of the Roman State Left all Men be involv'd in one Mans fate Continue us in Wealth and Peace Let Wars and Tumults ever cease So that if 't is by God that Kings now adays Reign 't is by God too that the People assert their own Liberty since all things are of him and by him I 'm sure the Scripture bears witness to both that by him Kings reign and that by him they are cast down from their Thrones And yet experience teacheth us that both these things are brought about by the People oftner than by God Be this Right of Kings therefore what it will the Right of the People is as much of God as it And when ever any People without some visible Designation of God himself appoint a King over them they have the same Right to put him down that they had to set him up at first And certainly 't is a more God like Action to depose a Tyrant than to set up one And there appears much more of God in the People when they depose an unjust Prince than in a King that oppressâ—th an Innocent People Nay the People have a Warrant from God to judge wicked Princes for God has conferrd this very honour upon those that are dear to him that celebrating the praises of Christ their own King they shall bind in Chains the Kings of the Nations under which Appellation all Tyrants under the Gospel are included and execute the Jidgments written upon them that challenge to themselves an Exemption from all written Laws Psalm 149. So that there 's but little reason left for that wicked and follish Opinion that Kings who commonly are the worst of Men should be so high in Gods acâ—â—unt as that he should have put the World under 〈◊〉 to be at their 〈◊〉 and be govern'd according to their humour and that for their sakes alone he shâ—uld have reduced all Mankind whom he made 〈◊〉 his own Image into the same condition with 〈◊〉 After all this rather than say nothing you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a countenancer of Tyranny but 〈…〉 better have let him alone I can't say 〈…〉 aâ—â—irm'd that Princes are accountable 〈…〉 God 's Tribunal But Xiphilene indeed out of whom you quote those words of M. Aurelius mentions a certain Government which he calls an Autarchy of which he makes God the only Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that this word Autarchy and Monarchy 〈◊〉 Synonymous I cannot â—â—sily perswade my self to believe And the more I read what goes before the 〈◊〉 I find my self inclinable to think so And certainly whoever considers the Context will not easily apprehend what coherence this sentence has with it and must needs wonder how it comes so abruptly into the Text especially since Marcus Aurelius that Mirrour of Princes carried himself towards the people as Capitolinus tells us just as if Rome had been a Common-wealth still And we all know that when it was so the Supreme Power was in the People The same Emperour honoured the memory of Thraseas and Hâ—lvidius and Cato and Dio and Brutus who all were Tyrant-slayers or affected the reputation of being thought so In the first Book that he writes of his own Life he says that he propos'd to himself a form of Government under which all men might equally enjoy the benefit of the Law and Right and Justice be equally administred to all And in his fourth Book he says The Law is Master and not he He acknowledged the right of the Senate and the people and their Interest in all things We are so far says he from having any thing of our own that we live in your Houses These things Xiphiline relates of him So little did he arrogate ought to himself by vertue of his Soveraign Right When he died he recommended his Son to the Romans for his Successor if they should think he deserv'd it So far was he from pretending to a Commission from Heaven to exercise that absolute and imaginary right of Soveraignty that Autarchy that you tell us of All the Laâ—â—n and Greâ—k Bâ—…s are full of Authorities of this nature But we have heard none of 'em yet So are the Jewish Authors And yet you say The Jews in many things allow'd but too little to their Princes Nay you 'l find that both the Grâ—â—ks and the Latins allow'd much less to Tyrants And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews allow'd them would appear if that Book that Samuel wrote of the manner of the Kingdom were extant which Book the Hebrew Doctors tell us their Kings â—…re in pieces and burnt that they might be more at liberty to Tyrannize over the people without controul or fâ—â—r of punishment Now look about ye again and catch hold of somewhat or other In the last place you come to wrest David's words in the 17th Psalm 〈◊〉 my sentence come forth from thy 〈◊〉 Therefore says Barnachmoni God only can judge the King And yet it 's most likely that David 〈◊〉 this Psalm when he was persecuted by Sâ—… at which time though himself were Anointed he did not decline being judged even by Jonathan Notwithstanding if there be â—…ity in me stay me thy self 1 Sam 20. At least in this Psalm he does no more than what any person in the world would do upon the like occasion being falsely accus'd by men he 〈…〉 the judgment of God himself Let thine 〈…〉 that is right thâ—â— hast prâ—vâ—d and â—… What relation has this to a Temâ—… Câ—rtainly they do no good office to 〈…〉 Kings that thus discover the weakness of its 〈…〉 Then you come with that thread-bare 〈…〉 which of all others is most in vogue with our 〈◊〉 Against thee thee only have I sinned Psal 51. 〈◊〉 As if David in the midst of his Repentance when ovâ—â—whelm'd with sorrow and almost 〈…〉 hâ— was humbly imploring God's 〈◊〉 had 〈…〉 right of his when his heart was so low that he thought he deserv'd not the right of a slave And can we think that he despis'd all the people of God his own Brethren to that degree as to believe that he might murder 'em plunder 'em and commit Adultery with their wives and yet not sin against them all this while So holy a man could never be guilty of such insufferable pride nor have so little knowledg either of himself or of his duty to his Neighbour So without doubt when he says Against thee only he means against thee chiefly have I sinned c. But whatever he meant the words of a Psalm are too full of Poetry and this Psalm too full of Passion to afford us any exact definitions of Right and Justice nor is it proper to argue any thing of that nature from ' â—m But David was never question'd for this nor made to plead for his life before the Sanâ—edrim What then How should they know that any such thing had been which was done so privately that perhaps for some years after not above one or two were privy to it as such secrets there
the same principle and notion of Government has obtained all along in Civiliz'd Nations Pindar as he is cited by Herodotus calls the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King over all Orpheus in his Hymns calls it the King both of Gods and Men. And he gives the reason why it is so Because says he 't is that that sits at the helm of all humane affairs Plato in his Book de Legibus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that that ought to have the greatest sway in the Common-wealth In his Epistles he commends that Form of Government in which the Law is made Lord and Master and no scope given to any Man to tyrannize over the Laws Aristotle is of the same Opinion in his Politicks and so is Cicero in his Book De Legibus That the Laws ought to Govern the Magistrates as they do the people The Law therefore having always been accounted the highest Power on Earth by the judgment of the most Learned and wise men that ever were and by the Constitutions of the best ordered States and it being very certain that the Doctrine of the Gospel is neither contrary to reason nor the Law of Nations that man is truly and properly subject to the higher Powers that obeys the Law and the Magistrates so far as they govern according to Law So that St. Paul does not only command the people but Princes themselves to be in subjection who are not above the Laws but bound by them For there is no power but of God that is no form no lawful Constitution of any Government The most ancient Laws that are known to us were formerly ascribed to God as their Author For the Law says Cicero in his Philipp is no other than a rule of well grounded reason derived from God himself enjoyning whatever is just and right and forbidding the contrary So that the institution of Magistracy is Jure Divino and the end of it is that Mankind might live under certain Laws and be govern'd by them but what particular form of Government each Nation would live under and what Persons should be entrusted with the Magistracy without doubt was left to the choice of each Nation Hence St. Peter calls Kings and Deputies Humane Ordinances And Hâ—sea in the 8th Chapter of his Prophesy They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not For in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews where upon matters of great and weighty Importance they could have access to God himself and consult with him they could not chuse a King themselves by Law but were to refer the matter to him Other Nations have received no such Command Sometimes the very Form of Government if it be amiss or at lest those Persons that have the Power in their hands are not of God but of Men or of the Devil Luke 4. All this power will I give unto thee for it is delivered unto me and I give it to whom I will Hence the Devil is called the Prince of this World and in the 12th of the Revelations the Dragon gave to the Beast his Power and his Throne and great Authority So that we must not understand St. Paul as if he spoke of all sorts of Magistrates in general but of lawful Magistrates and so they are described in what follows We must also understand him of the Powers themselves not of those Men always in whose hands they are lodged St. Chrysostome speaks very well and clearly upon this occasion What says he is every Prince then appointed by God to be so I say no such thing says he St. Paul speaks not of the Person of the Magistrate but of the Magistracy it self He does not say there is no Prince but who is of God He says there is no Power but of God Thus far St. Chrysostome for what Powers are are ordained of God So that St. Paul speaks only of a lawful Magistracy For what is Evil and amiss cannot be said to be ordain'd because 't is disorderly order and disorder cannot consist together in the same Subject The Apostle says The Powers that be and you interpret his words as if he had said The Powers that now be that you may prove that the Romans ought in Conscience to obey Nero who you take for granted was then Emperor I 'm very well content you should read the words so and draw that Conclusion from them The Consequence will be that English Men ought to yield Obedience to the present Government as 't is now establisht according to a new Model because you must needs acknowledge that it is the present Government and ordain'd of God as much at least as Nero's was And lest you should object that Nero came to the Empire by a Lawful Succession it 's apparent from the Roman History that both he and Tiberius got into the Chair by the Tricks and Artifices of their Mothers and had no right at all to the Succession So that you are inconsistent with your self and retract from your own Principles in affirming that the Romans owed Subjection to the Government that then was and yet denying that Englishmen owe Subjection to the Government that now is But 't is no wonder to hear you contradict your self There are no two things in the World more directly opposite and contrary to one another than you are to your self But what will become of you poor Wretch You have quite â—â—done the young King with your Witicisms and ruin'd his Fortunes utterly for according to your own Doctrine you must needs confess that this present Government in England is ordain'd of God and that all Englishmen are bound in Conscience to submit to it â—ake notice all ye Criticks and Texâ—…ries Do not you presume to meddie with this Text. Thus Salmasius corrects that Passage in the Epistle to the Romans He has made a discovery that the Words ought not to be read The Powers that are but The Powers that now are And all this to prove that all Men owed Subjection and Obedience to Nero the Tyrant whom he supp sed to have been then Emperor This Epistle which you say was writ in Nero's time was writ in his Predecessor's time who was an honest well-meaning Man And this Learned Men evince by undeniable Arguments But besides the five first years of Nero's Reign were without Exception So that this thread-bare Argument which so many Men have at their Tongue 's end and have been deceived by to wit that Tyrants are to be obeyed because St. Paul injoyns a Subjection to Nero is evident to have been but a cunning Invention of some ignorant Parson He that resists the Powers to wit a lawful Power resists the Ordnance of God Kings themselves come under the Penalty of this Law when they resist the Senate and act contrary to the Laws But do they resist the Ordinance of God that resist an unlawful Power or a Person that goes about to overthrow and destroy a lawful one No Man living
as that with the same breath that you commend the Obedience and Submissiveness of those Nations of your own accord you make mention of Sardanapalus'r being deprived of his Crown by Arbaces Neither was it he alone that accomplished that Enterprise for he had the assistance of the Priests who of all others were best versed in the Law and of the people and it was wholly upon this account that he deposed him because he abused his authority and power not by giving himself over to cruelty but to luxury and effeminacy Run over the Histories of Herodotus Ctâ—sias Diodorus and you will find things quite contrary to what you assert here you will find that those Kingdoms were destroyed for the most part by subjects and not by foreigners that the Assyrians were brought down by the Medes who then were their subjects and the Medes by the Persians who at that time were like wise subject to them Your self confess that Cyrus rebell'd and that at the same time in divers parts of the Empire little upstart Governments were formed by those that shook off the Medes But does this agree with what you said before does this prove the obedience of the Medes and Persians to their Princes and that Jus Regium which you had asserted to have been universally received amongst those Nations What Potion can cure this brainsâ—… frenzy of yours You say It appears by Herodotus how absolute the Persian Kings were Cambyses being desirous to marry his Sister consulted with the Judges who were the Interpreters of the Laws to whose Judgment all difficult matters were to be referred What answer had he from them They told him They knew no Law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister but another Law they knew that the Kings of Persia might do what they listed Now to this I answer if the Kings of Persia were really so absolute what need was there of any other to interpret the Laws besides the King himself Those superfluous unnecessary Judges would have had their abode and residence in any other place rather than in the Palace where they were altogether useless Agâ—in if those Kings might do what ever they would it is not credible that so ambitious a Prince as Cambyses was should be so ignorant of that grand Prerogative as to consult with the Judges whether what he desired were according to Law What was the matter then either they designed to humour the King as you say they did or they were afraid to cross his inclination which is the account that Herodotus gives of it and so told him of such a Law as they knew would please him and in plain terms made a fool of him which is no new thing with Judges and Lawyers now a days But say you Artabanus a Persian told Themistocles that there was no better Law in Persia than that by which it was Enacted That Kings were to be honoured and adored An excellent Law that was without doubt which commanded subjects to adore their Princes but the Primitive Fathers have long ago damned it and Artabanus was a proper person to commend such a Law who was the very man that a little while after slew Xerxes with his own hand You quote Regicides to assert Royalty I am afraid you have some design upon Kings In the next place you quote the Poet Claudian to prove how obedient the Persians were But I appeal to their Histories and Annals which are full of the Revolts of the Persians the Medes the Bactrians and Babylonians and give us frequent instances of the Murders of their Princes The next person whose authority you cite is Otanes the Persian who likewise killed Smerdis then King of Persia to whom out of the hatred which he bore to a Kingly Government he reckons up the impieties and injurious actions of Kings their violation of all Laws their putting men to death without a legal conviction their rapes and adulteries and all this you will have called the right of Kings and slander Samuel again as a teacher of such Doctrine You quote Homer who says that Kings derive their authority from Jupiter to which I have already given an answer For King Philip of Macedon whose asserting the right of Kings you make use of I 'le believe Charles his description of it as soon as his Then you quote some Sentences out of a fragment of Diogenes a Pythagorean but you do not tell us what sort of a King he speaks of Observe therefore how he begins that Discourse for whatever follows must be understood to have relation to it Let him be King says he that of all others is most just and so he is that acts most according to Law for no man can be King that is not just and without Laws there can be no Justice This is directly opposite to that Regal right of yours And Ecphantas whom you likewise quote is of the same opinion Whosoever takes upon him to be a King ought to be naturally most pure and clear from all imputation And a little after Him says he we call a King that governs well and he only is properly so So that such a King as you speak of according to the Philosophy of the Pythagoreans is no King at all Hear now what Plato says in his eighth Epistle Let Kings says he be liable to be called to account for what they do Let the Laws controul not only the people but Kings themselves if they do any thing not warranted by Law I 'le mention what Aristotle says in the Third Book of his Politicks It is neither for the Publick Good nor is it just says he where all men are by nature alike and equal that any one should be Lord and Master over all the rest neither where there are no Laws nor is it for the Publick Good or Just that one man should be a Law to the rest nor is it so where there are Laws nor that any one tho a good man thould be Lord over other good mâ—n nor a bad man over bad men And in the Fifth Book says he That King whom the people refuse to be govern'd by is no longer a King but a Tyrant Hear what Xenophon says in Hiero People are so far from revenging the Deaths of Tyrants that they confer great Honour upon him that Kills one and erect Statues in their Temples to the Honour of Tyrannicides Of this I can produce an 〈◊〉 witness Marcus Tullius in his Oration pro Milone The Grecians says he ascribe Divine Worship to such as kill Tyrants What things of this nature have 〈◊〉 my self seen at Athens and in other Cities of Greece How many Religious Observances have been inâ—…ted in honour of such men How many Hymns They are consecrated to Immortality and Adoration and their Memory endeavoured to be perpetuated And â—…ly Polybius an Historian of great Authority and Gravity in the Sixth Book of his 〈◊〉 says thus When Princes began to in 〈◊〉 their own Lusts and sensual Appetites then â—…doms
most solemn Oath And by so doing he not only extinguish'd his Right of Conquest if he ever had any over us but subjected himself to be judged according to the Tenor of this very Law And his Son Henry swore to the observance of King Edward's Laws and of this amongst the rest and upon these only terms it was that he was chosen King whilst his Elder Brother Robert was alive The same Oath was taken by all succeeding Kings before they were Crowned Hence our Ancient and Famous Lawyer Bracton in his first Book Chap. 8. There is no King in the case says he where Will rules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Law does not take place And in his Third Book Chap. 9. A King is a King so long as he Rules well he becomes a Tyrant when he oppresses the People committed to his Charge And in the same Chapter The King ought to use the Power of Law and Right as God's Minister and Vice-gerent the Power of wrong is the Devils and not Gods when the King turns aside to do Injustice he is the Minister of the Devil The very same words almost another Ancient Lawyer has who was the Author of the Book called Fleta both of them remembred that truly Royal Law of King Edward that Fundamental Maxim in our Law which I have formerly mentioned by which nothing is to be accounted a Law that is contrary to the Laws of God or of Reason no more than a Tyrant can be said to be a King or a Minister of the Devil a Minister of God Since therefore the Law is chiefly right Reason if we are bound to obey a King and a Minister of God by the very same Reason and the very same Law we ought to resist a Tyrant and a Minister of the Devil And because Controversies arise oftner about Names than Things the same Authors tell us that a King of England tho he have not lost the Name of a King yet is as liable to be judged and ought so to be as any of the Common People Bracton Book 1. Chap. 8. Fleta Book 1. Chap. 17. No Man ought to be greater than the King in the Administration of Justice but he himself ought to be as little as the least in receiving Justice si peccat if he offend Others read it si petat Since our Kings therefore are liable to be judged whether by the Name of Tyrants or of Kings it must not be difficult to assign their Legal Judges Nor will it be amiss to consult the same Authors upon that point Bracton Book 1. Chap. 16. Fleta Book 1. Chap. 17. The King has his Superiors in the Government The Law by which he is made King and his Court to wit the Earls and the Barons Comites Earls are as much as to say Companions and he that has a Companion has a Master and therefore if the King will be without a Bridle that is not govern by Law they ought to bridle him That the Commons are comprehended in the word Barons has been shown already nay and in the Books of our Ancient Laws they are frequently said to have been called Peers of Parliament and especially in the Modus tenendi c. There shall be chosen says that Book out of all the Peers of the Realm Five and twenty Persons of whom five shall be Knight five Citizens and five Burgâ—ssâ—s and two Knights of a County have a greater Vote in granting and rejecting than the greatest Earl in England And it is but reasonable they should for they Vote for a whole County c. the Earls for themselves only And who can but perceive that those Patent Earls whom you call Earls made by Writ since we have now none that hold their Earldoms by Tenure are very unfit Persons to try the King who conferr'd their Honours upon them Since therefore by our Law as appears by that old Book call'd The Mirror the King has his Peers who in Parliament have Cognizance of wrongs done by the King to any of his People and since it is notoriously known that the meanest Man in the Kingdom may even in inferior Courts have the benefit of the Law against the King himself in Case of any Injury or Wrong sustained how much more Consonant to Justice how much more necessary is it that in case the King oppress all his People there should be such as have Authority not only to restrain him and keep him within Bounds but to Judge and Punish him For that Government must needs be very ill and most ridiculously constituted in which remedy is provided in case of little Injuries done by the Prince to private Persons and no Remedy no Redress for greater no care taken for the safety of the whole no Provision made to the contrary but that the King may without any Law ruin all his Subjects when at the same time he cannot by Law so much as hurt any one of them And since I have shown that it is neither good manners nor expedient that the Lords should be the Kings Judges it follows that the Power of Judicature in that case does wholly and by very good Right belong to the Commons who are both Peers of the Realm and Barons and have the Power and Authority of all the People committed to them For since as we find it expresly in our written Law which I have already cited the Commons together with the King make a good Parliament without either Lords or Bishops because before either Lords or Bishops had a being Kings held Parliaments with their Commons only by the very same reason the Commons apart must have the Sovereign Power without the King and a Power of Judging the King himself because before there ever was a King they in the Name of the whole Body of the Nation held Councils and Parliaments had the Power of Judicature made Laws and made the Kings themselves not to Lord it over the People but to Administer their publick Affairs Whom if the King instead of so doing shall endeavour to injure and oppress our Law pronounces him from time forward not so much as to retain the Name of a King to be no such thing as a King and if he be no King what need we trouble our selves to find out Peers for him For being then by all good Men adjudged to be a Tyrant there are none but who are Peers good enough for him and proper enough to pronounce Sentence of Death upon him judicially These things being so I think I have sufficiently proved what I undertook by many Authorities and written Laws to wit that since the Commons have Authority by very good Right to try the King and since they have actually tried him and put him to Death for the mischief he had done both in Church and State and without all hope of amendment they have done nothing therein but what was just and regular for the Interest of the State in discharging of their Trust becoming their Dignity and according to the Laws of
Commonwealth is a more perfect form of Goverment thâ—n a Monarchy and more suitable to the condition of Mankind and in the opinion of God himself better for his own people for himself appointed it And could hardly be prevail'd withal a great while after and at their own importunate desire to let 'em change it into a Monarchy But to make it appear that he gave 'em their choice to be Govern'd by a single person or by more so they were justly Govern'd in case they should in time to come resolve upon a King he prescribes Laws for this King of theirs to observe whereby he was forbidden to multiply to himself Horses and Wives or to heap up Riches whence he might easily infer that no power was put into his hands over others but according to Law since even those actions of his life which related only to himself were under a Law He was commanded therefore to transcribe with his own hand all the Precepts of the Law and having writ 'em out to observe and keep 'em that his mind might not be lifted up above his Brethren 'T is evident from hence that as well the Prince as the people was bound by the Law of Moses To this purpose Josephus writes a proper and an able Interpreter of the Laws of his own Country who was admirably well vers'd in the Jewish Policy and infinitely preferable to a thousand obscure ignorant Rabbins He has it thus in the Fourth Book of his Antiquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An Aristocracy is the best form of Government wherefore do not you endeavour to settle any other 't is enough for you that God presides over ye But if you will have a King let him guide himself by the Law of God rather than by his own wisdom and lay a restraint upon him if he offer at more power than the state of your affairs will allow of Thus he expresseth himself upon this place in Deuteronomy Another Jewish Author Philo Judaus who was Josephus his Contemporary a very studious man in the Law of Moses upon which he wrote a large Commentary when in his Book concerning the Creation of the King he interprets this Chapter of Deuteronomy he sets a King loose from the Law no otherwise than as an enemy may be said to be so They says he that to the prejudice and destruction of the people acquire great power to themselves deserve not the name of Kings but that of Enemies For their actions are the same with those of an irreconcilable enemy Nay they that under a pretence of Government are injurious are worse than open enemies We may fence our selves against the latter but the malice of the former is so much the more Pestilent because it is not always easie to be discovered But when is is discover'd why should they not be dealt with as enemies The same Author in his second Book Allegoriar Legis A King says he and a Tyrant are Contraries And a little after A King ought not only to command but obey All this is very true you 'l say a King ought to observe the Laws as well as any other man But what if he will not What Law is there to punish him I answer the same Law that there is to punish other men for I find no exceptions there is no express Law to punish the Priests or any other inferior Magistrates who all of 'em if this opinion of the exemption of Kings from the Penalties of the Law would hold may by the same reason claim impunity what guilt soever they contract because there is no positive Law for their punishment and yet I suppose none of them ever challeng'd such a Prerogative nor would it ever be allow'd 'em if they should Hitherto we have learn'd from the very Text of God's own Law that a King ought to obey the Laws and not lift himself up above his Brethre Let us now consider whether Solomon preacht up any other Doctrine Ch. 8 v. 2. I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him VVhere the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou It is well enough known that here the Preacher directs not his Precepts to the Sanhedrim or to a Parliament but to private persons and such he commands to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God But as they swear Allegiance to Kings do not Kings likewise swear to obey and maintain the Laws of God and those of their own Country So the Reubenites and Gadites promise obedience to Jeshua Josh 1. 17. According as we harkned unto Moses in all things so will we harken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses Here 's an express condition Hear the Preacher else Chap. 9. v. 17. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools The next caution that Solâ—mon gives us is Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him That is he does what he will to Malefactors whom the Law authorizeth him to punish and against whom he may proceed with mercy or severity as he sees occasion Here 's nothing like Tyranny Nothing that a good man needs be afraid of Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him VVhat dost thou And yet we read of one that not only said to a King VVhat dost thou but told him Thou hast done foolishly But Samuel you may say was an Extraordinary Person I answer you with your own words which follow in the 49th Page of your Book VVhat was there extraordinary say you in Saul or in David And so say I what was there in Samuel extraordinary He was a Prophet you 'l say so are they that now follow his example for they act according to the will of God either his reveal'd or his secret will which your self grant in your 50th Page The Preacher therefore in this place prudently adviseth private persous not to contend with Princes for it is even dangerous to contend with any man that 's either rich or powerful But what then must therefore the Nobility of a Nation and all the inferior Magistrates and the whole body of the people not dare to mutter when a King raves and acts like a mad-man Must they not oppose a foolish wicked outragious Tyrant that perhaps seeks the destruction of all good men Must they not endeavour to prevent his turning all Divine and Humane things upside down must they suffer him to massacre his People burn their Cities and commit such Outrages upon them daily and finally to have perfect liberty to do what he list without controul O de Cappadocis eques catastis Thou slavish Knight
endeavoured to suppress and obscure was then brought to light by the furious passion or to speak more mildly by the ignorant indiscrâ—â—t zeal of one of them After you have displaâ—'d Ambrose his ignorance you show your own or rather vent a Heresie in affirming point blank That under the old Testament there was no such thing as forgiveness of sins upon the account of Christ's sufferings since David confess'd his transgression saying Against thee only have I sinned P. 68. 'T is the Orthodox tenet that there never was any remission of sins but by the blood of the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world I know not whose Disciple you are that set up for a broacher of new Heresies but certain I am that that great Divine's Disciple whom you are so angry with did not mistake himself when he said that any one of David's Subjects might have said against thee only have I sinned as properly and with as much right as David himself Then you quote St. Augustine and produce a company of Hipponensian Divines What you alledg out of St. Austin makes not at all against us We confess that as the Prophet Daniel has it it 's God that changeth times sets up one Kingdom and pulls down another we only desire to have it allow'd us that he makes use of men as his Instruments If God alone gave a Kingdom to King Charles God alone has taken it from him again and given it to the Parliament and to the People If therefore our Allegiance was due to King Charles because God had given him a Kingdom for the same reason it is now due to the present Magistracy For your self confess that God has given our Magistra es such power as he useth to give to wicked Princes for the punishment of the Nation And the consequence of this will be that according to your own opinion our present Magistrates being rais'd and appointed by God cannot lawfully be deposed by any but God himself Thus you overthrow the opinion you pretend to maintain which is a thing very frequent with 〈◊〉 Your Apology for the King carries it's deaths-wound in it You have attained to such a prodigious degree of Madness and Stupidity as to prove it unlawful upon any account whatsoever to lift up ones finger against Magistrates and with the very next breath to affirm that it 's the duty of their Sujects to rise up in Rebellion against them You tell us that St. Jerom calls Ismael that slew Gedalia a Parricide or Traytor And it is very true that he was so For Gedalia was Deputy Governour of Judaea a good man and slain by Ismael without any cause The same Author in his Comment upon the Book of Ecclesiastes says that Solomon's command to keep the King's Commandment is the same with St. Paul's Doctrine upon the same subject And deserves commendation for having made a more moderate Construction of that Text than most of his Contemporaries You say you will forbear enquiring into the Sentiments of Learned Men that lived since St. Augustine's time but to shew that you had rather dispence with a lie than not quote any Author that you think makes for you in the very next period but one you produce the Authorities of Isidore Gregory and Otho Spanish and Dutch Authors that liv'd in the most barbarous and ignorant ages of all whose Authorities if you knew how much we despise you would not have told a lye to have quoted them But would you know the reason why he dares not come so low as to the present times Why he does as it were hide himself and disapear when he comes towards our own times The reason is Because he knows full well that as many Eminent Divines as there are of the Reformed Church so many Adversaries he would have to encounter Let him take up the Cudgels if he thinks fit he will quickly find himself run down with innumerable Authorities out of Luther Zuinglius Calvin Bucer Martyr Paraeus and the rest I could oppose you with Testimonies out of Divines that have flourished even in Leyden Though that famous University and Renowned Commonwealth which has been as it were a Sanctuary for Liberty those Fountains and Streams of all Polite Learning have not yet been able to wash away that slavish rust that sticks to you and infuse a little humanity into you Finding your self destitute of any assistance or help from Orthodox Protestant Divines you have the impudence to betake your self to the Sorbonists whose Colledge you know is devoted to the Romish Religion and consequently but of very weak authority amongst Protestants We are willing to deliver so wicked an assertor of Tyranny as you to be drown'd in the Sorbon as being asham'd to own so despicable a slave as you show your self to be by maintaining that the whole body of a Nation is not equal in power to the most slothful degenerate Prince that may be You labour in vain to lay that upon the Pope which all free Nations and all Orthodox Divines own and assert But the Pope and his Clergy when they were in a low condition and but of small account in the world were the first Authors of this pernicious absurd Doctrine of yours and when by preaching such Doctrine they had gotten power into their own hands they became the worst of Tyrants themselves Yet they engaged all Princes to themselves by the closest tye imaginable perswading the world that was now besotted with their Superstition that it was unlawful to Depose Princes though never so bad unless the Pope dispensed with their Allegiance to them by absolving them from their Oaths But you avoid Orthodox Writers and endeavour to burden the truth with prejudice and calumny by making the Pope the first assertor of what is a known and common received opinion amongst them which if you did not do it cunningly you would make your self appear to be neither Papist nor Protestant but a kind of a Mongrel Idumean Herodian For as they of old adored one most inhumane bloody Tyrant for the Mâ—ssias so you would have the world fall down and worship all You boast that you have confirm'd your opinion by the Testimonies of the Fathers that flourished in the four first Centuries whose Writings only are Evangelical and according to the truth of the Christian Religion This man is past all shame how many things did they preach how many things have they published which Christ and his Apostles never taught How many things are there in their Writings in which all Protestant Divines differ from them But what is that opinion that you have confirm'd by their Authorities Why that evil Princes are appointed by God Allow that as all other pernicious and destructive things are What then why that therefore they have no Judge but God alone that they are above all humane Laws that there is no Law written or unwritten no Law of Nature nor of God to call them to account before their own
Government Sir Thomas Smith a Country-man of ours in Edward the Sixth's days a good Lawyer and a Statesman one whom you your self will not call a Parricide in the beginning of a Book which he wrote of the Common-wealth of England asserts the same thing and not of our Government only but of almost all others in the world and that out of Aristotle and he says it is not possible that any Government should otherwise subsist But as if you thought it a crime to say any thing and not unsay it again you repeat your former thread-bare Contradictions You say There neither is nor ever was any Nation that did not understand by the very name of a King a person whose authority is inferior to God alone and who is accountable to no other And yet a little after you confess that the name of a King was formerly given to such Powers and Magistrates as had not a full and absolute right of themselves but had a dependance upon the people as the Suffetes among the Carthaginians the Hebrew Judges the Kings of the Lacedemonians and of Arragon Are you not very consistent with your self Then you reckon up five several sorts of Monarchies out of Aristotle in one of which only that Right obtain'd which you say is common to all Kings Concerning which I have said already more than once that neither doth Aristotle give an instance of any such Monarchy nor was there ever any such in being the other four he clearly demonstrates that they were bounded by Establisht Laws and the King's Power subject to those Laws The first of which four was that of the Lacedemonians which in his opinion did of all others best deserve the name of a Kingdom The second was such as obtain'd among Barbarians which was lasting because regulated by Laws and because the people willingly submitted to it whereas by the same Author's opinion in his third Book what King so ever retains the Soveraignty against the people's will is no longer to be accounted a King but a downright Tyrant all which is true likewise of his third sort of Kings which he calls Aesymnete who were chosen by the people and most commonly for a certain time only and for some particular purposes such as the Roman Dictators were The fourth sort he makes of such as reigned in the Heroical days upon whom for their extraordinary merits the people of their own accord conferr'd the Government but yet bounded by Laws nor could these retain the Soveraignty against the will of the people nor do these four sorts of Kingly Governments differ he says from Tyranny in any thing else but only in that these Governments are with the good liking of the people and That against their will The fifth sort of Kingly Government which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolute Monarchy in which the Supreme Power resides in the King's person which you pretend to be the right of all Kings is utterly condemn'd by the Philosopher as neither for the good of Mankind nor consonant to Justice or Nature unless some people should be content to live under such a Government and withal confer it upon such as excel all others in vertue These things any man may read in the third Book of his Politicks But you I believe that once in your life you might appear witty and florid pleased your self with making a comparison betwixt these five sorts of Kingly Government and the five Zones of the World betwixt the two extremes of Kingly power there are three more temperate Species interposed as there lie three Zones betwixt the Torrid and the Frigid Pretty Rogue what ingenious comparisons he always makes us May you be for ever banished whither you your self condemn an absolute Kingdom to be to wit to the frigid Zone which when you are there will be doubly cold to what it was before In the mean while we shall expect that new fashioned sphere which you describe from you our modern Archimedes in which there shall be two extreme Zones one Torrid and the other Frigid and three temperate ones lying betwixt The Kings of the Lacedaemonians you say might lawfully be Imprisoned but it was not lawful to put them to Death Why not Because the Ministers of Justice and some Foreign Soldiers being surprised at the Novelty of the thing thought it not lawful to lead Agis to his Execution though condem'd to die And the people of Lacedemon were displeased at his death not because condemn'd to die though a King but because he was a good man and popular and had been circumvented by a faction of the great ones Says Plutarch Agis was the first King that was put to death by the Ephori in which words he does not pretend to tell us what lawfully might be done but what actually was done For to imagin that such as may lawfully accuse a King and imprison him may not also lawfully put him to death is a childish conceit At last you betake your self to give an account of the Right of English Kings There never was you say but one King in England This you say because you had said before that unless a King be sole in the Government we cannot be a King Which if it be true some of them who I had thought had been Kings of England were not really so for to omit many of our Saxon Kings who had 〈◊〉 their Sons or their Brothers Partners with them in the Government it is known that King Henry the Second of the Norman Race reign'd together with his Son Let them show say you a President of any Kingdom under the Government of a single person who has not an absolute power though in some Kingdoms more remiss in others more intense Do you show any Power that 's absolute and yet remiss you Ass is not that power that 's absolute the Supreme Power of all How can it then be both supreme and remiss Whatsoever Kings you shall acknowledg to be invested with a remiss or a less power those I will easily make appear to have no absolute power and consequently to be inferior to a People free by nature who is both its own Law given and can make the Regal Power more or less intense or remiss that is greater or less Whether the whole Island of Britain was anciently Governed by Kings or no is uncertain It 's most likely that the form of their Government changed according to the Exigencies of the times Whence Tacitus says The Britains anciently were under Kings now the great man amongst them divide them into Parties and Factions When the Romans left them they were about forty years without Kings they were not always therefore under a Kingly Government as you say they were but when they were so that the Kingdom was Hereditary I positively deny which that it was not is evident both from the Series of their Kings and their way of Creating them for the consent of the people is asked in express words When the
said in our Law to be an Infant and to possess his Rights and Dignities as a Child or a Ward does his See the Mirror cap. 4. Sect. 22. And hence is that common saying amongst us That the King can do no wrong Which you like a Raseal interpret thus Whatever the King does is no Injury because be is not â—…ble to be punished for it By this very Comment if there were nothing else the wonderful Impudence and Villany of this fellow discovers it self sufficiantly It belongs to the Hâ—ad you say to command and 〈◊〉 to the Members The King is the Head of the Parliament You would not trifle thus if you had any guts in your brains You are mistaken again but there 's no end of your mistakes in not distinguishing the King's Counsellors from the States of the Realm For neither ought he to make choice of all of them nor of any of these which the râ—st do not approve of but for electing any Member of the House of Commons he never so much as pretended to it Whom the people appointed to that Service they were severally chosen by the Votes of all the people in their respective Cities Towns and Counties I speak now of things universally known and therefore I am the shorter But you say 'T is â—alâ—e that the Parliament was instituted by the people as the Worshippers of Saint Independency assert Now I see why you took so much pains in endeavourâ—â—g to subvert the Paâ—â—cy you carry another Pope in your belly as we say For what else should you be in labour of the Wiâ—e of a Woman a He-Wolf impregnated by a She-Wolf but either a Monster or some new sort of Pâ—…cy You now make He-Saints and She-Saints at your pleasure as if you were a true genuine Pope You absolve Kings of all their sins and as if you had utterly vanquish'd and subdu'd your Antagonist the Pope you adorn your self with his spoils But because you have not yet profligated the Pope quite till the Second and Third and perhaps the Fourth and Fifth Part of your Book of his Supremacy come out which Book will nauseate a great many Readers to death sooner than you 'll get the better of the Pope by it let it suffice you in the mean time 〈◊〉 you to become some Antipope or other There 's another She-Saint besides that Independency that you deâ—ide which you have Canonized in good earnest and that is the Tyranny of Kings You shall therefore by my consent be the High Priest of Tyranny and that you may have all the Pope's Titles you shall be a Servant of the Servants not of God but of the Court. For that Curse pronounced upon Canaan seems to stick as close to you as your Shirt You call the People a Beast What are you then your self For neither can that Sacred Confistory nor your Lordship of St. Lou exempt you its Master from being one of the People nay of the Common People nor can make you other than what you really are a most loathsome Beast Indeed the Writings of the Prophets shadow out to us the Monarchy and Dominion of Great Kings by the Name and under the Resemblance of a Great Beast You say That there is no mention of Parliaments held under our Kings that reigned before William the Conqueror It is not worth while to Jangle about a French word The thing was always in being and you your self allow that in the Saxon times Concilia Sapientum Wittena-gemots are mentioned And there are wise Men among the Body of the People as well as amongst the Nobility But in the Statute of Merton made in the twentieth year of King Henry the 3d the Earls and Barons are only named Thus you are always imposed upon by words who yet have spent your whole Life in nothing else but words for we know very well that in that age not only the Guardians of the Cinque-Ports and Magistrates of Cities but even Tradesmen are sometimes called Barons and without doubt they might much more reasonably call every Member of Parliament tho never so much a Commoner by the Name of a Baron For that in the fifty second Year of the same King's Reign the Commoners as well as the Lords were summoned the Statute of Marlbridge and most other Statutes declare in express words which Commoners King Edward the Third in the Preface to the Statute-Staple calls Magnates Comitatum The Great Men of the Counties as you very learnedly quote it for me those to wit That came out of the several Counties and served for them which number of Men constituted the House of Commons and neither were Lords nor could be Besides a Book more Ancient than those Statutes called Modus habendi Parliamenta i. e. The manner of holding Parliaments tells us That the King and the Commons may hold a Parliament and enact Laws tho the Lords the Bishops are absent but that with the Lords and the Bishops in the Absence of the Commons no Parliament can be held And there 's a reason given for it viz. because Kings held Parliaments and Councils with their People before any Lords or Bishops were made besides the Lords serve for themselves only the Commons each for the County City or Burrough that sent them And that therefore the Commons in Parliament represent the whole Body of the Nation in which respect they are more worthy and every way preferable to the House of Peers But the power of Judicature you say never was invested in the House of Commons Nor was the King ever possessed of it Remember tho that originally all Power proceeded and yet does proceed from the People Which Marcus Tullius excellently well shows in his Oration De lege Agraria Of the Agrarian Law As all Powers Authorities and publick Administrations ought to be derived from the whole Body of the People so those of them ought in an especial manner so to be derived which are ordained and appointed for the Common Benefit and Interest of all to which Impolyments every particular Person may both give his Vote for the chusing such Persons as he thinks will take most care of the Publick and withal by voting and making Interest for them lay such Obligations upon them as may entitle them to their Friendship and good Offices in time to come Here you see the true rise and original of Parliaments and that it was much ancienter than the Saxon Chronicles Whilst we may dwell in such a light of Truth and Wisdom as Cicero's Age afforded you labour in vain to blind us with the darkness of obseurer times By the saying whereof I would not be understood to derogate in the least from the Authority and Prudenâ—e of our Ancestors who most certainly went further in the enacting of good Laws than either the Ages they lived in or their own Learning or Education seem to have been capable of and tho sometimes they made Laws that were none of the best yet as being conscious to