Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	law_n	lord_n	read_v	2,876	5	6.3934	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55100	A Plea for liberty in vindication of the commonvvealth of England wherein is demonstrated from Scripture and reason together with the consent of the chiefest polititians, statists, lawyers, warriours, oratours, historians, philosophs and the example of the chiefest republicks, a commonwealth of all politick states to be the best, against Salmasius and others / by a friend to freedome.	Pierson, David.	1655 (1655)	Wing P2510; ESTC R2913	187,096	198

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

essentially distinguisheth Melech a king from Sophet a Judge because the one is of an absolute power and the other is not he shal do well to advert that he lose not more this way then he gaineth for so he putteth the essentiall frame of the king in an absolute and uncircumscribed power But in our first argument against this we have shewed the incongruity and absurdity thereof Which afterward shall more appear from what is spoken as followeth Fourthly There can be no example alledged in the Book of God whereby is pointed-out the subjection of Kings to Law We read not that ever the Sanhedrin or the people of the Jews did punish Kings for their faults And yet many of their Kings were most guilty of many great and criminall faults as namely David and Solomon Def. Reg. cap. 5. Ans This argument is like the first Both of them speak much de facto but nothing de jure This is a very bad consequence The people of Israel sought an absolute King to reign over them and did set-up such a King over them Ergo the power of an absolute King is lawfull and Kings de jure are not subject to Law Friend you break-off too soon Though I should grant you the Antecedent yet before I can approve the validity of the consequence you must prove the validity of their practice You count your reckoning too soon whileas you thus conclude There is no practice in Scripture holding-out to us that the Jewish Sanhedrin did ever execute judgement on any of their Kings who transgressed the Law and did violate it Ergo Kings are not subject to Law What if I should grant the Antecedent You have notwithstanding to prove the lawfulnesse of their non-executing judgement on their kings who transgressed before I can at any time subscribe to the consequence Philosophs know though many Humanists do not that à facto ad jus non statim valet consequentia Aye they can tell you that argumentum negativum nihil concludit Well as I deny your consequence so I do not admit your Antecedent I illustrate the vanity of it from examples in Scripture both ordinary and extraordinary Ordinary Jehojadah in the face of the Assembly commanded to fall upon Athaliah and kill her 2 Kings 11. 2 Chron. 23. And though you shall deny this practice as concluding any thing against your purpose yet I pray you what can you say of that practice in killing Amasiah We have shewed elsewhere that such a thing was done in a Publick and legall way Extraordinary The Prophets rebuked the Kings of Israel and Judah for their faults and transgressions And what is rebuke but a degree of punishment And so Kings not having immunity from the lesser degree of punishment why are they not also lyable to the greater according to their delinquency Magis minus non variant speciem Yea Jehu executing the purpose of the Lord on the house of Ahab slew both the King of Israel and the King of Judah 2 King 9. and withall he caused cut-off all the sons of Ahab 2 King 10. O but you will say These practises of the Prophets and of Jehu were extraordinary And then It is a very bad Argument The Apostles preached by the extraordinary instinct of the Spirit Ergo Ministers who have nothing but an ordinary spirit should not preach So it doth not follow The Prophets and Jehu acted against delinquent kings through an extraordinary call thereto Ergo those who have nothing but an ordinary call thereto should not do so It may be you will say The People can have no ordinary call to act against their kings Be not mistaken 1 Extraordinary things supply the room of ordinary things whileas they are wanting So Samuel killed Agag because Saul the ordinary Judge was wanting in his duty 1 Sam. 15. 2 At least it followeth that the same thing which is done extraordinarily may also be done lawfully in an ordinary way Otherwise many absurdities and blasphemies should follow 3 Dato uno oppositorum datur alterum And consequently seing there is an extraordinary call for punishing Kings there is also an ordinary call for doing it The reason of this is because esse extraordinariae vocationis is so called and is so in it-self because it standeth in opposition to esse ordinariae vocationis as we have shewed at length curs Philosophico-theolog disp 4. Sect. 6. And therefore there can be no extraordinary call for punishing Delinquent Kings unlesse there be also an ordinary call for doing so 4 Punishing of delinquent Kings either in it-self is sinfull and unlawfull or not If sinfull and unlawfull then neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily may Kings lawfully be punished for no sin can be committed by an extraordinary Divine providence Otherwise God should extraordinarily sin But we have shewed already that Kings may be punished by vertue of an extraordinary call And consequently it is not a sin in it-self to punish delinquent Kings If lawfull and unsinfull I see no reason why a thing which is in it-self lawfull and honest may not lawfully be done by ordinary as well as by extraordinary midses for either the exercise of ordinary midses is in it self lawfull or not None I am sure will say that the exercise of ordinary midses is unlawfull Otherwise every thing that is done ordinarily is done sinfully Which to say is absurd And if you say that the exercise of them in it self is lawfull then it is lawfull in it self by vertue of an ordinary call to punish delinquent Kings But if there be any fault and escape in the way and manner of imploying that cal that no whit hindereth but the call in it self is lawfull and commendable for such things are meerly extrinsecall to the nature of the call it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum non est sequela 5 Jehu and the Prophets had no other reasons for them in speaking and acting by vertue of an extraordinary call against delinquent Kings but what those may have in proceeding against them by vertue of an ordinary call They no otherwise proceeded against them by vertue of their extraordinary call but as it was for the good of the LORD's People and for executing Justice on their delinquency that others might learn not to offend But sure we are such grounds are competent to an ordinary call for proceeding against delinquent Kings And 't is an undoubted maxim Idem est jus ubi eadem est ratio juris Inst That example concerning Athaliah saith Salmasius deserveth not an answer for saith he she usurped the kingdom and killed the whole Royall Family And so there was lesse executed against her then she deserved And withall according to the Jewish Lawes it was not permitted to women to sway the Scepter and sit on the Throne for it is not said Deut. 17. Thou shalt set a Queen over thee but a King over thee Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans That the example concerning Athaliah very much concludeth our

doth both to riches and vertue cap. 7. Thus whether in Monarchy or Aristocracy in their most reformed condition not onely qualification is looked-to but also naturall priviledges are required as necessary conditions But we hear not a word of any naturall priviledge in choosing and setting-apart the Judges and Rulers of the Jewish first Commonwealth There is not a word spoken of their riches and honour but of their abilities for the discharge of their trust The Holy Ghost saith not The wise men rich and honorable together with the heirs of the Rulers were appointed to govern There is not a word of any such naturall respect And do you imagine that the Holy Ghost at any time would have past-by in silence these naturall priviledges if they had been required as necessary conditions in the Judges and Rulers of the Jewes Well is it so that according to the Holy Ghost's way only the vertuous and godly should govern and none other did bear rule in the first institution of the Jewish Commonwealth why shall we imagine but the people did bear rule amongst them I hope you will not say that vertue and godlinesse is not to be found amongst the people but amongst the great ones The contrary is rather true 'T is hard for a rich man to enter Heaven Mat. 19. Job 32 9. 1 Cor. 1 26 27 28 29. 'T is observable at this time there was but small difference amongst the people of the Jews in the matter of riches The most they had was the gold and silver they had gotten from the Egyptians Ex. 3.11 and 12. And every man and woman amonost them gote jewels of silver and gold from the Egyptians Nay but it was not a time of their wealth while as they travelled in the wilderness Their condition then was very unsetled What they had then was from hand to mouth Any provision they had was from GOD'S extraordinary furnishing And they were all that way a-like served And after they had entered the Land and gotten possession of it we read the Land was equally divided amongst them according to their Tribes and Families They lived then as a peculiar people claiming neerer relation one to another then any people did In after-ages and corrupt times they could all tell you they all were the children and seed of Abraham The neerest bonds of Nature tied every one of them to supply another's wants And as for Titles of honour amongst them we read of none till they gote Kings Such vile and prodigali titles as to day are used then were unknown Yet obeserve there was a two-fold and only a two-fold sort of Titles amongst them 1. A Title of Office And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Officers Ex. 18. Deut. 1. Josh 24 Both which were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers And as by their vertue they came to be Judges and Rulers so by that same they attained to these Titles of Office Which are most approved and commendable as they are most ordinary and usuall 2. A title of meer nature Thus in the time of Judges and Captains they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hea●s Josh 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief of the Fathers Ezr. 4.8 and 10. These Titles and Priviledges they had from the precedency of Nature as the first-born hath from the younger The very Law of Nature it-self admitteth precedency both in respect of office and of naturall generation and priority Otherwise every thing should be turned topsie turvie and all should run into confusion But you shall not find thorow all the Book of GOD any other sort of titles used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King is also a title of office You shall not shew me where the Rulers of the people of Israel are called Dukes Marquesses Earles Vicounts c. Such titles I tkink came from hell and I wish they may thither return Now tell me whether or not I have good reason to say that the Jewish Commonwealth under Judges was popular and democratick No precedency amongst them was known then but what either office or nature did bear them to They knew not precedency because of honour and riches what it meaned Any precedency amongst them was either from naturall generation or from qualification And none amongst them was advanced to any place of trust because of any natural priviledge and carnal respect but because of vertue and godlinesse And this was to be found amongst the people We believe qualification hangeth not at the girdles of great men And such were not amongst the people of the Jews in the time of the Judges And though the Seventy were chosen out from amongst the Judges and Officers of the people yet doth it not follow but they were popular for the Rulers were chosen from amongst the people And so the Seventy being of the Rulers it necessarily followeth that they were chosen from among the people It will never conclude that they were not popular Governours but that afterward they were advanced to an higher degree of office then they were formerly The Sanhedrin was entrusted with the management of the most publick and greatest matters 2. It is said Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men And Moses chose able men out of all Israel Ex. 18. There is a noble emphasis in all or in all Israel Mark the vastnesse and latitude thereof It is not said Judges were chosen from amongst the rich and honorable of Israel That indeed had insinuated the restriction of places of office and trust to the rich and honourable Blood-respect and natural ties had been necessary conditions in the choosing of Judges if that had been said But the word all a note of universality doth exempt none therefrom It declareth all and every one of the people without exception who were vertuous and godly and fit for the discharge of publick trust secluding all natural ties and priviledges to be capable of official power Indeed you need not take all in a restricted sense for at this time they had none inclosing rich men worldly worms and vain-gloriously honourable They knew nothing but the priority of Nature and the precedency of Vertue And if you call not this Popular Government I know not what you call Popular Howsoever let me have this and I crave no better Because it is alleadged Moses Joshua and the other Judges did reign as Kings we shall shortly demonstrate to you what power they had Therefore shortly observe these Conclusions Conclus 1. Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly Power This is more then manifest Ever till then Moses governed all and none but he Exod. 18. This he did not because he delighted to lord over the people and that none should rule but he 'T is known that he rested not contented with what Rulers he had appointed at the desire and counsell of Jethro He intreated the Lord to appoint other Rulers to bear burden with