And why shall we think other wayes of it seing the Conquerour came not to the Crown of England by blood-right but by meer Conquest having the whole Kingdom of England against him And Polydore saith Hinc colligere licet vel Edovardum non servasse sidem Gulielmo quam à principio de hereditate regni non satis considerate dedisset vel nullum qnod verisimilius est fecisse promissum Angl. hist lib. 8. This he gathereth from that which Edward spake to Haraldus whileas he prayed GOD that either he would avert the comming of England into the Conquerours hand or else that he would keep him back from it so long as he lived Therefore to me it is more then apparent that the Confessour did not in his Testament assigne the Conquerour to the Crown albeit Salmasius alledgeth the contrary Def. Reg. cap. 8. What Doth not Polydore tell us that because Edgarus was of young and tender years he was not admitted by the people to reigne And fearing lest the Conquerour should succeed to the Crown they rejoyced greatly that Harald took upon him to reigne in Edward's room Whereat as may be learned from Polydore Edward was not displeased himself but very well satisfied that Harald should succeed to him Whereupon we fear not to say that not onely the power of enkinging was in the people's hands but also that the Confessour did not promise the Kingdom to the Conquerour after him although the contrary be alledged And is it likely that the people would have so much declined and withstood the Conquerour if Edward had assigned him to the Crown as his heir No verily for they adored him as their Law-giver It is known that Rufus was but third son to the Conquerour and yet he was created King Him the people preferred before Robert his eldest brother What Would they have done so if blood-right by the Law of the Kingdom had been the title to the Crown No verily It is remarkable that Rufus was ordained King and it was not so much as objected that Robert was elder then he he being but the third son to the Conquerour and Robert being the eldest Yea Rufus dying without children they appointed Henry the Conquerours fourth son King as yet passing-by Robert the eldest And which is more though Henry 1. had left in his Testament his daughter Mathildis together with her sons as heirs of the Kingdom yet not withstanding the people created Steven Nephew to Henry 1. By the authority of Parliament it was ordained that Steven so long as he lived should enjoy the Kingdom of England and that Henry 2. son to Marthilais daughter to Henry 1. should succeed to Steven in the Kingdom of England passing by any that was begotten by Steven Likewayes the people created John King although K. Richard dying without heirs had lest Arthure son to Gaufredus who was elder then John heir to the Crown I might speak more for clearing this putpose but I forbear judging this sufficient Whence it is more then evident that the Crown of England since the dayes of Edward the Confessour by no Law of the Kingdom is hereditary I confesse since that time now and then the Kings eldest son did succeed and was holden as Heir of the Kingdom But this was onely by custome through favour of the Race in which according to the manner of Nations which I must needs call an abuse very ordinarily the first-born is preferred as the onely lawfull Heir of the Crown Therefore seing the Crown of England since that time hath not been at least precisely hereditary to me it seemeth very probable that for that time it hath not been absolute and arbitrary for so the original and fountain-fountain-power of enkinging is in the People's hands And consequently in this respect the People are simply above the King as the cause is simply above its effect Philosophers say That can a est nâ—bi◠〈◊〉 effect 〈◊〉 And so seing the King of England dependeth from the People no question they have simply a power over him and not he an absolute power over them Secondly Because according to these Laws the liberty of the subject is vindicated and the Prince is subjected to Law Because in Henry 1. his time a Parliament was holden At which time Parliamentary Power by the Law of the Kingdom was declared the Supream and highest Authority for any thing of weight was referred to it So that whatsoever was done either by the command of the King or of the People it was holden null unlesse it had been ratified by the Parliament In it every one whether King or other Members thereof have alike and equal power of speaking And withall nothing spoken in it is of validity and force unlesse it be concluded on by the major part together with the approbation of the King Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 11. It is observable That by the authority of the Parliament it was ordained That Steven so long as he lived should remain King of England and that Henry 2. afterward should succeed him By whose mediation and authority the debate between Henry and Steven touching the Crown was decided And I pray you how could these things have been unlesse the Parliament had been above the King Inst 4. But saith Salmasius the power of convocating and dissolving the Parliament belongeth to the King of England The power of the Parliament is extraordinary and pro-tune But the power of the King is ordinary and perpetual And likewise the King of England in Parliament hath a negative voice And therefore in many Acts of Parliament he is called the King and Lord of the Parliament and what is ordained is enacted in his Name And so saith he though the King of England doth act according to the Laws of the Kingdom and concurrence of his Parliament yet notwithstanding he is an absolute King Otherwise the Kings of the Jews had not been absolute who had power to do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin And Artaxerxes had not been absolute who could not be reconciled to Vasthi because the Law discharged it Yea if Kings were not absolute because they act according to the Law and the advice of their Parliament then Cambyses had not been absolute who conveened a Councel whileas he intended to marry his german sister and demanded of them if there was any such law for allowing such a marriage Def. Reg. cap. 8. 9. Answ Salmasius shall do well to consider these few things 1. What the power of the English Parliament is Which is defined by Camdenus to be made-up of three Estates having the highest and most sovereign power in making Laws confirming Laws annulling Laws interpreting Laws and in doing every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is concerned Brit. chorog de Tribun Ang. This is far from Salmasius mind who Def. Reg. cap. 9. opinionateth that the Parliament hath not power over every thing in the Kingdom But Polydore summeth-up the power of the Parliament under these notions First
though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Let. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum proelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praf stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i.e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit it a proeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodcm die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i.e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensu totïus Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i.e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wifely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well left he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a-little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius in Rufus ' Henry 1◠Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though faith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derog ated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am not withstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna
Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conslicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Under Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgment-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Under Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But not withstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to crect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Caâ—ses And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first faith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17.1532 But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle faith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in a relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he beapproved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or sorensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i.e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self effentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successoursto act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the
Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotlana had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclefiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the scresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain-power to desend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Ford of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King With the eonsent or at the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go conser them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denâ—e not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaties to ordinaties The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear oâ—r purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be five sic five non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the
king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am cause est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for prepter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat qnod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power be ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24 fect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8 lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Anglie libera fuit omnt tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratlam agnoscat Euit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum bumanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parafit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examinet he strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood relation therefore slattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater authority then what Malignants have now a-dayes And tell me do not Malignants at this day make use of the King 's pretended greatnes and hereditary right to the Crown of Britain for cloaking their knavery and effectuating their malignant purposes Do not you imagine but Papists and Malignants in England had that same reason for them to make use of K. Jame's power What I pray you is the over-word of Papists and Malignants in Britain to-day The King say they is the undoubted heir of the kingdom and absolute in power Who then should rise against him This is even the most they have to cloak their knavery and to cast a lustre upon their Antichristian and malignant endeavours Do you imagine that the devill was sleeping in K. James time No verily And there hath nothing been done these twelve or thirteen years by-gone whether against State or Church but what was moulded then The very plat-form of all was cast in his dayes By the Scotish Parliament his power was declared absolute And by the English Parliament his right to the Crown of Englana was declared undoubted and hereditary They stood not to swear obedience to him and his posterity into all ages And how far on he drew the power of Episcopacy and how much he acted for intruding the Masse Book upon the Kingdom of Scotland is more then known Many wits and many Pens in his dayes were imployed for carrying-on and effectuating malignant antichristian designments Sal. is a child to object from the practice of the English Parliament in K. James time He may as well object for evincing his purpose from the practice of the Parliament holden at Oxford by Charles And if he doth either of them he doth nothing but beggeth the question He telleth us that the Parliament of England K. James an 1. declared and enacted his right to the Kingdom of England to be undoubted hereditary Well I can tell him that William the Conquerour the Normane-Lawgiver doth denie to the King of England any such title or claim to the Crown Diaaema regale saith he quod nullus autecessorum meorum gessit adeptus sum quod divina solummodo gratia non jus contulit haeriditarium Nemincm Anglici regni constituo haeredem sed aeterno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim tantum decus baeriditario jure possedi sed diro insiictu multa effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haraldo abstuli interfectis belfugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi Camd. Brit. chorogr deser
Every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is interested is referred to it Secondly Whatsoever is done at the command whether of King or People is of none effect unless it be authorized by the Parliament Thirdly It establisheth and taketh away Laws as it judgeth fit Fourthly Every Member of it hath a-like power and freedom in voicing And what is decreed and enacted by Parliament he calleth it the proper and municipal Law of the Kingdom Seing then the Parliament is the most sovereign and supream power in the Kingdom of England according as it was in old how can it be said That the King of England hath power over it If it be so then you admit two Supream powers and a power above a Supream power which is contradicent The Lacedemonian Ephori were no otherwise above their Kings but because they were invested with the highest and supream power All things were referred to the Parliament even as the Roman Consuls as Festus out of Coelidus saith did refer every thing to the Senate Now because of this the Senate had the highest power and was above the Consuls Ergo seing all matters of the Commonwealth in old in the Kingdom of England were referred to the Parliament no question it had power above the King The Roman Senate is therefore said to have been of the supreamest power Fenest de Magistrat Rom. cap. 1. because neither Kings nor Consuls nor Dictators nor any other Magistrate could do any thing without their advice and counsel Ergo seing whatsoever the King of England or any other of that Kingdom did in old was to no purpose without the authority and approbation of Parliament without all controversie the King of England was subjected to the Parliament Salmasius concludeth the King to be above the Parliament because he alledgeth the Parliament can do nothing without the King Why may not I then conclude the Parliament to be above the King because re ipsa and according to the Law of the Kingdom the King can do nothing without the authority and consent of the Parliament Where then I pray you is the King 's negative voice There is not a Member in Parliament cui oequa loquendi potesias non competit So saith Polyd. Angl. hist lib. 11. What Do you imagine that ever the Parliament could by their authority have drawen-up the foresaid agreement between Steven and Henry 2. unlesse they had had power above the King What they did therein was a direct acting both over Steven their present King and Henry 2. their future King But will you tell me whileas the States of England did seek of K. John to be governed by the ancient Lawes made by Edward the Confessour whether or not were these Lawes Acts of meet pleasure giving the King a liberty to do as he would either to tyrannize over the people or not You can not hold the affirmative because what they demanded of the King was to be restored to liberty to be freed of tyranny Polyd. Vir. Angl. hist lib. 15. And if you hold the negative part then do the ancient Laws of England pull absolutenesse out of the king's hands and subject him to Law Magna charta saith The King can do nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law And the States of England were so far from permitting John to rule at randome and not according to the ancient Lawes of the kingdom that contrarywise they combined against him entering in oath together to pursue him still on till he should govern according to Law and establish the ancient Lawes of the kingdom Yea albeit that Pope Innocent commanded them to lay-down arms and though upon their deniall thereof they were declared enemies by the Pope they notwithstanding followed-on their purpose and cryed-out that they would be avenged by fire and sword on such a wicked tyrant who did so much slight the people Aye which is more they sent into France and from thence brought Ludovick the French king's son and created him king notwithstanding any thing either John or the Pope could do in the contrary Thus they never rested till in sorrow they brought John's head into the grave Where I pray you is the absolutenesse of the king of England whenas the States would not suffer him to govern but according to Law and in denying to do so pursued him in arms unkinging him enkinging another in his room and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat
which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his succestors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtonionsis and other English histortans who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and sidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by bath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasies conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore whileas he faith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and interiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuce gratiae tuorum progenitorum Misalmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatom tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Coktus words doth not speak of the absoluteneste of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa tgitur lages bajus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly 81 dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10 so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q. Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nee unquam ad untus libiâ—inem sed ad legum praescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parl. at Sterl 1567. and 1578. concerning Q. Mary This was practised by Mogaldus who did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Whence the kings of Scotland had no power to do any thing without the advice and counsel of the Estates They had no power to establish or abrogate laws according to their pleasure This my dear Country-man proveth at length in the place above-cited In the interim take-alongst with you that decree made in Finnanâ—s Rex 10. his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernments but by the authority of Parliament and that they should not administer the Republick by private and domestick councell nor the businesses of the king and publick should be managed without advice of the fathers and that kings by themselves without the ordors of the fathers shires and governours should not make or break war peace or leagues 2. As the Lacedemonian king did bind himself by oath to govern according to the I awes of the kingdom Xenoph. de Repub. Laced N. Damasc de mor. gent. Laced so the king of Scots by Oath and Covenant is tied to do the like The plat-form of the king's coronation-oath is set-down K. James 6. Parl. 1. Whereby he is obliged to maintain the true Kirk of GOD and Religion now presently professed in purity and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the Realm causing justice and equity to be ministred without partiality This did both James 6. and Charles swear And that this is no new custome amongst the kings of Scotland you will find it more then abundantly proved by our learned Country-man in the place above-quoted 3. The Lacedemonian kings were subjected to the stroke of justice Which maketh Pausanias so to write of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Concerning the Lacedemonian King judgment was so ordered Twenty eight in number who were called Senatours were appointed to judge And with them did sit the Ephorick magistracy together with the King of the other family So the king of Scots was censured by the Parliament made up of three Estates His neck was brought under their yoke as my learned Country-man maketh good in the place fore-quoted And so as the Lacedemonians did cut-off and turn-out many kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 5. cap. 10. so the Scots in old did the like as is made good already See Lex Rex loc cit
THE Survey of Policy OR A FREE VINDICATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND AGAINST Salmasius and other Royallists And ye have this day rejected your God and ye have said unto Him Nay but set a King over us 1 Sam. 10.19 I will call unto the Lord and he shall send thunder and rain that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord in asking you a King 1 Sam. 12.17 And all the People said unto Samuel we have added unto all our sins this evil to ask us a King Ibid. ver 19. But if ye shall still do wickedly ye shall be consumed both ye and your King Ibid. ver 29. The Lord of hosts hath purposed it to stain the pride of all glory and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth Isa 23.9 By PETER ENGLISH a friend to Freedom LEITH Printed in the Year 1653. Feb 2d TO THE Very Honourable and truly Godly the LORD-GENERAL CROMWELL Greeting My LORD WHile I was thinking to whom I might dedicat this Book in which is asserted the Authority and Non-usurpation of the Commonwealth of England I judged none more fit then him to whose patronage I might commit it who hath most promoted the Liberty lately obtained under the power and protection of the God of Israel And thus among many I made choice of your Lordship Albeit I look upon Kingly Government as that which is inconsubsistent with just Freedom and Liberty nevertheless under what Power and Authority I am be what it will I am willing to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's And therefore I will humbly offer my judgment to your Lordship in this case which I hope will be useful to abate the seditiousness of spirit to which many as is at least pretended upon a conscientious accompt are bent It will not be amiss to distinguish between the case of Superiority and Inferiority Now the Word of God will have the inferiour subject to the superiour without any resistance not only for wrath but also for conscience-sake Rom. 12.1 The higher can never be without the lower the one necessarily pre-supposing the other And therefore that which is lower and inferiour ought to be subject to the higher and superiour Hence it is Jesus Christ his Apostles subjected themselves to the greatest of tyrants even to such whose title and right depended meetly from the sword So then put me under the Turk's command I shall not dispute his power Shew me where Christ or any of his Apostles dispute the authority of any power they lived under It is undeniable they spoke and preached against all manner of sin and vice bearing faithful witness against it And thus they witnessed against the sins of Princes aswel as of the People Howsoever there is a great difference between a Magistrate as a Magistrate and as a man As a Magistrate he cannot fail but either in tyranny or in injustice or else in bribery As a man he is subject to personal infirmities as others arâ— I must confess the Gospel witnesseth abundantly against all these failings But as I understand the Gospel doth not allow the inferiour to speak directly and by way of application against the Magistrate as he faileth in his office I do not read where Christ or his Apostles charged any Ruler with tyranny injustice or bribery in the discharge of his trust Sure I am there were many unjust Judge in their time I made that Christ called Herod a Fox and Paul called Nero a Lion But the Law could not conclude from hence that any thing was spoken against them as Magistrates Because as men they were 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 as Foxes and cruel as Lion And thus the Law could make no other but their speaking against personal taults in the Magistrate And I judge it not unlawful upon some serious accompts though not by all persons and at all occasions to speak against the personal sins of the Magistrate in a down-right way as did the Baptist to Herod If this will not satisfie then observe that Christ was not at that time subject to Herod but to Pilate And may not I speak against any tyrannous Magistrate to whose Law Government I am not subjected Yea against the great Turk though I might not being under his Authority Nâ—y but I choose rather to say as the scope of Christ's words insinuate in opposition to the disdainful bragging of the Pharisees that Christ opposeth his divine and kingly power to Herod's tyranny upon which accompt he defieth his despiaht as being impossible for him to act any thing to in s prejudice or alteration of his purpose And as for that of Paul it is not clear what he meaneth by the Lion Only this much he is pleased to be a little free with his dear friend Timothy And truly I may use so much freedom with my dear friend as with mine own heart But what is all this for the subject to call the Magistrate to his face A tyrannous and partial Judge granting he be so Shall I therefore both in private and publick speak what I will making an ordinary trade of it against his unfaithfulness in managing his office Scripture doth not allow me to think any thing against him in my Bed-chamber Eccles â—0 20 Is it fit to say to a King thou are wicked and to Princes ye are ungodly Job 34 18. Surely It is not good to 〈◊〉 Princes for equty Pro. 17.26 We must not revile the Judges nor curse to Ruler of the People Exod. 22.28 Acts 23.5 And we see how that Paul in all his arraignments maketh his constant plea that in his preaching the Gospel he spake nothing whether against the Magistrate or the Law of the Nation whereupon many times he escaped Yea John the Baptist doth not dispute the quarrel of the Romon Souldiers but waving State-matters exhorteth them to their duty as is pertinent to a Gospel-Preacher Notwithstanding I would have it seriously minded that I only speak of the duty of the inferiour toward the superiour so that whatsoever is really and properly inferiour ought without disputing the matter give due obedience to the superiour not resisting the higher power Now say I every individual subject seorsim or any inconsiderable number thereof is inferiour to the Magistrate And therefore ought not to resist his power I admire how any person or persons who are not in a capacity yea not so much as in a probability of withstanding the Mastistrat's power dare adventure to do so unless miraculously and extraordinarily assisted as were the Prophets of old even though not only to them but also revera his power is tyrannous and his commands unjust Will any rational man say I ought to resist an hundred high-way Robbers and not give them that which they seek though unjustly If I did so whatsoever evill befell me in resisting I should be accessory to it my self as none in reason can deny But if it
lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free VANDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i.e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey a sinfull and unlawfull power Unlesse you may also say that we may lawfully engage our selves by oath and Covenant to maintain and obey the ordinance of Satan 2. He speaketh of such a power which is not for maintaining vice and allowing that which is evill but for correcting and punishing of evill-doers Be not hastie to go out of his sight to do knaves who hate the light stand not in an evil thing Why for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him c. Would the Holy Ghost say ye must not dare to do evill and with draw your selves preposterously from the Kings presence for he hath a power conferred on him that cannot be contraveened in executing justice on malefactors And therefore if ye transgresse be sure the King will punish you So then this manifestly holdeth out to us that the Holy Ghost speaketh in this place of such a power in Kings which exerciseth good and performeth that which according to the Law of GOD is incumbent to the Kingly power to do But sure I am illimited Monarchy whose power is also to do evill can spare the malefactour and punish the righteous The Holy Ghost speaketh of a Kingly power that produceth contrary effects 3. The Holy Ghost subjoyneth Whose keepeth the commandment shal feel no evil thing Then this must be a just and lawfull commandment otherwise obedience to it would bring forth death Rom. 6. But sure we are this cannot be spoken concerning a boundlesse and arbitrary Regall power for as Solomon here speaketh of the Regall power so he speaketh of the effects thereof and of our obedience thereto And as we find he speaketh onely of good effects so he onely speaketh of an obedience and subjection thereto which according to the oath of GOD and in conscience we are tyed to perform But as we cannot lawfully give up our oath of Allegiance to boundless and arbitrary Regall power so there is a vast dis-proportion between it and the effects of that power which Solomon speaketh of here Solomon speaketh of a power which only produceth good effects But arbitrary Monarchy is in a capacity of producing both good and bad effects Secondly we establish the point from reason it self the Kingly power as it produceth good effects not onely in it self is the Ordinance of GOD but also it executeth the purpose of GOD both on good and bad But as the Ordinance of GOD
wer absolute without all restriction But afterwards we shew that Aristotle's meaning is concerning Heroes of the secondary rank and such who in after-times erected Kingdomes and planted Colonies Moreover as there were colonies planted in old by way of donation shelter and gratification as were the Griphcnians the Tyrhenians and the colonies of Phaeton and Auson so colonies were planted by way of commission and subordination So the Assyrian Median and Magogan colonies were planted in Asia together with the Moscits who at one time erected their tabernacle both in Asia and Europ An Nimr 45. This they did by vertue of a Commission which Assyrius Me us Magogus and Moscus their four chief leaders had from Nimrod I can not imagine that such had a vaste and arbitrary power over their colonies for what power they had over them was by way of Commission and in subordination to the Assyrian Monarchy But we shal not stand much to grant that even such had an absolute power over their colonies though not so vast intense as that of Nimroa's 1. Because though the Princes of these colonies were subordinate to Nimrod yet it is very likely that their Colonies had no power over them for as the being and residence of these colonies did in a most special manner depend from the conduct and means of their Princes and leaders so then a-dayes people did much adore Princely Government and they knew very little then what it was to call consistories and exercise the Lawes Xenophon telleth us that Ninus was Iupiter to the Assyrians De aquiv. and so we conceive that their Hercules hath been Assyrius their first Prince and leader for so by proportion Nimrod was their Coelum Belus thir Saturn Ninus their Iupiter and consequently their Hercules behoved either to be Assyrius or else Saturn's grand-child Xenophon alleadgeth that the chiesest of Saturns grand-children are the Herculeses But Belus had not a grand-child who succeeded to him in the Kingdom And so we suppose that their Saturn's grand child being wanting they have con serred the honor of Hercules upon their own native Prince And what the Assyrian colonies did in that purpose is most probable the rest of the foresaid colonies did the like also And so they conserring a Divine honour upon their Princes and first leaders no question they have given them all obedience and absolute subjection And Ashur whom Berosus calleth Assyrius is reckoned up Gen. 10. as a very mighty and active Prince 2. Because Hered though a precary and substitute King yet was he not subject to Law was declared unanswerable to any for the murder which he had committed against Aristobulus Iâ—sâ—ph an t lib. 15 cap. 4. I confesse this was by the means and vindication of him of whom Herod in a precary and substitute way held the Kingdom And why may we not think far rather that the Princes of these Colonies though but Nimrod's deputies were of an absolute and arbitrary power though you should say that they had it not because of themselves but because of Nimrod Howsoever I stand not much here but let the Reader choose either of the parts he wil. And I onely put him in mind of this that the Colonies of Gelnus and Eridanus were Commissionary and subordinative for they erected a Kingdom in Istria by ordors and Commission from Ligur An. Armat 20. Furthermore observe there were some Colonies planted by meer purchase So Hercules the Egyptian planted the Thuscits whom Berosus calleth Arnits Libarnits and Musarnits These he planted by his own power and conquest So did Aeneas plant his Trojans in Italy and Brutus his Trojans in England Yea Iolaus upon his own proper purchase planted a Colonie in Sardinia calling it Iolaa Dioa. lib. 5. cap. 2. And as for the Kings and heads of such Colonies I see nothing against it but they have been of an absolute and arbitrary power for as they planted their Colonies without all obligation to the natives so the beeing and residence of their people did more intimately depend from their conduct and means then any of these sorts of colonies we have spoken-of already did depend from their Captains and leaders And so I think cateris paribus there was more reason for the absolutenes of the leading men of such colonies then for the absoluteneâ—e of the heads of any of the rest of the colonies spoken-of already Here meer purchase carrieth the businesse but there the businesse is carried-on by the free donation of others and by lot or land for the up-taking Thus the colonies were the more oblidged to the conduct and industry of their Leaders Whereas in the plantation of Colonies according to this last sort they are extremely engaged to the endeavour and conduct of their heads and overseers This maketh me think the fondnesse of the people in ascribing too much to their industry hath made them devolve their whole power over upon their Kings who by their conquest and purchase made them a people and posessed them in land Conclus 3. Personall endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on people to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men We may make this good from the example of Noah The Scripture acquainteth us with his compleatnesse how that there was none like him in his time Gen. 5,6,7,8 and 9. Yea Berosus talketh much to his praise and commendation ant lib. 1 2 3 4. 5. He holdeth him as a God yea as the first and chiefest of all Gods So did the Italians Myrs de orig Ital. M. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig frag Fab. Pict de aur sac c. lib. 1. Sempr. de divis It. c. So do Archilochus lib. de Temp. Xenophon de aquiv. Metasthenes de judic temp annal Pers lib. But for the clear uptaking of this matter you shall observe with me that in Noah's time about the 131. or 150. year after the flood the whole earth was divided But before this time they were all of one minde without all sedition and division Then men conveniently lived without any Civill and Politick Government for so they lived under Noah as under a common father receiving the Law from his mouth and withall every one of his posterity did know how that nature had laid most strict and neer bonds of relation upon each one to other Whence peace and piety were preserved amongst them Gen. 8.9 and 10. Ber. ant lib. 3. Ios an t Ind. lib. 2. cap. 4. and 5. Men then were given more to Piety then Policy They were little or rather nothing acquainted with the rules of complex Policy They studied more to entertain simple ingenuity and the ties of pure nature then to rule one of them over another Hence faith Archiloshus that 250. years after the flood there was a golden age in which Nature it self lived within the bounds of Law without all politick sanction ever and while Ninus and Semiramus by force of Armes began to corrupt the way
prison though I must needs say unjustly Plut. in Ag. Cle. But Aristotle shutteth-up all this in a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Therefore the Lâ—cedemonians have destroyed many kingly powers Pol. 5. cap. 10. The Syracusians under the conduct of Dion expelled Dionysius and banished him Arist Pol. 5. cap. 10. Aemil. Prob. Plut. in Dion The Carthaginians once banished and at last did cut-off Machâ—us Just lib. 18. They also banished Haâ—ibal and forfeited his â—state And if he had not stolen away privily they had cut him off Plut. Prob. in Han. Tarquinius 〈◊〉 C. Câ—sar and D. Nero were cut-off by the Romans Luc. Aâ— lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 4. cap. 2. Pâ—ut in C Câ—s Carol. M. Suâ— in C Cas Ner. 〈◊〉 victor in Ner. Epit. vit Câ—s in C Câ—s Ignat. Roâ— prin in lib. 1. Inst â— O but faith Salmasius Nero was cut-off not de jure but de 〈◊〉 And â—aâ—th he there was as great a difference between Chaâ—ls and Nero as was between the Roman Senators and the English Butchers Def. Râ—g cap. 4. Ans This poor man koweth not what he would be at His over-word is Did ever any as the Rebels in England cut-off their King Was ever any Nation faith he so monstruous so cruel and so barbarous as the English 〈◊〉 Cut-purses and bloody Butchers who dared to put hand in their dread Sovereign Read this man's Book all over and you wil find this to be his over-word What Did not the Senat of Rome cut-off 〈◊〉 And yet faith he never any before did cut-off their King but the English Enthusiasts and giddy-headed Trayâ—ours The man needeth not to look upon the off-cutting of Charls as a thing singular If he will not be wilfully deluded he may learn from what foregoeth many examples of punishing and cutting off delâ—quent Kings The Question between us is not only whether or not Kings de jure may be cut-off but also whether or not de suctâ— Kings were punished and cut-off by the People Concerning the fact Salmasius cannot get it denied albeit he strives to justle us out of it by changing the state of the question and starting aside from that which for the present is most in hand And I wonder much that the man calleth in question the lawfulness of the fact of the Roman Senat in causing Nero to be cut-off And as for the jus and lawfulness of the Roman Senat 's fact in cutting-off Nero I know not if any beside Salmasius can deny it but an incarnat Devil he was a murderer a paricide a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth And Royallists themselves have not a face to deny that it is lawful to cut-off Tyrants And whereas he faith That there was a difference between Nero and Charls and between the Senatours of Rome and the Representative of England So say I too Nero was an Ethnick but Charls a Christian But friend nomine Christian and re Antichristian In this he was worse then Nero more dangerous at least though not so grosse Nero was a paricide but not Charls Yet let me tell you as they differed in some things they agreed in other things As Nero was an enemy to Christ's reign so was he As Nero was a murderer so was he As Nero was a persecuter of the Saints so was he And as Nero was a destroyer of the Common-wealth so was he And as for the Representacive of England they differ from the Roman Senatours in this that they professed friendship to Christ the Roman Senatours in Nero's time were not so And who but enemies to Christ will say That Ethnicks had more power to execute judgment on a Tyrant a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth then such had in executing judgment on a man of that same stamp rather worse then better And to draw home to our own doors we will give you some examples out of the English and Scotish Chronicles how Kings were punished and brought upon the stage Amongst the English Kings we find these Gorboniannus Emeriannus Vortiger Edwine All these were dethroned and put from their Kingdom Edward 2. was imprisoned by the Barons with the help of the young Queen and Prince Edward 5. was dethroned and obscurely buried in the Tower of London Amongst the Scotish Kings we find not a few who were either banished imprisoned or cut-off Thereus by his Nobles was constrained to flee for fear of them Durstius was killed in battel by his People Gillus his People and Nobles arising against him diffiding his own fled into Ireland and at last was discomfited taken and killed Evennus 3. was taken in battel by his Nobles condemned into perpetual bonds Dardsanus was taken in battel and being beheaded his head was hanged-up for a spectacle and his body cast into a Sinck Lugthacus once was censured by a Parliament for slighting the counsel of the States in appointing base men to Publick Offices and at last he was killed by the Noblemen and People The like hapned to Mogaldus Conarus degraded and imprisoned where he died till he resigning the Kingdom they substituted another Athirco being pursued by his Nobles killed himself Donaldus 3. usurper was killed by Crathilinthus idonea manu collecta Romachus was censured by the Parliament and being beheaded by his Nobles his head was put upon a pole Constantinus 1. was punished by his States Ferchardus 1. Renuentem arce expugnata in jus pertrahunt in prison killed himself Ferchardus 2. was also censured by the Parliament Egenus 8. was put to death by the Parliament all consenting thereto Donaldus 5. being censured by the Parliament was put in prison where he killed himself So Ethus being dethroned in prison died of grief Constantine 4. was killed in battel Grimus being taken in battel his eyes were put out and he died of wounds and grief Macbâ—thus being vanquished fled into the Castle of Dunse where he was killed Donald 7. was made to flee by Duncanus for whom the Nobles sent in Aebudas Duncanus was made to flee and afterward put in prison where he died This was done by Edgar sent for by the Noblemen to that purpose Edward Baliol was expelled and shut-out of his kingdom James 3. was killed in the pursuit by his Nobles Q. Mary was arraigned in Parliament and by a great part condemned to death by many to perpetual imprisonment What will Salmasius say to these practises Or rather what will the Scots speak of them O marvelous and unspeakable Providence Never enough admired never enough praised Behold and see in this matter the stately steps of Providence It is known this day to the world that no Nation is so malignant as Scotland so much idolizeth a King and doteth upon him as it doth It is not ashamed to postpone Christ's Interest to Caesar's No Nation pleadeth so much for absolute power to the King as it doth It pleadeth for an absolute immunity to the King
from all punishment and restraint And yet albeit I have read most of the ancient and chief Chronicles of all the ancientest and chiefest Kingdoms of the world I never read of any Kingdom that proceeded so much against and so often did punish delinquent Kings as the Scots in old have done No question our LORD in his wisdom hath done this that the ancient Scots may stand up in judgment to-day to condemn the practice of the latter Scots who are not ashamed to idolize a King a creature like themselves Having most abundantly evidenced how that Regal power in many sorrain Kingdoms in old hath been subjected to Law no lesse then any inferiour power we do now in the next room drawing home toward our own doors demonstrate the King of Britain to be a regulated and non-absolute King according to the Laws and Customes of England and Scotland As for England we must needs take it under these notions 1. As it was before Julius Caesar conquered it for that time it is thought very doubtsome and uncertain and therefore I minde to passe it at this time till aftâ—rwards in a more convenient place in a word not soaring to say that Brutus the first King of England was an absolute King for as he lived in the dayes of the Heroes wherein Regall power was most in request so by his own proper conduct and industry he firstly founded and planted a Kingdom there This cometh nigh that which Aristotle saith alledging that â—n the dayes of the Heroes Kings had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe by the way that thoâ—gh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 draweth nigh to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet is there some difference between them but how they diffâ—r as also how Aristotle in this place is to be understood you have at length expressed afterward Now Aristotle foâ— his saying assigneth many causes amongst which these be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by gathering people togâ—ther or by puâ—câ—asing a kingdom Pelit 3. cap. 10. Now Brutus aâ— is reported did both these And consequently we need not scruple to say that he had a full and absolute power We dare not say so much in behalf of his posterity and those who immediatly sâ—cceeded hâ—m Heroîcisme then was upon the declining hand and withall the people were not so much engaged to them as to Brutus himself And after the Line of Brute was ended it is reported that Corbomannus K. 28. was deposed by the people which could not have been if he had had an absolute and arbitrary power Emerianus K. 34. when he had tyrannously reigned seven years was deposed Chirennus K. 41. through his drunkennes reigned but one year Whereupon we may very probably conclude that from Brutus unto Cassivelanus who was subdued by Julius Caesar the English Kings were not absolute 2. As it was from Julius Caesar unto William the Conquerour As for this time there may be something said for the absolutenesle of the English Kings If we speak of those Kings whom the Roman Emperours deputed it is likely they had an absolute power by derivation from the Roman Emperours as had Herod from Antonius and the Roman Senat. Jos an t lib. 15. cap. 4. And whileas the Englishes were subdued by the Danes and Saxons I think it no wonder though then the Kings of England had an absolute power and that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have shewed already that conquering Kings are all-commanding Kings See Concl. 1.4 And those who are acquainted with the English History do know that from Cassivelanus unto William the Conquerour the Kingdom of England was never free either of intestine or of forraigne wars It was no time then for exercising Laws to the full against any much lesse Kings There were some of their Kings at that tâ—e to whose conduct and valour the Englâ—shes were much engaged 〈◊〉 maintaining their Liberties and withstanding the force and fury of the common Enemy No wonder though such by way of gratification were invested with a full and large power Others again were meer Conquerours or else deputed by the Conquerour And so we think there was reason for it why such were clothed with an absolute and plenary power for then the Kingdom of England was not under Kings but under Masters And what can Masters do but ford over their servants All that while the Kingdom of England was an unsettled Kingdom and could scarcely be called it 's own Which maketh me in reason conclude that theâ— there was little time left for exercising Policy and putting Lawes in execution This Polydo us Virgâ—lius telleth in a word whileas he saith that before Henry 1. there were few Conventions made by the Kings amongst the people for ordering according to Law the businesse of the Kingdom Angl. hist lib. 11. Although in an absolute notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say that from Brutus unto Cassivelanus and from Cassivelanus unto William the Conquerour Kingly Government in England was non absolute and without full power yet we cannot say so in a relative notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as afterward shall appear 3. As the Kingdom of England was about the dayes of the Conquerour whether a little before or afterward unto this time We deny not but under the reigne of the Conquerour himself Regall Government in England was of a most absolute and arbitrary power In this we take Salmasius by the hand He needed not Des Reg. câ—p 8. to have troubled himself to have cited any Authors for proof thereof Very reason it-self teacheth the pâ—t for he subdued England by strength of hand But sure I am a Conquerour may dispose upon a conquered Kingdom according to his pleasure It is an act of favour in him if he do not destroy all much more as an absolute Lord to rule over all In the interim I desire Salmasius to take a view of Polyd. Virg. Angl. hist lib. 9. where he shall find the point evidenced to his heart's desire beyond any Historian he citeth Although in this we go-along with him as we must needs do yet notwithstanding we cannot say so much whether concerning Edward who preceded or those who succeeded him Let it be so that those who succeeded the Conquerour had the same priviledges which the Conquerour did arrogat to himself Yet can it not be denied but according to Edward the Confessour his Lawes or as they are called the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom Kingly Government in England is regulated and not absolute We make the point good from these reasons Firstly because according to these Laws the King of England is not hereditary And therefore we read not that ever Edward did tie the Crown of England to Royall succession I confesse it is alledged that he promised the Crown after him to William the Conquerour who was of neer kinred and great credit with him if he had not children of his own But this is not only improbable in it-self but also it is so judged
more then apparent that being a King all his life-time before for his own honour and advantage he hath gathered a number of people together out of his own Kingdom and translated them into Britain and there erected a Kingdom This was more honorable and advantageable to him then to live a privat life in subjection to his nephew What can it be imagined but desire of wealth and honour both to himself and his posterity would have drawen him on to such an under-taking No question he being a powerfull King and father-in-law to the great Monarch Hercules on whose son he had conferred a singular courtesie in renouncing the kingdom to him did want nothing that conduced not only for undertaking but also for effectuating such a purpose Wanting his own kingdom Britam a glorious kingdom lying next to France either at that time scarcely enpeopled or at least filled with men of rude breeding it cannot come in my mind to think otherwise but this Bretan became Brutus to Britain And this I take to be him about whom they controvert so much Which agreeth with that which is storied saying That the Britans were a people of lesser Britany which is in the Celtick region who in old did inhabit the Isle of Britain Whether you shall imagine this Bretan and Brito to be all one or that the Trojans came into Britain whileas they came along into France I remit it to the Reader to judge as a thing arbitrary and indisterent And herein I do not contemn the authority of Waldhave who calleth Britain Brute's Lands Thus concerning the original of Britain firstly and lastly I have offered my judgment freely which being arightly considered doth much serve to reconcile all different opinions in this matter Well whether you say that Bretan came into this Isle with Bretanes or Brutus with Trojans I shall not stand to controvert if he be Brito of whom Hyginus speaketh whileas Francus son to Hector came along into France and did reign there what power they had is already shewed but namely concl 2. It being sufficiently proved that Britain was secondly enpeopled by Bretan and very probably concluded to have been enpeopled the third time by fugitive and dispersed Trojans under the conduct of Brito of whom as we may probably say though the contrary may be also holden Hyginus speaketh It now remaineth to consider what power those Kings had who succeeded Bretan and Brito The tract of time which interveened between these two Kings may be easily learned for it is gatherable from Berosus that Bretan erected his kingdom under the reign of Baleus R. Assyr XI in or about the fourteenth or sixteenth year of his reign ann mund 2225 or 2227 and Brito did set-up his kingdom in Britain as may be gathered from Manetho in or about the first or second year of Teutheus reign King of Assyria XXIX in and about the year of the world 2791 or 2792. Concerning the power of these tow Kings we have spoken And we come nextly to speak of the power of those Kings who succeeded them untill the dayes of C. Ciesar Out of no ancient Writer we can learn in particular what those Kings were But in the general we learn these two things 1. That in old Britain was governed by Kings 2. That afterward though before Casars time it was divided into Satrapees and governed by many Princes We take it upon us to illustrate and prove both these The first is evident from Tacitus who saith Olim Regilus parebant To which he inunediatly subjoineth Nane per principes Jactionibus studiis trahuntio Thus he distinguisheth between the condition of Britain as it was in old and as it was in and about his time In old saith he it was governed by Kings but now being divided into factions it is governed by Princes And therefore in another place he saith a regibus use an principes But Salmas by principes understandeth the Roman Caesars Def. Reg. cap. 8. He saith so that he may elude the Government of England by many He would have it to passe if he could get it that it was never governed but by Kings It is no wonder that he be blinded in other things seing he shuttcth his eyes at so clear a light as this It cannot be denied but Tatitus speaks of the government of England as it was in old and as it was in and about his time 1. Because it is very unlike that ever he would have called the Roman Caesars Princes 'T is an epither of lesse honour and power then Kings And so I imagine that he would rather have called the Kings of England Princes then them Sure I am the Rontan Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradisting 〈◊〉 in positive termes the Government of England as it was in old from what it was of late saying That in old Britain obeyed Kings but now saith he it is governed by many and divided into factions And Salmasius himself cannot get this denied Of which Princes Caesar speaks-himself Principeâ—â— andâ— convenire se civitatesg suas Caesari commendare coepeâ—unt De bel Gal. lib. 4. Thus the kingdom was delivered-up into Caesar's hands not by one man the King but by many the Princes And lib. 5. he saith Summd imperli bellique administrandi communi consilto permissa est Cassivelauno On which words Camden noteth That Britain then was not governed by one but by many taking that same course by common consent in choosing Cassivelaunus General and chief leader to them as the Frenches did in choosing Divitiacus to repel Caesar Brit. cborogr de print incol But what needeth us to stand here We shall make it more appear in proving the second particular The first is also confirmed by the testimony of Mcla. Eert Britannia saith he populos regesque populorum De sit Orb. lib. 3 cap 6. And what power those Kings had I mind not to say precisely that it was so restricted as the power of the Lacedomoril in Kings Neither will I say that it was so narrow as the power of the English Kings after the Conquerour Yet I may justly say That it was not boundless and arbitrary as Salmasius dreameth-of So saith Die Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte prineipatum tenet i.e. Amongst them viz. the Britams the People in a great part do govern This telleth that in old even in the time of Kings in Britain there was Popular Government Kings then in Britain were not sole Lords but the People did govern also Hence it is that Cordilla jussu papuli was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jassu Rex dicitur Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 1. Because of the People's swaying power of old in Britain Kingly Government somewhat before the dayes of C. Caesar was altogether abrogated as in part is shewed already But Salmasius shall not think that of old England was
singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the AEbudan Isles Solinus thus speaketh Rex unus est universis Rex nihil suum habet omnia universorum ad aequitatem certis legibus stringitur Ac ne avaritia divertat a vero discit paupertate justitiam utpote cui nihil sit rei familiaris cap. 25. i. e. all of them have one King The King hath nothing proper all things belong to the people he is compelled to equity by certain Laws And lest avarice should withdraw him from the truth he is taught justice by poverty to wit as one that hath nothing belonging to himself The second particular is manisest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signisieth Princes or Rulers Thus they were governed toward his time by many and not by one And Salmasius from this is made so to say albeit he endeavoureth to elude what Tacitus saith hist lib. 1. The words are already cited and vindicated But Diodore is most clear to this purpose speaking of Britain Reges principesque ibi sunt plures pacem invicem servantes Rev. an t lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salinasius will not say that such had an absolute power over the people Their Kings had not such power Ergo far lesse they Yea the Heduan Vergobret who did reign over moe then any of them had not an absolute and arbitrary power Which maketh me think far lesse had they any such power And t is observable what they did was communi concilio Caesar de bel Gal. lib 5. So much touching the State of England in the second notion i. e. as it was from the dayes of Bâ—etan Brito or Brutus 3. We come now to speak of England as it was under the Romans Saxons and Danes As it was under the Roman yoke speaking precisely England had no Kings but the Roman Emperours And what power they had is spoken already concerning the Roman Dictators And as for the power of the Danish and Saxonick Kings in England no question they had greater power then any of the Kings of England in old or since the dayes of the Conquerour if we except K. James But to say that their power was boundless and arbitrary is more then I dare affirm I will not deny but the first whether of the Danish or the Saxonick Kings had that same power which the Conquerour had over England As he subdued England so did they And it is the Conquerours priviledge to rule at random Such do ordinarily conquer against Law And I pray you why do they not also rule without Law But that all who succeeded these had the like power also I cannot be moved to affirm It cannot be denied but even under their reign there were Parliaments and Councels And I trow they were not cyphers I might enlarge this but I judge it needless for I care not which of the parts be affirmed Under these Kings England was not its own but a subdued and unsetled Nation Which maketh me say that it was no wonder albeit then there was no time for it to exercise the Laws against its Kings Thus at length I have offered my judgment freely concerning the power of the Kings of England both of old and of late And that we may shut up this whole purpose in a word for eutting-off all that Salmasius can object you shall be pleased carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Monarchy As for an extraordinary Regal power which was conserred on Kings whether for extraordinary heroicism personal endowments or such like we shall not stand to say that such had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power See Cocl 1 2 3 4. Yet we cannot say so much of ordinary Monarchy if we look to the precise and ordinary way of the power of Kings This by example is at length she wed already And so we come Secondly to prove it by reason Can any in reason imagine that people unlesse it be for some extraordinary cause or other will subject their necks to the pleasure and arbitrement of any Nay it is a combing against the hair for people to resignitheir liberty into the hands of any man giving him a full power to dispose upon them at random It is very observable That once Kings in Asia had not only an all-commanding but also an all-willing power So Nomrod Belus Ninus and Semiramis as is shewed already Concl. 1. And yet at last this pambasilick and arbitrary power turned over into a despotick power governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Polit. 3. cap. 10. Under these four Kings the condition of Regal power was very extraordinary And so it was no wonder though they did reign in an extraordinary way having more will then other Kings But the kingdom becoming setlâ—d the power of their successours was hemmed-in Their wings were a little clipped And may we not judge so of all other Nations Verily I think it holdeth a majori for the Assyrian Kings were universal Monarchs and no kingdom could ever match with the Assyrian empire Which makes me imagin that as the Kings of the Assyrian empire in an ordinary and sotled case were reduced to Law far more in that respect hath the case of other kings been such And withall observe there was a time when Regal Government was much in request It was much cried-up in the dayes of Heraicism And that rather in the flower and beginnings then in the sadings and after-times thereof And so it was no wonder though at that time kings were invested with a vast power But by process of time Monarchy became lesse esteemed The power of it became much lessened partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings themselves dimitting and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people detracting from their greatnesse so saith Aristatle Polit. 3. cap. 10. So then we must not imagine that though kings sometimes had a vast and arbitrary power they alwaies had such a power and their wings were never clipped Nay the disposition of every age is not for Royal power it-self much lesse for the arbitrariness thereof Let me never dream that the ordinary way of people is to bring their necks under such a yoke What is more consonant to nature then libertie and what is more dissonant to it then tyranny Can any deny but arbitrary power in actu primo is tyranny It is still in a capacity either of tyrannâ—zing or non-tyrannizing It hath still a disposition for acting either according to or against Law Can people then have an ordinary temper for taking with such a yoke No verily that is against the haire wiâ—h them 'T is repugnant to their innate liberty and the natural desire thereof Yea 't is repugnant to the natural
had lawful and susficient calls to govern I shall not examine this by history 〈◊〉 perceiving the man's weaknesse in not adverting to the usurpation of Julius and Augusâ—us I passe this and shortly tell him such vik Ethnicks as they had never right to govern as may be learned from what foregosth But to make shorter work he shall do well to observe all usuâ—ped powers to be either Kingly Aristocratick or Popular I demand Whether or not usurped powers taken under such notions be Ordinances of God This he cannot deny Will he say that the Kingly or any other lawful power in abstracto is not of divine institution 'T is bad reasoning the Kingly power in it-self to be unlawful because it is in an usurper's hands Usurpation is accidental whether to the thing as King or to the Kingly power as it is in it self Tell me I pray you what Philosoph will admit a consequence a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per accidens ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per se Will any conclude a thing to be evil in it-self because it is abused No verily It is foolishnesse to say the skin is not good because it is itchy I go forward And for the other particular I would have this Gentleman observing with me 1. Paul prescribeth the duty of the inseriour towards the superiour This he presseth by several arguments 2. He prescribeth the duty of the Magistrate and superiour towards the inferiour I confesse more expresly and largely he speaketh of the first then of the second for as he presseth the duty of the inseriour toward the superiour tacitly and by the way he interlaceth the duty of the superiour toward the inferiour Now albeit the A postle presseth obedience upon the inferiour both toward good and bad tyrannous and non-tyrannous powers and Rulers yet hath he very great reason for him to exhort all Rulers and powers to exercise and administer justice Albeit it be the duty of the inseriour to give obedience to the usurped and tyrannous power yet it becometh the Magistrate not to usurp nor tyrannize And so the one being incumbent to the inseriour and the other to the superiour the A postle presseth upon both of them their duty No question both of them may and doe fail in their duty yet it doth become the A postle to presse their duty upon both And in this that the A postle faith the Magistrate is God's minister appointed by him for the good of the people in exercising judgment and rightcousnesse it doth not follow that he only speaketh of lawful and un-usurped powers No verily But he tacitly herein disclaimeth such powers and prescribeth what should be the nature and power of Magistrats de jure and not what it is de facto And as it is the superiour's jus to rule in righteousnesse so it is the jus of the inferiour to give all lawful and due obedience whether to the usurped or non-usurped power So is proved already The reason that maketh this man so far misconstrue the A postle's meaning is to cut-off allegeance from the usurped power and as he saith from the Commonwealth of England which he is not ashamed to call an usurped power But he beateth the aire To make short work of this we demand Whether or not the people of the Jews did lawfully give-up allegeance to the King of Babylon If they did lawfully ergo it is lawful to give-up allegeance to itsurped power Sure I am Nebuchad-nezzar's power over the Jews was meet usurpation And therefore the Lord threatneth to punish the King of Assyria and destroy his Kingdom Is 10. If unlawfully ergo it was lawful for them to break the oath of allegeance given to him But this they could not for the Prophets threatned them with wrath for the violation thereof But because this matter is not only most clear in it self but also we have little or nothing to do with it therefore we content our self with this slender view we have taken of it We leave this and come to Salmasius who is of an higher strain then he Indeed he pleadeth for subjection and allegeance to the worst of powers But to take away all that he objecteth observe these few things concerning the clear meaning and exposition of the place Rom. 13. 1. Carefully distinguish between the superiour and inferiour 2. between the power it-self and the abuse thereof For the first we say It is unlawful and not permitted whether by the Law of God or the Law of Nature to the inferiour to resist the superiour And as it is not lawful for the inferiour to resist the superiour neither is it lawful to resist the superior power as it is in it self We find both these in the text Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers The higher or superiour presupposeth lower and inferiour The one is correlat of the other Thus it is evident the subjection and non-resistance spoken-of by Paul Rom. 13. is between the inferiour and superiour And withal remark the Apostle presleth subjection to the power and non-resistance thereof He doth not command obedience to the abuse and tyranny of it We do therefore say the place maketh nothing against us but much for us Though it be not lawful for inferiours to resist superiours That cannot be done unlesse the inferiour intrude himself upon the right of the superiour and usurp that which he hath not Yet is it very commendable for the superiour to resist the inferiour Therefore it is undoubtedly lawful for the people or their Representative to resist the King And that because their power is above his His power is not absosute admitting no bounds And consequently the text speaketh against the resistance made by the King against the people The people's power is the higher yea the supream power And so subjection and obedience is so much more to be performed thereto The Apostle commandeth subjection and non-resistance to any higher power though but higher secundum quid His words are indefinit and without exception Ergo much more to the highest and the higher power simpliciter And thus the A postle to good purpose exhorteth Christians up and down the Roman Empire and namely in and about the City of Rome to subject their necks to the yoke of the Roman Magistrates They were indeed inferiour to them both in power and dignity They could not have withstood them being but an handful unlesse they had become self-murderers and usurpers of power which both God and Nature had denied them And though it be unlawful to resist the power as it is in it self yet it is lawful as is said already to withstand the abuse and tyranny thereof It doth not follow that Paul commandeth subjection and non-resistance to the tyranny of the power because he commandeth subjection and non-resistance to the power it self This is a fallacy ab accidente The abuse of the power is altogether extrinsecal to the power it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum the consequence is
confesse the People of God even in the matter of Religion may be brought to this But deceive not thy self The People of God cannot swear absolutely by force and might not only to endeavour but also to act for Religion That is also a vain Oath and a swearing to impossibilities How many times have the People of God been brought so low that their power hath been wholly eclipsed They can absolutely swear no more but to employ all power God shall put in their hands in the defence and preservation of Religion and never alter nor change their faith notwithstanding they run the hazard of perishing goods lives and fortunes Tell me wilt thou say thou art obliged to swear so instanding by Monarchy Dost thou imagine thou art necessarily tied to stand by Monarchy as by Religion Thou canst not change thy faith nor decline it if it be true whether before or after thou hast sworn to maintain it unlesse thou run the hazard both of sin and condemnation Thou canst not embrace the contrary faith and Religion without sin Which draweth-on as its inevitable consequent if persevered therein the wrath and eternal displeasure of the Almighty But I pray thee thinkest thou it damnable to subject thy neck to the yoke of any other Government beside Monarchy Are not other Governments lawful as well as it Are not they consubsistent with Religion and the matter of salvation no lesse then it How darest thou absolutely tie thy self by Oath and Covenant to stand by one only kind of Government when as thou mayest lawfully submit thy neck and give-up thy allegeance to any kind thereof Thus thou not only overchargest thy conscience but also exposest thy self needlesly to hazard And so much the rather of this because of all Governments Monarchy is most dangerous and least to be wished Art thou not of all fools the greatest to swear absolutely to maintain that Government which is least good though thou mayest obtain that which of all Governments is the sweetest The Authour of Exerc. con usurp pow cap. 3. mistaketh the matter very far whileas he saith We are equally and that same way obliged by League and Covenant to maintain the King's Person and Authority as by it we are tied to maintain Religion The contrary of this is already cleared Lastly I deny not but not only Monarchy in it-self is consistent with Religion but also secundum quid it is the best of all Governments Yet if we speak simpliciter and of the ordinary fruits and Consequences of Kingly Government the King's interest alwaies cometh in competition with Christ's interest So is proved invincibly as we suppose already Now wilt thou swear absolutely to maintain that which absolutely and ordinarily standeth in opposition to Christ and his interest Thus thou swearest to maintain that which setweth to over-turn both Church and Common-wealth And hereby thou preserrest man's interest to God's interest for so thou exposest both Church and Commonwealth to ordinary and inevitable danger and hazard in maintaining Kingly Government inviolable The foresaid Authour in the place above-cited endeavoureth to justle us out of this He taketh much upon trust but he proveth nothing He would have us to take it upon his word that Monarchy is most consubsistent with Religion and the good of the People We cannot take him in this as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have already upon this concluded more by force of argument then he either may or doth speak by word What is it any wonder though he saith so He is not ashamed to aver against Heaven and experience it-self That Religion was consubsistent with the preservation and defence of the last King's Person Let God judge this O my soul come not thou into his secret unto the Assembly of such mine honour be not thou united COROLLARY HAving through the Lord's more then ordinary assistance discussed these five Questions above-written it now remaineth to try what strength is in them to conclude the Commonwealth of England to be a lawful Government and not usurped power And we make it good thus If the Comonwealth of England be an unlawful usurped power then either because the power of the King of England not only according to the Law of the Kingdom but also of God is absolute And so without usurpation he can neither be judged nor his Kingdom taken from him by any but by God Or because Monarchy is of all Governments the choicest And so cannot be altered nor exchanged with any other Government unlesse we go from the better to the worse And it is rash madnesse or sinful rashnesse to exchange the best with the worst Or because Popular Government is least to be desired Or because it is unlawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority Or lastly because we are tied not only by the Oath of Alleageance but also by solemn League and Covenant to maintain and preserve Monarchy inviolably But none of all these you can alleadge to bind usurpation upon the Commonwealth of England as is shewed already Ergo it is a lawful and not usurped power FINIS Errors to be corrected thus REad Page 6. line 8. Beros P. 9. l. ult carrying-on P. 10 l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 12. l. 10. tanes P. 20. l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 30 l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 35. l. 4. satrapie P. 60 l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 64. l. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 65. l. ult hos P. 67. l. 25. naught P. 74. l. 17. Gorbomannus l. ult censured P. 75. l. 2. excommunicared and to be punished l. 3. Eugenius l. 10 for Duncanus read Again usurping he P. 76. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 79. l. 20. after Steven r. King P 85. l. ult after Inst r. 5. P. 95. l. 17. Imperator P. 9◠l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 123. l. 30. exciusive P. 1◠l. 32. sect 1. P. 129 l. 32. subsect◠P. 132. l. 20. subsection P. 134 l. 21. before Concl 6. r. subsect 1. P. 136. l. 21. subsect 1. P. 144. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 14◠l 22. hath P. 163. l. 40. P. 171. l. 35. subsect 1. P. 174 l. 19. hurled P. 175. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 175. l. 37. doe APPENDIX In which the seven Angels sounding are compared with the seven Angels plaguing in overturning all Powers and Potentates READER I Have thought it expedient to annex to the fore-going Treatise concerning the Commonwealth of England a small addition concerning the sounding and plaguing by seven Angels And that because they do relate to the overthrowing of all Kings and Kingly Powers whatsoever Whence my purpose in the fore-going Treatise is abundantly enforced and established That I may the more conveniently give thee my thoughts in order to these Angels I would have thee in the first place with me to remark that the Angels sounding are