pleasure excluding all formal and physical necessity from Nature And not only so but also it followeth that both Rulers and ruled are eternal and unchangeable Which is repugnant both to Experience and Reason The Gymnosophists and Indian Philosophs did enact it by Law That all by Nature were free-born and none were servants but to be of equal authority and alike dignity Diod. Ant. lib. 3. cap. 10. Dionysius Halicarnassius saith In all men the desire of liberty is innate Lib. 5. 6. Julius Caesar averreth All men study to liberty Lib. 2. 3. de bel Gal. And Gregory affirmeth All men by Nature to be free whom Nations have subjected to bondage 12. quaest 2. The Law speaketh much for us in this and in positive terms saith what we affirm L. manumiss F. de just jur Lib. 1. digest tit 1. lib. 1. Inst tit 5. Ulpian Justian distinguish between the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations The one is particular only relating to man the other is general relative both to man and beast Ulp. lib. 1. sect ult Just dig lib. 1. tit 1. Inst lib. 1. tit 2. But I pray you Wherein can the Law of Nature be common both to man and beast if you affirm Nature to have laid strait bonds of subjection upon one to another We find by experience that Lions are not subject to King-Lion Boars to King-Boar Eagles to King-Eagle And so you annul this community of the Law of Nature to Man and Beast if you understand subjective authority formally to flow from Nature They do as yet more clearly difference these Laws calling the one slavery and the other liberty Ulp. lib. man D. Just dig lib. 1. Hence Ulpian Inst lib. 1. and Justinian Dig. lib. 1. say That all by Nature being free-born Manumission to Nature is unknown It is the consequent of servitude according to the Law of Nations See also Just Inst lib. 1. tit 5. Whence is it out of Florentine he defineth liberty from Nature and servitude from the custom of Nations Dig. lib. 1. tit 5. Where liberty is expresly opposed to Government and Authority The one is called humane constitution and the other Nature's birth But the Lawyer Prate would make us beleeve by the Law of Nations Ulpian and Justinian do understand a humane universal Law and Sanction and by servitude praedure and tyrannous form of Government And so saith he the Law of Nations must not alwaies be opposed to the Law of Nature as Livius saith Neither must we think saith he that all Civil Constitution is contrary to Nature but such as draweth the subjected into slavery The Lawyer Baldwin seemeth to take him by the hand while as he calleth the Law of Nations the particular Law of Nature But the man com in Justit Inst lib. 1. 2. seemeth neither to be much for it nor much against it Nay but Mr. Prate wresteth Ulpian and Justinian their meaning for if the Law of Nature were taken by them for any humane Law then should humane Law be common both to man and beast Do not they say the Law of Nature is common to both Therefore you shall either conclude beasts to be men and affected with humane faculties or else you shall restrict your universal within the bounds of a particular But if you shall say That by the Law of Nations they understand an Universal Statute and general Sanction as it is contradistinct from the Civil Law you also gain just nothing for your pains 1. Because in such a notion the Law of Nations is not the proper and immediat opposit of the Law of Nature So it is properly and immediatly opposed to the Civil Law as Justinian out of Caius abundantly cleareth for as he opposeth Digest lib. 1. tit 1. loc 1. the Law of Nature to the Law of Nations so loc 9. and Inst. lib. 1. tit 2. loc 2. he contradistinguisheth the Law of Nations from the Civil Law In the one he taketh the Law of Nations as being the immediate opposit of the Law of Nature and in the other as being the proper opposit of the Civil Law 2. Because both Ulpian and Justinian in the forequoted places do call the Law of Nations a thing common amongst men But by your leave if we take a narrow view of the Law of Nations we shall find it rather particular then general it being taken as immediatly opposed to the Civil Law for so it is taken in a strict and rigorous acceptation And such Law hath greatest footing when Monarchy and the governing power is universal And whereas Mr. Prate alleadgeth That by servitude is understood slavery and tyranny he is far in the wrong to Ulpian and Justinian They mean no such thing 1. Because Justinian calleth Liberty a natural faculty enclining to that which any man pleaseth to do unlesse it be obstructed either by strength or Law In which we mark two things that make much for us Firstly Liberty is referred to the natural faculty of the Will So Aristotle defineth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 6. Polit. Now no Government can be called the natural faculty of the Will or any power of the Mind Secondly Liberty is opposed not only to force and violence but also to Law and Ordinance These two things do absolutely distinguish the reason of Liberty from Government in so far as it is taken for natural liberty Now Justinian to the definition of Liberty subjoyneth the definition of Servitude But by your favour why may not I with far better reason say That Justinian taketh Servitude for Government then you can alleadge him to take it for slavery and tyrannous authority for as he defineth Liberty it is uncompetent both to lawful and unlawful authority If Government be natural the Liberty of which Justinian speaketh is no waies competent to it He speaketh not of natural but of morall liberty 2. Because Ulpian and Justinian call Servitude constitutio juris gentium But my friend what Ethnick much lesse Christian would have called tyranny constitutio juris and not rather constitutio non-juris Shew me another place where they take jus gentium abusively in a catachrestick signification 3. Albeit we should yeeld this to Mr. Prate yet should he no whit encroach upon the main purpose in hand for it is abundantly cleared that they understand all men by nature to be born free Jure enim naturali saith Justinian omnes homines ab initio liberi nascebantur Just lib. 1. tit 2. loc 2. Thence was it in the golden age both before and after the Flood they knew nothing but fatherly government and filiall subjection Jerome also in this sideth with us He calleth Liberty a faculty of living according to pleasure But as government restraineth the Will so Nature giveth it liberty sweetly concurring and conniving with it Furthermore he sheweth how that Liberty is naturall both from the subject and object of it De Reg. inst disc lib. 5. Conclus 2. Nature per
this way to prove it Firstly The people of Israel saith he did seek a King to reign over them after the manner of the Nations But all the Kings of the Nations in these times were absolute and not subject to Law Ergo. The Proposition he proveth from 1. Sam. 8. The Assumption he taketh for granted saying that the Assyrians whose Monarchy was at that time when the Israelites sought a King to reign over them did not restrict their Kings within the bounds of Law Therefore Artabanus Persa much commendeth that Law whereby the Persians enacted that the King should be honoured as the image of GOD. Plut. in vit Themist And Claudianus saith that they gave alike obedience to cruell and tyrannous Kings Yea Otades calleth Monarchy that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herodot lib. 3. Then seing the Persians succeeded to the Medes and the Medes to the Assyrians who reigned at that time when the Israelites did seek a King to reign over them it appeareth that as the Persian Monarchy so likewise the Assyrian and Median Monarchies were of an absolute and arbitrary power And Homer who lived as some imagine about that time when the Israelites sought a King from Samuel to reign over them saith that Kings are from Jupiter and those do reign who get authority from the son of Saturn Whom he also calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trained up by Jupiter Therefore Kings in Homer's time were not subject to Law Defens Reg. cap. 2. and 5. Ans Both the Propositions of this Gentlemans Argument seem very strange to us As for the first Proposition we do not deny it for the people of Israel said to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations 1. Sam. 8. But it do h not follow Ergo make us an absolute King as the Nations about us have 1. Because Moses Deut. 17. by the Spirit of prophecie foretelleth their seeking of a King after the manner of the Nations But it is evident that Moses there doth onely prophesie of their seeking a King after the manner of the Nations i. e. that as the Nations about had Kings over them so they might have a King over them in like manner for both Deut. 17. and 1. Sam. 8. the words are general In neither of these it is said Make us an absolute king after the maner of the Nations The words admit a two-fold sense and so they may either signifie As other Nations have Kings so make us a King This sense we allow or as other Nations have absolute Kings so make us an absolute King This sense we deny And so this is a fallacy either ab Homonymia or à figura dictionis 2. We may as well conclude from these words after the manner of the Nations that the people of Israel did seek a non-absolute and regulated King for at that time there were Kings of the Nations who were regulated according to Law We read that Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did in the matter of Helena's away-taking was according to the advice and counsell of Senators whom Paris with his Complices did over-awe Dict. Cret de bello Tro. lib. 1. And it is observable that Agamemnon and Palamedes though the Kings of Kings were subjected to Law So storie Dictys Cretensis Dares Phrygius Homer and Aristotle Which was at that time when the Jewes did seek a King to reign over them Yea then the Egyptian Kings were subjected to Law Diod. Sic. Rer. Ant. l. 2. c. 3. And it is also evident that at this time the Athenian Monarchy was not absolute So Heraclid de polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diod. Sic. lib. 5. c. 5. Moreover we do not imagine but there were many other Monarchies at that time which were not arbitrary and of an illimited power We might prove this at length if it were not both tedious and needlesse But Salmasius himself acknowledgeth that then all the Kingdoms of the Orient were of a limited power regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle pol. lib. 3. c. 10. and 11. 3. The people of Israel did seek a King under very fair pretences They not only alleaged that Samuel was unfit because of his years to govern them according to Law and reason but also they pleaded for a King from the tyrannie of Samuel's sons and their non-governing according to justice and equity Then tell me would they ever have sought a King that he might govern them according to his pleasure whether to tyrannize over them or not Thus they should not onely have palpably contradicted themselves but also they should have cut off from themselves these pretences whereby they urged their purpose in seeking a King 4. To say that the people of Israel did seek an absolute King is to militat directly against these ends which they propounded to Samuel and set before their eyes in seeking a King The ends are three 1. To judge them 2. To conduct them 3. To fight for them and defend them from their enemies These three particular ends do abundantly evidence that they did not seek a King to govern them after the manner of the Nations whether according to Law or contrary to it but that they sought a King to govern them only according to Law and reason I am sure the second and third end imply no lesse And if you say that the first end may take along with it a judging whether according or contrary to Law we do easily obviat this difficultie 1. Because you shall not finde in Scripture where judging is taken for an act of injustice and tyrannie And the Holy Ghost in Scripture expoundeth judgment calling it justice 2. Sam. 8. 2. Had the people of Israel sought a King to judge them whether according to justice or injustice then their arguments whereby they enforced their purpose in seeking a King had been altogether uselesse Samuel haply might have said to them I see now ye do praevaricate in this matter your profession is altogether vain in declaring your selves sensible of my weaknesse and inability for judging you according to justice and equity and of the corruption and iniquitie of my sons in perverting righteous judgment Away might Samuel have said this is nothing but words Whereas ye seek a King to judge you whether according to Law or not ye contradict your own profession and give your selves the lie to your face Yea Salmasius himself doth acknowledge that they did not seek a King to tyrannize over them and to rule contrary to Law and reason Def. Reg. c. 2. But mark how the man straight-wayes giveth himself the lie For saith he they did not deprecat nor abominat an unjust King wicked violent ravenous and such-like as use to be among the Nations though most wicked Ibid. We demand at this Gentleman whether or not they did positively seek such
with GOD. Diogenes in lib. de Reg. writeth that the King is just so in respect of the Commonwealth as GOD is in respect of the Vniverse And so as GOD hath power over the whole world in like manner the King hath power on earth In like manner Ecphantas calleth it a thing proper to the King to govern himself and to be governed by none Lastly he stepeth-in to shew how that the Roman Kings of old were of a vast and arbitrary power Romulus saith Tacitus governed the Romans as he pleased Pomponius writeth that Kings at the begining of Rome had all poor Dio saith they are unsubject to any Law Plutarch and Justinian will have the Laws subjected to them Which maketh Severus and Attoninus to say Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Plinius in his Panegyricks saith to Trojanus that he subjecteth himself to the Laws And yet as Dio saith he had power to do every thing by himself to command both himself and the Laws to do every thing that he would and not do what he would not And Salust saith that to do every thing unpunishably that is to be a King Def. Reg. cap. 5. Answ I suppose there is not plena enumeratio partium here There were moe Kingdoms then what Salmasius hath reckoned-up Howsoever I shall do my endeavour to find him out And that I may take away the strength of all that he objecteth and leave not so much as the ground-stone thereof I lay down these following Conclusions Conclus 1. Because of extraordinary heroicisme and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law This we make good from the condition of some Kings both before and after the Flood Before the Flood the point is clear About the 500. year of Noah's age which was in the 1556. year of the world Policy began to have some footing for then men began to follow after their own inventions hearts desires and so men then a-dayes being of huge strength and undaunted courage given to pleasure and renown those amongst them who by strength of hand could carry the pre-eminence and precedency over others no less performed it then endeavoured it And Noah was five hundred years old Gen. 5. There were Giants in the earth in those dayes and also after that when the sons of God came-in unto the daughters of men and they bear children unto them the same became mighty men who were of old men of renown Gen. 6. Hence mark these two things 1. That in the 500. year of Noah's age there were men of a gigantine strength mighty men given to hard and warlike exploits minding their own honour and renown 2. That such men lived at random not subject to law nor under the command of any Their extraordinary valour and desire of renown led them on to rule and not to be ruled Therefore they took them wives of all which they chose Gen. 6. Their awless and lawles living maketh the Lord say My Spirit shal not alwayes strive with man Ibid. But the faithful Historian Berosus giveth us great clearness in this matter He saith that before the Flood there was a City called Oenon about Lâ—banus a receptacle of Giants who did reign over the whole world from the Occident to the Orient These saith he confiding in the vast strength and stature of their body having found Arms and Engins of war oppressed all and governed according to their pleasure Antiq lib. 1. After the Flood the first King we read of is Nimrod of whom it is said And Cush begat Nimrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the beginning or the head of his Kingdom was Babel and Erech Gen. 10. This Nimrod the holy Ghost calleth a mighy one in the earth or the mighty hunter before the Lord Gen. 10. i. e. a man matchless none like him in the earth for strength and gallantry Because of this he erected a kingdom despising the commaâ—dment of Noah Beros an t lib. 4. and disdaining to be in subjection whether to God or man Joseph an t Jud. lib. 1. cap. 5 his aspiring thoughts drew him on to build a Tower that thereby he might get himself a name to secure himself both before God and man Gen. 11. Phil. Jud. bibl an t lib. And Josephus in even-down termes telleth us that he incited his followers to pride and to the contemning of God telling them that their happinesse did not depend from GOD but from their own proper strength Whereupon at last he tyrannized and governed at randome Ant. Iud. lib. 1. cap. 5. To Nimrod succeeded Belus to Belus Ninus and to Ninus Semiramis in the Kingdome of Assyria Every one of which acted more then another for enlarging their Empire They subdued all and ruled over all libidine dominandi Ber. ant lib. 5. Mnes lib. 97. hist Archil lib. de temp Fab. Pict de aur sec c. lib. 1. Metast lib. de judic temp annal Persic Herod lib. 1. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 1 2 c. And as amongst the Assyrians we find these four grand and matchlesse Heroes who governed at random without any subjection to Law so we find amongst other Nations some also of that same stamp Amongst the Egyptians Osiris who succeeded to his Father Chemesenuus in the Kingdom of Egypt commanding the whole earth except these Nations and Kingdoms that were under the Authority of Zames King of Assyria In the eight year of whose reign Osiris returned into Egypt with triumph over all the Nations beside what were under the jurisdiction of the Assyrian Empire And as Osiris did reign as an universall Monarch so did his son Hercules who succeeded Osiris in the Kingdom under the reign of Baleus the eleventh King over the Assyrians Ber. ant lib. 5. We read also of Simandius and Sesostris two Egyptian Kings who subdued the whole world Herod lib 2. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. But it is very easie to prove from Berosus that Simandius is Osiris and Sesostris is Hercules Amongst the Libyans Dionysius was the great Heros Herodot and Diodore report that he subdued the world and conquered many Kingdoms by battell And Berosus saith that Dionysius gave to Osiris the Kingdom of Egypt Albeit Herodot and Diodore opinionate him to be a Grecian yet I rather incline to the judgment of Berosus who saith he was begotten of Rhea by Hammon and became Jupiter to the Libyans even as his mother was the pretended Goddess of the Egyptians Hesiodus Marcianus and other Grecian Writers hold him as a God and alledge him to have been begotten of Semele by Jupiter Howsoever for valour and strength he was a most extraordinary person and swayed many Kingdomes by his Scepter Amongst the Grecians we find namely two extraordinary Heroes Hercules and Alexander M. What great things were done by Hercules and how he vanquished many Kings and subdued many
Machaeus his father they clothed him in Purple and put a Crown of Gold upon his head This signifieth that Machaeus was of a Kingly Power though not boundless and arbitrary Just ibid. 2 Because the Lacedemonian Kings had no power but of the battel And yet they were properly Kings But Machaeus had such a power as that 3 Because it cannot be denied but Machaeus had as great power as Hannibal Mago succeeded to Machaeus Asdrubal to Mago and Hannibal to Asdrubal Just ibid. But it is known that Hannibal was of a Kingly Power for he was one of the two Carthaginian Kings Aemyl prob in Han. 'T is remarkable that Hannibal for fear of the Carthaginian Senate fled into Syria Wherefore the Senate forfeited his estate did cast down his house and declared him a banished man Prob. ib. Plut. in Han. Howsoever Aristotle in even-down terms telleth us That the Carthaginian Kings were subjected to Law For comparing the Carthaginian and Lacedemonian Commonwealths together he saith that the Carthaginian Kings and Senat vvere just so as the Lacedemonian Kings and Senatours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 2. cap. 9. And so he subjoyneth that the People both amongst the Carthaginians and Lacedemonians did command both King and Senate having a povver of judging them and of contradicting their Ordinance That same also he saith of the Cretian Commonwealth And cap 7. he saâ—th That Cosmi amongst the Cretians had the same povver vvhich Ephori had amongst the Lacedemonians I confesse in that chap. he saith That in the beginning the Cretians were governed by Kings who were at last taken away and the power of the battel devolved upon the Cosmi This maketh nothing against us for so he insinuateth that the Cretian Kings had but the power of the battel seing in putting-out their Kings he speaketh of no more power that was added to the Cosmi but that they were entrusted with the managing of the war And cap. 9. in plain terms he saith comparing the Cretian and Lacedemonian Commonwealths together That the Cretian Kings and Senate were of the same stamp and condition of which were the Lacedemonian Kings and Senatours And saith he in the Carthaginian Lacedemonian and Cretian Commonwealths the people had power both over King and Senate to judge and withstand them As for the Lacedemonian Kings it is beyond all controversie that in after-ages they were subjected to Law no lesse then the people Therefore saith Xenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Repub. Laced lib. i. e. Lycurgus did not suffer a lording and tyrannick power to be given to the King nor did he put such power in the people's hand as to beget jealousie and envie against the kingly power And Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. i. e. The Kingly Power in the Laconick Commonwealth is most restricted to Law for it hath not a vaste and arbitrary power This maketh him say Pol. 2. cap. 7 9. That the Kingly Power was subjected to the People and the Ephori had the greatest power in the Commonwealth Which commeth just to that which Heraclid saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Pol. Laced i. e. The Lacedemonian Ephori had the greatest power in the Commonwealth Xenophon likewise saith That the King did swear monethly to the People to govern according to Law De Rep. Lac. lib. And Nicolaus Damascenus That he did swear to govern according to Law before he got the Crown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Mor. Gent. Laced And how great the power of the Ephori the Representative of the People was over all the rest of the Magistrates in the Commonwealth you may learn it from Plat. de Leg. lib. 4. Isoc Pan. Plut. de Civil Instit Whereupon saith Xenophon they had power of deposing imprisoning and judging even to the sentence of death the rest of the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De rep Laced lib. And because of the vastness of their power over the rest of the Magistrates they did at their own hand imprison and condemn Agis their King Plut. in Ag. In this they went against the Law of the Nation because according to it they had only power to judge and sentence their King while-as the King of the other family did sit upon the Bench with them Pausan Lacon But they without the concurrence of any at their own hand did imprison and sentence Agis The power of the Lacedemonian King is taken-up in these notions 1. At home he had charge of the sacrifices Arist Pol. 3. cap. 10. Herod lib. 6. Xenoph. de rep Lac. lib. of ordaining Magistrates and Priests and of dismissing Messages whether friendly or hostile See Herod Xenoph. ibid. But Xenophon saith That at home he had but the honour of a private man 2. From home and in the battel he was first and had the chief hand in managing the matters of the war So say the forecited Authours Inst 1. The Lacedemonian Monarchy saith Salmasius was peculiar All other Monarchies beside were absolute and of an uncircumscribed power though some were more intense and some more remisse And saith he the Lacedemonian Kings were rather General Captains then Kings Therefore Aristotle defineth their power to be a power of commanding the battel from a perpetual title of birth-right Pol. 3. cap. 10.14 Yea and though the Lacedemonian Ephori did cut-off Agis yet notwithstanding the people did abominate and detest that fact Def. Reg. cap. 8. Wherefore the man doth esteem the annual Carthaginian Kings properly not to have been Kings Otherwise saith he the Judges of Israel may also properly be called Kings for they had that same power which the Carthaginian Kings had The one were called Sophetim and the other Sufetes Both which come to one purpose And yet saith he the Scripture calleth the Judges of Israel Kings Judg. 18. But this must be taken in an improper sense And so he concludeth that Probus doth call the Carthaginian Sufetes Kings improperly Def. Reg. cap. 7. Ans We do much wonder at the man who is not ashamed to say that all Monarchies besides the Lacedemonian were absolute and unsubjected to Law We have evinced the contrary of that already having shewed from the examples of many Commonwealths that Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then any of the people And in this the manner of Royall Power amongst the Romans is not wanting The power of the King was subjected to the Senate Rex ad Senatum referebat Pomp. Laet. de mag Rom. i. e. The King had his referres to the Senate Penes hoc quidem senatores adeo semper totius Reipublicae summa innixa est ut ne Reges quidem Consules aut Dictatores aut alius quispiam magistratus inconsulto Senatu quippiam moliretur Fenest de mag Rom. i. e. The sum and head of the whole Commonwealth did ever so depend from these senatours that even Kings Consuls or Dictators or any other Magistrate did not enterprise any thing without
scarcely be called it 's own Which maketh me in reason conclude that then there was little time left for exercising Policy and putting Lawes in execution This Polydorus Virgilius telleth in a word whileas he saith that before Henry 1. there were few Conventions made by the Kings amongst the people for ordering according to Law the businesse of the Kingdom Angl. hist lib. 11. Although in an absolute notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say that from Brutus unto Cassivelanus and from Cassivelanus unto William the Conquerour Kingly Government in England was non-absolute and without full power yet we cannot say so in a relative notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as afterward shall appear 3. As the Kingdom of England was about the dayes of the Conquerour whether a little before or afterward unto this time We deny not but under the reigne of the Conquerour himself Regall Government in England was of a most absolute and arbitrary power In this we take Salmasius by the hand He needed not Def. Reg. cap. 8. to have troubled himself to have cited any Authors for proof thereof Very reason it-self teacheth the point for he subdued England by strength of hand But sure I am a Conquerour may dispose upon a conquered Kingdom according to his pleasure It is an act of favour in him if he do not destroy all much more as an absolute Lord to rule over all In the interim I desire Salmasius to take a view of Polyd. Virg. Angl. hist lib. 9. where he shall find the point evidenced to his heart's desire beyond any Historian he citeth Although in this we go-along with him as we must needs do yet notwithstanding we cannot say so much whether concerning Edward who preceded or those who succeeded him Let it be so that those who succeeded the Conquerour had the same priviledges which the Conquerour did arrogat to himself Yet can it not be denied but according to Edward the Confessour his Lawes or as they are called the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom Kingly Government in England is regulated and not absolute We make the point good from these reasons Firstly because according to these Laws the King of England is not hereditary And therefore we read not that ever Edward did tie the Crown of England to Royall succession I confesse it is alledged that he promised the Crown after him to William the Conquerour who was of neer kinred and great credit with him if he had not children of his own But this is not only improbable in it-self but also it is so judged And why shall we think otherwayes of it seing the Conquerour came not to the Crown of England by blood-right but by meer Conquest having the whole Kingdom of England against him And Polydore saith Hinc colligere licet vel Edovardum non servasse fidem Gulielmo quam à principio de hereditate regni non satis considerate dedisset vel nullum quod verisimilius est fecisse promissum Angl. hist lib. 8. This he gathereth from that which Edward spake to Haraldus whileas he prayed GOD that either he would avert the comming of England into the Conquerours hand or else that he would keep him back from it so long as he lived Therefore to me it is more then apparent that the Confessour did not in his Testament assigne the Conquerour to the Crown albeit Salmasius alledgeth the contrary Def. Reg. cap. 8. What Doth not Polydore tell us that because Edgarus was of young and tender years he was not admitted by the people to reigne And fearing lest the Conquerour should succeed to the Crown they rejoyced greatly that Harald took upon him to reigne in Edward's room Whereat as may be learned from Polydore Edward was not displeased himself but very well satisfied that Harald should succeed to him Whereupon we fear not to say that not onely the power of enkiâ—ging was in the people's hands but also that the Confessour did not promise the Kingdom to the Conquerour after him although the contrary be alledged And is it likely that the people would have so much declined and withstood the Conquerour if Edward had assigned him to the Crown as his heir No verily for they adored him as their Law-giver It is known that Rufus was but third son to the Conquerour and yet he was created King Him the people preferred before Robert his eldest brother What Would they have done so if blood-right by the Law of the Kingdom had been the title to the Crown No verily It is remarkable that Rufus was ordained King and it was not so much as objected that Robert was elder then he he being but the third son to the Conquerour and Robert being the eldest Yea Rufus dying without children they appointed Henry the Conquerours fourth son King as yet passing-by Robert the eldest And which is more though Henry 1. had left in his Testament his daughter Mathildis together with her sons as heirs of the Kingdom yet notwithstanding the people created Steven Nephew to Henry 1. By the authority of Parliament it was ordained that Steven so long as he lived should enjoy the Kingdom of England and that Henry 2. son to Mathildis daughter to Henry 1. should succeed to Steven in the Kingdom of England passing-by any that was begotten by Steven Likewayes the people created John King although K. Richard dying without heirs had left Arthure son to Gaufredus who was elder then John heir to the Crown I might speak more for clearing this purpose but I forbear judging this sufficient Whence it is more then evident that the Crown of England since the dayes of Edward the Confessour by no Law of the Kingdom is hereditary I confesse since that time now and then the Kings eldest son did succeed and was holden as Heâ—r of the Kingdom But this was onely by custome through favour of the Race in which according to the manner of Nations which I must needs call an abuse very ordinarily the first-born is preferred as the onely lawfull Heir of the Crown Therefore seing the Crown of England since that time hath not been at least precisely hereditary to me it seemeth very probable that for that time it hath not been absolute and arbitrary for so the original and fountain-power of enkinging is in the People's hands And consequently in this respect the People are simply above the King as the cause is simply above its effect Philosophers say That causa est nobilior suo effectu And so seing the King of England dependeth from the People no question they have simply a power over him and not he an absolute power over them Secondly Because according to these Laws the liberty of the subject is vindicated and the Prince is subjected to Law Because in Henry 1. his time a Parliament was holden At which time Parliamentary Power by the Law of the Kingdom was declared the Supream and highest Authority for any thing of weight was referred to it So that whatsoever was done
but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he be approved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or forensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i. e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self essentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successours to act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotland had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the foresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain power to defend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Lord of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King with the consent or it the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go confer them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the
authority then what Malignants have now a-dayes And tell me do not Malignants at this day make use of the King 's pretended greatnes and hereditary right to the Crown of Britain for cloaking their knavery and effectuating their malignant purposes Do not you imagine but Papists and Malignants in England had that same reason for them to make use of K. Jame's power What I pray you is the over-word of Papists and Malignants in Britain to-day The King say they is the undoubted heir of the kingdom and absolute in power Who then should rise against him This is even the most they have to cloak their knavery and to cast a lustre upon their Antichristian and malignant endeavours Do you imagine that the devill was sleeping in K. James time No verily And there hath nothing been done these twelve or thirteen years by-gone whether against State or Church but what was moulded then The very plat-form of all was cast in his dayes By the Scotish Parliament his power was declared absolute And by the English Parliament his right to the Crown of England was declared undoubted and hereditary They stood not to swear obedience to him and his posterity into all ages And how far on he drew the power of Episcopacy and how much he acted for intruding the Masse Book upon the Kingdom of Scotland is more then known Many wits and many Pens in his dayes were imployed for carrying-on and effectuating malignant antichristian designments S al. is a child to object from the practice of the English Parliament in K. James time He may as well object for evincing his purpose from the practice of the Parliament holden at Oxford by Charles And if he doth either of them he doth nothing but beggeth the question He telleth us that the Parliament of England K. James an 1. declared and enacted his right to the Kingdom of England to be undoubted hereditary Well I can tell him that William the Conquerour the Normane-Lawgiver doth denie to the King of England any such title or claim to the Crown Diadema regale saith he quòd nullus antecessorum meorum gessit adeptus sum quod divina solummodo gratia non sus contulit haeriditarium Neminem Anglici regni constituo haeredem sed aeterno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim tantum decus haeriditario jure possedi sed diro inflictu multa effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haraldo abstuli interfectis vel fugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi Camd. Brit. chorogr descr which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his successors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtoniensis and other English historians who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and fidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can Salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by oath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasius conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore while as he saith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and inferiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum Mi Salmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatem tuâ—e gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Cokius words doth not speak of the absolutenesse of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa igitur leges hujus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q.
Impune quae libet facere id est Regem esse But Memmius thereby endeavoureth to disswade the Romans to keep themselves by all means possible from the yoke of King Jugurtha hereby insinuating the dangerousnesse and inconveniency of Monarchy just so as Oâ—tanes did to the Persians But neither of them did allow this but taxed it as an unjust and hurtful power in Kings I must needs say Salmasius quoteth Memmius and Ottanes their words as the Devil quoted in tempting Christ Matth. 4. David's words Psa 91. v. 11. That which directly made against the Devil's temptation he held-out and only expressed that which he thought made for his purpose So doth Salmasius straight-forth in quoting the words of Ottanes and Memmius The thing that maketh against him he suppresseth and that which in shew maketh for him he expresseth SUBSECT 2. The rest of the Arguments for enforcing the second Assertion propounded and followed-forth HAving at length discussed all that Salmasius doth or can reply against our second Argument we make ready now to propound the rest of our Arguments whereby the King 's arbitrary power is dismissed And what further may be objected against our second Argument as indeed Royallists do we shall take it off by the way in prosecuting the rest of our Arguments And so by the way we shall meet with these Royallists who with Salmasius do directly militar against our second Argument Now Thirdly we make good our purpose from the power that the Kings of Israel and Judah had And for clearing this you shall be pleased to take notice of these Conclusions Conclus 1. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. For proof of this see 1 Sam. 13.14 15.22.23 c. 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 12.14.15.16.20.22 2 King 3.8.10.13.14.15.16.17.21.24 2 Chr. 10.11.12.18.21.22.24.25.26.27.28.33.36 Conclus 2. The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick There is reason for this for such did reign against Law And why did they not also rule against Law And what can tyrannous Kings do but reduce the people to slavery Now it is known that the Kings of Israel for the most part were of this temper Many of them were cruel tyrants and vile usurpers Therefore is it said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non dicit testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur In cod Sanh 11. This Maimonides expoundeth concerning the kings of Israel in Gemar tract de synedr cap. 11. And this I take to be very true concerning the usurping and tyrannous kings of Israel They did not judge because tyrannous and usurping kings delight in cruelty They seek nothing but their own case and if they act any thing according to Law it is only for the fashion as the tyrant Cambyses did in seeking his german sister in marriage What Such hold will for Law They know nothing but Hoc volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione voluntas Juv. Satyr 6. Such Kings do not judge according to the Law of the Kingdom Neither is there power according to the Law of the Kindom laid upon such What they do is done by themselves unanswerable to any They act will-way and not Law-way They were not judged because they did take power to themselves above all Law It cannot be denied but Salmastus concludeth well from 1 Sam. 8. and 2 Sam. 8. that the King of Israel judged Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he will do well to advert that though this be true Rex judicat concerning the King of Israel according to God's institution the Law of the Nation and the practice of some of their Kings yet this is as true Rex non judicat concerning the ordinary practice of their Kings And it is very observable that Jannaeus whom they called Alexander all the while he did reign over the people of the Jews acted nothing according to Law but tyrannized over them Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 21.22 But in Gem. tract de Syned cap. 11. it is said that because of Jannaeus it was enacted that the king should neither judge nor be judged And if it be true that it was enacted then then do I not think that it was upon that fabalous ground which doth not so much as relish to Salmasius of which the Rabbinick writers speak but because of the tyranny and cruelty of the man who did not govern law-way but will-way And as Alexander so the tyrant Herod had an arbitrary power though we suppose it did depend much from the concession of Antonius Jos Ant. lib. 15. cap. 4. Conclus 3. The good Kings of the Jews because of personall endowments had exemption and immunity from Law This is manifest in the examples of David and Solomon There were two things chiefly in David which were against the Law 1. Multiplication of wives Whereof David had very many 1 Chr. 3. and 14.2 Murder upon the back of adultery 2 Sam. 11. And Solomon did many things contrary to the Law 1. He multiplied gold and silver 2. Horses and Charets 1 Kin. 10. 2 Chron. 9. 3. Wives And 4 he fell into adultery 1. Kin. 11. And yet we read not that either David or Solomon were judged therefore by the Sanhedrin And what I pray you could be the reason of this Not because the king de jure hath immunity from Law Nor because they over-awed the Sanhedrin by force of armes We read nothing of that And you shall not make me believe that the Sanhedrin durst not attempt the executing of justice upon them 1. You thereby put a great note of reproach upon David and Solomon You do no lesse then insinuate a disposition in them for rebellion if you alleadge that the Sanhedrin which de jure as both already and afterward doth appear had power over them durst not for fear of their resistance execute judgment on them That had been a disposition to resist the higer powers which the Holy Ghost condemneth Rom. 13. And I will not think that such men had the Spirit of rebellion to repine against the execution of justice 2. We find that the Sanhedrin did execute justice on Amaziah And the people did so against Athaliah 2 Kin. 11.2 Chr. 23. Which maketh me think that it was not for want of power that David and Solomon were spared Other Kings of Judah were punished for their faults The Sanhedrin and people had power to execute justice on them And why not also on David and Solomon They were all Kings alike And it is very remarkable that after Solomon's death ten tribes declined the house of David because of Solomon's heavy exactions and tributes he laid upon the people 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. I believe they were as powerfull to revolt from Solomon as from Rehoboam And seing the people took so heavily with Solomon's yoke that therefore they did revolt from his son it maketh me think that the Sanhedrin did not spare him for fear
of his power Verily both they and the people have born patiently with his slips and heavy impositions because of his rare and singular qualifications Otherwise I can see nothing for it why the people did not make a mutiny against and revolt from Solomon as against and from Rehoboam 3. Because as both already and afterward doth appear the Sanhedrin both according to GOD's institution and the Law of the nation had authority and jurisdiction above the king But sure I am it had been a very uselesse power if they durst not have exercised it It had been all one to have wanted that authority with wanting power to have put it in execution as occasion served And this had been a having and a non-having power Which is ridiculous and repugnant Neither can you alleadge that they were spared because then judicatories were altogether turned corrupt and knew not what it was to exercise justice for that doth directly militate against the eminent Reformation both of Church and State that was under the reign of both these Kings Therefore seing David and Solomon were spared not because they were absolute nor because the people durst not execute judgement on them nor because the people and judicatories under their reign were altogether dissolute not knowing the way of exercising justice to me it is more then manifest that their delinquency was past-by because of their personall endowments The shining vertues and eminent graces that did appear in them no question have kept back the Sanhedrin from putting hand on them O! what a temptation would it be to me to voice for a David's off-cutting O! how much would my soul be grieved to sentence against a Solomon And shall not I think but those of the Sanhedrin were much taken up with the qualifications of these men as well as I could be with the vertues of such-like I cannot think that I am singular in this In the interim observe that my meaning is not that they had such a vast power as Salmasius dreameth of I do not think that ever the Sanhedrin would have spared them unlesse they could not have done otherwayes if they had turned positive and even-down tyrants and destroyers of the Commonwealth But onely my meaning is that because of their eminent qualifications they had immunity from Law in some notes of delinquency Neither do I speak that they had this priviledge de jure but de facto Thus you see that this is no argument for Royallists who object the Sanhedrin's sparing of David and Solomon as a ground of the King 's arbitrary power And in this none is more ready then Salmasius Def. Reg. cap. 5. But they shall do well shortly to observe these things 1. They were spared because of their personal endowments They were extraordinary men Therefore they were extraordinarily priviledged They got an inch to the yard and piece beyond common Now ab extraordinariis ad ordinaria non est sequela 2. It cannot be denied but they got a dispensation for some points of delinquency But Royallists have to prove that they positively tyrannized over the Commonwealth and destroyed it and notwithstanding had exemption and immunity from law This I am sure they can never make good 3. This speaketh something of the exemption of Kings from Law de facto But Royallists when they have said this have as yet to prove that this factum is de jure Inst O but say they de jure David and if he then also Solomon and all other kings beside had immunity from Law for he saith Against thee thee only have I sinned Psal 51. And they take this to be the meaning of the place as if David had been subject to none but to God And for this namely they cite Ambrose in Apolog. Dav. cap. 10. l. 2. Epist 7. See Deus Rex and Salmasius def reg cap. 3. But this is the main prop that all Royallists have for setting-up the arbitrary and lawless power of the King Ans I shall not stand here to repeat the judgment of Interpreters Our learned and dear Countryman Lex Rex quaest 26. of this speaketh abundantly But in few words I expound the words thus They are to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuating that David had mainly sinned against the LORD and that David was more grieved for his sins in so far as they offended GOD then in so far as they offended man No question they are to be considered in an hyperbolick sense They must not be taken in an exclusive but in an inclusive notion Just so as are these words I am the LORD and there is none else Isa 45. Deut. 4. Now this cannot be taken literally and simply as it is propounded Otherwise it should follow that there were no creature beside the Creator and no other thing beside the LORD And yet it is known that there are Angels men and many other creatures Therefore their sense is meerly figurative and hyperbolick pointing-out the eminency of GOD's essence Even so David thereby aggravateth his grief for his offence done against the LORD He only repeateth his sin done against GOD. But he speaketh nothing expresly of it as it was done against Bathshebah and Uriah No reason can be given for this but because it more grieved him that he had offended God then man And so as a man only taken-up with thoughts of guiltiness and miscarriage in order to God he only harpeth upon that string As a man over-charged with sorrow for sin done against God can take no time to think upon his offence to man So David carrieth himself just so here And yet it cannot be denied but he sinned both against Bathshebah and Uriah Otherwise in so far as he committed adultery with the one and murder against the other in so far he did not sin And consequently he was excusable both before God and man Where there is no sin there is no Law Our godly and dear Country-man would fain put a fair construction upon Ambrose saying that his meaning is There was none above David de facto ibid. But the simple truth is Ambrose is altogether of Salmasius opinion Rex utique erat saith he nullis ipse legibus tenebatur c. Any man that speaketh so plain language to this purpose as he doth 't is but lost travel to glosse it But if we compare Ambrose's practice with his judgment we will find the one contrary to the other It is reported of him That he did excommunicate Emperour Theodosius and would not suffer him to enter the Church so called till firstly he did satisfie for his slaughter committed amongst the Thessalonians Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 17. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 24. Hondorf Lonic theatr hist exempl 5. praec We admire how Ambrose could do so much against the Emperour in action seing to his practice he is contrary in profession I cannot over-leap an interpretation which Salmasius citeth out of one whom he calleth Anonymus He alleadgeth that David
seasonable Yet I remit it to any indifferent reader to judge whether or not the people could have desired Rehoboam to lessen the yoke of his father and the old men could have counselled him to serve the people and satisfie their desire without the note of highest treason if he had been their absolute lord And if you deny that de jure they had any such power then do I gain the point Inst Salmasius hath no more to say against this But 1 they did not accuse condemn and bring Rehoboam to death as the English rebels dealt with K. Charles 2. There is none who will not condemn Jeroboam as an apostate and rebell and impute rebellion to all his successours Def. reg cap. 4. Ans This is a meer shifting of the question What is it to the purpose that the people of Israel did not accuse condemn and cut-off Rehoboam Will it therefore follow that he had an arbitrary and lording power or that they went not about to eclipse his power and to keep it within bounds The contrary of that is shewed already And I think Salmasius will say that they had not reason to cut-off Rehoboam He did no more but threatned them with heavy pressures and grievous impositions and that through the suggestion of wicked and evill counsell We read not that he had tyrannized over them and had put any thing in action which he threatened them with And yet they say What portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse Every man to your tents O Israel and now David see to thine own house 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. My friend were they any thing behinde with Rehoboam in this And I am sure they did as much against Rehoboam in revolting from him and in setting another King over them upon his threatning them with tyranny as if they should have cut him off if at any time he had actually exercised tyranny upon them Consideratis considerandis the case is just one They declined him upon his profession of tyranny And I pray imagine you but they would have dealt far more roughly with him if he had put it in action Did they not stone Adoram to death who was sent out by the King to them And was not the King constrained to flee to Jerusalem for fear of his life after they had revolted from him Yea were they not alwaies in a posture to have withstood the King if he had come against them in arms 1 King 12. 13. 2 Chron. 10. 11. I cannot stand here to dispute whether or not they did lawfully revolt from him But sure I am I may very justly determine upon either of these two 1. That Jeroboam was a vile idolater and was not worthy to be a King 2. That the people justly desired Rehoboam to dimit of the power which his father had and that the old men did arightly counsel Rehoboam to do so Neither of these doth Salmasius deny And so I gain the point as is already proved Fourthly from the People of the Jews processing their Kings So did they against Athaliah 2 King 11. 2 Chron. 23. and Amaziah 2 King 14. 2 Chron. 25. See subsect 2. prop. 1. And as they processed their Kings so did they resist them as afterward is shewed But I pray you could they have done such things lawfully if their Kings had had an arbitrary power over them And that they did such things according to Law and Reason is proved by us Fifthly If Ahab had had an absolute power I see no reason how he could have been refused of Naboth's Vineyard 1 King 21 Sure I am if he had had a prerogative above Law and a power to dispose according to his pleasure either upon the goods or the person of the subject he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard at his own hand without so much as demanding it with Naboth's leave And yet the text saith That Naboth having refused to give it him he went home much dismaid and refused to eat bread because Naboth had denied it to him And which is more he could not get it till a false processe was led against Naboth by the craft of Jezebel But is it imaginable that ever such things would have been done if Ahab's power had been arbitrary and uncircumscribed No verily No question if his power had been boundlesse by vertue of a Royal Act he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard either without grieving himself or without leading a false processe against Naboth And therefore Mr. Withers al. Tom Plain-man saith notably Why I pray Did Ahab grieve that Naboth said him nay Why made he not this answer thereunto If what the Prophet said some Kings would do Were justly to be done Thy Vineyard's mine And at my pleasure Naboth all that 's thine Assume I may Why like a Turkey-chick Did he so foolishly grow sullen sick And get possession by a wicked fact Of what might have been his by Royal Act If such Divinity as this were true The Queen should not have needed to pursue Poor Naboth as she did or so contrive His death since by the King's Prerogative She might have got his Vineyard nor would God Have scourg'd that murder with so keen a rod On Ahab had he asked but his due For he did neither plot nor yet pursue The murder nor for ought that we can tell Had knowledge of the deed of Jezebel Till God reveal'd it by the Prophet to him Nor is it said that Naboth wrong did do him Or disrespect in that he did not yeeld To sell or give or to exchange his field Brit. Remembr Cant. 8. Now hereby is made to appear That the Kings of the Jews were not absolute whether according to the Law of God or the Law of the Kingdom And why then do Royallists plead so much for the King 's arbitrary power seing the Jewish Kings de jure had it not Which maketh me think other Kings far lesse should have it for the ordination of the Jewish Kings did depend from God in a most special way and God therein was most intimatly concerned We must not think that the Kings of Judah after the captivity de jure had any priviledge above Law more then those who preceded them According to the Law of God they had no such priviledge as is shewed already And that according to the Law of the Nation they had it not is also evident 1. Because after the captivity the state of the Government was changed And they had not so much as Kingly Government much lesse absolute Monarchy till Aristobulus firstly usurped the Crown Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 19. 2. Because the people did withstand the tyrant Alexander And while as he was dying he was necessitate to exhort his wife who succeeded to him to dimit of his power and to promise to govern according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours and Pharisees Ant. Jud. lib. 13. cap. 22 23. Which she did accordingly
as relating either to the Sea under the Law or to that which is navigable for as the one was long before the out-powring of the second vial so the other to speak properly is uncapable of being plagued Moreover it is very unheard-of that the navigable Sea should be turned into blood the third part of the living creatures in it should die c. as be competent to the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3 compared with chap. 8.8.9 Neither can it be understood comparatively because here it is taken absolutely And none will say that it is the Glassy Sea in the new Jerusalem On such the vials of Gods wrath will never be poured It therefore remaineth to say that God in powring-out the vials upon the Sea destroyeth the Forces of the Nations and blocketh-up all their trading and traffique which he doth by casting a mountain burning with fire into the Sea Rev. 8.8 that is by stretching-out his hand upon the destroying mountain Babylon rouling her down from the rocks and making her a burnt mountain Jer. 51.2 5. The fall of Babylon is upon the powers of the Nations and her fall making them to fall for the powers and forces of the Nations be one of the pillars of the Babylonish-state the Armies of the Earth siding with the Beast and False-Prophet Rev. 19.10 against the Ancient of dayes and his Armies v. 11 12. So that the fall of Babylon can no otherwise be accomplished and brought to pass but as it bringeth along with it the ruin and the overthrow of the Forces of the Nations Hag. 2.22 compared with Rev. 19.20 21. Thus the fall of Babylon shal be upon the Forces of the Nations in so far as their overthrow is begotten as its ruin is intended and accomplished The third party plagued is the Waters and fountains of waters Rev. 16.4 I do find waters these several waies taken in the Scriptures 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.6 2 for a calm and spiritual state Psa 23.2 3 for crosses and afflictions Psa 69.1 2. 4 for the vengeance and judgment of God Psa 73.10 5 for the graces and Spirit of God Isa 55.1 compared with Job 4.14 and 7.38 39. 6 for the Nations as also their Head and Glory Isa 8.7 Rev. 17.15 Moreover fountains of waters are taken diversly in the Scriptures 1 for the heads springs of the elementary and physical waters Gen. 7.11 2 for goods and possessions Pro. 5.16 3 for the springs of spiritual graces Isa 41.18 Rev. 7.17 Beside I do find the word as it is taken in the singular number more variously understood then as it is taken in the plural viz. for the spring of physical waters Gen. 16.7 a womans fountain Levit. 20.18 possession and habitation Deut. 33.28 God himself Jer. 2.13 the Law of the wise Pro. 13.14 the fear of the Lord Prov. 14.27 the Church of Christ Cant. 4.12.15 spoken of the eye of man Jer. 9.1 In this place by waters must needs be understood the Nations and by the fountains of waters the glory of the same Sure I am no man in reason will say That the plaguing of the elementary waters of spiritual graces spiritual quietness afflictions and judgment or any such like thing is intended in the out-pouring of the third vial No verily but the ruin and desolation of the Nations together with the head and glory thereof And that because the Nations and great ones of the Earth be two main pillars by which Babylon is underpropped for as the Whore doth sit upon the Nations Rev. 17.1.15 so the great men of the Earth bewail her desolation Rev. 18.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.23 yea and side with her as she engageth against the Saints of the Most High Rev. 19.19 A great Star from Heaven burning as a Lamp shal fall upon the waters and their fountains Rev. 8.10 by which the waters shall be enbittered as with wormwood v. 11. so that many of them shall die being turned into blood and made bitter Rev. 8.11 compared with chap. 17.4 Which waters and fountains thereof be the very destroyers and persecutors of the Saints Rev. 16.6 expounded to be Babylon and such as side with her Rev. 18.24 Behold how the Lord in overthrowing Babylon maketh its King and Lucifer Isa 14.4 compared with v. 12. to fall from his throne and dignity Whose fall seiseth upon the Nations and the great ones of the Earth by which they are enbittered and enraged making die and made to die And that because the ruin of Babylon is attended and accomplished with the fall of the Nations Rev. 16.19 and overthrow of Kings Rev. 19.20 21. the Lord of hosts staining the pride of all glory and bringing into contempt all the honourable of the Earth Isa 23.9 Whereupon the heathen shall rage and the people imagine a vain thing the Kings of the Earth shall set themselves and the Rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed Psa 2.1 2. So that as they shall be enbittered making many die many men dying of the waters because of their bitterness so they themselves shall be destroyed the waters and fountains thereof turning into blood And thus the three main props of Babylon shall be quite overturned viz. the forces of the Nations their heads and the Nations themselves the Lord overturning overturning overturning Babylon that it be no more until he come whose right it is the Lord giving unto his Son the Diadem and the Crown Ezek. 21.26 27. anointing him King on his holy Hill Zion laying the Government on his shoulders in the day of his Personal Appearance And thus there is an overturn for every pillar of Babylon The fourth party plagued is the Sun Rev. 16.8 which in Scripture is taken these several wayes 1 for the physical and visible Sun Gen. 15.12 2 God himself Psa 84.11 3 Christ Cant. 1.6 Mal. 4.2 4 by way of comparison it is taken for the Church Cant. 6.10 5 the chief though transformed light or the Lucifer of an Antichristian and Babylonish state Isa 13.10 compared with chap. 14.12 Jer. 15.9 Ezek. 32.7 Joel 2.10 31. chap. 3.15 Amos 8.9 Mic. 3.6 Matth. 24.29 Mark 13.24 Acts 2.20 Rev. 6.12 6 a main and chief light of the Church of God Isa 30.26 No man in reason will say that in the out-powring of the fourth vial is understood the plaguing of God of Christ which to aver is blasphemy or any such like thing but the darkning the Lucifer of Babylon or the main pretended light of the antichristian state with spiritual darkness So that all the transformed and pretended lights of the Babylonish state shall be in a great part thereof smitten with darknes Rev. 8.12 having their understanding darkened being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart Ephes 4.18 God sending them strong delusion that they should beleeve a lye 2 Thess 2.11 The fifth party plagued is