tyrannous and usurping kings delight in cruelty They seek nothing but their own ease 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 Salmasius concludeth well from 1 Son 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 Jannoeus 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 fos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 21.22 But in Gem. tract de Syned cap. 11. it is said that because of Jannoeus 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. Multrplication 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 no that either David or Solomon were judged therefore by the 〈◊〉 And what I pray you could be the reason of this Not because the king de jure hathimmunity 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 of his power Verily both they and the people have born patiently with his slips and heavy impositions because of his rare and singular qualifications Otherwise I can see nothing for it why the people did not make a mutiny against and revolt from Solomon as against and from Rehoboam 3. Because as both already and afterward doth appear the Sanhedrin both according to GOD's institution and the Law of the nation had authority and jurisdiction above the king But sure I am it had been a very uselesse power if they durst not have exercised it It had been all one to have wanted that authority with wanting power to have put it in execution as occasion served And this had been a having and a non-having power Which is ridiculous and repugnant Neither can you alleadge that they were spared because then judicatories were altogether turned corrupt and knew not what it was to exerctse justice for that doth directly militate against the eminent Reformation both of Church and State that was under the reign of both these Kings Therefore seing David and Solomon were spared not because they were absolute nor because the people durst not execute judgement on them nor because the people and judicatories under their reign were altogether dissolute not knowing the way of exercising justice to me it is more then manifest that their delinquency was past-by because of their personall endowments The shining vertues and eminent graces that did appear in them no question have kept back the Sanhedrin from putting hand on them O! what a temptation would it be to me to voice for a David's off-cutting O! how much would my soul be grieved to sentence against a Solomon And shall not I think but those of the Sanhedrin were much taken up with the qualifications of these men as well as I could be with the vertues of such-like I cannot think that I am singular in this In the interim observe that my meaning is not that they had such a vast power as Salmasius dreameth of I do not think that ever the Sanhedrin would have spared them unlesse they could not have done otherwayes if they had turned positive and even-down tyrants and destroyers of the Commonwealth But onely my meaning is that because of their eminent qualifications they had immunity from Law in some notes of delinquency Neither do I speak that they had this priviledge de jure but de facto Thus you see that this is no argument for Royallists who object the Sanhedrin's sparing of David and Solomon as a ground of the King 's arbitrary power And in this none is more ready then Salmasius Def. Reg. cap. 5. But they shall
the consequence at least virtually is repugnant to the Antecedent for in so far as they seek a just and righteous King fit to govern them according to Law and reason in as far they abominat an absolute King one in a capacity of tyrannizing over them Thus you see that the people of Israel do neither positively nor negatively seek an unjust and tyrannous King to reign over them We hasten now to the Assumption And we observe that the man contradicteth himself in it for he saith not onely cap. 5. but also cap. 2. that there were many Kings of the Nations at that time subject to Law And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle Pol. l. 3. c. 10. and II. Diod. Sic. l. 2. But as a man awaking out of his wine he recalleth to his memory what hath escaped him and laboureth to correct it And so he addeth that though Diodore storicth that the Kings of Egypt were subjected to Law yet do we never read saith he that ever any of them was cut-off and beheaded by the inferiour judges And though Aristotle quoth he saith that all the Oriental Kings did govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not withstanding they did rule with an absolute power though more remisly then did other Kings Def. reg c. 5. 8. Albeit this man doth not admit a plenary and full subjection of Kings to Law yet nevertheless he is constrained by force of example to acknowledge that Kings were some way or other kept under the power and reverence of Law And he cannot deny but Diodore storieth of a most wonderful subjection of the ancient Aegyptian Kings to Law He telleth us that they were subjected to Law in their eating and drinking lying and rising yea in preserving their health they were restricted to Law And which saith he is more admirable they had not power to judge to gather Money together nor to punish anythrough pride or anger or any other unjust cause And yet saith Diodore they took not this in an evil part but thought themselves happy to be subjected to Law I trow this is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet He will have the King above Law not subject to any Law But the Egyptians will have their Kings under the Law and subject to it And though this immodest man doth say That the Egyptians notwithstanding did not cut-off any of their Kings yet catcheth he nothing thereby 1 Because the Egyptian Kings as Diodore telleth us were most observant of the Laws Therefore he saith Plurimi regum the greatest part of their ancient Kings lived blamelesly and died honourably Rer ant l. 2. c. 3. But I beleeve that Law cannot strike against the innocent 'T is iniquity to kill a man who deserveth not death Diodore telleth us of three things which made the ancient Egyptian Kings to walk closely and keep themselves within bounds Firstly their wayes were narrowly hedged-in by Law Secondly they were alwaies attended with the Sons of the Noble and Chief-Priests whose eyes were alwayes fixed on them Thirdly Kings that walked not straightly as nothing was proclaimed in their life-time to their praise but to their discredit so in their death they wanted the honor of solemn and sumptuous burials which were given to good Kings after their death The fear of this hedged-in their wayes and made them stand in awe 2 We deny not but Diadore in that same place insinuates there were many evil ancient Egyptian Kings Yet we say not tyrannous as Salmasius would have it for we do not think that though many of their Kings were wicked in themselves they got liberty to tyrannize over the People The Egyptian Laws were more strict then that they would dispence such a liberty to any of their Kings Diodore saith they were tied to the Law no less then private men And withal he saith their Judges were most impartial and could not be bought-by either by favour or gain Which maketh us imagine that they hemmed-in the wayes of the most dissolute King amongst them and did not give him liberty to tyrannize over the People Therefore it is very observable that Amasis getting power in his hands did tyrannize over the Egyptians Whose tyranny the Egyptians did tolerate so long as Diodore saith as they wanted the opportunity of punishing him till Actisanes King of Ethiopia came down into Egypt And then saith the story the Egyptians called to mind old quarrels against Amasis and falling from him to Actisanes they unkinged him and set-up Actisanes in his room who governed them most gently and amicably Rer. ant l. 2. c. 1. 3 Let it be so many of the Egyptian Kings in old did tyrannize over them and they notwithstanding were not punished and cut-off by the People and inferiour Judges What then That will never conclude their unwillingness and unreadiness to execute judgment on their tyrannous Kings but that they wanted opportunity and power to do such a thing So it went as is said already with the People and inferiour Judges under Amasis tyrannous yoke But so soon as they got the opportunity they verified the old Maxim Quod differtur non aufertur Yea Diadore telleth us That the People did withstand the Priests and those who with-held honourable and solemn burials from the bad Egyptian Kings in old Which affordeth us matter to aver That if the inferiour Judges in Egypt did not execute judgment on their wicked and tyrannous Kings it was not because they were unready to do so but because the People were refractory thereto No question they would much more have withstood the off-cutting of their Kings then the want of solemnities at their death for what is it I pray you that draweth People on to act and engage for their Princes but because they take them up in the notion of half-gods and far above the reach of ordinary men Whereupon they conclude that both their Persons and Authority are altogether inviolable They dote so much upon them that they think they should in no terms be resisted far less cut-off and punished according to their deserts This daily experience teacheth Therefore the People of Egypt would far more have withstood the inseriour Judges in cutting-off their Kings then in denying them sumptuous and stately burials for their offences 4 It is easie to belearned from Diadore that the Egyptians esteemed the want of honourable burials to their Kings more then any punishment could have been inflicted upon them Know this they were a most superstitious People tainted with a world of blind zeal And withall as Diadort stor eth the fear of the want of honourable and solemn burials provoked their Kings to live circumspectly and keep themselves within bounds Whereupon we conclude That both King and People thought no punishment more capitall and more hurtfull to the King then the want of an honourable buriall And so the inferiour Judges imagined that in with-holding from tyrannous Kings sumptuous and stately burials they executed more judgment upon
That Jeroboam was a vile idolater and was not worthy to be a King 2. That the people justly defired 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 crast 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 〈◊〉 Tom Plain-man saith notably Why I pray Did Ahab grieve that Naboth said him nay Why made he not this auswer thereunto If what the Prophet said some Kings would do Were justly to be done Thy Vineyana's mine And at my pleasure Naboth all that 's thine Assume I may Why like a Turkey-chick Did he so foolishly gro◠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 scourge that murder with so keen a kod On Ahah had be 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 dead of Jezebel Till God 〈◊〉 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 there in 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 store 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 whileas 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 Senatouis and Pharisees Ant. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 22. 23. Which she did accordingly cap. 21. And at her death she desired the Sanhedrin to dispose upon the Kingdom as they pleased even while her son Aristobulus was in arms for bringing the Kingdom to himself Yea the Sanhedrin not onely accused Antipater but also arraigned Herod before them who for fear of them was constrained to slee Ant. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 17. And what arbitrary power Herod had was by 〈◊〉 concession whom Herod blinded and deluded with gifts Ant. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 4. I confesse whileas Herod was cited before the Sanhedrin he was not King but Governour of Galilee But what then I hope Salmasius will not deny which indeed he confesses that his father Antipater did reign as King And yet the Elders of the People did accuse him before Hyrcanus But neither Hyrcanus who indeed was King of the Jews nor Antipater who was Procurator and managed the matters of the Kingdom because of his weakness were able to absolve Herod notwithstanding Caesar the President of Syria wrote some Letters to Hyrcanus threatning him if he did not absolve him The Sanhedrin went-on so precisely against Herod that they went about to condemn him to death So that Hyrcanus was necessitate in satisfying Caesar's desire to cause Herod flee quietly away Now I would fain know of Salmasius if either Hyrcanus or Antipater had had an absolute and arbitrary power might they not have absolved Herod at their pleasure the Sannedrin nilling or willing and not basely for fear of the Sanhedrin have dismissed Herod secretly Therefore Salmasius must give me leave to say though he imagineth the contrary that Sichardus very pertinently urgeth this example to prove that the power of the Sanhedrin was above the King And Salmasius himself denieth not Def. Reg. cap 2. 5. but the strain and current of Rabbinick Writers doth run this way Inst Nay but saith he in the Jewish Talmud it is spoken otherwise And therefore it is said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non drest testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur in Cod. San. cap. 11. Def. Reg. cap. 2. Answ Verily this Gentleman needeth not brag much of this for the Jewish Writers pull this out of his hands by a distinction Some of them understand it concerning the Kings of Israel and some of them refer it to the Samaritan Kings But they deny it to have place in the Kings of Judah and those who came of David I admire much that he should cite the authority of Jewish writ for him He doth not deny but the Jewish Writers are no friends to Kingly Government And they positively say which he denieth not himself that the King of the Jews was subjected to Law And which is more they particularity
of Man's living Lib. de temp So faith Mnes Phoen. Damasc 97. histor and likewise Ovid. Metam lib. 1. But Fabius Pictor nobly storieth to this purpose saying That in the golden age there was no Kingly Government because then the desire of governing had not entered any man's breast De aur see c. lib. 1. In the interim observe concerning the duration of this golden age there are different opinions Some who alledge Ninus to have been the first that usurped authority and government do reckon it to have lasted 250. years So Mnes bist lib. 97. Xenoph. de aquiv. Por. Cat. ex lib. origfrag Pict de aur sec lib. 1. These again who alledge Nimrod to have been the first King and erecter of government after the flood alledge it to have endured 131. years Beros an t lib. 4. Whom both Manetho and Metasthenes do follow But Archilochus halteth between these two opinions Yet we incline to the judgement of Berosus and the Caldean Writers Therefore seing immediatly after the Flood 131. years Noah was honoured by all as a common father no question all power was devolved over upon him And that not onely because of his paternall priviledge which he had over them all but also because of his personall endowments wherein he exceeded all his posterity at that time Therefore nobly saith Fabius Pictor that because those who commanded them were just men and devouted to Religion they were called and esteemed as Gods for then saith he they did not depart from the Law whether the governours or the governed All then of their own accord did hold that which is good either without fear or constraint Shamesastnesse governed the people and Law the Princes De aur sec lib. 1. But by the Princes he doth not understand Kings or politick Governours As you may find it above-written he saith in terminis that at that time there were none such Therefore by Princes he understandeth the chief Fathers and the heads of the chiefest Families As Noah his sons and his sons sons Whom indeed these Eâ—hnick Writers which before we have often already cited call and hold as Gods Philo-Judaus giveth us a very large and expresse Catalogue of these Princes and chief heads of Families at that time Bibl. ant lib. what can we say of Noah who was thesather of al but that he was also the chief and head of all Whereupon we need not fear to conclude but Noah then had a vast and absolute power And this may be considered two wayes in respect of the object of his power 1. In respect of good And so I do not think but he had a power without al limitation to order and govern every thing in an orderly and beseeming way Firstly because he was the common father of all and by nature it-self had the precedency over them Secondly the case then was extraordinary for at that time he was the only man who best knew how to order and govern affairs Men at that time were little or nothing acquainted with Lawes and constitutions Knowledge and Learning were but in their beginnings then Therefore the ignorance of these times necessarily called them to take the word at Noah's mouth who was extraoidinarily endowed with grace and knowledge from above None like him in his time All the rest weak and ignorant in respect of him Therefore seing he had the precedency before all not onely in respect of nature but also in respect of gifts and graces and not onely so but likewise all stood in need at that time of information from him no question all the reason in the world maketh for an absolute power in Noah in respect of every good thing Thence it is storied of him that he went abroad from Country to Country planting Colonies and ordering things wherein GOD's honour and the peoples weal were concerned 2. In respect of evill Indeed I will not say that such a Saint of GOD as he did take on him a power to rule at randome and according to his heart's lust I conceive indeed he took upon him an absolute power to govern according to Law but not against Law Neither did he take on him such a power because he delighted to govern and to be above others No verily But because he was necessarily called to govern so Both the precedency in respect of nature and likewise in respect of gifts as also the weakness and ignorance of the times called him to over-rule all according to Law with a vast and full power His government was extraordinary and by necessity And therefore we can conclude no ordinary government from it absolutely to govern according to Law devolved-over upon the shoulders of one man or of some few Much lesse can there be concluded therefrom a power of governing contrary to Law without all bounds of limitation Albeit I make it no question whether Noah took upon him an absolute power of governing whether against or according to Law yet do I think it very probable that none at this time would have taken it upon them to have judged him accused him or condemned him 1. No question drunkenness is punishable by Law But we hear of none that did so much as rebuke him for it but wicked Cham who therefore derided him and was therefore accursed 2. He was the common father of all at that time 3. Of all at that time he was the most reverend wise and eminent 4. They knew little what it was to hold Affizes and call Consistories All which move us to apprehend that none at that time would have dared to judge him even albeit he should have desired them David far inferiour to him wanting many priviledges over his People which Noah had over his in the golden age notwithstanding both his adultery and murder was spared and over-leaped by the Sanhedrin So Solomon was not judged by it notwithstanding his idolatry and multiplication of wives horses which were punishable and inhibited by Law And yet Solomon had no such priviledges over his people as Noah had over his posterity And I do verily beleeve that the emency of David and Solomon and because they were extraordinary persons moved the Sanhedrin to spare them Yea it is to be considered that such eminent men do not fal through a preposterous and malignant humour but through an extraordinary desertion of God for noble and high ends best known to God himself No question this hath been taken to heart by the Sanhedrin And this being conserred with the eminency and singularity of the men hath carried the Sanhedrin by from insticting punishment upon them I shall not stand to dispute whether they did this de jure or not But sure I am as they did it de facto so they-have been much moved thereto from pregnant considerations of the men's personal endowments And for my self though I think a David subject to Law yet would I think it a great temptation to me though as Judge to sentence such a man with
death The eminency of the man and the way of his falling would put me to my second thoughts albeit I should endeavour nothing therein but justice Well call it injustice in the Sanhedrin to have spared David and Solomon yet would I not have you to wonder too much thereat There is great difference between a David and an Ahab a Solomon and a Jeroboam Such are not all dayes men And therefore I must needs say that as the Sanhedrin spared David and Solomon from thoughts of the singularity and eminency of the men far more would Noah's posterity in the golden age have spared Noah though in many things delinquent for as the man was most eminent and singular and could not have fallen but by an extraordinary desertion and for most good and noble ends so he had a priviledge from Nature above all in his time Yea in David and Solomon's time people were well seen in Laws and politick Constitutions The Sanhedrin needed not to have spared David and Solomon through ignorance and want of skill But it was far otherwise in the golden age in Noah's time Then men were but Apprentises and spelling the first side of the Catechisme of Policy Every thing was but in its beginnings in its first rudiments Let it be so that de facto and not de jure in the golden age Noah's posterity denied not to him an absolute and uncircumscribed power I seek no more but that And I may say that though at that time de facto Noah should have had immunity from the exercise of Law against him though much delinquent yet shall I not think that ever Noah claimed such a priviledge to himself as competent to him de jure and according to the Law As for Noah's authority and power after his posterity was divided into factions before we can determin upon it you shall mark with me immediatly after the golden age that there were three divided and dist not parties 1. The godly party 2. The heroick party 3. The politick party The godly party was of the posterity of Shem. These followed Noah and walked in his wayes The heroick and politick party were of the posterity of Ham and Japhet And as the heroick party followed Nimrod so the politick party followed Ham whom the Chaldeans call Chemesenuus No question Noah immediatly after the golden age had a vast and absolute power over the godly and those who walked in his wayes You may learn the reasons of this from what is above-written And as for the heroick and politick party it would seem probable that they contemned Noah and slighted his Authority for they walked contrary to his wayes Gen. 10.11 It is known how that Ham the head of the politick yea and of the magical party did mock Noah Gen. 9. Beros an t lib. 3. Yea Nimrod the head of the heroick party contrary to the mind and purpose of Noah caused Babel to be built Gen. 10.11 Ber. ant lib. 4. But notwithstanding this we may say that at the most it concludeth that such were disobedient to Noah and walked contrary to his will But it will not conclude that such denied to Noah immunity from the Law V. g. A prodigal and riotous son may work and act contrary to his father's will But it doth not follow ergo sach a child doth strike and punish his father Nay a debording child may act contrary to his father's wil and be so far from eclipsing his power over him that he may in patience endure his correction over him So we read that Ham did not repine against his father's reproving and cursing him Gen. 10. Yea Berosus storieth that Noah did shut him out from his presence and he did so accordingly ant lib. 3. And beside that he telleth us that Noah Nin. an 19. gave him liberty to stay beside him three years in Italy But finding how he did corrupt the Colonies there he commanded him to be gone and he did so And yet at this time he was the Saturn of Egypt a mighty King and of great power both in Egypt and in Italy Ant. lib. 5. I think there is very good reason for it to say that Noah in so far had an absolute power over them as that none of them in a direct and positive way would have acted against his commandment despising him as an enemy and as one on whom they would and did execute their fury The most we can call them is disobedient but not rebels to Noah They acted against his will but not in despight of his will They took not liberty from him to do his will though they took liberty to do their own will also We can not think that the light of Nature was so far extinguished in them that they did not honour him as their father A debording son as Esau can entertain Isaac with Venison though he walk not in his wayes And I do not think if they had not honoured him as their common father unlesse they had been extraordinarily restrained they had destroyed him and all his followers Sure I am they wanted not power to do so The godly party was but an handful in respect of them What then I pray you could be the ordinary mean of their restraint but their natural respect and affection toward him Nay they honoured him so much that they esteemed him their Coelum their Sol their Chaos the semen mundi yea and the father both of the greater and lesser gods Ber. ant lib. 3. And what we have spoken of Noah the like also may be said of Adam Before the Flood there was also a golden age 1556 years Wherein men lived as under one common father each of them knowing the intimate relations one to another until Monarchy was erected till the close of the 500 year of Noah's age as is shewed already Before which time Adam had died 626 years and Seth 514 years But so long as Adam lived what superiority Noah had over his posterity in the golden age after the Flood Adam had it rather in a more then leste measure then he Adam was not onely their common father but also he was their first and primary father As we have evinced the truth of this point from examples in Scripture so we may evidence it from examples in humane Histories V. G. The Mitylenians gave to Pittacus an absolute power of governing because of his personal endowments Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. de Pit Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. The like power did the Athenians confer upon Solon upon the same accompt Diog. La. de Sol. Plut. in Sol. So it is alledged that James 6. because of his pretended personal endowments obtained an absolute power and a negative voice in Parliament In the interim observe That those who allow absolute Monarchy because of personal endowments do not imagine that Kings have an absolute power because they are Kings but as they are such Kings i. e. Kings not only in respect of station but also in