Samuel orders to disswade them from these evils in laying-out before them the wickednes thereof But the Prophet only layeth-out before them the danger of Monarchy expresly disswadeth them therefrom Who can imagin if his main only purpose had been for disswading them from these evils and not from setting-up Royal Government amongst them but he would rather have turned his face against these evils in spreading-out the dangers thereof before their face then in pointing-out to them the evil of Monarchy Verily were it so he had harped upon the wrong string Thirdly The people's answer is in reference to Samuel's reasoning Nay but say they we will have a king over us This had been a very uncategorick answer yea plain non-sense if Samuel had been only taxing them for carnal confidence arrogancy c. and dehorting them therefrom Fourthly Because we have shewed already That Samuel according to God's Commandment draweth motives from acts of tyranny that the King would exercise to disswade the people from seeking after him Would he say Ye think your King will fight your battels and save you from forrain invasion Well let it be so But I 'll tell you the King himself will tyrannize over you Get him when you will I warrant ye shall not be free of intestine trouble Nothing is so evil as that It is worse then forrain war Therefore ye will do well to keep your selves free of him so long as ye want him Fifthly While as the Lord tacitly rebuketh them of carnal confidence in these words They have rejected Me that I should not reign over them he likewise in them insinuateth a reproof in order to their shaking-off the Government which he had instituted amongst them It was God's Ordinance yea the chiefest of its own kind But whosoever shaketh-off though the least of God's Ordinances doth shake-off God Himself Rom. 13. I mean in a preposterous and carnal way delighting in change and going from the better to the worse So did the people of the Jews at this time Therfore God reproving them as rejecters of Democracy by way of consequence he checketh them as suiters of Monarchy for he could no waies have rebuked them for rejecting the one if he had not altogether allowed them in seeking after the other Sixthly They are reprehended and taxed expresly for seeking after a King I will call unto the LORD that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the LORD in asking you a King And all the people said unto Samuel Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God that we die not for we have added to all our sins this evil to ask us a king Ye have done al this wickedness 1 Sam. 12. Let the indifferent Reader judge now whether or not the Spirit of GOD in these words doth manifestly reprehend them as they had sought after a king The Royallist would do well not to imagin that these things do exclude the Prophet's disswading the people's seeking a king as a king They rather include then exclude the king in this notion And so Royallists in propounding these reasons proceed a Divisione They take inadaequatum for adaequatum the part for the whole But for the more satisfactory resolution of the fourth particular we demand whether or not the Prophet doth tax the Jews in seeking a King after the manner of the Nations as they sought a King or as they sought a tyrannous King If the former we gain the point But the other is builded upon a mis-supposition 1. Because it is altogether repugnant to Nature earnestly to thirst after tyranny oppression and misery The like was never heard amongst any people though never so rude and barbarous far lesse amongst the people of the Jews to whom were given the Statutes and Ordinances and who in seeking a King covered their knavery with fair pretences 2. They seek a King as they suppose to be free of tyranny and injustice done by Samuel's sons who judged them for the time That did set them a-work to seek a King 3. Having gathered themselves together in seeking a King from Samuel they adde this to their discourse Thou art old Would they say not onely thy sons oppress us and pervert righteous judgement but even thou thy self art unfit to judge us Old age hat rendered thee unable dexterously to go about matters of judgment Therefore let us have a King who wil supply thy wants One who will judge us justly as thou didst in the time of thy youth Let us have a King to judge us uprightly as thou didst and not unjustly as do thy sons Now let any rational man judge it such people who sought a King under such fair pretences for promoving vertue and removing vice would ever have sought a King to tyrannize over them See Josephus ant Jud. lib. 6. cap. 4. and Brent hom 25. in 1 Sam. 8. 'T is remarkable Salmasius will not let it be heard that they sought a tyrannous king Def. reg cap. 2. And it can not be said that all the kings of of the nations at that time were tyrants This is shewed already and somewhat illustrated by Salmasius loc cit In the interim I humbly desire Salmasius that he speak without reflection and more modestly then he doth He insinuateth that what Samuel did in disswading the people from seeking a king that he did it through by-respect and self-interest But we have shewed that what he spake against their course was from GOD's expresse and positive command He did not disswade them from it for his own good but their good He shewed them they would be in a far worse condition under kings then under Judges It was not for the advantage of his sons but for the advantage of the people that he condescended to grant their desire So is manifested already This man is so malicious that he spareth not to traduce GOD also He alleadgeth what God did in keeping-back the people from following out their desire was to gratifie Samuel Poor man doth he imagine that ever God would have connived with Samuel and put words in his mouth to disswade the people from following-out their desire if it had been for his glory and their well-fare Verily this argueth that God did prefer the gratification of Samuel to his own honour and that which conduced most thereto
and the well-fare of his people This Gentle-man needeth not boast that Moses Deut. 17. foretold the up-setting of kingly government amongst the Jews This he did not because he allowed it and preferred it to the government which he firstly instituted amongst them The LORD commanded Samuel to hearken to the peoples voice and condescend to their desire Yet it doth not follow that God allowed it He commanded Samuel positively to protest against it and disswade them therefrom by displaying the evils thereof So Moses through the Spirit of prediction infallibly forseeing the Jews in their stiff-neckednes and pride of heart would undoubtedly seek-after and set-up kingly government amongst them thereupon taketh occasion to prescribe a true plat-form of constituting and moulding kings And to this day it serveth as a morall rule according to which the structure of kingly government should be squared Thus the Holy Ghost bringeth forth a most good effect from the fore-sight of their evil and sinister purpose We can stay no longer here but only put the Reader in mind of this that it is not for nought God denied his applause and consent in setting-up Kings amongst the Jews That is a strange word They have set-up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8. I confesse this mainly relateth to the Kings of the ten Tribes Yet you must give me leave to say That it is spoken also in order to all the Kings of the Jews Would the authour of the exercitation conc usurp pow ch 1. compare this place with 1 Sam. 8. he would find that God as much disowned the one King as the other I suppose this is not a word of applause but dis-assent in making Saul King I gave thee a King in mine anger and took him away in my wrath Hos 13. Sure I am this is spoken against the King both of Israel and Judah It cannot be denied but the direct and main strain of this Prophet is against the ten Tribes and the Kings thereof Yet he hinteth both at Judah and Israel and their Kings as occasion serveth In things common to both he speaketh of both So he doth in the text immediatly fore-going Sure I am both Israel and Judah had hand in seeking Saul to reign over them Not only Israel but Judah said Give me a King and Princes And why shall we not think that the former text speaketh likewise of the Kings of Judah and those who did reign over both The Lord's dislike and dis-owning of Kings is as much in the one text as in the other And sure I am Jereboam was as notably called both by God and the ten Tribes to reign over them 1 Kin. 11. 12. 2 Chron. 10. as Saul was to reign over Judah and Israel Howsoever I deny not Kingly Government to be from God I confesse God effectively called Saul to reign over the Jews So did he David Solomon and others whom he called to reign in a most special way Yea he gave an hereditary assignation to David's posterity to the Crown upon conditions But what then This only saith that Kingly Government is good and in some cases much approved of God Yet it never concludeth that it is the best of Governments most approved of God and that the people of the Jews did not sin in setting-up it and shaking-off another It is laid before your eyes that of all Governments it is the most dangerous And seing the Lord did extreamly decline the setting-up of Kingly Government amongst the Jews how much more to day amongst us Beside all moral reasons there was a special typical reason for Monarchy amongst the Jews Under the Law not only Christ's Prophetical and Priestly Office Acts 3. Heb. 8.9 10. but also his Kingly-hood behoved to be typified both in substance and circumstance Gen. 49. 2 Sam. 7. 1 Kin. 8. 2 Chr. 6. Psa 2. Luke 1. Acts 2. Heb. 1. But I hope none under the Gospel can shew me such pressing grounds why Kingly Government to day should be erected None verily Well let them therefore advert That people under the Gospel have more then reason for them to shake-off and decline Monarchy They have not so much reason for it as the Jews had And yet the Lord much disowned it amongst them and much dis-assented from them in setting it up What I pray you is the language of this but that of all Governments it is most dangerous And that it is so is more then manifest from Samuel's way of charactering it Very reason it self teacheth the point Firstly because the bad consequence of Monarchy is tyranny 1 Sam. 8. I deny not but it may and doth flow also from other Governments yet not ordinarily and properly Properly and ordinarily such have for their bad consequences division and confusion But it must needs be granted that tyranny in it-self is worse then either of these And that both formally and virtually Formally because tyranny as tyranny is positive and even-down oppression But division as division and confusion as confusion cannot be so called Otherwise the division and confusion of integral parts should formally be tyranny and oppression Virtually because tyranny in its proper and rigorous acceptation presupposeth a meer and absolute passivenesse in the parts oppressed and enthralled But the case is far otherwise in respect of division and confusion As they only beget oppression and thraldom per accidens so they presuppose mutual resistance on both sides They do not imply an absolute and simple passivenesse on either of the sides Both parties fall at variance and both stand to their own defence the one against the other And so the one acting against the other neither of them doth simply suffer But absolute thraldom is worse then that which is non-absolute For acts of tyranny read Exod. 1. 5. Judg. 1. 9. 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 13.18.19 c. 2 King 21. Esth 3. Jer. 38. 39. Dan. 2. 3. Mat. 2.14 27. Mark 6. Luke 23. Acts 12. Apochryphal books Tob. 1. Jud. 2. 3. 1 Macc. 1.5.6.10 13. 2 Macc. 4.6.7 14. To this day there be many notable expressions and narrations which point-out to us that tyranny is of all evils the most dangerous and violent Herod lib. 3. Thucyd. lib. 2. Polyb. lib. 2. Tac. in vit Agric. Porn de lib. Get. lib. Antisthenes being asked why he preferred hangmen to tyrants he answered By the hangman the unjust and by the tyrant the just are cut-off Stob. serm 47. It was demanded at Diogenes after what manner the tyrant Dionysius did use his friends he answered He killeth the rich and neglecteth the poor Diog. La. lib. 6. And Bias being posed What amongst living creatures was most pernicious he answered A Tyrant Plut. We cannot passe-by a most excellent story of the tyrant Dionysius All the Syracusians excepting the old woman Himera did pray for his death Which being imparted to the tyrant he asked her why she prayed
is more then apparent to us it revolted from a principle of Religion And these who comment upon the text say Libnah revolted because Jehoram pressed the people of the Land to Idolatry I suppose upon good reason Libnah's revolt is far more justifiable then the defection of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam The one revolted upon a natural and the other upon a spiritual accompt And yet as is shewed already the ten Tribes revolted allowably 5. Uzziah was withstood by Azariah accompanied with fourscore valiant Priests of the Lord. And in this contrary to the doctrine of Royallists we shall make good these three things 1. That they resisted him violently 2. allowably 3. that they dethroned him The first is evident from the text Firstly because it is said they withstood him They withstood Uzziah the Kiâ—â— 2 Chron. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are words of violent resistance signifying to stand against And for this cause the fourscore Priests are called men of valour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of strength So the Seventy and Arius Montanus translate them It maketh us imagine they were purposely selected from amongst the rest of the Priests because of their valour and strength to withstand Uzziah in sacrificing Secondly because they did thrust Uzziah violently out of the Temple Azariah the chief Priest and all the Priests thrust him out from thence Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to thrust out with violence They hurried him out of the Temple as the word importeth The second is also manifest because the Lord attended the undertaking of the Priests with miraculous and extraordinary succesfulnesse They no sooner laid hands on the King but beyond all expectation the Lord did put hand in him also He did back them notably They no sooner did resist the King but assoon the Lord from Heaven did strike him with Leprosie And is it imaginable but the Lord one way or other had plagued them also if they had failed in their duty to the King I can see no reason why he should have spared them in failing in their duty more then he did not spare Uzziah in failing in his duty And which is more the Priests do not groundlesly withstand him They argue from the King's duty and from their duty They tell him in plain terms It did not become the King to sacrifice Num. 18. but the Priests Ex. 30. Upon these grounds they set-to to withstand him and keep him back from burning incense Which insinuat that their act of resisting him was in no part of his duty and that which was proper to his kingly charge but only in maintaining their own liberties and what according to God's Law was due to them Would they say We will withstand thee O King and have reason to do so because as thou dost that which is not incumbent to thee so thou encroachest upon the peculiar liberties of our charge The third is beyond controversie though Royallists start much at it 1. Because he was cut-off from the house of the Lord. This was because of his Leprosy for according to the Law the Leper was cut-off from the Congregation Thus the Priests spare not to execute the Law upon the King though Royallists esteem him to have exemption and immunity therefrom And Uzziah the King was a leper unto the day of his death and dwelt in a several house being a leper for he was cut-off from the house of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a solitary house far from resort and society Thus Uzziah was separated so long as he lived from the society of men Which is the Law concerning the Leper Levit. 13. 2. Because his son was enkinged so soon as Uzziah was separated from the Congregation And Jotham his son was over the King's house judging the people of the Land Ibid. and 2 King 15. Tell me is it likely or can it stand with reason they would have enkinged the son the father as yet remaining King And I pray you had it not been great madnesse in them to retain the kingly power in Uzziah's hand after he was cut-off from the house of the Lord because of his leprosie Firstly because he was as an excommunicate man And those who had not interest in the Church had not interest in the State the Jewish Church being national What David doth in reforming the State is in relation and subordination to the good of the Church Psa 101. Secondly the man being thus cut-off was as unfit to govern as either stock or stone I beleeve God appointed not idiots and unfit men to reign We shall speak nothing here of these examples whereby is holden-out not only the lawfulnesse of resisting but also of off-cutting of Kings this not being the proper place thereof We do only here speak of the simple act of Resistance We adde to these examples a few reasons Firstly These who have power to resist the tyranny of the King and will not offering both their bodies goods to his fury may very justly be called negative murderers and robbers of themselves Thus they expose them needlesly to the Kings mercilesse cruelty Not unlike the man who being able to preserve both his life and his goods from the robbers committeth all unto their mercilesse hands Who will not say and that justly but such an one is a self-murderer and self-robber Secondly It is against very Nature it-self men having power in their hands to defend themselves against the unjust violence and rage of the King and yet to be wanting therein Either Nature hath conferred upon them such power in vain or not You cannot say in vain unlesse you reflect upon the Authour of Nature who worketh every thing to good purpose And Nature as it is in it-self is good and perfect So it is repugnant for it considered as it is in it-self to work unsquarely and produce bad effects 'T is against the proportion that is between the cause and the effect Which maketh Aristotle say God and Nature adoe nothing in vain De Coel. lib. 1. cap. 5. Thirdly It is a negative betraying of God and his interest 'T is a denying to act for God contrary to the King's will Sure I am Christ cannot away with negatives He putteth them up in the score of enemies Mat. 12. 'T is against the practice of the Apostles not to act for God against the will of the Ruler They determine to act for him whether man will or not Man without exception They make no reservation of the King They resolve to do God's will though contrary to man's Acts 4. and 5. And I beleeve the King be but a man Inst It is altogether against that which Paul saith Rom. 13. say Royallists to resist the King This is much urged by Salmasius He concludeth the Apostles of Christ altogether to have been against the doctrine of Resistance This he gathereth not only from the place above cited but also from Tit. 3. 1 Pet. 2. Def. Reg. cap. 3.