c. which no man can conceive to relate onely to the Judges of the lower Courts Nor find I any variation in the rest that follows no nor in that which comes after neiher v. 14. where those directions do begin which concern the people and not the Priests or Judges onely in the Election of their King And therefore give me leave to think and laugh not at me I beseech you for my singularity that there is no other meaning in that Text but this i e. That if a doubt or scruple should arise amongst them in their severall dwellings in matters which concerned Religion and the right understanding of the law of God they should have recourse to the Priests and Levites for satisfaction in the same according unto that of the Prophet Malachy that the people were to seek the Law from the mouth of the Priest as before we had it But if it were a civil controversie matters of difference which they could not end amongst themselves and by the interposition of their friends and Neighbours they should refer it to the Judge or Judges in whose times they lived to be finally decided by him And for this Exposition I have not onely some authority but some reason also My Authority shall be taken from the words of Estius who makes gloss upon the Text viz. Haec sententia modo sacerdotem modo judicem nominat propter duplicem magistratum qui erat in populo dei sacram civilem quamvis contingeret aliquando duplicem magistratum in eandem personam concurrere My reasons shall be taken first from that passage in the 12. verse in which it is said that the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God c. Where the Priest seems to be considered in personal capacity as he stands ministring before the Lord at his holy Altar not as he sits upon the bench and acts â—with other of the Judges in an open Court But whether that be so or not certain I am that many inconveniences must needs happen amongst the people if the Text be no otherwise to be understood as you would have it It is confest on all hands that there was some intervall of time from the death of every one of the supream Judges and the advancing of the next though in Chronologies the years of the succeeding Judges are counted from the death of his Predecessor And you your selfe confess p. 14. that the Sanhedrim did not continue long after Josuah And I can find no restitution of it till the time of Iehoshaphat For though you tell us p. 16. that never any King except David had Session or Vote in this Councel by which you intimate that the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David Yet you have shewed us neither reason nor authority for it And therefore you may do me a greater favour as your own words are then you suddenly imagine to tell me really in what Book of Scripture or in what other Author I may find it written that either the Sanhedrim was on foot again in the time of David or that David did at any time sit and vote amongst them Hereupon I conclude at last that if the Text be to be understood as you would have it and as you say it is understood in the sence of all Authors both Iewish and Christians then must the people be without remedy at the least without remedy of Appeal in their suits and controversies during the interval of time betwixt the Judges and without remedies also in their doubts scruples touching the meaning of the Law for the whole space of time which past betwixt the death of Iosuah and the raign of Iehoshaphat which comes to 511. years or there abouts which I desire you seriously to consider of 32. And yet the matter were the less if having given the Sanhedrim the Dernier Resort or the supream power in all appeals you did not ascribe to them an authority also to controul their Kings For proof whereof you tell us that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that if the King came to violate the Laws and the Statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporall punishment How far Skickardus hath assured you I am not able to say not being directed by you to any Book or Books of his where it may be found But if you find no more in Skickardus then you do in Grotius you will have little cause to brag of this discovery For Grotius in his first Book de jure belli c. cap. 3. and not cap. 1. as is mistaken in the print first telleth us thus viz. Samuel jus regum describens satis ostendit adversus Regis injurias nullam in populo relictam potestatem c. Samuel saith he describing the power of the King of Israel showes plainly that the people had no power to relieve themselves from the oppressions of their Kings according unto that of some antient Writers on those words of David Against thee onely have I sinned Psal 51. And to show how absolutely Kings were exempted from such punishments he presently subjoyns the testimony of Barnach monus an Hebrew In dictis Rabinorum titulo de judicibus which is this nulla creatura judicat regem sed benedictus that is to say that no creature judgeth or can judge the King but onely God for ever blessed According unto which I find a memorable Rule in Bracton an old English Lawyer relating to the Kings of England viz. Omnem esse sub rege ipsum sub nullo sed tantum sub deo That every man is under the King but the King is under none but God Betwixt which passages so plainly destructive of the power ascribed to the Sanhedrim Grotius interlopes this following passage from some Iewish Writers viz. Video consentire Hebraeos regi in eas leges quae de officio regis scriptae extabant peccanti inflicta verbera sedâ—a apud illos infamiâ carebant a rege in signum penitentiae sponte suscipiebantur ideoque non a lictore sed ab eo quem legisset ipse probatur suo arbitrio verberibus statuebat modum I have put down the words at large that the learned and judicious Reader may see what he is to trust to in this point The sence whereof is this in English viz. that stripes were inflicted on the King if he transgressed those Lawes which had been written touching the Regal office But that those stripes carried not with them any mark of infamy but were voluntary undergone by him in testimony of his repentance upon which ground the said stripes were not laid upon him by a common Officer but by some one or other of his own appointment it being also in his power to limit both the the number and severity of those stripes which they were to give him
and impotency of the people But you who have no better name for the people in a Commonwealth then the Rascal Rabble will have Kings at a venture to be of Divine right and to be absolute where as in truth if divine right be derived unto Kings from these of the Hebrews onely it is most apparent that no absolute King can be of Divine right For these Kings if they were such by the Law alledged then by the same Law they could neither multiply Horses nor wives nor Silver nor Gold without which â—o King can be absolute but were to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes and so by consequence were regulated Monarchs nay could of right Enact no Law but as those by David for the reduction of the Ark for the regulation of the Priests for the Election of Solomon which were made by the suffrage of the people no otherwise then those under the Kings of Rome and ours under the late Monarchy what then is attributed by Calvin unto popular Magistrates that is not confirmed by Scripture and reason yet nothing will serve your turn but to know what power there was in the Sanhedrim to controle their Kings to which I answer that both Skickardus and Grotius with the full consent of the Talmudists have assured you that in case the King came to violate those Laws and Statutes it was in the power of the Sanhedrim to bring him unto corporal punishment Moreover it is shewn by the latter out of Josephus that Hircanus when he could not deliver Hierom from the Sanhedrim by power he did it by art Nor is your evasion so good as that of Hircanus while you having nothing to say to the contrary but that Herod when he was question'd was no King shuffle over the business without taking notice as to the point in controversie that Hircanus who could not save Herod from the question was King The manner of the restitution of the Sanhedrim made by Jehoshaphat plainly shewes that even under the Monarchy the power of the Sanhedrim was co-ordinate with that of the King at least such is the judgement of the Iewish Writers for saith Grotius the King as is rightly noted by the Talmudists was not to judge in some cases and to this the words of Zedekiah seem to relate whereto the Sanhedrim demanding the Prophet Jeremiah he said Behold he is in your hands for the King is not he that can do any thing without you nor except David had ever any King Session or vote in this Councell to which soon after he adds that this Court contiued till Herod the Great whose insolency when exalting it self more and more against the Law the Senator had not in time as they ought suppressed by their power God punished them in such a manner for the neglect of their duty that they came all to be put to death Herod except Sameae onely whose foresight and frequent warning of this or the like calamity they had as frequently contemned In which words Grotius following the unanimous consent of the Talmudists if they knew any thing of their own orders expresly attributes the same power unto the Sanhedrim and chargeth them with the same dury in Israel that is attributed unto the three Estates in a Gothick Moddel and charged upon these by Calvin Thus that there never lay any appeal from the Sanhedrim unto Moses except when the Jews were in captivity or under provincial Government to any other Magistrate as also that they had power upon their Kings being that your self say Iâ— the objection paramount and which not answered you confess that the three Estates convened in Parliament or any other papular Magistrate Calvin dreams of notwithstanding any discontinuance or non-usage on their parts or any prescription alledged by Kings to the contrary may resume and exercise that authority which God hath given them when ever they shall find a fit time for it And this letter shewing plainly that you have in no wise answered this objection it remains that your whole Book even according to your own acknowledgement is confuted by this letter Or if you be of another mind I shall hope to hear further from you 3. These are the very words of that you Letter to which an answer is required though to no part thereof but that which doth concern the Spartan Ephori and the Iewish Sanhedrim I can by any rules of disputation be required to answer the rest of your discourse touching the balancing or over-balancing of such degrees and ranks of men of which all Government consist is utterly Extrinsecally and extravagant unto my design which was not to dispute the severall forms of Government and in what the differences between them did most especially coâ—sist but onely to declare that neither the Spartan Ephori nor any such popular Magistrates as Calvin dreams of had any authority originally invested in them to controul their Kings much less to murder or depose them Howsoever I shall not purposely pass by any thing which by your self or any indifferent Reader shall be thought material without giving you my judgement and opinion in it Some things you say I writ as a Polititian a silly one I am God help me and some things as a Polititian and divine too And as a Polititian I am charged by you to have affirmed that the Spartan Kings were as absolute Monarchs as any in those times till Euripon the 3d. King of the Race of Hercules and the 2d King of the younger house to procure the favour and good will of the Rascal rabble loosened the raigns of Government and thereby much diminishing the Regall power This I affirm indeed and this you deny but you neither Answer my Authorities nor confute my Reasons my Authorities I derive from Plutarch first who speaking of the said Euripon whom he calleth Eurition affirms that till his time the Government of Sparta was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently Monarchical if it were not more And secondly from Aristotle who calls the Government of Charilaus the sixt King of that House who as you say was generally affirmed to be a good man by the name of a tyranny And if it might be called a Tyranny then when the Regall power was under such a diminution by the folly of Euripon there is no question to be made but that the Spartan Kings were absolute Monarchs before any such diminution had been made To these two proofs you answer nothing nor say you any thing at all in confutation of the Reason by me brought to prove it Which is That having acquired the Estate by conquest and claiming by no other title then by that of Armies there was no question to be made but that they Governed in the way of absolute Monarchs it being not the guise of such as come in by conquest to covessant and capitulate with their Subjects but to impose their will for a Law upon them This being the custome of all Kings who
who in the ninth Book of his Odyssees gives this Aphorism viz Vxori natis jus dicit quisque virorum That every man gives law to his wife and children And though the children come to such a condition both of age and fortunes that they are well enough able to live of themselves yet do they still continue servants to their natural parents for Iuâ—a patris naturalis minime solvantur sath the civil Lawyers and therefore are required by God to do the duty of servants till either their Fathers free consent or the Constitution of the Government under which they live shall lease them from it Secondly Admitting this natural liberty of all mankind which our late Polititians so much dream of yet man in his depraved nature is such a violent head-strong and unruly beast that he stands as much in need of a â—it or bridle as the Horse or Mule least otherwise he run headlong to his own destruction And therefore if he will not have a King he must be under the command of some other Government aut Râ—x auâ— Senatus habendus est as once Pacuviusâ—aid â—aid unto those of Capua and whether he live under the command of a King or the power of a Senate he must be servant unto either though otherwise he pretend to the ability of a self-subsistence for unto whomsoever you give your selves servants to obey his servants ye are unto whom ye obey saith the Great Apostle And then the question will be this whither the natural liberty of mankind may be best preserved under a Monarchical Government where he hath but one Master to observe whose tempeâ— and affections he may without much difficulty comply withal under the Government of a Senate or popular State where he must serve some hundredâ— of Masters to every one of which or to the greater part of which it is impossible for the wisest man to give any contentment Supposing Thirdly That the Qâ—estion be resolved in favour of the Popular Government yet every popular Government is to be ordered by some Lawes and every Law is the restraining of the use of this pretended liberty and binds the subject to observance Lex being so called a Ligando say the old Grammarians in all such cases concerning which the Laws are made by what power sover 24. But then say you these laws are of their own making not imposed by others which makes no alteration in the case at all my fetters not being the easier to me because they are of my own making then if they were made by the next Smith or provided for me by some others Besides which you your self have told us that all such Kings as claim by Scripture can be but regulated Monarchs and could of right enact no Law but by the suffrage of the people pag. 15. Which is as notable a preservative of the peoples liberty as ever was enjoyed by them in a popular Government O but say you the people in a popular Government have a power to chuse the Senate which they have not in chusing of their King and that the people with such a Senate have power to make what Laws they please and what can follow thereupon but that a Government so setled in a Senate and people must be accounted for a Divine Institution and be called the Government of God because it is the Government of Laws and not of men as you tell us pag. 11. But first how may we be assured That a Senate so established will not Lord it over the people with greater insolency and put more heavy pressures on them then ever they suffered under Kings for being many in number and all equal in power every one of them will endeavour to enrich himself and serve their turn upon the people there being no superiour power to controul them for it And next how may we be assured That the people I mean the whole body of the people have any power to chuse their Senate or that the Senate being chosen they have a power in voting with them for the making of Laws The Famous Senate of the Romans was ordained by Romulus their first King their number doubled by Tarquinius Priscus and a third hundred added by Brutus which continued in the first times of the Consular Government the people having no hand at all in the nomination nor was it otherwise at Athens though that was the most popular and Democratical Estate that ever was in the World the main body of the people in each Citty having as little to do in the choise of the Senate as they had in making of their Laws And first in the making of their Laws none of the City of Athens were permitted to vote or to give their voices but such as were accounted and enrolled for Citizens and none were either so enrolled or reckoned but the Chief of the City all Servants Labourers Handicrafts-men and Artificers which make the far greater part in every City not passing in account for Citizens and consequently having no voice nor power either in making Laws or electing Magistrates And secondly as it was in the Democratie of Athens so was it in the Timocratie of Rome the infinitly greatest part of the Inhabiâ—anâ—s having no hand at all in the making of Laws or in any other Act of Government of what kind soever For if a Law were past in Senate none of inferiour Order had a suffrage in it If it were made in the general Assembly of the Centuries those of the Nobility agreeing together might pass a Law without the rest and whither they agreed or not the Law was always pâ—ssed by the other Centuries before it came to the sixt consisting of the poorer sort which were never called unto the vote They did in number far exceed all the other five Centuries And finally if the Law were made in the Assembly of the Tribes as all the poorer sort which made up the far greater part of the City could never make any use of their voices in the Assembly of Centuries so the Nobility which made up the most considerable part of the City were quite excluded from having any suffrage or voice at all in the Assembly of the Tribes Admitting finally that all the Inhabitants of Rome Athens Syracuse c. had vote in the Election of their Magistrates and in the making of their Laws yet what makes this unto those multitudes of people which live dispersed in the Territories of those mighty Cities or in any of the remoter Provinces which were subject to them who being infinitely more in number then the Inhabitants of those several and respective Cities unto which they were subject had neither voice in the Election of the Senate or in the making of their Laws or in any matter of concernment to their several Nations but will they nill they they must submit to the will and pleasure of their great Masters in those Cities under whom they served though otherwise as able to subsist of themselves as any of
the Government with him you should then turn the Text and say that God took of the Spirit which was upon the seventy Elders and put it upon Moses for otherwise his wisedom cannot be said to have been greater for having so many wise Assistants no more the personal vallour of a Prince may be said to be greater then it is by having many men of valour in his Council of War or the beauty of a Queen said to be greater then before by having many beautiful Ladies attending on her And so your argument against apealing from the Sanhedrim as the supream Court to Moses as the supream Prince is brought to nothing Which notwithstanding you conceive so highly of the Sanhedrim because it hath some resemblance to the Senate in a popular estate that you make it to be a State distinct from the rest of the people and all this to no other purpose but to multiply the number of estate in every Nation that Kings and such as have the power of Kings may not be ridden only with the bitt and bridle but a Martingal also For if the Congregation of the people in Law to be made had such power as was shown but whither it be shown in your Papers or any where else I am yet to seek and that in Law so made the ultimate appeal lay unto the Sanhedrim as you can never prove it did when there was any King in Israel you ask this Question Why are not here two Estates in this Common wealth each by Gods own Ordinancce and both plain in Scripture Which Argument or Question needs no other Answer but that a male suppositis ad non valet Argumentum ad â—ejus concessa as the Logicians use to tell us You must have plainer Texts of Scripture to prove this Ordinance of God which here you speak of or else the Sanhedrim and the people could not mak two distinct Estates in that Common-wealth as you say they did 30. Now for the clearer proofs of this that is to say that there lay no appeal to Moses from the seventy Elders you have recourse to those words in Deut. 17. 8. where it is said That if there arise a Controversie within thy gates too hard for thee in judgment then shalt thou come unto the Priest and to the Levite or to the Judge that shall be in those days and they shall shew thee the sentence of Judgment upon which Text you first deliver this gloss viz. that by the Judge which shall be in those days we are to understand those supream Judges which governed the affairs of Israel from time to time betwixt the death of Joshua and the raign of Saul Secondly That by the Priests and Levites we are to understand the Sanhedrim according to the sense of all Authors as they stand both Jewish and Christian And thirdlâ— by these words within thy Gates the Jethronian Judges because they sate and gave judgment in the Gates of their Cities And thereupon you raise this Conclusion without doubt or hesitancy That by the clear sence of Scripture all matter of appeal in Israel lay unto the Sanhedrim And yet perhaps it may be said that the sence of that Text of Scripture is not so clear as you would have it the words being otherwise glossed and therefore otherwise to be understood then you seem to do For First How may we be assured that the Priâ—sts and Levites made such a considerable number in the Sanhedrim as to be taken in this place for the woole Court Some which are skilled in all the learning of the Hebrews telling us that the 70. Elders were first chosen by six and six out of every Tribe which make up 72 in all And yet say they they passed by the name of the 70. Elders ad retundationem numeri for the evenness and roundness of the number even as the 72 Disciples Post haec autem designavit dominus aliâ—s Septuaginta duos saith the vular Latin Luk. 10. 1. are for the same reason called the seventy If so there could but six Priests and Levites be chosen into that great Council admitting that the Tribe of Levi were at that time reckoned to be one of the Twelve and therefore it is very improbable that the Priests and Levites should stand here for all the Sanhedrim but if the Tribe of Levi were not accounted at that time amongst the Twelve as they were not afterwards then could there be no Priests or Levites in that Court at all at the first institution of it though afterwards when Ten of the Twelve Tribes were fallen from the house of David the Priests and Levites might be taken in to make up the number And thereupon it needs must follow that Moses iâ— that place did not intend the whole Sanhedrim by the Priests and Levites or lookt upon the Priests and Levites as the greatest and most considerable thereof Secondly It is affirmed by some Christian Writers that the Priests and Levites here mentioned are to be understood in their single capacities and not as parts and members of the Iewish Sanhedrim for when a matter seemed too hard to be determined by the inferiour Judges they are enjoyned saith Deodat to go to the Priests by way of consultation and Enquiry to be informed of the true sence and meaning of Gods Laws The Priests being great Lawyers among the people understanding and experienced in the meaning of Gods Law according to which judgement was to be given in all the cases comprehended therein for which we cannot have a better proof then that of the Prophet Mal. cap. 2. 7. where it is said that the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Nor is it so certain as you make it that by the Judge who should be in those dayes we are to understand the supream Judge or Judges or any of them who governed the affairs of Israel as aforesaid For Ainsworth who had well studied the Iewish Rabbines understands these words of the Sanhedrim it self By the Judge saith he is understood the high Councel or Senate of Judges which were the Chiefs or Heads of the Fathers of Israel And this he doth not onely say of his own Authority but refers himself in generall to the Hebrew Records and more particularly to Rubbige Maimony in his tract of Rebels ca. 1. Sect. 4. By both it is agreed that this direction is not given to the parties themselves who had any suit or controversie depending in the low Courts but to the Judges of those Courts and to them alone for which I must confess I can see no reason in the Text or context 31. For if you look into the first words of that chapter we shal find it to be a general direction to the people of Israel by which they are commanded not to sacrifice to the Lord their God any bullock or sheepe wherein is blemish or any ill favouredness
Nothing in all this which concerns the Sanhedrim nothing which speaks of such a power as the bringing of the Kings unto corporal â—punishment this punishment being onely such as the Kings had condemned themselves unto in the way of penance for their transgression of the Laws This is enough to show how little credit is to be given to the full and general consent of the Talmudists whom Grotius builds upon for proving the supream power in the Sanhedrim in bringing their Kings to corporal punishment which they never had And yet to make the matter clearer he presently subjoyns these words unto those before but whether they be his own words or the words of some of his Hebrew Writers let them judge that list viz. a paenis autem coactivis adeo liberi erant reges ut etiam excalceationis lex quippe cum ignominia conjuncta in ipsis cessaret There Kings saith he were so far exempted from the coactive power of Law that they were not liable to the penance of going barefoot because it carried with it a mark of infamy If there be any other place in Grotius which may serve your turn you must first direct me where to find it before you can expect it should have an answer 33. The Talmudists having failed you you have recourse unto the Scripture and to the Authority of Josephus a right good Historian but with no more advantage to the point in hand then if you had never lookt upon them You tell us of a Restitution of the Sanhedrim was made by King Jehoshaphat as I think it was for so I find it 2 Chron. 19. v. 8. Moreover saith the Text in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and the chief of the Fathers in Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies when they return to Jerusalem But how can you inferre from hence that by the manner of this Restitution admitting that it relates unto the Sanhedrim as I think â—it may though other Writers make it doubtful doth so plainly show that ever under the Monarchy the power of the Sanhedrim was co-ordinate with that of the King which consequent if it can be rationally collected from that text of Scripture or any which depends upon it I have lost my Logick Jehoshaphat though a just King and a godly man could neither be so unskilful in his own affairs or so careless of the regalities of his posterity as to erect another power which might be co-ordinate with his own and might hereafter give a check to himself and them in all Acts of Government But then supposing Jehoshaphat to be so improvident as to erect a power which was to be co-ordinate with him yet being but a co-ordinate power it gave them no Authority to bring their King to corporal punishment as you say they did I know it is a rule in Logick Co-ordinate se invicem supplent that one co-ordinate doth supply the defects of another But I never heard of any such Maxime as Co-ordinata se invicem tollent that one co-ordinate power may destroy the other and if it hath no power to destroy the other then can it pretend to no power correcting the other which is the next degree to a totall destruction For par in parem non habet potestatem as the saying is Besides all which if any such power had been given the Sanhedrim either at the first institution of it by Almighty God or at the Restitution by Jehoshaphat there is no question to be made but that we should have either found it in the Original Grant or by some exemplications of it in point of practise but finding neither of the two in the Book of God or in any approved humane Authors I take it for a very strong Argument that no such power was ever given them Non apparentium non existentium eandem esse rationem was a good maxime in the Schools and I build upon it 34 But on the contrary you hope to help your self by two examples one of them being taken out of the Prophet Jeremiah the other out of the Jewish Antiquities you instance first in Zedekias who to the Sanhedrim demanding the Prophet Jeremiah made answer Behold he is in your hands for the King is not he that can do any thing without you Out of which words you would infer First that the King according to the opinion of some of the Talmudists was not to judge in some cases which whether he was or not is not much material most Kings conceiving it most agreeable to their own ease the content of their Subjects to divolve that power upon their Judges obliged by oath to administer equal Justice betwixt the King and his people You infer secondly from those words that the Sanhedrim were co-ordinate with the Kings of Judah though there be no such matter in them My answer unto this objection and my reasons for it you must needs have met with in the Book against Calvin as you call it of which since you have took no notice I am forced to bring them here to a repetition My answer is That Calvin whom it most concerned to have it so finds fault with them who did expound the place to that end or purpose which you most desire or though the King did speak so honourably of his Princes ac si nihil iis sit negandum as if nothing was to be denied them whereas he rather doth conceive that it was amarulenta Regis quaerimonia a sad and bitter complaint of the poor captivated King against his Councellors by whom he was so over-ballanced ut velit nolit cedere iis cogeretur that he was forced to yield to them whether he would or not which he punctually and expresly calls inexcusabilem arrogantiam an intolerable piece of sawciness in those Princes and an exclusion of the King from his legal rights This makes the matter plain enough that the Princes by whom you understand the Sanhedrim had no such power in Calvins Judgment as might make them equal to the King or legally enable them to controul his rections but the reason which I there give makes the matter plainer and my reason is that Calvin who is said by some to have composed his Expositions on the Scripture according to the Doctrine of his institutions would not have lost so fair an evidence for the advancing of his popular Magistracy and consequently of the three Estates in most Christian Kingdomes had he conceived he could have made it serviceable to his end and purpose for then how easy had it been for it in stead of the Demarchy of Athens in which you say he was mistaken to have understood the Jewish Sanhedrim in which he could not be mistaken if you judge aright Besides we are not very sure that the Princes mentioned in that place did make up the Sanhedrim or came unto the King in the name of Councell of which some of them might be members but rather that
these passages these breathings of M. Burton in his Apologie and Appeal In which he calls on the Nobility To rouse up their spirits and magnanimous courage for the truth and to stick close to God and the King in helping the Lord and his anointed against the mighty upon the Judges to draw forth the sword of Justice to defend the Laws against such Innovators who as much as in them lieth divide between the King and People upon the Courtiers to put too their helping hands and prayers to rescue our religion and faithful Ministers then suspended from the jaws of those devouring Wolves and tyrannizing lordly Prelates c. Upon the people generally to take notice of the desperate practises innovations and Popish designs of these Antichristian Prelates and to oppose and redress them with all their force and power And yet as if this had not been enough to declare his meaning he breaths more plainly in his Libel called The News from Ipswich in which he lets us know That till his Majesty shall hang up some of these Romish Prelates Inquisitors before the Lord as the Gibbeonites once did the seven sons of Saul we can never hope to abate any of Gods plagues c. What think you of these breathings of Buchannan in his book De Jure Regni apud Scotos where he adviseth Regum interfectoribus proemia discerni c. that Rewards should publickly be decreed for those who kill a Tyrant and the meekest King that ever was shall be called a Tyrant if he oppose the setting up of the holy Discipline as usually are proposed to those who kill Wolves or Bears And finally what think you of these breathings in one of the brethren who preaching before the House of Commons in the beginning of the long Parliament required them in the name of the Lord to shew no mercie to the Prelatical party their wives and children but that they should proceed against them as against Babylon it self even to the taking of their children and dashing their brains against the stones Call you these holy breathings the holy breathings after Christ which you so applaud Or are they not such breathings rather aâ— the Scripture attributes to Saul before his conversion who in the ninth chapter of the Acts is said to be Spirator minarum caedis adversus discipules Domini that is to say that he breathed out threatnings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. 27. As are their breathings such also is their meekness their humility their hatred of known sin their heavenly mindedness and that self-denial which you so commend for of their love to God I can take no notice As well as they are known unto you may you not be deceived in your opinion of them and take that first for a real and Christian meekness which is but counterfeit and pretended for their worldly ends Doth not our Saviour tell us of a sort of men false-preachers seducers and the like which should come in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves What means our Savior by sheeps clothing but that innocence meekness and humility which they should manifest and express in their outward actions it being the observation of Thomas Aquinas that grand dictator in the Schools In nomine â—vis innocentiam simplicitatem per totam Scripturam designarâ— And yet for all this fair appearance they were inwardly but ravening Wolves greedily thiâ—sting for the prey and hungry after spoil and rapine Astutam rapido gestanâ—es pectore vulpem in the Poets language This you may find exemplified in the Sect of the Anabaptists who at their first appearance disguised themselves in such an habit of meekness and humility and Christian patience as gained them great affection amongst the people but when they were grown unto a head and had got some power into their hands what lusts what slaughter what unmerciful cruelties did they not commit when Tyrannie and K. John of Leyden did so rage in Munster But because possible you may say that these are not the men whom your character aims at tell me what spirit of meeknesse you find in Calvin when he called Mary Q. of England by the name of Proserpine and tells us of her that she did superare omnes diabolos that all the Devils in hell were not half so mischievous or what in Beza when he could find no better title for Mary Q. of Scots then those of Athaliah and Medea the one as infamous in Scripture for her barbarous cruelty as the other is in heathen Writers or what of Peury Vdal and the rest of the Rabble of Mar Prelates in Queen Elizabeths time to whom there never was the like generation of railing Rabshakehs since the beginning of the world Or what of Dido Clariâ—s who calls King James for neither Kings nor Queens can escape them intentissimum Evangelii hostem the most bitter enemy of the Gospel and I say nothing of the scandalous reports and base reproaches which were laid upon his son and successor by the tongues and pens of too many others of that party 28. Look upon their humility and you shall find them exalting themselvs above Kings Princes and all that is called God the Pope and they contending for the supreme power in the Church of Christ For doth not Traverse say expresly in his Book of Discipline Huic Disciplinae omnes principes fasces suas submittere necesse est that Kings and Princes must submit their Scepters to the Rod of that Discipline which Calvin had devised and his followers here pursued so fiercely Have not some others of them declared elsewhere that Kings and Princes must lay down their Scepters at the Churches feet yea and lick up the dust thereof understanding always by the Church their one holy Discipline did they not carry themselves so proudly in the time of that Queen whom they compared to a sluttish housewife who swept the middle of the room but left the dust behinde the door and in every corner that being asked by a grave Counsellor of State whether the removal of some Ceremonies would not serve the turn they answered with insolence enough ne ungulam esse relinquendam that they would not leave so much as an hoof behind And that you may perceive they have been as good at it in Scotland as ever they have been in England Take here the testimony of King James who had very good experience of them in the Preface to his Basilicon Doron where telling us what he means by Puritans he describes them thus I give this stile saith he to such brain-sick and Headie Preachers as refusing to be called Anabaptists participate too much with their humours not only agreeing with the general rule of all Anabaptists in the contempt of the Civil Magistrate and in leaning to their own Dreams and Revelations but particularly in accounting all men prophane that swear not to all their phantasies in making for every particular question of the Policie of the
Church as great commotion as if the Article of the Trinitie were called in controversie in making the Scriptures to be ruled by their conscience and not their conscience by the Scripture and he that denies the least jot of their Grounds sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus Publicanus not worthy to enjoy the benefit of Breathing much less to participate with them of the Sacraments and before that any of their Grounds be impugned let King People Law and all be trod under foot Such holy Warrs are to be preferred to an ungodly Peace no in such cases Christian Princes are not only to be resisted unto but not to be prayed for for Prayer must come of Faith and it is not revealed unto their Consciences that God will hear no prayer for such a Prince I would to God you had not put me to these remembrances which cannot be more unpleasing unto you then they are to my self But taking them for most good truths may we not thereupon inferr that as the Masters were such are the Scholars or as the Mother was such are the Daughters and as the Fathers were such are the Sons Nil mirum est si patrizent filii saith the old Comoedian 29. Then for their Heavenly mindednesse we have seen somewhat of it before and shall see more thereof as also of their hatred of all known sin in that which follows And here again we will take the Character which King James makes of them in the second Book of his Basilicon Doron before mentioned In which he telleth us That there never rose Faction in the time of his minority nor trouble since but they that were upon that factious part were ever carefull to perswade and allure those unruly Spirits among the Ministry to Spouse that quarrel as their own and that he was calumniated by them to that end in their popular Sermons not for any evil or vice which they found in him but only because he was a King which they thought to be the highest evil informing the People that all Kings and Princes were naturally enemies to the Libertie of the Church and could never patiently bear the yoke of Christ After which having spoken of the violence wherewith they had endeavoured to introduce a parity both in Church and State he gives this counsel to the Prince Take heed therefore my son saith he to such Puritans very pests in the Church and Common-weale whom no deserts can oblige neither oaths or promises bind breathing nothing but sedition and calumnies aspiring without measure railing without reason and making their own imaginations without any warrant of the Word the square of their conscience protesting to him before the great God that he should never find with any Highlander baseâ— Thieves greater ingratitude and more lies and vile perjuries then with those fanatick spirits And suffer not saith he to his son the principles of them to brook your Land if you like to sit at rest except you would keep them for trying your patience as Socrates did an evill wife Such is the heavenly-mindednesse and such the hatred of all known sin which you have observed in many of those who differ from me as you say in some smaller things nec ovum ovâ— nec lac lacti similius as you know who said 30. And then as for their Self-denial I could wish you had spared it unless you had some better ground for it then I doubt you have For if you ask the Country people they will tell you generally that they have found in those who live upon Sequestrations so little self denial that they are more rigorous in exacting of their Tithes even in trifling matters and far less hospitable for relief of the Poor or entertainment of the better sort of the Parishioners and consequently to have more of Earth and Self in them then ever had been found or could be honestly complained of in the old Incumbents whom if you look on with an equal and impartial eye you will find them to be of another temper notwithstanding all the provocation of want and scorn which from day to day are laid upon them neither repining openly at their own misfortune nor railing malitiously on those whom they know to be the Authors of them nor libelling against the persons nor wilfully standing out against the pleasure and commands of the higher Powers but bearing patiently the present and charitably hoping for some better measure then hath been hitherto meeted to them as best becomes the scholars of that gracious Master who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committeth himself to him that judgeth righteously but the Crow thinks her own birds fairest and so let them be 31. But you proceed and tell us That if God love them not that is to say the persons whom you so extol you have not yet met with the people whom you may hope he loveth and if he do love them he will scarcely take my dealing will spoken with confidence enough But how came you to know the mind of the Lord or to be of his Councel that you can tell so perfectly whom he loveth or hateth eâ— nos scire Deus voluit quae oportet scire ad vitam aeternam consequendam as the Father hath it God hath communicated to us all those things which are fit and necessary to be known for the attaining of everlasting salvation but keeps such secrets to himself And though we are most sure and certain that the Lord knoweth who are his yet how may we be sure or certain that he hath made you acquainted with it I cannot easily believe that you have been either wrapt up into the third heaven or perused the Alphabetical Table to the Book of Life or have had any such Revelation made unto you by which you may distinctly know whom the Lord loveth or whom he doth not But if you go by outward signs and gather this love of God unto them from the afflictions and chastisements which they suffer under God chastning every son whom he doth receive that mark of filiation runneth on the other side those of your Partie injoying as much worldly prosperity as the reaping of the fruits and living in the houses of other men which you call by the name of carnal accommodations can estate them in If you conclude on their behalf from their outward prosperity you go on worse grounds then before for David tells us of some wicked and unrighteous persons that they are neither in want or misery like other men that they live plentifully on the lot which is fallen unto them and leave the rest of their substance unto their babes And Christ the Son of David tells us that the Lord God makes the Sun to shiâ—e and the rain to rain as well on the sinners as the just All mankind being equally capable of those temporary and temporal comforts and finally if you collect it from those spiritual graces and celestial gifts which
hunts the Hare is the Hare which is hunted so that although the Religion of the Church of Rome had defined the Deposition of Kings by the Pope for denying Transubstantiation c. as it never did yet could not the Popish Religion upon that account be called Rebellion Rebellion by the Law of England 25. Edw. 3. c. 2. is defined to be an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in hâ— Realm or an adhering to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere And by the Civil Law all those qui arripiant arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt who tak up arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject are declared to be Rebels for which see Spigelus in his Lexicon of the terms of Law But that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is not an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in his Realm or an adhering c.. Nor the the taking up of Arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject Therefore that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes c. neither is really or nominally to be called Rebellion if either the laws of England or the Civil laws do rightly understand what Rebellion is as I think they do And whereas you hope to mend the matter by calling it a Rebellion doctrinal you make it worse on your side then it was before For besides that there is no such thing as Rebell on doctrinal though some Doctrines there may be too frequently preached for inciting the people to Rebellion you find not the word Doctrinal in the proposition which you have undertook to prove and wh en presents it self simply to you in these words that the Religion of the Papists is Rebellion 37. Such being the faultinesse of your Mejor we will next consider whether the Assumption or your Minor be any thing more evident then your Major was Your Minor is that the Popish Religion is such that is to say such a Religion that defineth the Deposition of Kings by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. This is the matter to be proved and you prove it thus That which is defined by a Pope and General Councel is the Popish Religion But the aforesaid Doctrine is defined by a Pope and an approved General Councel viz at the Laterane under Innocent the 3. Erge c. This makes it evident indeed that you never saw the Cannons nor Decrees of the Laterane Councel and possibly your learning may not lie so high but that you took this passage upon trust from some ignorant hand which had seen them as little as your self Your Major I shall grant for true but nothing can be falser or mere unable to be proved then your Minor is Consult the Acts of that Councel search into all Editions of them and into the Commentaries of such Cannonists as have writ upon them and you shall neither find in the one or the other that the Deposition of Kings and Princes by the Pope was defined to be lawful for that I take to be your meaning either for denying Transubstantiation or for any other cause whatsoever Most true it is that the word Transubstantiation then newly hammered on the Anvil by some of the Schoolmen to expresse that carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they then maintained was first received in this Councel and received then ad â—vitandaâ— haereâ—icorum tergiversationes as my Author hath it for avoiding the wranglingâ— and fallacious shifts which Hereticks otherwise might use But that the word was made such an Idol in this Councel that all Christian Kings and Princes which would noâ— fall down and worship it were to be deposed hath neither colour nor foundation in the Acts of that Councel And therefore I wil first lay down the Canon which I think you aim at for otherwise there is none in that Councel which you can pretend to and then acquaint as well with the occasion and the meaning of it and your own mistakings 38. And first the words of the Canon as these now stand in the Tomes of the Councels are these that follow Si quis Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate per Metropolitanum com provinciales Episcopos excommunicationis â—inculo innodetur Etsi satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Poniifici ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponant catholicis occupandam qui eam exterminatis haereticis â—ine ulla contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure domini principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum oppâ—nat eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales such is the Canon or Decree And this was the occasion of it The Albigenses and Waldenses differing in many points from the received opinions of the Church of Rome and constantly denying the Popes Supremacy amongst other things some years before the calling of this Councel was grown to a very great power and insolencie countenanced therein by the two last Raimonds Earls of Tholouse and some of the Petit Lords of Gascoyn all which though absolute enough in their several Territories in respect of their vassals but were fudataries either to the Empire or the Kings of France as the Lords in chief for the reduction of these Albingenses to the Church of Rome Dominick a Spaniard the Founder afterwards of the Order of Dominical Fryars used his best endeavours in the way of Argument and perswasion but failing of his design therein he instigated Pope Innocent the 3. to call this Councel Anno 1215. and the Prelates there assembled to passe this Canon for the suppressing both of them and their Patrons also for having summed up the principle heads of that Religion which was then publickly maintained in the Church of Rome they framed an Oath to be taken by all secular Magistrates ut haereticos universos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus ex terminare studeant to use their best endeavours for the exterminating of all Hereticks that is to say all such as did oppose those Doctrines before laid down out of their dominions and then it followeth as before si quis vero dominus temporalis c that if any Temporal Lord being thereunto required by the Church should neglect to purge his Territories of that Infection he should be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province in which he lived and if he gave no satisfaction within the year notice thereof was to be given to the Pope that thereupon he might absolve his vassals from their Allegiance and give their Countries to the next Catholick Invador
who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae â— 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are nâ—â— of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which â—e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the manâ—old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that
were subject to the Pope Neither indeed was there any need at that time of this Councel that any such Definitions should be made no new Heresie or any new doctrine which by them might be called Heresie being then on foot for Luther did not rise in Germany till this Counsel was ended which might create any disturbance to the peace of that Church If any such priviledges were arrogated by Pope Leo the 10. that none should be accounted members of Christ and his Church but such as were subject to the Pope which you cannot find definitively in the Acts of that Councel you must rather have looked for it in the Bulls of that Pope after Luther had begun to dispute his power and question his usurped authority over all the Church In one of which Bulls you may finde somewhat to your purpose where you shall find him saying that the Church of Rome is Mother and Mistress of all Christians and that her doctrines ought to be received of whosoever would be in the Communion of the Church If this be that you mean much good do it you with though this be rather to be taken for a Declaration then a Definition 45. But if your meaning is as perhaps it may be that the Papists Faith may be called Faction because they appropriate to themselves the name of the Church and exclude all other Christians from being members of Christ and his Church which are not subject to the Pope as indeed they do take heed you lose not more in the Hundreds then you got by the County for then it may be proved by the very same Argument if there were no other that the Puritan Faith is Faction and so to be accounted by all that know it because they do appropriate unto themselves the name of the Church as the old Affrican Scismaticks confined it intra partem Donati For proof whereof if you please to consult Bâ—shop Bancrofts book of Dangerous Positions anâ— Proceedings c. part 3. chap. 15. you will find them writing in this manner viz I know the state of this Church make known to us the state of the Church with you Our Churches are in danger of such as having been of us do renounce all fellowship with us It is long since I have heard from you saith one Blake of the state of the Church of London Another By M. West and M. Brown you shall understand the state of the Churches wherein we are A third If my offence may not be passed by without a further confessiâ—n even before God and his Churâ—h in London will I lye down and lick the dust off your feet where you may see what it is which the heavenly-mindednesse the self-denial meeknesse and Humility which the brethren aim at and confesse it c. I have received saith the fourth a Letter from you in the name of the rest of the Brethren whereby I understand your joining together in choosing my self unto the service of the Church under the Earl of Leicester I am ready to run if the Church command me according to the holy Decrees and Orders of the Discipline Lay all which hath been said together and tell me he that can my wits not being quick enough for so great a nicety whether the Papists Faith or that of the Puritans most properly and meritoriously may be counted Faction 46. The third thing in which you seem unsatisfied in what I say concerning Popery is whether it be true or not that the Popes Decretals the body of the Canon Law is to be accepted as not being abrogated which being made for the direction and reiâ—lement of the Church in general were by degrees admitted and obeyed in these parts of Christendome and are by Act of Parliament so far still in force as they oppose not the Prerogative royal or the municipal laws and statutes of this Realm of England These words I must confesse for mine owning Hist Sab. pa. 2. ch 7. p. 202. and not 210. as your Letter cites it your parenthesis being only excepâ—ed and you name it this Kingdome in stead of the Realm of England though both expressions be to one and the same effect In which you might have satisfied your self by M. Dow who as you say gives some reason for it out of a Statute of Hen. 8. But seeing you remain still unsatisfied in that particular I shall adde something more for your satisfaction In order whereunto you may please to know that in the Stat. 29. Hen. 8. ch 19. commonly called the Statute of the submission of the Clergy it is said expresly First that the Clergie in their convocation promised the King in verbo Saâ—erdoris not to enact or execute any new Canons but by his Majesties royal assent and by his authority first obtained in that behalf and secondly that all such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial as were made before the said submission which were not contrary or repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal were to be used and executed as in former times By which last clause the Decretal of preceding Popes having been admitted into this Land and by several Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England and the main body of the canon-Canon-law having for a long time been accounted for a standing rule by which all proceedings in the Courts Ecclesiastical were to be regulated and directed remain still in force and practice as they had done formerly But then you are to know withall that they were no longer to remain in force and practice then till the said preceding Canons and Constitutions as appears by the said Act of Parliament should be viewed and accommodated to the use of this Church by 32. Commissioners selected out of the whole body of the Lords and Commons and to be nominated by the King But nothing being done therein during the rest of the Kings reign the like authority was granted to King Edw. 6. 3. 4. Edw 6. c. 11. And such a progresse was made in it that a Sub-committee was appointed to review all their said former Canons and Constitutions and to digest such of them into form and order as they thought most fit and necessary for the use of this Church Which Sub committee consisted of eight persons only that is to say Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Lord Bishop of Eli Dr. Richard Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr his Majesties professor for Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Doctors of the Law John Lucas and Richard Gooderick Esquires who having prepared and digested the whole work into form and order were to submit the same to the rest of the 32. and finally to be presented to the King for his Royal Assent and confirmation And though the said Sub-committee had performed their parts as appears by the Book entituled REFORMATIO LEGUM ECCLESIASTICARUM ex authoritate primum Regis HENRICI VIII inchâ—aâ—a Deinde
per Regem EDW. VI. provecta c. Reprinted not long since at London 1641. But that King also dying before the said Canons so digested and accommodated could be confirmed and ratified by the Royal Assent and authorised under the Great Seal of England the former Canons Constiâ—utions and Ordinances and consequently the Decretals of the Popes and the body of the Canon law according to the limitations and restrictions by the Statute of King Hen. 8. did remain in force and so continue to this day so that your hopes of their not being in force amongst us declares you for as sorry a Lawyer as you confesse your self to be 47. Next when you say how little you know by what authority the Popes Decretals are laws to theâ— Church in genâ—ral or to us I will improve youâ— knowledge in that particular also as far as I can and for so doing I am to put you in mind that the Popes for a long tract of time were possessed of the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical matters over all the Churches in the Western and North-western parts and amongst others in this also and that he did pretend the like authority over all the Churches in the East and South so that their Decretals were made by them intentionally to serve for a rule and reiglement of the Church in general but were admitted only in the Churches of the Western and North-western parts which did acknowledge his Supremacy and made themselves subject to his power But having now shaken off his power in the three Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland in the three Realms of Denmark Norway and Sweden in the united Provinces of the Netherlands and many great Provinces and Estates of the Higher Germany besides some thousands of the Protestant Churches in the Realm of France he hath now lost that power which before he challenged of making laws for the Government of the Church in general though such of them as we here received are still so far in force as I have affirmed that is to say according to the sad restrictions and limitations before laid down And therefore I can well maintain that the Pope and his Councels had a power you never heard me say he hath of imposing his Decretals and the body of the Canon law as a law for the Government of so much of the Church as was then actually under his command having been made intentionally for the reiglement of the Church in general and that being here received are still so far in force that is to say in such form and maner as I have affirmed and yet not grant that he and his Councels have any such power at this present time or that are and all other Christians must be thought to be his Subjects which is the thing you seem glad to understand if ever I should put my self to the trouble of writing to you again as I have done now 48. Having thus laid before you the true state of the Question I am in the next place to answer such Objections as you make against it and your Objections being built chiefly on your own thoughts and such hopes as you had fancied to your self For want of knowledg in these matters will be easily answered You object first That you will yet hope that they are not in force but I have proved to you that they are And you object next That you thought the Acts that impose the Oathes of allegeance and supremacy had disobliged us from all forreigue power and nulled the Pope's authority in England and though you thought well enough in this yet if you think that because those Acts of Parliament above mentioned have disobliged us from all forreign power and nulled the Popes authority in England and therefore that all the Decretals of the former Popes or Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical made in times of Popery are either by those Acts and Oths anulled and abrogated your thoughts will prove to be as deceitful as your hopes are groundless and therefore when you say that if ever you live to see another Parliament which you are like to do very shortly if the news be true you will crave a freedom from that bondage I would fain know from what bâ—ndage you desire this freedom If from subjection to the Pope you are freed from it by the Act primo Eliz. cap. 1. by which all the Popes authority and jurisdiction in the Realm of England as well over the consciences as the pens of men were finally exterminated and abolished If from their Canons and Decrees made and in force within this Realm before the 25. of King Henry 8. they were confirmed by the Parliament of that year according to the limitations before expressed and are so complicated since that time with the Laws of the Land that the alteration will be far more difficult then you may imagine so that you may do well to spare your address to the following Parliament and reserve that strong influence which you believe you have upon it for some greater occasions or at the least for such as are more possible to be compassed then this present project Besides you may be pleased to know that a great part of the Civil or Imperial Laws are in force amongst us and that they are the standing rules by which the Court of Admiralty as also that for the probate of Wills and Testaments are generally regulated and directed and yet you may conclude as strongly that because no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority within this Realm no not the Emperour himself though honoured with the Title of Augustus Cesar and such like glorious attributes belonging to the Roman Empire therefore the Civil and Imperial Laws so long continued in this Kingdom are to be reckoned of no force and effect amongst us but to be utterly abrogated and abolished also which if it should be took for granted as you take the other you must then double your design in moving and soliciting the next Parliament to free you from that yoke of bondage that the Pontificial and Imperial laws may be for ever banished and expelled this Kingdome that so it may be said of us as Haman once objected against the Jews their Laws were contrary to all Nations Divisâ—s orbe Brittannos even in that sense also It is reported of Alphonso surnamed the Wise one of the Kings of Castile in Spain that he used many times to say never the wiser for so saying that if he had stood at Gods elbow when he made the World many things should have been ordered better then they were in the first Creation Take heed left that you be thought no wiser then Alphonso was in pressing at the Parliament dores and urging your desires for abrogating all those ancient Canons and Constitutions by what name soever they are called and by what Authority soever they were first enacted which so many Kings and Queens of
them and one that hated the Idolatries and superstitions of the Church of Rome with a perfect hatred This Reverend Father must not be consulted in the business for fear it might be thought that it was not to be done without him A Parish Vestry must be called by which M. Sherfield is inabled to take down the offensive Pictures and put new white Glass in the place though he be transported with a fit of unruly zeal instead of taking it down breaks it all in pieces Here then we have an Eldership erected under the Bishops nose a Reformation undertaken by an Act of the Vestry in contempt of those whom God and his Majesty and the Laws had made the sole Judges in the case An example of too sad a consequence to escape unpunished and such as might have put the people upon such a Gog as would have leâ—t but little work to the late Long Parliament Non ibi consistent Exemplaubi ceperunt sed in tenuem recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi viam faciunt as my Author hath it 52. But he proceeds according to his usual way of asking Questions and would fain know in what respect they may be accounted the obedient Sons of the Church who study by all their learning to take off that ignominous name of Antichrist from the Pope of Rome which had bin fastned on him by King James Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Andrews and the late Lord Primate and finally by the whole Clergy in their Convocation An. 1605. In the recital of which Proof I find not that the name of Antichrist was ever positively and and in terminis ascribed unto the Popes of Rome by any Article Homily Canon or injunction or by any other publick Monument of the Church of England which leave it to the Liberty of every man to conceive therein according as he is satisfied in his own mind and convinced in his understanding Arch-bishop Whitgift the Primate Bishop Andrews conceived the Pope to be Antichrist and did write accordingly Archbishop Laud and Bishop Mountague were otherwise perswaded in it and were not willing to exasperate those of the Popish Party by such an unnecessary provocation yet this must be accounted amongst their crimes For aggravating whereof he telleth us that the Pope was proved to be Antichrist by the Pen of King James which is more then he can prove that said it K. James used many Arguments for the proof thereof but whether they proved the point or not may be made a question Assuredly the King himself is to be looked on as the fittest Judge of his own intentions performance And he declared to the Prince at his going to Spain that he writ not that discourse concludingly but by way of Argument to the end that the Pope and his Adherents might see there was as good Arguments to prove him Antichrist as for the Pope to challenge any temporal Jurisdiction over Kings and Princes This your Antagonist might have seen in his own Canterburies doom fol. 264. Out of which Book he makes his other Argument also which proves the name of Antichrist to be ascribed unto the Pope by the Church of England because the Lords spiritual in the upper house and the whole Convocation in the Act of the subsidy 3. Jacobi so refined â—â— If so If any such Definition passed in the Convocation it is no matter what was done by the Lords Spiritual in the upper House of Parliament for that I take to be his meaning as signifying nothing to the purpose Wherein Gods name may such an unstudied man as I find that definition not in the Acts of Convocation I am sure of that and where there was no such point debated and agreed upon all that occurs is to bee found onely in the preamble to the Grant of Subsidies made at a time when the Prelates and Clergy were amazed at the horror of that Divellish plot for blowing up the Parliament Houses with the King Prelates Peers Judges and the choicest Gentry of the Nation by the fury of Gun-powder But were the man acquainted amongst Civilians they would tell him that they have a Maxime to this Effect that Apices juris nihil ponuns The Titles and preambles to Laws are no definitions and neither bind the subject in his purse or Pater-noster 53. As for the rest of the Bishops I find two of them charged particularly and the rest in General Mountague charged from D. Prideaux to be merus Grammatius and Linsel charged from M. Smart to have spoken reproachfully of the first Reformers on the Book of Homilies But as Mountague was too great a Scholar to be put to School to D. Prideaux in any point of Learning of what kind soever so Linsol was a Man of too much sobriety to use those rash and unadvised speeches which he stands accused of And as for Mr. Smart the apology of D. Cosens speaks him so sufficiently that I may very wel save myself the labour of a Repetition More generally he tells us from a speech of the late Lord Faulkland that some of the Bishops and their adherents have destroyed unity under pretence of uniformity have brought in superstition and scandal under the title of Reverence and decency and have defiled our Churches by adoring our Churches c. p. 40. and not long after p 64. That they have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome that they have given great suspition that in Gratitude they desire to return thither or at least to meet it half way Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English though not a Romish Papacy not the out side and dress of it onely but equally absolute a blind dependence of the People on the Clergy and of the Clergy on themselves and have opposed Papacy beyond the Sea that they might settle one beyond the water But these are onely the evaporations of some discontents which that noble Orator had contracted He had been at great charges in accommodating himself with necessaries for waiting on his Majesty in his first expedition against the Scots in hope of doing service to his King and Country and gaining honour to himself dismist upon the Pacifiation as most of the English Adventurers without thanks of honour where he made himself more sensible of the neglect which he conceived he suffered under then possibly might consist with those many favours which both Kings had shewed unto his Father But no sooner had that noble soul dispers'd those clouds of discontent which before obscured it but he brake out again in his natural splendor and show'd himself as zealous an advocate for the Episcopal order as any other in that house witness this passage in a speech of his not long before the dismissing of the Scottish Army Anno 1641. viz. The Ground of this Government by Episcopacy is so ancient and so general so uncontradicted in the first and best times that our most laborious antiquaries can find no Nation no City no Church no Houses
cutting off and tearing up all roots that do naturally shoot and spring up into such branches To conclude if the Congregation of the People in law to be made had such power as was shewn and in the law so made the ultimate Appeal lay unto the Sanhedrim why are not here two Estates in this Commonwealth each by Gods own Ordinance and both plain in Scripture Well but when they came you will say to make unto themselves Kings what ever power they had formerly was now lost this at best were but to dispute from the folly of a people against an Ordinance of God for what less is testified by himself in those words to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not raign over them The Government of the Senate and the people is that onely which is or can be the Government of Lawes The Government of Lawes is that onely which is or can be the Government of God and not of men He that is for the Government of Lawes is for the Government of God and he that is for the Government of Man is for the Government of a Beast Kings no question where the ballance is Monarchical are of divine right and if they be good the grâ—atest blessing the Government so standing can be capable of but the ballance being popular as in Israel in the Gretian in the Scicilian Tyranny they are the direst curse that can befall a Nation Nor are Divines who will alwaies have them to be of divine right to be hearkened too seeing they affirm that which is clean contrary to Scripture for in this case saith Hosea They have set up Kings and not by me they have Princes I knew it not Pharoah may impose the making of Brick without the allowance of straw but God never required of any men or of any Government that they should live otherwise then according to their Estates It is true if a Man want make him a servant there are rules in Scripture that enjoyn him the duty of a servant but shew me the rule in Scripture that obligeth a man who can live of himself unto the duty of a servant Hath God less regard unto a Nation then a man yet the people of Israel continuing upon a popular Agrarian though God forewarned them that by this means they would make themselves servants would needs have a King whence saith the same Prophet O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thine help I will be thy King which foretells the restitution of the Common-wealth Where is any other that may save thee in all thy Cities and thy Judges of whom thou saidst give me a King and Princes I gave thâ—e a King in mine anger that is in Saul and I took him away in my wrath that is in the Captivity so at least saith Rabbi Bechai with whom agreed Nachmony Gersâ—hoâ—e and others Kimchy it is true and Maimâ—â—ides are of opinion that the people making a King displeased God not in the matter but in the form onely as if the root of a Tree the ballance of a Government were form onely and not matter nor do our Divines yet who are divided into like parties see more then the Rabbies Both the Royalists and the Common wealths men of such sort that is whether Divines or Talmudists appeal unto the letter of the Law which the Royalists as the translators of the Bible render thus When they shall say the Commonwealths men aâ— Diodatus thus If thou come to say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are about me thou shalt in any wise set him King over theâ— whom the Lord thy God shall chuse The one party will have the Law to be positive the other contingent and with a mark of detestation upon it for so where God speaketh of his peoples doing any thing like the Nations that were about them it is every where else understood but let these which are no niceties be as you will who seeth not that to argue from this place for the necessity of the King is as if one from that foregoing should argue for the necessity of the Judges The words are these Thou shall come unto the High Priest and to the Levite which as was said was unto the Sanhedrim and that is or to the Judge that shall be in those dayes yet that the Judge not by any necessity implyed in these words but through the meer folly of the people came to be set up in Israel is plain by Josephus where he showes that the Israelites laying by their Arms and betaking themselves unto their pleasures while they did not as God had commanded root out the Canaanites from among them but suffered them to dwell with them suffered also the form of their Commonwealth to be corrupted and the Senate to be broken the Senators nor other solemn Magistrates being Elected as formerly which both in word and fact is also confirmed by the Scripture In words as where it is thus written When Josuah had let the people go that is had dismissed the Army and planted them upon their popular ballance the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the Land and the people served the Lord all the days of Josuah and all the days of the Elders that out lived Josuah that is while the Sanhedrim continued after him but when the Elders hereof came to dye and the people elected them no successors they did evil in the sight of the Lord and having broken their civil Orders forsook also their Religion the Government whereof depended upon the Sanhedrim and served Baalim And for the matter of fact included in these words it farther appears where Judah saith unto Simeon his brother Come up with me into my lot that we may fight against the Canaanites and I likewise will go with thee into thy lâ—t so Simeon went with him By which the Tribes leaguing at their pleasure one with another it is plain that the Sanhedrim their common ligament was broken now except a Man shall say that this neglect of Gods Ordinance was according unto the Law of God there is no disputing from that Law to the necessity of the Judge which hapned through no other then this Exigence quippe aut rex quod abominandum aut quod unum liberae civitatis consilium est Senatus habendus est wherefore the judge of Israel was not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen onely by his providence not imposed by the Law but provided by it as expedient in case of necessity and if no more can be pleaded from the Law for the Judge against whom God never declared much less is there to be pleaded from the same for the King against whom he declared so often There is nothing more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God the Judges and the King no otherwise then through the imprudence
did not withal keep up his Army to secure the conquest and that this Army or some other was not kept on foot till the time of Euripon who being either of weaker parts or more apt to be wrought on or else unwilling to be at the continual charge of paying an Army might suppose it an high point of Husbandry to disband his Forces and cast himself entirely on the love of the people And secondly Admitting that of the two former Kings what reason can you give me why that Army should be planted in Colonies the territory of Sparta as you say your selfe being very narrow and consequently not much room nor any necessity at all for many such Colonies to be planted in it A standing Army answerable to the extent of the Country and the number of the old inhabitants disposed of in their Summer Camp and their Winter-Quarters would have done the work and done it with less charge and greater readiness then dispersed in Colonies And therefore when you say in such general terms That the Monarchy that is or can be absolute must be founded upon an Army planted by military Colonies upon the over balance of Land being in the Dominion of the Prince I must profess my self to differ in opinion from you For then how could a Prince possessed of his Kingdom from a long descent of Royal Ancestors and exercising absolute power upon his people be said to be an an absolute Monarch because his standing forces cannot be setled or disposed of in any such Colonies upon the over balance of Land within his Dominion In Countrys newly conquered or farre remote fom the chief residence of the Prince or the seat of the Empire such Colonies have been thought necessary in the former Ages the wisdome of the Romans not finding out any better or more present way to serve their Conquest But then such Colonies wanted not their inconveniencies and may in time produce the different Effect from that which was expected of them For being possessed of City and indowed with Lands and challenging a property in those Lands and Cities they came in tract of time by intermariages and alliances to be all one with the old Natives of the Country and stood as much upon their terms against the incroachments of those Princes under whom they served and by whose Ancestors they were planted A better Evidence whereof we can hardly find then in those English Colonies which were planted in Ireland at the first conquest of that Kingdom many of which by mutuall correspondency and alliances became so imbodied with the Irish that they degenerated at the last from the manner and civility of the English Nation and passing by the name of the English-Irish proved as rebellious if not more then the Irish themselves What therefore hath been found defective in Colonies in reference to the first intent of their plantation the wisdome and experience of these last ages have supplyed in Garisons Which consisting for the most part of single persons or otherwise living on their pay and suddenly removed from one place to another as the nature of the service leads them are never suffered to stay long enough in any one Town by which they may have opportunity to unite themselves with those of the Neighbourhood or Corporation in design and interess 6. But for a further proof of your position that is to say that there can be no absolute Monarch who hath a Nobility and People to gratifie you first instance in the Kings of France which I as well as others and others then as well as I do account for Absolute But it is known say you That in the whole world there is not a Nobility nor a People so frequently flying out or taking Arms against their Princes as the Nobility and People of France This I acknowledge to be true but affirm withall that the frequent flyings out of that Nobility and People against their Kings proceed not from any infirmity in the Monarchy but from the stirring and busie nature of the French in general who if they make not Wars abroad will find work at home so that we may affirm of them as the Historian doth of the Ancient Spaniaras Si foras hostem non habent domi quaerunt And this the wise Cardinal of Richelieu understood well enough when having dismantled Tachel reduced such Peers as remained in the hands of the Hugonets and crusht the Faction of the Monsieur now Duke of Orleans he presently engaged that King in a War with Spain that so the hot and fiery spirits of the French might be evaporated and consumed in a forrain War which otherwise had they stayed at home would ever and anon have inflamed the Kingdom For otherwise that the Kings of France were Absolute Monarchs there be many reasons to evince For first his arbitrary Edicts over-rule the Laws and dispose soveraignty of the chiefe concernments of the State which by the Parliament of Paris the supream Judicatory of that Kingdom and looked on as the chief supporter of the Rights and Liberties of the subject seldom or never are controled though disputed often And if the Observation be true which we find in Justine that in the Monarchies of the first ages Abitria principum pro legibus erant be of any truth or if the Maxime which we find in Justinians Institutes viz. Quod principi placuerit legis habet vigorem be any badge or cognisance of an absolute Monarch the Kings of France may as well portend to such an absoluteness as any of the Roman Emperours or preceding Monarchs ar tell est nostre plaisir with which formal words he concludeth all his Royal Edicts are as significant as that Maxime in Justinians Institutes or the said observation which we find in Justine Nor is his absolute power less visible in the raising of Moneys then in the passing of his Edicts it being in his power without asking the consent of his people in Parliament to levy such sums upon the subjects besides his Gabells Aides and accustomed Taxes as his Treasurers under-Treasurers or other Officers of his Revenue shall impose upon them From the patient bearing of which burthens the King of France is commonly called Rex Asinâ—rum or the King of Asses Nor doth he want such standing Forces as are sufficient to preserve his power and make good his actions it being conceived by some and affirmed by others that he is able to bring into the field for a sudden service no less then sixty Companies of Men of Arms twenty Cornets of light Horse and five Companies of Harque Bushiers on Horse-Back which amount to 10000 in the total together with 20 Ensigns of French Horse and 40 of Swisses and yet leave his Garisons well manned and his Forts and Frontiers well and sufficiently defended By all which laid together it is clear and manifest that the French Kings are absolute Monarchs and that their Government is as sufficiently Dispotical as a man could wish the frequent
flyings out of the Nobility and People during the Minority of Lewis the 13th and the omni-regency of his Mother for I think there be not many other instances of it being no sufficient argument to prove the contrary And this you could not chuse but see though it seems you will not when you tell us within few lines after that the Government of France for want of Gratifying the Nobility and People with such Lawes and Liberties as were sit for them did become Tyrannical and if it be Tyrannical it must needs be absolute 7. You instance secondly in the rise and progress of the Norman liâ—e within this Kingdom concerning which you first suppose that their Monarchy here was founded on a Nobility or a Nobility and the People that is to say for so I am to understand you upon the love and good affections of the Nobility and people of England And secondly that being so founded they were to gratifie the Nobility or the Nobility and the people with such Laws and Liberties as are fit for them or else there Government in this Land had become Tyrannical But first the Monarchy of Normans was not founded here on the Nobility and the people conjunct or separate The greatest part of the Nobility were either lost or forfeited at the battel of Hastins And most of those that were not engaged in Battel were either outed of their Estates which were immediately distributed amongst the Normans according to their several Ranks qualities or forcedly to take them back on such terms and tenures as the Conquerors was pleased to give them And that he might make sure work with them he compelled some of them to fly the Land and wasted others in his Wars against the French so that the poor Remainders of them were both few in number and inconsiderable in power And then as for the common people they were so bridled by his Souldiers Garisoned up and down in several Castles some old and others of his own erection that they could never stir against him but the Souldiers were presently on their backs and though disperst in several places were ready to unite together upon all occasions Nor staid he here but to prevent all practises and contrivances which might be hammered in the night which the eye of no humane providence could be able to see into or discover he commanded that no light or fire should be seen in any of their Houses after the ringing of a Bell at eight of the clock called thence the Cover few or the Cur few Bell as it is called to this very day Which rigorous courses were held also by the Kings succeeding till there was no male Prince surviving of the Saxon race and that King Henryâ— had married a daughter of that line by means whereof the people seeing no hopes of bettering their condition in the change of time became obedient to that yoke which was laid upon them and looked upon their Kings of the House of Normandy as their natural Princes 8. Nor is your inference better grounded then your suposition the Norman Kings not gratifying the Nobility and people wiâ—h such Laws and Liberties as were fit for them for fear least otherwise the Government which you say we have known by experience and no doubt was seen by Eurypon might be thought tyrannical What you intend by these words we have known by experience as I am loth to understand so I am not willing to enquire What had been seen by Eurypon though you make no doubt of it I believe you know as little as I but what was practised by the Normans I may perhaps know as much as you and if I know any thing of them and of their affairs I must needs know this that the first Norman Kings did never Court the Nobility or the people of England by gratifying them with such Laws and Liberties as you speak of here but governed them for the most part by the Grand Customeiur of the Normans or in an arbitrary way as to them seemed best For though sometimes for quietness sake they promised the abolishing of Dane gelt and the restoring the Laws of King Edward the Confessor yet neither was the one abolished till the Raign of King Steven who came in upon a broken Title nor the other restored though often promised till the time of King John and then extorted from him by force of Arms so that by this account the Government of the first sinking of the Norman Race must become Tyrannical because they gratified not the people with such Laws and Liberties as in your judgment were fit for them For having gained the Magna Charta with the other Charta de Foresta in the time of King John and being frequently called to Parliaments by the Kings which followed they had as much as they had reason to expect in those early days Where by the way that I may lay all things together which relate to England I would fain know what ground you have for the position which you give us afterwards that is to say That King Henry 3. instituted his Parliament to be assistant to him in his Government Our ancient Writers tell us that Parliaments or Common Councils consisting of the Prelates Peers and other great men of the Realm were frequently held in the time of the Saxon Kings and that the Commons were first called to these great Assemblies at the Coronation of King Henry 1. to the end that his succession to the Crown being approved by the Nobility and People he might have the better colour to exclude his Brother And as the Parliament was not instituted by King Henry 3. so I would fain know of whom you learnt that it was instituted by him to be assistant to him in his Government unless it were from some of the Declaration of the Commons in the late long Parliament in which it is frequently affirmed That the fundamental Government of this Realm was by King Lords and Commons For then what did become of the Government of this Kingdom under Henry 3. when he had no such Assistants joyned with him or what became of the foundation in the intervals of following Parliaments when there was neither Lords nor Commons on which the Government could be laid And therefore it must be apparantly necessary either that the Parliaments were not instituted by King Henry 3. to be his Assistants in the Government and that the Lords and Commons were not a part of the foundation on which the Government is built or else that for the greatest space of time since King H. 3. the Kingdom hath bin under no Government at all for want of such Assistants and such a Principal part of the fundamentals as you speak of there The Government of such times must be in obeysance at the least as our Lawyers phrase it But because you make your Proposition in Geneneral terms and use the rise and progress of the Norman line for an instance onely I would fain learn who
should be Judge touching the fitness or unfitness of such Laws and Liberties by which the people or the Nobility and the People are to be gratified by their Kings For if the Kings themselves must judge it it is not like that they will part with any of their just prerogatives which might make them less obeyed at home and lesser feared abroad but where invincible necessity or violent importunity might force them to it And then the Laws and Liberties which were so extorted were either violated or anulled whensoever the Granter was in power to weaken or make void the grant for malus diuturnitatis est custos metus as you know who said But if the people must be judges of such laws and liberties as were fittest for them there would be no end of their demands reasonable in their own nature and in number infinite For when they meet with a King of the giving hand they will press him so to give from one point to another till he give away Royalty it self and if they be not satisfied in all their askings they will be pleased with none of his former Grants 9. But you go on and having told us that in such cases as before the Government becomes tyrannical be the Prince otherwise never so good a man you prove it first by instancing in Carilaus King of Sparta in whose raign the Common-wealth was instituted by Licurgus who is generally affirmed to have been a good man and yet is said by Aristotle to have been a Tyrant and then conclude that it remaines with me to shew how a good man can otherwise be a Tyrant then by holding Monarchicall Government without a sufficient balance But certainly no such thing remains to be shown by me there being no occasion given you to require it of me in the Book against Calvin by which name you call it which your letter undertakes to answer The difference between us is whether the Ephory were ordained by the Kings of Sparta to curb the Senate or by the people to oppose and controul their Kings of which hitherto you have said nothing If you put an hundred questions on the by I am not bound by any rule of Disputation to make answer to them or so much as to any one of them as it comes in my way But in this point I shall not leave you without satisfaction In order whereunto you may do well to call to mind that the word Tyrant at the first was used to signifie a just and lawfull King qui postquam tecta Tyranni intravere sui as we find in Ovid though afterwards more frequently used to signifie such Princes onely who having supprest the popular Government in some Cities of Greece assumed the power unto themselves or otherwise rerestrained the people from running in to such disorder to which they had formerly been accustomed but at the last to signifie such merciless men who having unjustly gained the supream Authority by blood and violence continued in the same with the like cruelty and injustice Thus in the second sence and signification of the word we find mention of the Tyrants of Syracuse though some of them were just and moderate Princes as also of Nabis the Tyrant of Lacedemon of Alexander the Tyrant of Pherae And finally the 30. Magistrates which were sent from Sparta to govern the affairs of Athens which was before the most Popular and Democratical Government that ever was are best known by the name of the 30. Tyrants till this present time And in this second sence of the word the Government of Carilaus is by Aristotle said to be a Tyranny not because he supprest any popular Government which had before been setled in Lacedemon but because he restrained the people from having their own wills as before they had in the time of some of his predecessors or from living under such an Anarchy as they most desired And in this sence and signification of the word any good Prince may be called a Tyrant if he gratifie not his people or his Nobility and People with such Laws and Liberties as they conceived to be fittest for them or shall endeavour to retain so much of that soveraign power derived upon him by a long descent of Royal Ancestors by which he may be able to defend and protect his subjects But when you press me to this point that if I do not grant the former I must needs confess that not the favour of the Princes nor the usurpation of the People but the infirmity of the Monarchy caused the Commonwealth of Lacedemon I shall in part confess it and in part deny it For I shall willingly confess that the infirmity of the Monarchy might occasion the institution of the Commonwealth looking upon the Monarchy as it was broken and unsetled during the raign of Carilaus and yet shall absolutely deny that there was any such infirmity or insufficiency in the Monarchy till the reins of Government were let loose by the folly of Euripon 10 More then this is not said by Plutarch where he tells us that both Kings People agreed upon the calling home of Licurgus for remedying such disorders as were grown amongst them And less is not said by Plutarch then is said by me where I affirm that whatsoever the Kings lost the people got nothing by the alteration as being left out of all imployments in affairs of State and having thirty Masters instead of two which you pronounce to be a strange Affirmation because say you it was ordered by the Oracle that when the people were assembled The Senate should propose and dismiss the people without suffering them to debate and if they were not suffered to debate such businesses as were propounded by the Senate what other imployment could be left them in affairs of State praeter obsequii gloriam besides the Reputation of obedient Citizens But for this sore you have a plaister and tell us that if the people had had no right to debate they must therefore have had the right to resolve or elsewhere to be assembled for nothing It may be neither so nor so but that the common people of Sparta were called unto the publick assemblies as the Commons of England were antiently and originally summoned to the Court of Parliament that is to say Ad consentiendum faciendum to give consent and yield obedience to those Lawes and Ordinances which by the Great Council of the Peers and Prelates de communi consilio regni nostri as the Writ still runneth should be concluded and agreed on So that you might have spared the Oracle and Plutarchs Explication of it or the destant of Tyrteus upon the same unless you could conclude from any of them or from altogether that the people of Sparta were possessed of a negative voice and therewith of a power to frustrate the proceedings of the Kings and Senate which if they had the ultimate Result as you truly say and consequently the soveraign power in Government must
any Article for casting dust into mens eyes the better to perswade them to give credit to any thing which may serve my turn when I have said nothing in all this business about the Ephori but what is justified by the Authority of the most famous States-men and renowned Writers who have committed to our knowledge the true condition of Affairs in that Common-wealth so that you might have spared the story of Hipitadeus the selling of his lot or his portion of Lands contrary to the Laws of Lycurgus the following of that bad example by other men and the reducing of all the Free-holders in that Common-wealth to the number of 100. only unless you had found any thing in that Book of mine which had sounded contrary unto it But whereas you infer in that which followeth That the ingrossing the Lands of that Common wealth into such few hands altered the Government into an Oligarchy that by this it was no Oligarchy that Agis was murthered and that in reference to this Oligarchy Plato and Aristotle called the Government of Sparta by the name of Tyranny in all these things you may be said to cast dust into the eyes of the Readers that they may not see the light of truth For certainly the Government of the State of Sparta consisting in the Kings and Senate remained only as it was before by the Laws of Lycurgus the superinduction of the Ephori being added to it not altered any thing at all by the ingrossing of the Lands of that Common-wealth into those few hands Nor was it by the Authority of those ingrossers whom you call the Oligarchy though possible enough at their instigation that Agis was murthered by the Ephori nor was it finally in relation to these Ingrossers that the Government of Sparta was called a tyranny there was no reason why it should both by Plato and Aristotle but only in reference to the unparaleld cruelties and abominable insolencies of the Ephori committed on and against their Kings it being said by Aristotle in as plain tearms as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Ephorate and not the Oligarchy of Ingrossers was an absolute Tyranny Thus have you fetcht Arguments against an Oligarchy in the State of Sparta which you find not in it And for the close of all you say That whereas Agis and Cleomenes by the restitution of the Lots of Licurgus were assertors of popular power they are insinuated by me to have been assertors of Monarchy But first the restitution of the Lots of Licurgus by the industry and endeavours of those two Kings improved not at all the power of the people who were still kept under as before but only reduced them unto that equality in respect of Riches which might secure them from being trampled on and insulted over by their fellow Commoners And secondly it appears by Plutarch that the designe of those two Kings in that restitution was to get glory to the one and preservation to the other which could not be effected but by gaining the good will of the common people and make them sure unto their side whensoever they should be ready for that great design of destroying the Ephori And so much in Answer to that part of your Letter which concerns the rise insolencies and destruction of those popular Villains which Calvin makes his first example for opposing Kings 14. Such being my play no foul play I am sure with humane Authors or as a Polititian you will next show me whither I have dealt better with the Scripture or been more carefull as a Divine But first you must look backwards upon somwhat which was said before And having laid down the words of Calvin which occasioned this discourse between us you cannot but confess that what he saith of Demarchy of Athens is a plain mistake they being officers as you truly say of another nature and then why he may not be as much mistaken in the Spartan Ephori and the Roman Tribunes as in the Athenian Demarchy you can show no reason For if he be of a fallible spirit in one point he can be infallible in none Which mistake notwithstanding it betrayes his ignorance in the Greek Antiquities you tell us not to be such an one as destroyes no other part of his Assertion First The supereminent Authority of the Ephori over the Kings of the Tribunes over their Consuls standing good however The contrary whereof to use your own words hath been already proved by Plato Aristotle and Plutarch though you would willingly perswade the Reader that they speak for you Which said you put me to it once again as a Polititian and tell me that no Polititian in the world can show a reâ—son Why the Estates in a Gothick Moddel should be of less power then either the Spartan Ephori or the Roman Tribunes So much I shall be willing to grant that the Estates in a Gothick Moddel have as much power in the publick Government and over the persons of their Kings as the Ephori had over their Kings and the Tribunes over their Consuls at their first institution But that they had the like power in either case as the Ephori and the Tribunes exercised by violence and usurpation in their severall Cities no Polititian in the world can be able to show me And this we may the better see by looking on their power in matters which concern the publique in the Realm of Spaine the Kings and people whereof those of Portugal excepted onely are of Gothick race and therefore likely to retain most of the Gothick Moddels And looking on it we shall find first that their Curias or General conventions consist there as in other places of the three Estates Prelate Peer and People And secondly that though the Government of that King be not so Arbitrary Despotical as it is in France yet he both rules and manageth those Conventions to his own contentment For neither can they meet together but by his appointment nor are their acts and consultations of any effect further then as they are confirmed by the Kings consent nor finally can they sit any longer or depart any sooner then as it may stand most with the Kings conveniency But Bodin goes a little further And having showed us with what Reverence and Devotion the the three Estates of France addressed themselves to Charles the 8th in a convention held at Tours at what time the Authority of the Assemblies was greater and more eminent then it hath been since affirms expresly Majorem etiam Obedientiam majus obsequium Hispanorum regi Exhiberi The King of Spain hath more obedience and observance from his three Estates then that which was afforded to the King of France The General conventions of both Kingdoms being much alike may seem to have been cast in the same mould for the French neighbouring the Goths who then possest those Provinces in the Realm of France which lie on the west side of the Loire could not
but know the manner of those Assemblies which Charles Martel thought good to introduce and settle in the Realm of France that giving them some influence in the publick Government and binding them unto him by so great a favour he might make use of their Authority to preserve his own as his Son Pepin after did to obtain the Crown But that the. Assembly of Estates in either Kingdom did take upon them to fine imprison or to depose or murder any of their Kings as the Tribunes sometimes did the Consuls and the Ephori did the Kings of Sparta you cannot easily prove out of all their stories 15. But you go on and tell me first that the estates in a Gothish Moddel are such by virtue of their estates that is of their over ballance in dominion and then you put it upon me to show both why the over ballance in dominion should not amount to Empire and practically that it amounteth not to Empire in quiet and well governed times But this by your leave is a strange way of Disputation by cutting out what â—work you please and sending it to me to make it up as well as I can But being sent to me I am bound to dispatch it out of hand for your satisfaction I say then first that the Estates in a Gothish Moddel are not such by virtue of their Estates that is to say by being above the rest of the people in titles of Honour and Revenue which you call an over ballance in Dominion For were it so they were of power to exercise the same Authority as you suppose the Tribunes and the Ephori to have done before them in all times alike and not when they are called together by the Kings command For being Masters of their Estates as well out of as in those Generall Assemblies and Conventions and consequently in all times alike what reason can you show me that they should make no use of that Power which belongs to them in right of their Estates but in those General Assemblies and Conventions onely Secondly If they have that power by virtue of their Estates and yet cannot exercise but in such Conventions how doth it come to pass that such Conventions are not of their own appointment but onely at the pleasure and command of their several Kings And Thirdly If they hold and enjoy that Power by virtue of their said Estates you may do well to show some reason why all that are above the rest of the people in Titles of Honour and Revenue should not be called to those assembly of Estates but onely some few out of every Order as in France and Spain to represent the rest of their several Orders For being equal or somewhat near to an equality with one another in Estates and Honours those which were pretermitted have the greater wrong in not being suffered to make use of that natural power which their over balance in dominion hath conferred upon them And then I would be glad to right whether this over ballance in Dominion be ascribed unto them in reference to the King or the common people If in relation to the King you put the King into no better condition then any one of his subjects by making him accomptable to so many Masters who may say to him whensoever they shall meet together Redde rationem villicationis tuae and tell him plainly That he must give up an account of his stewardship for he shall be no longer steward And then have Kings done very ill in raising so many of their subjects to so great a Power and calling them together to make use of that power which they may make use of if they please to his destruction And if they have this over-ballance of Dominion in reference onely to the common people above whom they are raised in Estates and Honours what then becomes of that natural liberty of Mankind that underived Majesty of the common people which our great Masters in the School of Politie have so much cryed up The people must needs take it as ill as the King to be deprived of their natural Liberty without giving their consent unto it or to be deposed from that Majesty which is inherent in themselves without deriving it from any but their first Creator But on the other side if the three Estates in a Gothick Moddel receive that power which they enjoy in those Conventions either from the hands of the King as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which make up two of the three Estates did here in England or from the hands of the People as the 3d. Estate have done in all Kingdoms else which is the generall opinion and practise of all Nations too you must stand single by your self in telling me that they have that power by virtue of those Estates which they are possest of And this may also serve to show you that an over ballance in Dominion or the greatness of Estate which some subjects have above the rest amounteth not to such an Empire as may give them any power over Prince or people unless it can be showed as I think it cannot that the King doth not over ballance them in the point of Dominion as they do the rest of their fellow subjects or that the whole body of the people cannot as well pretend to Dominion over themselves as any of their fellow-subjects can pretend to have over them And then if this Dominion do amount to an Empire also we shall have three Empires in one Kingdom that is to say the King the three Estates and the Common people I must confess I have not weigh'd all Orders and degrees of men in so even a scale as to resolve which of them ballanceth counter-ballanceth or over-ballanceth the other which must be various and uncertain according to the Lawes of severall Countrys and the different constitutions of their several Governments And I conceive it altogether as impossible to make a new Garment for the Moon which may as well fit her in the full as in her wainings and increasings as to accommodate these Metaphisical speculations to the rules of Government which varying in all places must have different forms And having different forms must have different ballances according to the Lawes and constitutions of each several Country And yet I am not altogether so dimme sighted as not to see what these new Notions which otherwise indeed would prove new Nothings do most chiefly aim at the chief design of many of the late Discourses being apparently no other then to put the supream Government into the hands of the common people or at least into the hands of those whom they shall chuse for their Trustees and Representors which if it could be once effected the underived Majesty of the common people would not appear so visibly in any one person whatsoever as in those Trustees and Representors and then the King or supream Magistrate being thus out shined would seem no other then a Star of the lesser Magnitude which
bear part of the publick Government but whether chosen out of the Jethronian Judges or not we shall see anon Moses being dead and Josuah who succeeded in the supream Authority being also gathered by his Fathers the authority of the Sanhedrim dying also with them as your self confesseth the Ordinary Government returned again to the heads of the several Families as before in Aegypt the extraordinary being vested in those several Judges whom God raised up from time to time to free them from the power of those cruel Enemies from whose Tyranny they were not able otherwise to have freed themselves And in this state they stood till the time of Samuel when being vexed by the Philistines with conâ—inual Wars the Ark of God was taken not long before and their condition no less miserable under the times of Samuel then it was at the worst they desire to have a King to fight their Battails and to go in and out before them like to other Nations And that their future King might settle on the surer foundation he had not only the approbation of the Lord 1 Sam. 8. 22. and the acclamations of the people chap 10. v. 24. but the Heads and Chiefâ— of the several Families devolved their whole power upon him the motion being made to Samuel by the Elders of the people aswell in their own names as in the names of all the rest of the Tribes as appears 1 Sam. 8. 4. 19. Before this time that is to say after the deaths of Moses and Joshua who were Kings in fact though not in title the Israelites had no King to Raign over them but the Lord himself from whom they first received their Laws from whose mouth they received direction in all cases of difficulty and from whose hands they received protection in all times of danger And when they had any visible Judge or supream Governour God did not only raign in their persons in regard of that immediate vocation which they had from him but also of the gifts of the Spirit and the co-operation of his Grace and Power In which respect the Government of the Israelites during that interval of time is called by many learned Writers by the name of Theocratie or the immediate Government of the Lord himself And this the Lord himself not obscurely intimates when he said to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me ne regnem super eos that I should not raign over them I know the general stream of Writers do understand these words as words of dislike and indignation in that the people seemed to be weary of his Government in their desire of having a King like to other Nations but I conceive with all due reverence unto those who opine the contrary that God spake these words rather to comfort Samuel whom he found much displeased and troubled at the Proposition of the Elders as if a greater injury had been offered to himself then was done to the Prophet then out of any dislike which he had of the matter For if he had disliked the matter that is that they should have a King like other Nations he neither would have fore signified it as a blessing on the seed of Abraham Gen. 17. or as prerogative of Judah Gen. 49. nor have foretold the people that when they should desire a King they should set him to be King over them whom the Lord their God shall chuse Deut. 17. nor would he have commanded Samuel to give them a King as they desired nor have directed him particularly to that very man whom he had designed for the Kingdom But on the contrary say you we find it otherwise in the Prophet Hosea where the Lord said unto the people That he had given them a King in his anger that is as you affirm in Saul and that he took him away in his wrath that is say you in the Captivity Hos. 13. 11. And to this purpose you alledge another passage in the same Prophet ch 8. v. 4. where it is said They have set up Kings and not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not But for all this your explication of the one Text and your application of the other are alike erroneous The Prophet Hosea lived in the time of Jerohoam son of Joah King of Israel and directed the words of his Prophesy to the people chiefly as they were separated and abstracted from the Realm of Israel And first beginning with the last it appears plainly by the verse foregoing that the words by you cited are addressed particularly to the house of Israel and it had been hard dealing in the Prophet to charge the ten Tribes with setting up of Kings but not by him had it been so understood of Saul as you say it was when it was the fault if it were a fault of all the twelve and therefore saith S. Hierome Potest hoc quod dicit ipsi regnaverunt non c. Etiam de Jeroboham accâ—pi filio Nabath de ceteris principibus qui ei in imperio successerint More positively some learned Writers in the Church of Rome by whom it is affirmed Hunâ— locum pertinere ad Reges Israel quorum primus erat Jeroboham qui tempore Reaboham filii Salamonis Regnum decem Tribuum invasit And to the same effect saith Deodati amongst the Protestants viz. The people of their own proper motion without enquiring after Gods will or staying for his command or permission have chosen and made Kings of their own heads separating themselves from the lawful Rule of David ' s posterity 1 King 11. 31. And then the meaning of the other Text will be plainly this I gave thee or I gave thee leave to have a King in mine anger that is to say in Jeroboham the Son of Nebat who by with-drawing the people from the worship of God to worship the golden Calves of Dan and Bethel is said to have made Israel sin and thereby plagued them irremediously without repentance into the heavy anger and displeasure of the Lord their God And I took him away in my wrath that is to say in the person of Hosheah the last King of Israel carried away captive together with the greatest part of his people into the land of Assyria the people being dispersed in the several Provinces of that Empire never returning since that time to their native Country nor having any King of their own to raign over them as afore they had Not to say any thing of many of the Kings of Israel treacherously slain by their own subjects out of an ambitious desire to obtain the Kingdom of whom it may be justly said That God took them away in his wrath before they had lived out their full time in the course of nature Nothing in these two Texts which relates to Saul and the captivity that is to say the Captivity of Babylon as you understand it Such is your play with holy Scripture when you speak as you
suppose like a Divine 20. But you have another use to make of the Prophet Hosea whose words you cite unto a purpose that he never meant namely to prove that Kings are not of Divine Right For having said that such Divines who will alwaies have Kings to be of divine right are not to be hearkned too seeing they affirm that which is clean contrary to Scripture you add that in this case said Hosea they have set up Kings and not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not But first these words are not spoken by the Prophet touching the institution of Kings in General but onely of a particular fact in the ten Tribes of Israel by with drawing themselves from the house of David and setting up a King of their own without consulting with the Lord or craving his approbation and consent in the business Secondly If it may be said that Kings are not of Divine Right and institution because God saith here by the Prophet that some Kings have been set up but not by him you have more reason to affirm that Kings are of Divine Right and institution because he saith in another place less capable of any such misconstruction as you make of this by me Kings reign All Kings are said to reign by God because all reign by his appointment by his permission at the least And yet some Kings may be truly said not to reign by him either because they are set up by the people in a tumultuous and seditious way against the natural Kings and Princes or else because they come unto their Crowns by usurpation blood and violence contrary to his will revealed and the establisht Laws of their severall Countrys Which Argument if it should be good we could not have a stronger against such Papists as hold alwayes for it seems no mater if they did hold so but somtimes that the Pope by Divine right is head of the universall Church then by showing them out of their own Histories how many Popes have raised themselves into that See either by open faction or by secret bribery and by violent and unjust intrusion Of whom it may be said and that not improperly that though they pretend to be Christs Vicars and the successors of St. Peter yet were they never plac't by Christ in St. Peters Chair Now to dispute from the persons to the power and from the unjust wayes of acquiring that power to the original right and institution of it is such a sorry piece of Logick as you blaming those who dispute from the folly of a people against an Ordinance of God For upon what ground else do you lay the foundation of the legall Government especially amongst the Hebrews but on the folly of the people p. 11. the imprudence and importunity of the people p. 14. upon which ground also you build the supream authority of the Judges who onely by the meet folly of the people came to be set up in Israel p. 13. But certainly if their desires to have a King were folly and imprudence in them it must be felix fatuitas a very fortunate imprudence and a succesful folly I am sure of that that people never live in a settled condition till they come to the Government of Kings For was it not by the fortunate conduct of their Kings that they exterminated the rest of the Canaanites broke the Amalekites in pieces and crusht the power of the Phylistins growing by that means formidable unto all their Neigbours Was it not by the power and reputation of their Kings that they gained some strong Towns from the Children of Ammon and enlarged their Territories by the conquest of some parts of Syria that they grew strong in shipping and mannaged a wealthy trade from Esion-Geber in the streights of Babel-Mandel to the Land of Ophir in the remotest parts of India Prosperities sufficient to justifie and endear such burdens as by the alteration of the Government might be said upon them 21. From such Divines in Generall as will always I must keep that word have Kings to be by divine Right you come to me at last in my own particular charging me that at a venture I will have Kings to be of Divine Right and to be absolute whereas in truth say you if Divine Right be derived unto Kings from these of the Hebrews onely it is most apparent that no absolute King can be of Divine Right And first to answer for my self for having sometime been a Parson I shall take leave to Christen my own Child first I think that I was never so rash nor so ill advised as to speak any thing at aventure in so great a point as the originall institution and divine right of Kings Secondly I am sure I have not so little studied the Forms of Government as to affirm any where in that Book against Calvin as you call it that all Kings be absolute The second Sect. of the sixt Chapter of that Book being spent for the most part in shewing the differences between conditional Kings and an absolute Monarch And Thirdly They must be as sorry Divines and as bad Historians as my self who ascribe the absolute Power or the Divine right of Kings to the first institution of a King amongst the Hebrews For who knows not if he know any thing in that kind that there were Kings in Aegypt and Assyria as also of Scycionia in Peleponesus not long after the Flood Kings of the Aborigines and the Trojan race in Italy in that of Athens Argos and Micenae amongst the Greeks of the Parthians Syrians c. in the Greater and of Lydia in the lesser Asia long time before the Raign of Saul the first King of the Hebrews all which were absolute Monarchs in their several Countrys And as once Tully said Nulla gens tam barbara that never Nation was so barbarous but did acknowledge this principle that there was a God so will you hardly find any barbarous Nation who acknowledge not the supream Government of Kings And how then all Nations should agree in giving themselves over to the power and Government of Kings I believe none cannot show me a better reason then that they either did it by the light of natural reason by which they found that Government to be fittest for them or that the first Kings of every Nation were the heads families that retained that paternal right over all such as descended of them as might entitle their authority to divine institution For proof whereof since you have such a prejudice against Divines you need look no farther then your self who tells us p. 12. That Kings no question where the ballance is Monarchical are of Divine right and if they be good the greatest blessing that the Government so standing can be capable of or if you will not stand to this then look on the first Chapter of Aristotles Politicks where he makes the Regall Government to stand upon no other bottom then paternal Authority Initio
civitates regibus parebant c. At the first saith he Cities were Governed by Kings and so still at this day are such Nations as descended of men accustomed to the King by Government For every houshold is governed by the eldest as it were by a King and so consequently are the Colonies or Companies multiplyed from thence governed in like sort for Kindreds sake Which words of Aristotle seconded by the general practice of all Nations I look on as a better Argument of the Original institution Divine Right of Kings that great Philosopher in the 4th Book of his Politicks cap. 2. giving unto the Regall Government the attribute of Divinissima or the most Divine then to fetch either of them from the institution of the first King among the Hebrews so that you might have spared the labour of showing the inconsequences of arging from a contingent case to a matter of absolute necessity as from the making of the first King amongst the Hebrews to the necessity of making Kings in all other Nations unless you could have found some adversary to contend withal And with like thrift you might have saved your self the trouble of proving that the words of Moses in Deut. 17. v. 18. touching recourse to be had unto the Judge which should be in those dayes in some certain cases inferred not a necessity of having any such supream Judge as God raised up from time to time to govern and avenge his people in their greatest misery unless you have met with any which I know not of which trust as much to that Text of Scripture for those supream Judges as you rely upon it for the Court of Sanhedrim of which more anon The corollary wherewithal you close this passage I like well enough had you grounded your discourse on some clearer Text For I conceive as well as you that those Judges are not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen onely by his providence not imposed by the Law but provided by iâ— as an Expedient in case of necessity 22. But before I come to examine the Text of Scripture on which you ground both the Authority of the Sanhedrim and those supream Judges which governed in their several times the affairs of Israel I must first see what form of Government it is which you chiefly drive at and in comparison whereof you so much vilifie and condemn the Regall And fiâ—st the Government you drive at musâ— be plainly Popular and such Popular estate call iâ— Timocraty or a Democratie or what else you please into which the old Agrarian laws must be introduced for the better settling of equality amongst the people And such a Common-wealth as this you fancy to be most agreeable to the natural liberty of Mankind and Divine institution There is nothing say you more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God p. 14. and settled on a popular Agrarian p. 12. And that the Restitution of their Common-wealth was fore-signified in these words of the Prophet Hosea I will be thy King cap. 13. 10. But if you have no better grounds for the Institution then for the Restitution of this Common-wealth they are too weak for foundation of so great a building The Prophet speaks in that place particularly to the house of Ephraim v. 1. the people of the Realm of Israel v. 9. as appears more distinctly by their kissing the Calves the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel v. 2. Of whose reduction to their native Country after their being carried away captive by Salmanasser King of Assyria there is nothing signified in the Scripture in the way of prophesie nor no relation of it as a matter of Fact Nor can you show me any clear and evident text by which I may be sure that this Commonwealth was instituted by God considering that Moses during the whole time of his life governed authoritatively and supreamly without any appeal unto the people or unto any other power either co-ordinate with him or superior to him which I believe is more thenyou can show me in any Duke of Venice or any State-holder of the Netherlands or any other Prince in a Common-wealth which onely serve as second Notions in a State to put their business into form and give date to all publick instruments as the Keepers of the Liberties not long since in England Nor do I finde that Josuah abated any thing of that power which Moses had advising sometime with the Elders of the people but not governed by them so that the first Government amongst the Israelites had more in it of the Regal then the popular Forms to which they did desire to return again upon the apprehension of the Anarchy and confusion under which they lived when there was no King in Israel as in other Nations And as for your Agrarian laws your Popular Ballance as elsewhere upon which this Commonwealth is supposed to be settled I conceive it will be very hard for you to prove that also For though the Land of Canaan was divided by Lot amongst the Tribes yet neither had the Tribes themselves their equal portion nor every family in those Tribes their equal shares in those unequal portions with one another some of the Tribes enjoying little or nothing of the lot which had fallen unto them and some of the Families of those Tribes being scattered up and down the Country as Jacob had prophesied of Simeon in the Book of Gen. which utterly destroyes that popular Agrarian on which this Common-wealth is supposed to be founded and in which you say they might have continued but that they desired to have a King like other Nations 23. Your second Argument for a preferring a popular Estate before a Monarchy is derived from reason and that reason grounded on the natural liberty of all mankind which cannot better be preserved them in popular Governments God never required as you say of any Man or any Government that they should live otherwise then according to their estate that there are rules in Scripture to show the duty of a servant to such whose wants have made them servants but that there is no rule in Scripture that obligeth a man unto the duty of a servant which can live of himself And finally having askt this question whether God hath less regard of a Nation then he hath of a man you tax the Israelites for making themselves servants by desiring a King to be set over them when they might have continued as they were in a free condition But first that natural liberty of Mankind which our great Polititians so much talk of hath no ground in nature for as servants are bound by positive Lawes to obey their Masters so women are bound by the law of Nature to submit themselves unto their Husbands and children by the same law to be obedient to their parents This if the Scripture had not taught you you might have learnt from Aristotle as he did from Homer
the common sort of people in those Common-wealths The like may be observed also in some Common-wealths of a later standing in which the greater part of the people have no voice at all as to the making of their Laws or chusing such as are to make them for the use of the publique and therefore are so far from having any part in the publique Government that for the most part they are Governed against their wills Such an imaginary speculation such an empty nothing is the supposed liberty of the people in a popular Government 25. We must next see notwithstanding all that hath been said how much you vilifie and contemn the Regal Government in respect of that popular which you chiefly drive at For having told us That the Government of the Senate and the people is that only which is or can be the Government of Laws and not of men and that the Government of the Laws and not of men is the Government of God and not of men You tell us out of Aristotles Politiques That he that is for the Governmens of Laws is for the Government of God and he that is for the Government of a man is for the Government of a Beast But Aristotle's words must be understood according to Aristotle's time Cum arbitria Principum pro legibus erant when the Subjects were Governed by no other Law then the will of the Prince and cannot be aplied to any King or Monarch in the Christian world which have not only the Law of God for a rule in Government but many positive Laws of their own establishing for the well ordering of the people in their several Kingdoms You tell us secondly That when the ballance is popular as in Israel in the Grecian in the Scicilian Tyrannies Kings are the direst curse that can befall a Nation But first to pretermit the extream harshness of the expression so far were Kings from being a curse to the people of Israel that admitting the former Government to have been setled on Popular Agrarian as it never was they proved the greatest temporal blessing to them as before was said that ever the Nation did enjoy And Secondly you fall from such Kings as exercise no other then a lawful power to the Grecian and Scicilian Tyrannies as if the case in setting up a King over the people of Israel not onely by Gods approbation but their own consent were to be paralelled with those Tyrannies which were erected in some Cities of Greece and Sicily by Dyâ—nisius and other Monsters of those ages infamous for their lusts and most barbarous cruelties For had the change been made by persons of sobriety moderation as that in Rome from a Democraty to a Monarchy by Augustus Caesar the alteration might have been for the benefit of the common people by bringing them from that which Aristotle calls the worst kind of Government to that which comes nearest to the Government of Almighty God and is therefore called the most Divine Nor had the people lost any thing by such change in the point of liberty which never is enjoyed more peacefully and securely nunquam libertas gratior extat quam sub Rege pio as it is in Claudian then under the Government of a just and merciful Prince witness the difference in the Government of the state of Florence between the tranquillity which all sorts of People do now enjoy under the protection of the Princes of the House of Mâ—dices and those confusions and disorders to which they were continually subject in the popular States In the Third place you tell us that a King or soveraign Prince can have no other subsistence or security then by cutting off or tearing up all roots that do naturally sheat or spring up into such branches that is to say to the free course of Popular Orders which may perhaps be true in some of the Scicilian and Gretian Tyrannies where every obstacle was removed which was conceived to stand in the Tyrants way yet cannot this possibly be made good in any Christian Kings and Princes in these parts of the World in which we find not any example of cutting off or tearing up such popular Orders or any roots which branch unto them as have been settled and confirmed in the times fore-going Nor are you satisfied with that distinction of the Rabbins whose Authority when it serveâ— your turn you do much insist on viz. that the people of Israel making a King displeased God not in the matter but the forms onely that is to say in desiring to have a King like other Nations which is no more then what generally is affirmed by such Christian Writers as have discoursed on this subject Take this of Peter Martyr among the rest who telleth us that the people 's sinned in this request by desiring of a King after the manner of all other Nations and not according to the rule of Gods word Deut. 17. and in that they desired a King without consulting with the Lord or having direction or order from him in that business All which may be and yet the ballance of a Government may not be onely form but matter the main matter of their request which is the root of the tree you speak of being to change the Government and to have a King the form of their Request or the formall words in which they made it being to have a King like other Nations 26. Finally you conceive so poorly of the Kings of the Hebrews and in them of all other Kings for ought I can see that they were but regulated Monarchs when they were at the best And in case of Mal-administration obnoxious unto corporall punishment from the hands of the Sanhedrim To prove the first you tell us they were so tyed up to the Rules of Government prescribed in Deut. 17. that they could neither multiply Horses nor Chariots nor Silver nor Gold nay could of right enact no law as in those by David but for the reduction of the Ark for the regulation of the Priests for the Election of Solomon which were made by the suffrage of the people To answer first unto the last David might gratifie the People in some popular actions as in the Reduction of the Ark and gratifie himself by the power of the people as in setling the succession in the person of Solomon and yet not be obliged to it by that place in Deut. or any other fundamental law which required it of him And so the first place is answered that the Kings of Israel were by that rule prohibited from multiplying Gold and Silver and Chariots and Horsemen in a greater measure then what was necessary for the support of their Estate and the protection of their people against forrain invasions And to this very well agrees the Gloss or Exposition of Diodati in which we find that the end thereof was that the King of Gods People should not exalt himself in pride and Tyranny nor put his confidence in humane means