purpose we argue thus Eâ—ther Athaliah had the right and authority of a King or not If she had the right and authority of a King ergo if the King be of an absolute power and not subject to Law then Athaliah was no more subject to Law then any other King for as Salmasius and all Royallists will have it the King is of an absolute power and not subject to Law And consequently Athaliah being invested with the right of a Kingly power and authority she was no more subject to Law then any other of the Kings of Judah Therefore if you say that Athaliah was invested with the right and authority of a King you must either commend the practice of Jehojadah and the people in killing her or else you must change your opinion and not imagine Kings to be absolute and not subject to Law If she had not the right and authority of a King then either because she usurped the Kingdom and intruded her-self upon it contrary to the consent of the People or because she did cut-off the righteous heirs of the Kingdom and set up her-self in the Kingdom or else because according to the Law women ought not to govern Not the first because according to the Doctrine of Royallists conquest is a lawfull title to the Crown But Athaliah conquered the Crown of Judah to her-self What more I pray you did she in intruding her-self upon the Kingdom of Judah then unjust Conquerers do in thrusting themselves in upon the kingdoms which they subdue As she intruded her-self without the free consent and election of the People so do they And yet Salmasius with the rest of his Brethren will have such Conquerers lawful heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms which they subdue Nor can you say the second because conquerers who subdue other men's kingdoms cut-off all those who by pretended blood-right claim a title to the Crown And yet Royallists will have such lawfull heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms to which they have no title but the sword Nor can you say the third because all Royallists admit Royal birth a just and absolute title to the Crown But women no less then men may be and are of the Royall Off-spring And consequently if the doctrine of Royallists be true and unless Salmasius will contradict himself women may as lawfully govern as men Therefore it doth not follow that because Athaliah was a woman she had not right to govern the People of the Jews and reign over them I confesse by Royall birth she had no title to the Crown But she conquered the Crown to her-self and did reign six years with the consent of the People But sure I am Salmasius and all the Royallâ—sts as they hold the consent of the People as a necessary ingredient to make-up the lawfulness of the title to the Crown so they maintain conquest without all exception to be a just and lawful title thereto But what need I thus to stand do not I know that Salmasius and the whole nation of Royalists will have the formall and essentiall being of the King to consist in an absolute and illimited power But any person whether man or woman usurper or non-usurper is capable of such a power and may be invested therewith And consequently though Athaâ—iah was but a woman and an usurper it doth not follow that because she was such therefore she was not of an absolute and arbitrary power The greatest of Tyrants and the worst of women is capable of such a power And the power is not changed because of the change of the person and of such and such qualifications in him Such things are meerly extrinsecal to the nature of the power it-self So then if the King be formally a King because he is of an illimited and arbitrary power I see no reason why Athaliah did not reign as a King for she was capable of such a power wherein according to the doctrine of Royallists the essentiall frame of a King doth consist And consequently seing she did reign in stead of the King of Judah and exercised his authority there is no reason why she was not absolute and unsubject to Law as well as he Therefore Salmasius must either leave-off his opinion and not imagine that the Kings of Judah were absolute and not subject to Law or else he must cry-down the laudable practice of Jehojadah and of the People in killing Athaliah For shame he will not do this Propos 2. Except the Lacoedemonian kingdom there was no kingdom in old wherein absolute and uncircumscribed Monarchy was not erected though in some more remiss and in others more intense For proof of this Salmasius sheweth what was the condition of Monarchy in the Assyrian Egyptian Jewish Median Persian Grecian and Roman kingdoms Of the Jewish kingdom we have spoken already and more of it afterward in a more convenient place As for the Assyrian kingdom together with the Median he proveth that kings in them were absolute and un-subject to Law because such was the condition of the kings of Persia This he maketh good from Ottanes the Persian who defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herod lib. 3. Yea Artabanus averreth That no Law amongst the Persians was more commendable then that whereby they enacted that the King should be honoured as the Image of God Plut. in vit Themist And Claudian saith That they gave a like obedience to cruel and tyrannous Kings Therefore saith Salmasius seeing the Medians succeeded to the Assyrians and the Persians to the Medians it appeareth that as the Kings of Persia so the Kings of Assyria and Media were absolute and not subject to Law And though the Egyptian Kings before they were subdued by the Persians were hemmed-in by the bonds of Law in every thing that they did yet notwithstanding we never reade that at any time they brought any of their Kings upon the stage and caused them to suffer for their Delinquencie They did bear the yoke of two cruel tyrants Busiris and Cambyses most patiently without reluctancie Which Cambyses because of his cruelty the Jews called Nebuchodonozor He desired in marriage his german sister and so calling a Councel he demanded at his Counsellors if there was any Law in Persia which did permit such a marriage They desirous to gratifie their King told him That they found a Law whereby the King of Persia was permitted to do any thing he pleased Herod lib. 3. As for the Grecian Empire it is known saith Salmasius that Agamemnon had an absolute power over that Army which be led on against the Trojans And therefore he is called Rex Regum And Aeschylus calleth the King of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncensurable Governour So Homer calleth the Grecian Kings Kings made by Jupiter reigning by and holding their Crown of him He calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings trained up by Jupiter Philip saith that the King hath equal power with
disobedient but not rebels to Noah They acted against his will but not in despight of his will They took not liberty from him to do his will though they took liberty to do their own will also We can not think that the light of Nature was so far extinguished in them that they did not honour him as their father A debording son as Esau can entertain Isaac with Venison though he walk not in his wayes And I do not think if they had not honoured him as their common father unlesse they had been extraordinarily restrained they had destroyed him and all his followers Sure I am they wanted not power to do so The godly party was but an handful in respect of them What then I pray you could be the ordinary mean of their restraint but their natural respect and affection toward him Nay they honoured him so much that they esteemed him their Coelum their Sol their Chaos the semen mundi yea and the father both of the greater and lesser gods Ber. ant lib. 3. And what we have spoken of Noah the like also may be said of Adam Before the Flood there was also a golden age 1556 years Wherein men lived as under one common father each of them knowing the intimate relations one to another until Monarchy was erected till the close of the 500 year of Noah's age as is shewed already Before which time Adam had died 626 years and Seth 514 years But so long as Adam lived what superiority Noah had over his posterity in the golden age after the Flood Adam had it rather in a more then lesse measure then he Adam was not onely their common father but also he was their first and primary father As we have evinced the truth of this point from examples in Scripture so we may evidence it from examples in humane Histories V. G. The Mitylenians gave to Pittacus an absolute power of governing because of his personal endowments Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. de Pit Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. The like power did the Athenians confer upon Solon upon the same accompt Diog. La. de Sol. Plut. in Sol. So it is alledged that James 6. because of his pretended personal endowments obtained an absolute power and a negative voice in Parliament In the interim observe That those who allow absolute Monarchy because of personal endowments do not imagine that Kings have an absolute power because they are Kings but as they are such Kings i. e. Kings not only in respect of station but also in respect of qualification exceeding all others And so they conclude that a King so qualified may very conveniently be entrusted with an absolute power for they apprehend that though such a man have power above Law yet will he not act against Law And likewise they imagine that such a man being in all respects above all men both in respect of station and qualification can no wayes be inferiour to any man Thus Aristotle inclineth to absolute Monarchy of this moulding Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11 12. Conclus 4. Kings in old were of an absolute power without the bounds of all restriction by vertue of purchase and conquest So were the grand Heroes as is shewed already Hence was it that Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of the Persians had an absolute power over the People of the Jews Conclus 5. Kings in old by meer usurpation and tyranny had an absolute power without any circumscription So Pharaoh had an absolute power over the children of Israel and the wicked Kings of Judah at least of Israel over their people Thus Nebuchadnezzar had an absolute power not only over the people of the Jews but also over all his subjects Of whom it is said Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set-up and whom he would he put-down Dan. 5. After this manner Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes had an absolute power over the people of the Jews though we deny not but what either of them did act or intend against the Jewes was by the mediation of evil Counsellours So had Herod an absolute power Matth. 2. Jos Ant. lib. 15. Yet we deny not but it was through other men's means more then his own that he had a power to tyrannize and govern at random The ten persecuting Kings Dan. 7. Rev. 13. had an absolute power over the People of God But moe examples of Tyrants you may read Judg. 1. and 9. 2 Sam. 21. Mat. 27. Luke 23. Act. 12. In the books of Apocrypha as Tob. 1. Jude 2. 3. 1 Macc. 10. 2 Mac. 4.14 c. See also Beros Ant. lib. 1. Diog. La. lib. 6. Plut. de Dionys Brus lib. 6. cap. 21. Arist Pol. lib. 5. cap. 10. What needeth us so to accumulate quotations and examples when as it is evident both from divine and prophane writ that there have been almost tot Tyranni quot Reges Conclus 6. Vnlesse it had been for some of these causes above-written there was never at any time any King so absolute but one way or other according to Law his power was restricted In establishing this Conclusion we observe this order Firstly we prove the point from example And in doing so you will do well to observe that examples to this purpose are of a twofold kind 1. There are some which point-out to us That Kings in old were no lesse subject to Law then any of the People 2. Some of them shew to us That though the King's power for the most part hath been absolute yet notwithstanding in some case or other it hath been hemmed-in by Law Of the first kind we have examples both in the dayes of the Heroes and in after-times That in the dayes of the Heroes some Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then the People may be examplified both from the Commonwealth of the Jews as also from the condition of some Kingdoms amongst the Gentiles But we forbear till afterward to speak any thing of the Jewish Commonwealth And amongst the Heathen you have to begin with the ancient and stately Kingdom of Egypt It cannot be denied but the Kings of Egypt in old were most precisely hedged-in by Law Whatsoever they did was according to Law They walked they washed they lay with their wives they did eat and drink according to Law They wrote Letters and dispatched Messages according to Law It was not permitted to them to treasure-up silver to judge or punish any at random and according to their pleasure but as privat men they were subjected to the Laws the yoke of which they did bear patiently willingly submitting themselves thereto and esteemed themselves happy to be subject to them Diod Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. This Diodore as he confesseth himself hath from the writings of the Egyptian Priests which he diligently searched as he saith Out of whose writings he giveth us three reasons why the Kings of Egypt were for the most part good and kept
called Gods and we are commanded to honour them as GOD's Vicegerents yet doth it not follow that according to Scripture-stile they are absolute and have an arbitrary power And we admit that of Claudian who saith that the Persians gave alike obedience to cruel and tyranous Kings Therefore was it that by the very Law of the kingdom arbitrary power was conferred upon their Kings and continued so long as the Persian Monarchy endured And though the Persian King had an absolute power in making yet not in breaking Laws as is said already It is already shewed by us That in some things the power of the Persian King was restricted Salmasius needeth not to tell us that the Egyptians did not bring their Kings to the Stage This is blocked-up already from his fingers And though they did bear much with Cambyses it was no wonder for he subdued them And what can a subdued people do but suffer And 't is known that Cambyses himself was a vile tyrant Therefore the story of Judeth calleth him Nabuchodonosor So saith Josephus also And Ottanes addeth to that Herod lib. 3. And what can Tyrants do but tyrannize Such are very ready to usurp an arbitrary power concl 5. As for Busiris I cannot think that ever the Egyptians had any such King though Isocrates saith so I confesse I read of such a man in Diodore Rer. ant lib. 2. cap. 1. But I can read little or nothing of him either in Berosus or in Manetho 'T is true Berosus Ant. lib. 5. saith That Busiris was King of Phoenicia So saith Diodore Ant. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Herodot reporteth That Sennacherib invading Egypt the Egyptians went about to help him against their own King Sethon because he abused them and did not his duty to them Lib. 2. Thus we see that the Aegyptians did hardly bear with tyrannous kings This at length is shewed already And what power Agamemnon had over the Grecian Army as also what power the Grecian Kings had how they were absolute and how not is shewed abundantly already It is no matter that Philip saith That the king hath equal power with God So did Caligula arrogat an arbitrary and God-like power to himself Suet in Cal. cap. 29. 'T is the least thing that tyrannous kings can do to plead for more interest then either GOD or Nature hath conferred on them And Ecphantas calleth the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because he should be governed by none but because he is above every one seorsim In which notion he is above all and subject to none Yet this doth not conclude but he is subject to the people or their Representative But knowing that there are many Court-parasites I regard not though you reckon-up Ecphantas amongst them Yea it is already shewed by us That the Roman Kings were regulated And albeit we should grant that Romulus was an absolute Prince yet would Salmasius gain just nothing for by his conduct and industry he made the Romans a People And we have said already that such kings from whose conduct the people's welfare doth intimatly depend have been absolute But the case of such is extraordinary And as for that which Pomponius saith it needeth a distinction It cannot be denied but Romulus had a pambasilick power before the Senat was erected by him But after it was established we deny that he had any such power as is shewed already This distinction you almost find in terminis Digest lib. 1. tit 2. l 2. where Pomponius words are cited This way also Tacitus is to be understood We confesse the Roman Emperours have immunity from Law and that according to the very Law of the kingdom Princeps legibus solutus est Dig. lib. 1. tit 3. l. 31. And upon this ground say Severus and Antoninus Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. And it cannot be denied but Dio approveth that same Law So do all king-flatterers Yet Dion lib. 51. saith That this Law was enacted firstly in favour of Octavius And no wonder for he subdued and overcame all that stood by the liberties and priviledges of the people But the Conquerour may rule at random as is often said already So Darius and Cyrus having subdued the Assyrians obtained the like priviledge not only to themselves but also to their successours In such a case we deny not but kings have had an absolute and arbitrary power But though Augustus obtained this priviledge yet sure I am the Dictatours had it not as is shewed already I confesse Diotogenes doth compare the King with GOD in some respects i. e. As GOD is first by Nature and in Himself and hath power over all the creatures so the King by way of imitation and resemblance is first and hath power on earth But I read not a word in him of his comparing the King with GOD in the matter of absoluteness And sure I am he could not make a comparison in order to GOD under the notion of arbitrary power for GOD's essence knoweth not what it is to act against Law and to tyrannize Yet I do verily think that the man is of Salmasius judgment for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The King hath an unsubjected power And we do not deny but Justinian Novel constit 105. saith That the King is above Law He calleth himself also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nov. constit 1. tit 1. Yet sure I am Plutarch doth not say so though Salmasius doth father it falsly upon his name And truly for my self I think it a great wonder that Plutarch being a great Courtier with Trajan the Emperour did not swear what Justinian spoke 'T is the least things Kings can do to say They are absolute and Courtiers to seal it with an Oath A flattering Tacitus can say Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt And Virgil before him deluding Augustus with flattery blusheth not to say Divisum imperium cum Jove Caesar habet But this may be admired That Plutarch a most eminent Courtier in plain terms saith Lex omnium regina Com. in Princ. But more of this afterward And though Emperour Justinian claimed an arbitrary power yet neither Theopompus nor Lycurgus do so But you shall hear more of this afterward Well I think it just nothing for Salmasius to tell me that Kings and Courtiers do plead for an arbitrary power to the King They both hold that as their interest and what the one saith the other sweareth But he must think it very material and take it to his second thoughts that both Kings and Courtiers do decline and abominate arbitrary and illimited power Friend there is not self-interest here But the other way you cannot say so much And what is it that interest will not make a man do who regardeth nothing but self-ends As the one way partiality so the other way impartiality taketh room And as for Salust truly Salmasius wrongeth him very much It is not his opinion
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
A PLEA FOR LIBERTY In Vindication of the COMMONVVEALTH OF ENGLAND Wherein is demonstrated from Scripture and Reason Together with the consent of the chiefest Polititians Statists Lawyers Warriours Oratours Historians Philosophs and the example of the chiefest Republicks a Commonwealth of all Politick States to be the best Against SALMASIUS and others By a Friend to Freedome Printed in the Year 1655. To the READER THough my broken speech can adde nothing to the worth of this Treatise yet I judge it my duty to utter some few words concerning it I know Truth in all ages hath had many enemies some men asking what it is and some contradicting and opposing And surely that truth which crosseth most the vanity glory and pride of this world is most opposed by the men of this world in whom the Prince of the power of the air worketh Yea and any truth which in former ages hath not appeared unto the sons of light but hath been under a cloud the Sun of Righteousness in whose light Saints see light being pleased not to make the cloud flee away is seen and scarce clearly seem but by few who are of the day and not of the night Hence is it that many who are light even oppose such a truth No wonder then though the truth spoken of here be so much opposed seing it not only crosseth the vanity of a vain-glorious age but also hath been so long over-clouded Howsoever it is very necessary to be known Doubtest thou whether it be lawful for thee to submit to the present Government the Power of the King being in thy apprehension absolute without the bounds of Law or the Kingly Government being the choicest and best and so not be altered far better then a Commonwealth or it being unlawful to resist the King and decline his Authority Thou shalt find these things fully and largely cleared from arguments of all sorts To the Law and to the Testimony of the Spirit of Truth that compleat rule they are brought In the ballance of Reason they are weighed But if that shall not suffice thee who eyest much the examples of Politick Governments and sayings of men These arguments also are to be found here You shall find that even certain of your Poets Kings Law-makers Historians Orators Philosophers have said so as saith this Treatise And that this Government is neither new-found out nor usurped nor bad and dangerous but by example of the first and best the oldest sweetest and most to be desired and by lawful practises of old far from usurpation But if thou imaginest that thou art engaged by the League and Covenant to stand for Monarchy and so canst not take a contrary Engagement That case also is answered and cleared here I counsel thee who doubtest to search whether the things which are laid down in the Treatise as truths be so or not That is Nobility indeed O! if the sons of men could learn to be Berean-like more noble then those of Thessalonica Shut not thine eyes stop not thine ears at the seeing and hearing of things of such use and concernment But poss bly courteous Reader thou art fully perswaded in thy mind of the truths spoken-of in this Book and therefore apprehendest it to be useless or born out of due time Well but art thou so full of knowledge and so clear in the thing that thou canst not receive any more Be not received It may be thou shalt receive greater information therein if it pleaseth thee diligently to weigh and consider Dâ—st thou engage thy life estate name oâ— pains 〈◊〉 way or other in defence of that truth which here by arguments is defended thou shalt do well to inform thy self well and to strengthen thy self with good and sound grounds that with the better and cleaner conscience or greater courage thou mayest go on thy way Moreover if the Book had come forth when first it was written thou couldst not but have said it had been born in the due time But hitherto it hath been hindered Yet I suppose it is born in a due time if we look upon the greatest part of men And if the spirits of men chiefly of such as know not this truth were so framed as in moderation impartiality and simplicity to read the Treatise they should rejoyce at the birth thereof and say it is very seasonable Yea and find more perhaps in it then in others of that same nature They would see the adversaries of these truths discomfited and overthrown by their own weapons in which they so much glory even by Reason the testimonies of men and that of all stations and conditions and example of the most refined Policies and Governments And what obscurity or obstrusness is in the Book it is because of such boasters whose mouthes the Author judged expedient to stop with arguments of that kind and so to beat them from that place in which they thought their strength did lie I have no more to adde but do again wish that without prejudice malice envie hatred selfishness in moderation and sobriety thou wouldst peruse the Treatise and I dare say thou shouldst receive more good thereby then possibly thou in the least expectest And for thine ease I have written the heads of it as so many Assertions or Conclusions I leave thee and it to the disposal of Him who ruleth all things in the Army of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth whose Kingdom and Dominion are everlasting in whose hand the hearts of the most mighty are as the rivers of water and He turneth them whithersoever he will And do remain Thy ingenuous wel-wisher DAVID PIERSON ANAGRAM MONARCHIE and DEMOCRACIE described under the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desirous of reigning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Asse and the upper part of an Asse-mill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most strong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He MilstONe like weighs-down and grinds the state The people poor Asse-like enslaveth and He Reigns alone and Hath an AnCIEnt date 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 People Do rule Electing who command MOst strong and best he 's and from Clear debate Makes Right Appear and Causeth IudgmEnt stand And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 best Doth signifie Thu is me thinks Pure ARISTOCRACIE THE CONTENTS Of the whole BOOK SECT I. THe Power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot belaw fully contraveened pag. 2 The King hath not a Power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason p. 6 SUBSECT 1. The Jewish Sanhedrin had power over the Kings of Israel and Judah p. 11 Because of extraordinary
Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 141 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free Vâ—NDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i. e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey
a sinfull and unlawfull power Unlesse you may also say that we may lawfully engage our selves by oath and Covenant to maintain and obey the ordinance of Satan 2. He speaketh of such a power which is not for maintaining vice and allowing that which is evill but for correcting and punishing of evill-doers Be not hastie to go out of his sight so do knaves who hate the light stand not in an evil thing Why for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him c. Would the Holy Ghost say ye must not dare to do evill and with-draw your selves preposterously from the Kings presence for he hath a power conferred on him that cannot be contraveened in executing justice on malefactors And therefore if ye transgresse be sure the King will punish you So then this manifestly holdeth out to us that the Holy Ghost speaketh in this place of such a power in Kings which exerciseth good and performeth that which according to the Law of GOD is incumbent to the Kingly power to do But sure I am illimited Monarchy whose power is also to do evill can spare the malefactour and punish the righteous The Holy Ghost speaketh of a Kingly power that produceth contrary effects 3. The Holy Ghost subjoyneth Whose keepeth the commandment shal feel no evil thing Then this must be a just and lawfull commandment otherwise obedience to it would bring forth death Rom. 6. But sure we are this cannot be spoken concerning a boundlesse and arbitrary Regall power for as Solomon here speaketh of the Regall power so he speaketh of the effects thereof and of our obedience thereto And as we find he speaketh onely of good effects so he onely speaketh of an obedience and subjection thereto which according to the oath of GOD and in conscience we are tyed to perform But as we cannot lawfully give up our oath of Allegiance to boundless and arbitrary Regall power so there is a vast dis-proportion between it and the effects of that power which Solomon speaketh of here Solomon speaketh of a power which only produceth good effects But arbitrary Monarchy is in a capacity of producing both good and bad effects Secondly we establish the point from reason it self the Kingly power as it produceth good effects not onely in it self is the Ordinance of GOD but also it executeth the purpose of GOD both on good and bad But as the Ordinance of GOD cannot be contraveened so it is laid on us as a necessary duty to subject our selves for conscience sake to him who executeth the purpose of GOD according to the prescript of GOD'S wil Rom. 13. So then in such cases as GOD can not be contraveened no more can the Kingly power be withstood but what it enacteth according to equity reason should absolutely be obeyed In this sense the Holy Ghost commandeth obedience and subjection not onely to Kings but also to all other Rulers Tit. 3. 1. Pet. 2. Kings and all Magistrats in this sense are called Gods GOD'S Deputies and Lieutenants upon Earth Ex. 4. and 22. Ps 82. feeders of the LORD'S people Ps 78. the shields of the Earth Ps 47. nursing Fathers of the Church Is 49 Captains over the LORD'S people 1. Sam. 9. Their Throne is the Throne of GOD 1. Chr. 19 their judgment is the judgment of the LORD 2. Chr. 19 The Land lyeth under great judgment when it wanteth them Is 3. Who then dare adventure in such respects any way to contraveen the Kingly power and to decline his authority for so there is a divine sentence in his lips his mouth transgresseth not in judgment his Throne is established by righteousnesse righteous lips are his delight and he loveth him that speaketh right his wrath is as messengers of death but in the light of his countenance is life and his favour is as a cloud of the latter rain Prov. 16. In such cases his wrath is as the roaring of a Lion but his favour is as dew upon the grasse he sitteth in the Throne of judgment scattering away all evill with his eyes scattering the wicked and bringing the wheel over them So mercy and truth preserve him and his Throne is upholden by mercy Yea his fear is as the roaring of a Lyon so that he who provoketh him to anger sineth against his own soul Prov. 19 and 20. Upon these grounds and in these respects Solomon exhorteth us to honour the King Proverb 24. and not to strike Princes for equity Prov. 17. Therefore the Kingly power as it is in it self and as it executeth the purpose of the just LORD of Heaven and Earth according to the LORD' 's good will and pleasure neither his power nor the just Acts thereof can be any more contraveened then the power of GOD and that which he commandeth to be performed for so the King's power is GOD'S power and what he doth is according to divine authority And in these notions we hold the Kingly power to be absolute for so as his power in such respects can not be contraveened in like manner he may lawfully execute every thing that is good and expedient with a full and vast power according to Law and reason So the power of the King of kings is vast and absolute not because he may do both justly and unjustly according to his pleasure but because he may do every thing that seemeth good in his eyes according to justice In this sense I confess Salustius his Author saith very well Impune quidvis facere id est Regem esse Indeed the King may do every thing that is just and equitable according to Law and Reason and deserveth not to be punished therfore This is the same which Solomon saith Eccl. 8. v. 3. and 4. compared with Prov. 17.26 Albeit we may put such a favorable construction upon these words yet do we doubt much if Salustius his Author's meaning be such Indeed I take him to be of Aristotle's opinion who saith concerning the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. l. 3. c. 12. The Law also saith concerning the King Tanta est ejus celsitudo ut non posset ei imponi Lex in Regno suo Curt. in consol 65. col 6. ad F. Petr. Rebuf notab 3. repet L. un c. Omnia sunt possibilia Regi Imperator omnia potest Bald. in Sect. F. de no. for fid in F. in 1 Constit C. col 2. Chass catal glor mun part 5. consid 24. All these go no other wayes saith our learned Country-man but thus The King can do all things which by Law he can do and that holdeth in him Id possumus quod jure possumus Lex Rex q. 26. ass 3. This is a very quick and noble glosse But for my self as I judge their meaning to be nothing such so I am indifferent whether it be so or not No question there be many who do plead for absolute and arbitrary Monarchy beside the Nation of Royallists And those to whose temper absolute Monarchy doth most relish we find
to be attended with these qualifications 1 They are meerly heroick and ambitious So were the Giants before the Flood Gen. 6. Beros Antiq. l. 1. Nimrod after the Flood Gen. 10. Bern. Antiq. l. 4. and all the rest of the great Heroes Arist pol. 3. c. 10. 2 They are meerly tyrannous and cruel So we find that Pharaoh had an arbitrary power over the People of Israel Exod. 1 and 5. Nebuchad-nezzar had the like power over his Kingdoms Dan. 2. and 3. By vertue of Ahasuerus absolute power Haman was licenced to exercise tyranny on the People of the Jews Est 3. We might alledge many examples to this purpose But the point is most clear in it self for those who are of a tyrannous disposition can endure no Law but their will Otherwise they could never get their tyranny exercised 3 Those whom we find chief pleaders for absolute Monarchy are either concerned therein themselves as Alexander M. and M. Aurelius and such like or else Flatterers and Court-Parasites as Lyricus Rom. Virgil and such like And of this sort we find none more violent in this matter than Dr. Fern Hugo Grotius Arnisaeus Spalato c. whose foot-steps with his ful-speed Salmasius doth trace But although men by way of flattery and by-respect may act and plead for arbitrary Monarchy yet let me tell you I do not imagin but they may act and plead for it through simple error and delusion And so I conclude that Aristotle Xiphilin Salust and the foresaid Lawyers do much run this way though they be more moderate in the matter then the rest And as afterward is shewed we find the Talmudick and Rabbinick Writers this way somewhat inclining to the lawless and arbitrary power of absolute Monarchy Assert 2. The King hath not a power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason Firstly Such an arbitrary and vast power is repugnant to the first Institution and Scripture-mould of Kings According to the Holy Ghost's way of moulding the King he is thus qualified 1 He is an Elective King chosen by the People in subordination to God Thou shalt in any wayes set him King over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose Deut. 17. 2 A Brother-King and not a stranger-King One from amongst thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou mayest not set a stranger over thee who is not thy Brother Ibid. 3 He must not tyrannize over the People by Leavying Forces and by strength of hand drawing them into Egyptian slavery He shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the People to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you Ye shall henceforth return no more that way Ibid. These words properly and in their emphatick sense can import nothing else but a discharging of the King by Forces and Armies to tyrannize over his People that bringing them into bondage and upon their ruines he may not strengthen himself and multiply his Forces So the King of Egypt did with the People of Israel whileas they were in Egypt under his tyrannons yoke 4 Not a Leacherous King given to women for drawing him on into temptation Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away Ibid. 5 Nor Covetous given to enrich himself and to build-up his own estate upon the ruins of his People Nether shall he greatly multiply to himself Silver and Gold Ibid. 6 But he must be a King acquiring the Scriptures of GOD meditating on them his whole life-time thereby learning to fear the LORD to observe his Commandments and to practise them that he may be humble and lowly not turning aside either to the right-hand or to the left And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his Kingdom that he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levits And it shall be with him and he shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD his God to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them That his heart be not lifted up above his Brethren and that he turn not aside from the Commandment to the right-hand or to the left Ibid. Here from we draw this Argument The power of him is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law whose power according to the Law and Word of GOD is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law But the power of the King according to the Law and Word of God is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law Ergo the Power of the King is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law The Major cannot be denyed unlesse men will be so bold as to deny a Regulating and squaring of their Acts and Institutions according to the Word and Law of God Sure I am none will deny it but such as will contradict Scripture it self and decline it as the rule and pattern of their Actions The Minor is manifest from the Text above Cited Barclay the Royallist distinguisheth between the Office and power of the King and so the man endeavoureth to elude our Argument thus The Office of the King quoth he is set down Deut. 17. and the King's power is spoken of 1 Sam. 8 where saith he an Arbitrary power is conferred upon the King and laid upon his shoulders But this distinction serveth not for his purpose For either the power of the King is according to the Word and Law of God or not If it be then as the Office of the King is regulated in like manner his power also is kept within the compasse of Law For his Office spoken of Deut. 17. admitteth bounds and is kept within marches That which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. in terminis doth subject the King to Law and taketh-away Arbitrarines in his Government So then that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. doth either contradict that which is spoken Deut. 17. or else it giveth him no power and liberty of governing above Law at random If it be not then it is not a Divine but a diabolick power Moreover what the King doth according to his power either he doth it by vertue of his Office or contrary to it If by vertue of his Office Ergo the Kingly power cannot be absolute unlesse his Office be also absolute for so the exercise of his power dependeth from his Office In such a case he can do nothing according to his power but what he hath Authority for from his Office But his Office Deut. 17 is not absolute but Regulated according to Law If contrary to it Ergo it is not the Kings Office to exercise an absolute power and consequently the Kings Authority is not absolute Furthermore either the King as King is absolute or not If he be absolute as King Ergo the Royall
Office is absolute For the King is formally King by vertue of his Royall Office If not absolute as King then we gain the point For so it followeth that the Kingly Government in it-self is not absolute and illimited and if the Kingly Government in it-self be not of a vast and absolute extent we Demand in what notion the Authority of the King is Arbitrary and illimited Either ab intrinseco i. e. As it is essentially a Kingly Authority or ab extrinseco i. e. according to some cadent and accident of the Regall Office If the former ergo the Office of the King it-self is absolute which is not onely repugnant to that Deut. 17. but also to that which Barclay confesseth himself If the latter ergo the King as King and according to his Office is not absolute for quod convent rei accidentaliter ei non convenit formaliter Then we demand if the King as King be not absolute whether or not he be absolute as he is a Judge or as he is a Man If as he is a Judge ergo all Judges no lesse then Kings are of an absolute and Arbitrary power which Royallists themselves do altogether deny yea they make the King essentially different from other Judges under this notion because the Kings power is absolute and their's is not And consequently seing according to the Doctrine of Royallists the King is essentially differenced from other Judges as he is absolute then nolint velint the King as King is absolute Thus the Gentlemen do contradict themselves If as he is a Man ergo all men let-be Kings are of an Arbitrary and boundlesse power but sure I am no Royallist will say so Next to Barclay in-steppeth Salmasius on the floor as one minding to cut the knot if he cannot loose it This Gentleman labourreth though in vain to reconcile that of Deut. 17. with that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. The Israelites saith he did not seek from God one King onely but a change of the government by Judges and in stead of that they required a Regall Government But quoth he the Prophet to disswade them therefrom propounded to them these incommodities which ensue upon the Kingly government this the Prophet calleth jus Regum which I quoth he call the Arbitrary licence which is granted as a lawfull power to those who govern after a Kingly manner This jus Regum saith he the Grecians translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby is understood a just and reasonable way of carry-on matters And the Jews in this place call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Septuagints translate this Hebrew word sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this pertaineth to the office of some man and albeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth differ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet some smal difference being between them the one is taken for the other Defens Reg. cap. 2. Ans This Gentleman is so far from loosing the knot of the difficulty as that he tieth it a great deal faster then it was before And he must give me leave to say that he mistaketh the state of the question in hand The Question is whether or not that which is spoken 1 Sam. 8. is repugnant to that which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. This Royallâ—st denyeth the one place to contradict the other and he rendereth no other reason for it but because the Prophet 1 Sam. 8. calleth absolutenesse and Arbitrary licence in the Royall Person 〈◊〉 Râ—gum Now the man espyeth not the lightnesse of his own inference which is this The Prophet 1 Sam. 8. calleth Arbitrary power jus Regum Ergo that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. is not repugnant to that which is spoken of him Deut. 17. Whereas this man should prove the consequence he doth nothing but playeth upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Well I desire him to learn this much in his probation of the Antecedent he standeth by that which maketh the contradiction between these places the more apparent We have shewed already and he himself doth not deny it That the holy Ghost Deut. 17. subjecteth the King to Law and disclaimeth Arbitrary Power in him And yet this Gentleman will have the holy Ghost to allow and cry-up 1 Sam. 8. absolute power in the King This he not only saith but he also endeavoureth to prove from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is translated and taken by some both in Greek and Latine But I pray you Friend what is this but to prove a contradiction upon your self Let it be so that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken as you will have it the contrary whereof we shal demonstrate yet shall you never reconcile these two places together but thereby you enforce the more a contradiction between them And consequently according to your way the consequence is so far from being deducible from the Antecedent that contrariwise it is directly repugnant to it So then my Friend albeit I should grant you all that you would have yet you have this to prove That though the holy Ghost Deut. 17. crieth down Arbitrary Government in the King and 1 Sam. 8. proclaimeth it and alloweth the same in the King yet notwithstanding the holy Ghost doth not contradict Himself and neither of the places is repugnant one to another Prove this Et eris mihi magnus Apollo And whereas you only prove the Antecedent you do nothing but beat the air and proceed ab ignorantia elenchi Secondly It is repugnant to the power which the holy Ghost in Scripture hath conferred upon inferiour Judges It is clear from the Book of God that the Lord investeth inferiour Judges with power to execute judgment on all without respect of persons and commandeth them to do so And consequently they are invested with power to execute judgment on Kings themselves But if the power of the King were absolute and above Law then that power which the holy Ghost in Scripture conferreth on inferiour Judges is altogether unlawful and in vain Royallists start much at this Argument They talk much against it and I wot not what Because Salmasius speaketh most against it we shall firstly begin with him This man plainly denieth inferiour Judges to have any Authoritative power over Kings But because he is very large upon this matter and for preventing tediousness to the Reader we shall therefore handle the whole substance of that which he replieth and objecteth against this Argument in a following Sub-section SUBSECT I. Salmasius his Opinion concerning the Power of Inferiour Judges examined and refuted THat we may in a methodick and square way handle his opinion and conveniently meet with these things which he replieth against our second Argument we shall lay down his mind in these Propositions Propos 1. The Jewish Sanhedrin had no power over the Kings of Israel and Judah That he may establish this Proposition he taketh
a King as that to reign over them If he affirm it then they sought a tyrannous King to reign over them And so he belieth himself If he deny it then it followeth that in even-down terms they sought no King but one who would judge them in righteousnesse But this Royallist will have them positively to seek an absolute King to reign over them Then tell me how can this agree with these pretences whereupon they sought a King to wit to reform their Commonwealth and to banish corruption out of Judgment-seats and because Samuel was not able to perform this as they alledged therefore they sought a King But Samuel might have said to them in seeking an absolute King ye seek a remedy worse then the disease Such a King whom ye seek having power to govern at randome according to his pleasure will not be a fit man to redresse the enormities of your Estate He may well aggravat the burdens under which ye now groan but he will not lessen them and ease you of your burden Be sure ye will get few or no good Kings but ye will have many bad who having a vast power will make you groan under their yoke So then might Samuel have said ye can no wayes pretend a sense in you of the want of the exercise of righteous judgment and of corruption and enormity in the Judges Ye scorn your selves to enforce your purpose therefrom in seeking a King whenas in seeking an absolute King ye forthwith give your selves the lie and undermine your own grounds Again if positively as is manifest from these ends above-written they sought no King to reign over them but such who would govern them according to Law and reason then is it more then apparent that positively they sought a regulated and non-absolute King to reign over them for as governing according to judgment and righteousnesse is done according to Law and reason so it can never absolutely be performed unlesse the governing power be absolutely hemmed in by Law and regulated thereby Now the absolute ends which the Israelites did set before their eyes in seeking a King do resolve upon governing according to judgment and righteousnesse And I would fain know of this man how he can conclude this consequence The people of Israel did seek a King to govern them according to judgment and righteousnesse Ergo they did seek an absolute King and did not deprecat the greatest of tyrants Verily the consequence at least virtually is repugnant to the Antecedent for in so far as they seek a just and righteous King fit to govern them according to Law and reason in as far they abominat an absolute King one in a capacity of tyrannizing over them Thus you see that the people of Israel do neither positively nor negatively seek an unjust and tyrannous King to reign over them We hasten now to the Assumption And we observe that the man contradicteth himself in it for he saith not onely cap. 5. but also cap. 2. that there were many Kings of the Nations at that time subject to Law And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle Pol. l. 3. c. 10. and 11. Diod. Sic. l. 2. But as a man awaking out of his wine he recalleth to his memory what hath escaped him and laboureth to correct it And so he addeth that though Diodore storieth that the Kings of Egypt were subjected to Law yet do we never read saith he that ever any of them was cut-off and beheaded by the inferiour judges And though Aristotle quoth he saith that all the Oriental Kings did govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet notwithstanding they did rule with an absolute power though more remisly then did other Kings Def. reg c. 5. 8. Albeit this man doth not admit a plenary and full subjection of Kings to Law yet nevertheless he is constrained by force of example to acknowledge that Kings were some way or other kept under the power and reverence of Law And he cannot deny but Diodore storieth of a most wonderful subjection of the ancient Aegyptian Kings to Law He telleth us that they were subjected to Law in their eating and drinking lying and rising yea in preserving their health they were restricted to Law And which saith he is more admirable they had not power to judge to gather Money together nor to punish any through pride or anger or any other unjust cause And yet saith Diodore they took not this in an evil part but thought themselves happy to be subjected to Law I trow this is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet He will have the King above Law not subject to any Law But the Egyptians will have their Kings under the Law and subject to it And though this immodest man doth say That the Egyptians notwithstanding did not cut-off any of their Kings yet catcheth he nothing thereby 1 Because the Egyptian Kings as Diodore telleth us were most observant of the Laws Therefore he saith Plurimi regum the greatest part of their ancient Kings lived blamelesly and died honourably Rer ant l. 2. c. 3. But I beleeve that Law cannot strike against the innocent 'T is iniquity to kill a man who deserveth not death Diodore telleth us of three things which made the ancient Egyptian Kings to walk closely and keep themselves within bounds Firstly their wayes were narrowly hedged-in by Law Secondly they were alwaies attended with the Sons of the Noble and Chief-Priests whose eyes were alwayes fixed on them Thirdly Kings that walked not straightly as nothing was proclaimed in their life-time to their praise but to their discredit so in their death they wanted the honor of solemn and sumptuous burials which were given to good Kings after their death The fear of this hedged-in their wayes and made them stand in awe 2 We deny not but Diadore in that same place insinuates there were many evil ancient Egyptian Kings Yet we say not tyrannous as Salmasius would have it for we do not think that though many of their Kings were wicked in themselves they got liberty to tyrann ze over the People The Egyptian Laws were more strict then that they would dispence such a liberty to any of their Kings Diodore saith they were tied to the Law no less then private men And withal he saith their Judges were most impartial and could not be bought-by either by favour or gain Which maketh us imagine that they hemmed-in the wayes of the most dissolute King amongst them and did not give him liberty to tyrannize over the People Therefore it is very observable that Amasis getting power in his hands did tyrannize over the Egyptians Whose tyranny the Egyptians did tolerate so long as Diodore saith as they wanted the opportunity of punishing him till Actisanes King of Ethiopia came down into Egypt And then saith the story the Egyptians called to mind old quarrels against Amasis and falling from him to Actisanes they unkinged him and set-up Actisanes in his room who
governed them most gently and amicably Rer. ant l. 2. c. 1. 3 Let it be so many of the Egyptian Kings in old did tyrannize over them and they notwithstanding were not punished and cut-off by the People and inferiour Judges What then That will never conclude their unwillingness and unreadiness to execute judgment on their tyrannous Kings but that they wanted opportunity and power to do such a thing So it went as is said already with the People and inferiour Judges under Amasis tyrannous yoke But so soon as they got the opportunity they verified the old Maxim Quod differiur non aufertur Yea Diadore telleth us That the People did withstand the Priests and those who with-held honourable and solemn burials from the bad Egyptian Kings in old Which affordeth us matter to aver That if the inferiour Judges in Egypt did not execute judgment on their wicked and tyrannous Kings it was not because they were unready to do so but because the People were refractory thereto No question they would much more have withstood the off-cutting of their Kings then the want of solemnities at their death for what is it I pray you that draweth People on to act and engage for their Princes but because they take them up in the notion of half-gods and far above the teach of ordinary men Whereupon they conclude that both their Persons and Authority are altogether inviolable They dote so much upon them that they think they should in no terms be resisted far less cut-off and punished according to their deserts This daily experience teacheth Therefore the People of Egypt would far more have withstood the inferiour Judges in cutting-off their Kings then in denying them sumptuous and stately burials for their offences 4 It is easie to be learned from Diadore that the Egyptians esteemed the want of honourable burials to their Kings more then any punishment could have been inflicted upon them Know this they were a most superstitious People tainted with a world of blind zeal And withall as Diadore storâ—eth the fear of the want of honourable and solemn burials provoked their Kings to live circumspectly and keep themselves within bounds Whereupon we conclude That both King and People thought no punishment more capitall and more hurtfull to the King then the want of an honourable buriall And so the inferiour Judges imagined that in with-holding from tyrannous Kings sumptuous and stately burials they executed more judgment upon them then if they should have brought them to the Scaffold and cause strike the heads from them Therefore if Salmasius shall not admit the third Reason which though it be true in general yet not in this particular case as is most probable though not demonstrative he must needs confess that the Praetors of Egypt not only in their apprehension but also in the up taking both of the King and People acted more against some tyrannous King or other in depriving him of an honourable and sumptuous buriall after his death then the Representative of England did in bringing King Charles to the Scaffold and causing his head to be cut-off As for that which Salmasius saith alledging that Aristotle saith that the Oriental Kings in old did not simply govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Well let it be so If they were any wayes subjected to Law as Aristotle in even-down terms confesseth they were it is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet Qui legibus solutus est Yea and which is more Aristotle saith That the very government of the Heroes was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law and in some things their power was determinat and not absolute This is far from Salmasius his mind who will have the King to be of an infinit and illimited power The man would have a care that he do not speak blasphemy and knoweth not of it I take infinacy in power to be only proper to GOD. And 't is not good to abuse it in applying it to the creature Howsoever I heartily subscribe to what Aristotle saith concerning the Orientall Kings I do not think but in old as namely in and about the dayes of the Heroës Kings as Gods were adored by men But Salmasius must give me leave to say that even then Kings were punished by the People We read how the heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t l. 5. c. 5. Plut. in Thes I do not deny but as these Historiographers report as likewise Heraclid de Pol. Ath. Theseus before that time had restored liberty to the Subject and had put Power in the People's hand It is also reported that Agamemnon the King of Kings was thrust from his Charge because he would not suffer his eldest Daughter to be sacrificed to satisfie the fury of Diana for the Roe which he killed feeding about her grove Dict. Cret l. 1. That of Theseus and of Agamemnon were done about the time the Children of Israel did seek a king to reign over them We might also here alledge examples of other ancient kings who were brought into subjection to the sentence of inferiour judges But we pass them as not beseeming the purpose in hand for they are relative to after-ages of latter years then what Aristotle speaketh of Yet we find one example or two more then what we have alledged already answering to this purpose It is reported that Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his Subjects Arist Pol. l. 5. c. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just l. 1. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 7. Miltiades was incarcerated by the Athenians and died in prison Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Milt Plut. in vit Cim Albeit he was not the Athenian king yet was he their great Generall and crowned king of Chersonesus Herod l. 6. Aem. Prob. in vit Mil. It is needless to examplifie this any more for afterward it shall be shewed by multiplied examples how that kings in all ages have been brought to the Stage and punished by the People Therefore Salmasius shall do well not to imagine that in old times all Kings were absolute and the inferiour Judge did not sit upon the Bench against any of them And for my self I do not deny but in old Kings were of a vast and absolute power though I cannot be moved to think that either all of them were absolute or any of them so absolute as Salmasius dreameth of But more of this afterward And I do also think that the Assyrian Monarchy caeteris paribus was in it-self rather more then lesse absolute then either the Median or the Persian though by some accidental occurrents as afterward shall appear it was not Indeed it had the first start of them and was in the time wherein Royal Power was more in request then either before or after This makes Aeschylus to call the king of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a governour that
may not be judged At this time the Inachides did reign whose kingdom began about the reign of Baleus the eight king of the Assyrians Herod lib. 1. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 6. cap. 14. compared with Beros an t lib. 5. ARAL VII BAL VIII MAM XVI SPAR XVII and Xenoph. de aequiv PHOR And as for Homer I do not doubt but the man idolized Kings But in the interim you will be pleased to give me leave to say that it follows not Homer calleth kings Divine and such who are educated and brought-up by Jupiter Ergo Homer opinionateth that they were absolute and subjected to none but to GOD. He telleth us that Agamemnon in a convention of the general Persons of the Army was greatly upbraided Iliad 9. And yet he calleth him a king begotten of Jupiter and trained-up by him And it is very well known that Agamemnon was not an absolute King over the Grecian Princes for both Dict. Cret lib. 1. and Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. report that Agamemnon was put from his Office and Palamedes chosen in his room See also Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. I stand not here to dispute at what time Homer lived but leave it arbitrary to the Reader either to follow Archil lib. de temp who saith that he lived in his time an D. after the destruction of Troy Or Herod de vit Hom. who saith that he lived CLXVIII after the Trojan battel Yet one thing I may determine on that Homer calleth those kings of the nations who lived about the time wherein the People of Israel did seek a king to reign over them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whatever be Homer's meaning in these words yet I am not of another opinion but do think that he was much if not all the way for absolute Monarchy The temper of his times did lead him that far on But though I subscribe to this yet wil it never therefrom follow that all the Kings of the Nations at that time when the People of Israel did seek a King to reign over them were absolute not subject to law This we have made good already Secondly While as Samuel taught the Jews of what temper kingly-government is lest afterward they should pretend ignorance of the power and right of the king he plainly declareth unto them That he might do any thing without fear of punishment not subject to any but to GOD. Salmas def reg cap. 5. Friend this is rather said then proved But afterward nolis velis we shall evidence That Samuel thought no such thing Thirdly If Kings had been subjected to the Sanhedrin and ought to have been arraigned before it either to have been accused or condemned then had there been no difference between the Judges and the Kings of the Jewes But the latter is false Ergo. This is Salmasius his great gun And for proof of the Major he saith The Judges of the people of Israel did judge led forth their Armies made Lawes executed judgement and did exercise all other such-like functions which are exercised by Kings Therefore unlesse the Kings of the Jewes had been unliable to the Sanhedrin there had been no difference between the Judges and the Kings of Israel The Assumption he maketh it good thus It had been altogether in vain saith he to have changed the government of the Judges into the government of Kings if they had been both one Thus the difference had onely been in name and not in reality Def. Reg. cap. 5. But the man cap. 2. proveth the Assumption more largely and most pertinently There saith he the Judges amongst the people of the Jews were subject to the Sanhedrin And so he saith the Judges amongst the Jews were like the Consuls among the Carthaginians and Romans They were called in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophetim Whence the Paenans derive the word Suferes Now the Judges in the Senat of Carthage were called Sufetes And Festus observeth that Sufetes in the Punick language signifieth and denotateth a Consul And out of Caelidus he citeth these words Senatus censuit referentibus Sufetis So the Roman Consuls referred to the Senat and the Senat judged of their refer Therefore seing the Judges of Israel were but like Consuls who were subject to the Senat as the case was amongst the Carthaginians and Romans they were not of a kingly power but subject to the Sanhedrin though they retained the government so long as they lived whereas the Roman Consuls and Carthaginian Sufetes were only but yearly Magistrates And this is further cleared from the Holy Ghost's contradistinguishing Judg. 9. the government of Abimelech who took upon him a kingly government from the government of the rest of the Judges Yea the Israelites Judg. 8. offered to Gideon that same power over them which his son Abimelech usurped This was a kingly government that they offered to him Which Gideon refused And yet neverthelesse he was a Judge And consequently if both Judges and Kings amongst the people of Israel had one and the same power not onely the people of Israel had offered to Gideon no new power but what he had before but also Gideon had refused to enjoy that power which actually he did enjoy Ans We heartily subscribe to the Minor and do much cry-up Salmasius in the probation thereof I wish the man were as solid and pertinent in all the rest as in that Yet I crave his leave to deny the Major And I think I have good reason to do so for he only differenceth absolute Kings from Judges imagining that none properly can be a King essenitally distinct from a judge but he who is absolute and unlyable to the Law He far mistaketh the point It is one thing to be an absolute King not subject to the Sanhedrin and Senat and another thing to be a non-absolute King and subject to Law And yet both are properly and univocally Kinge The non-absolute King is essentially differenced from the Sophet or Sufet the Judge because he is major singulis but minor universis in synedrio But the Judge is but of equal authority with the rest of his collegues in the Senat though because of his eminencie and personall endowments he may praeside and be as a leading man amongst the rest Such was the case of the kings and Judges amongst the Jewes as afterward shall be shewed There are some accidentall differences also between the Judges amongst the people of the Jewes and their kings as namely 1. The Judges were in a most speciall immediat and extraordinary manner designed and appointed by GOD himself to govern his people Kings were not so if we look to them in an ordinary way and for the most part 2. The Judges of Israel had no hereditary power and government over them Such had their kings 3. The kings of Israel both in their ordination and afterward were attended with prodigall sumptuous and Royall Dignities which were denied to their Judges And whereas Salmasius
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
Kingdomes is clear from many grave Writers Hesiod scut Herc. Pindar od 1. 7 Sophoc Trach. Diod. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 2. Of him Herodot Theocritus and others do write The extraordinary valour and courage of Alexander Justin Plutarch Q. Curtius and other grave Writers do abundantly testifie I need not to stand here in a particular and exact way to prove that these Kings had an absolute immunity from Law without all restriction and reservation But to satisfie the curious ear a little therein we shortly make it good thus 1. These Kings came not to their Crowns whether by election or succession At least all that they commanded fell not to them either of these wayes They held the right to their Crown by their sword And so over-ruling all by force and strength of hand they could be tied to no Law by any civill sanction but as they pleased voluntarily to subject their necks to the yoke of Law But as they delighted to over-rule men no question they have thought it their glory to be likewise above the Law it-self I confesse it is very gatherable both out of Berosus and Diodore that Osiris and Hercules the Egyptian did live according to the Lawes Yet I do not think that it was by command but according to their own free and voluntary resignation That held true in them which the Roman Emperours speak of themselves Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Indeed there is great difference between a Kingly power had by succession and election and a Kingly power obtained by conquest and sword-right In an elective and heriditary Crown people have at least a Physicall power to binde the King to them by Oath and Covenant But the case is far otherwise between a conquered people and the Conquerour They have no power to tie him to them by Law He may put them all to the edge of the sword if he will And it is in his own goodness whether to spare them or square himself according to their Laws Experience teacheth to-day what boundless power the Turk and the King of Spain have over those Kingdomes to which they have no title but sword-right Therefore it is no wonder though these grand and matchlesse Heroes had an arbitrary and boundlesse power over the Kingdomes which they conquered by strength of hand 2. The men themselves were esteemed and honoured as Gods And so by proportion a GOD-like power was given unto them Nimrod was called the Babylonian Saturn and Dionysius the Libyan Jupiter The Assyrians hold Belus and Ninus as Gods The Egyptians worshipped Osiris and Hercules as Gods So did the Grecians honour Dionysius and Hercules as Gods And Alexander thought no shame to be called the son of Jupiter and honoured as a God And as Ninus was holden as Jupiter amongst the Assyrians so Semiramis was holden by them as Juno and worshipped as a Goddesse And what God-like titles Semiramis caused put on and engrave upon the Pillar she set upon Ninus you may read it Xenoph. de aequiv You may read also some specious and stately titles on some of these Heroes Herod lib. Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. All which serve to point-out the boundlesnesse of their power And withall in terminis we have shewed already that Nimrod's power was most vaste and absolute And so it followeth that Belus Ninus and Semiramis who succeeded him were rather more then lesse absolute then he for as every one of them enlarged their power beyond another so all of them extended their power beyond what Nimrod's power did reach to And of Belus Berosus saith in expresse terms Coepit libidine dominandi torqueri of Ninus Omnibus bellum intulit nulli parcens quod esset in omnium desiderio omnâ—â—diâ— ad intenâ—â—tum quaeritabat Hic omnium primus ex nostris regibuâ— Babylonicum regnum propagavit And of Semiramis haec anteâ—â—ssit militia trâ—umphis diviâ—iis victoriis imperio omnes mortales Nâ—mo unquam huic foeminae comparandus est virorum tanta in ejus vitadicuntur scribuntur tum ad vituperationem tum maxime ad collandationem magnificam Ant. lib. 5. It is both needlesse and infinite labour for me to summe up the absolute and arbitrary actings of these grand Heroes I passe them over in silence and do remit the Reader to spend his brain a-little if he be curious upon these Histories above cited Where he shall find all made good that we speak of this purpose 3. These Kings were not onely extraordinary men and Kings but also they were extraordinary Heroes They were even extraordinary amongst extraordinary men being the chiefest of all the Heroes And so seing other Kings and Heroes were of an absolute and arbitrary power as afterward is shewed much more they 4. It cannot be denied but Alexander M. was of vaste and boundlesse power 1. Because he commanded Darius to write to him not only as to a King but also as to his King 2. He gloried to be called the son of Jupiter and to be holden more then a man 3. He despised Parmenio's counsell and Darius his offer disdaining that any should govern but he alone Whereupon Menstree saith notably No I will reign and I will reign alone Disdaining to admit of moe Commanders For as the heaven can hold no Sun but one The earth cannot contain two Alexanders 4. Whileas a seditious tumult was raised in his Army upon his march toward the Occident whereas no words would asswadge them after a Speech had to his Army he did leap as a Lion from the Bench amongst the midst of them and with his own hands none daring to withstand him took thirteen of his prime Incendiaries and delivered them up to his Guard All which demonstrate the absoluteness of Alexander's power By undoubted consequence it followeth that the rest of the foresaid Hereos were rather more then lesse absolute then he 1. Because they were men if not of gâ—â—â—er courage at least of greater strength then he They lived in the flower of time when strength and courage were most in vigour Indeed in this they had the start far before Alexander 2. Because Alexander himself esteemeth it honour and power enough to imitate the wayes and carriages of Heroes who went before him Ad Herculis imitationem me contuli ad aemulandum Perseum me comparavi Volo Liberi patris mei progenitoris generisque mei proauctoris vestigia persequi Plut. de fortu Alex. Conclus 2. Without all controversie those who firstly erected Kingdoms and planted Colonies were of an absolute power and altogether unsubject to Law For clearing the point we shortly glance at some of these In the tenth year of Nimrod Comerus Gallus erected a Kingdom in Italy gathering a number of people together over whom he ruled as King Ber. ant lib. 5. Hence Myrsilus saith that the Tyrrhenians do affirm themselves to have their arisal from Razenuâ— Janus Vadymona's son De Orig. It. Tyr.
5. lib. 5. cap. 5. alib Plut. de Thes But as afterward is also shewed the Cretian Monarchy was not absolute but regulated And though you say that it was so in after-times but not in the dayes of Minos yet do we gain the point for it cannot be denied but the Cretians did use these same Lawes in after-times which Minos first established amongst them So saith Aristotle Pol. 2. cap. 8. The like also saith Plato in the alledged Dialogue between Minos and Socrates Socrates moving the question Whether or not did the Cretians use the ancient Lawes of Minos and Rhadamanthus Minos answered they did Lib. 7. Min. vel de Leg. And Plato extolleth Minos above the very Heavens And for this he citeth Homer and Hesiodus He is holden by Homer to have been such a strict justiciar that he faineth him to be the Judge of the departed souls To which Lucian alludeth Dial. Min. Sost Withall he alledgeth him to have gotten his Laws from Jupiter And Hesiod in even-down terms calleth him the best of all mortal Kings Yea Plato saith That what he commanded the People to do he did it himself also And which is more he alledgeth That the Lacedaemonians had their Laws from the Cretians Therefore we may conclude that in Minos time the Cretian Monarchy was regulated for what he commanded the People to do that same he did himself likewise And it was like to the Lacedaemonian Monarchy which was not absolute but precisely regulated according to Law What Can I think that such a strict Justiciar and eminent Law-giver as Minos would have assumed any arbitrary and loose power to himself and denied it to others executing on them the full rigour of the Law That verily is against this practice of which Plato speaketh who saith That he commanded not to do one thing and did another himself The man is reckoned up amongst the chiefest Law-givers and as Hesiod Homer and Plato would have it he is the chiefest of them all But afterward it shall be shewed that all such were against a vast and arbitrary power And to close up this whole matter in a word Aristotle saith That in old Kingly Government was amongst the Cretians but afterward the Cretian Cosmi like to the Lacedaemonian Ephori did take it away Pol. 2. cap. 8. This insinuateth that in old amongst the Cretians these Cosmi were whose power was all one with the Lacedaemonian Ephori who indeed had power over their Kings And we read not of any beside Minos who did institute these Cosmi amongst the Cretians He was the first Law-giver amongst them whose Laws they retained until after-ages as is said already As amongst the Egyptians and Grecians we find Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes in like manner we find it to have been regulated also in other Kingdoms The Ethiopian Kings were so much restricted to Law that it can hardly be determined whether they or the Egyptian Kings were most subjected thereto As Diodore telleth us of the subjection of the one to Law so doth he story of the subjection of the other thereto In expresse termes he saith That the Ethiopian King according to statute and ordination leadeth his life according to the Laws doing every thing according to the Country-fashion neither rewarding nor punishing any but according to the Law of his Ancestors And which is more to be wondered at the Priests have such power over the King that at their command and pleasure he suffereth death And for this they alledge it to have been an old custom amongst all their Kings from the beginning to undergo death at the desire of the Priests Rer. ant lib. 4. cap. 1. I shall not stand here to dispute whether or not Monarchy amongst the Indians in the dayes of the Heroes was regulated and subjected to Law Albeit there be some probability for the non-absoluteness thereof yet we think it good to leap it over because the matter is not clear enough And we shall begin with the Indian Kingdom to shew that in after-times in it Kings were of a non-arbitrary and regulated power It is reported that the Indians established those Laws which they received from their ancient Philosophers the Gymnosophists Who taught that all were free and none were servants This they established by Law And so the Indians like the Lacedemonians had their Ephori and overseers chosen-out from amongst the common people and beside them there were some few chosen who in nobility and prudence exceeded all the rest who were interested in governing and ordering all the great affairs both of King and Kingdom Diod. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 10. In like manner the Egyptians as in the heroick times so in after-times they most precisely subjected their Kings to Law Diod. ant lib. 2. cap. 3. For as in old both the King and the Kingdom were governed and regulated by Pretors so afterward out of their chiefest Cities Heliopolis Memphis and Thebes the best men were chosen to fit in Judgment and to over-rule all not inferiour to the Athenian Areopagites nor to the Lacedemonian Senatours Amongst the Grecians there were severall Kingdoms wherein the Regall power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law in after-times after the dayes of the Heroes Which maketh Aristotle say that in after-times the power of Kings was weakned and subjected to the People partly by the peopl's detracting from their power and partly by the King 's own voluntary dimission Polit. 3. cap. 10. We have examples of these not only amongst the Grecians but also among other nations The Athenians diminished the power of their Kings after the Codrids had become lecherous soft and effeminate At that time they changed their Kings into Princes whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heracl de Pol. Ath. But it seemeth very probable that then they rather changed the name then the power of their Kings for long before the race of Codrus was extirpated Theseus had restored liberty to the Athenians and as is said already had erected a Commonwealth amongst them Which appeareth to have lasted during both the time of the Kings and likewise of the Princes And consequently seeing there was a Common-wealth in both their times there could be no difference in their power But that we may give an exact and punctuall answer to this pre-occupation you shall take notice of the different condition of the Athenian Commonwealth and of the changes thereof First before Theseus reign we do not imagine otherwise but that the Athenians were governed not onely by a Kingly government Ber. ant lib. 5. Maneth de reg Egypt lib. Heracl de Pol. Ath. but also their Kings then were of a vaste and absolute power according as the power of the Kings used to be in the dayes of the Heroes Arist Pol. 3. cap. 10. and 11. Secondly under Theseus reign the power of the Kingly government was much impaired Then the people were restored to liberty and got power in their hand as is said already
Therefore Euripides saith that the Athenians under Theseus did not come under the yoke of one man but the people as free-men governed like a King by course In Thes Yet we must not imagine that then there was a perfect and entire Commonwealth erected No verily for Theseus remained notwithstanding as their Prince and as one having greater authority then any Patriot and Commonwealth's-man I will not say that Theseus retained a power in his hand equall to the power of the People and their Representative That is expresly against what Euripides and others above-cited do report But this much I may say that he retained as much power in his own hand as made him superior and of greater authority then any one at-least whether of the Councel or of the People And that he was the first man in dignity and authority in the Commonwealth is clear 1. Because as both Aristotle and Plutarch report he remained notwithstanding the Prince of the Commonwealth Therefore even unto this day he is reckoned-up in the Catalogue of the Athenian Kings 2. Because he differenced between the Patricians whom we call gentle-men tillers of the ground and Crafts-men giving to them power according to their ranks and stations investing some of them with greater and some of them with lesser power and consequently seing he differenced one kinde of persons from another in the Commonwealth making some of them in authority Superiour to others much more hath he retained a power in his own hand whereby he was differenced from any amongst all the rest 3. Because the Codrids and those who succeeded him were properly called Kings and therein they are contra-distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes and diametrally opposed to them But I conceive that there was greater reason why Theseus was a King then they were He was heroick and not so were they Yea Heraclid in plain terms saith that Kings were not abrogated from amongst the Athenians till the posterity of Codrus became effeminate and lecherous At which time saith he they were taken-away and Princes put in their room Observe therefore that from Theseus untill the last of the Corids the Athenian Monarchy was regulated We establish the point thus 1. Because Theseus himself as is proved already was regulated Ergo far more Codrus and his posterity were regulated Theseus was of an heroick temper such as were not the Codrids And so by nature he was more disposed for an absolute way of governing then they He lived in an heroick time wherein Monarchy was most in request But their time was of another stamp wherein Monarchy was wearing-out of request 2. Because whileas the Grecians carried-on an Engagement against Troy at that time the Athenian Monarchy remained regulated also Justin saith that Demophoon son to Theseus was Captain of the Athenian navy which went out with Agamemnon against the Trojans lib. 2. But we believe other more antient Writers rather then him who say that the Captain of the Athenian navy then was Mnestheus Theseus son Dict. cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. and Homer Iliad 2. Howsoever Plutarch gathereth from the way of Homer's speaking of the Navy which came from Athens under the conduct of Mnestheus that Theseus government was regulated and much impaired for saith he Homer doth call these ships as belonging to the People in Thes Just so say Dictys Cretensis Dares Phrygius And so Plutarch's way of reasoning holding good the Athenian Monarchy whether under Mnestheus as some say or under Demophoon as Justin saith was not absolute but limited for the ships which were rigged-out of Athens against Troy were not called Mnestheus or Demophoon's ships but ships belonging to the people of Athens Well I reverence this consequence not for it-self for Homer speaketh that same way of the out rigging of ships in other Grecian Kingdoms where I do not think but there was absolute Monarchy though in some things peradventure circumscribed but for Plutarch's authority And so in this matter resting upon it I conclude that seing the Athenian Monarchy was kept within the bounds of Law in the dayes of Mnestheus and Demophoon two brave Heroes much more was it of a circumscribed power in the dayes of Codrus and his posterity who were but of an ordinary and non-heroick temper And as for Codrus himself I do not think that such a man would have endeavoured the away-taking of those liberties wherewith Theseus priviledged the Athenians whereas in maintainance of their liberties he exposed himself to the undergoing of death it-self Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 6. Just lib. 2. Plut. in Codr Aye and which is more whileas the Codrids became lecherous soft and effeminate the Athenians did abrogate Kings from amongst them and changed their Kings into Princes Which beareth us this much in hand that the Athenians did retain a power in themselves whereby they might either keep-in or shut-out their Kings And it is remarkable that it is not said they did abrogate their Kings because of the tyranny of the Codrids Heracl de Pol. Ath. Which insinuateth that notwithanding their personall escapes and out-breakings they acted nothing for diminishing the peoples Power Thirdly after the Codrids had become effeminate and had abused their power the people took-away Kings from amongst them and in their room set up Princes Now the question may be moved whether or not had these Princes as great power as had Theseus and Codrus For removing of this difficulty observe that there were some who did govern onely as Princes and some did rule as Kings Those who governed as Princes are of a threefold kind 1. Some of them were appointed to govern for their whole lifetime Who were thirteen in number each of them reigning after another 2. Some of them were decennal Princes seven in number who governed every one of them for the space of ten years The last of the decennall Princes was Erixias whose government left-off an mun 3282 before the reign of Pisistratus about 128. years 3. Some of them were annuall and yearly Magistrates Some would think it strange to say that these three kinds of Princes had that same power and authority which Theseus and Codrus or any other of the Athenian Kings had But if you take along with you this distinction you shall find the matter clear There is a twofold non-absolute and circumscribed power 1. Intensive and substantiall 2. Extensive and circumstantiall It cannot be denied but these Princes in all the three kindes had one and the same power intensively and essentially which Theseus and the Codrids had The reason of this is because the power of the Athenian Kings in itself and at the utmost was but a regulated power subjected to the Law of the people as is proved already Therefore saith Euripides bringing-in Theseus speaking of the power of the Athenians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English Athens A
city free is not govern'd by one As King by course the people reign alone Whence it is more then evident that Theseus was no lesse subjected to Law then any of the people Thence it is that Diodore reporteth that the Athenians taking it in an evill part that Helen by lot had fallen to be wife to Theseus he feared them and therfore transported her into Amphidria Rer. ant lib. 5. cap. 5. And how they keeped both him and the Codrids in subjection to Law is already proved at length Which maketh us say that formally and according to the essentiall frame of non-absolute and limited power they had no more power then any of these Princes above-said who did govern onely as Princes for both of them were subjected to Law and neither of them had a prerogative over it and an exemption from it We have shewed already that the Athenian Kings had no such priviledge Ergo far lesse had the Athenian Princes any such priviledge 1. Because Princes as Princes are ever one way or other inferiour to Kings 2. Because the Athenians changed their Kings into Princes because their Kings became lecherous soft and effeminate And consequently unlesse they had changed their power as well as their name they had wrought to no purpose for reforming the abuses and enormities of their Kings 3. The annuall and yearly Princes whereof nine did govern together six of them being Thesmothites were solemnly sworn to the people that they should govern according to Law And he who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King amongst these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes had no more power but to provide for the sacrifices and to order and govern the battell Heracl de Pol. Ath. This commeth just to that which Aristotle saith concerning the detracting of the power of Kings in after-ages Then saith he the people detracted so much from their Kings that they entrusted them with no more power but to govern the battell and to over-see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacrifices Polit. 3. cap. 10. This is reckoned-up by him as the lowest degree of Monarchy which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most according to Law and of the Laconick kind Pol. 3. cap. 10. and 11. But if you shall alledge that the yearly Princes amongst the Athenians had not such power as the decennal Princes and those Princes who keeped the government for their life-time I shall not stand much to yeeld that for I suppose that as in some accidental and circumstantial way in the matter of power the Athenian Kings were differenced from the Athenian Princes so it is most probable that after such a manner these three foresaid kindes of Athenian Princes were differenced each-one from another and therefore it is alledged that a Commonwealth was not erected amongst the Athenians till annuall Princes were set over them Which maketh the Princes of the first and second kinde though not of the third to be reckoned up as Kings Yet they must give me leave to say that though the Athenian Common-wealth was not fully and compleatly established till the up-setting of annuall and yearly Princes notwithstanding in some degree or other there was ever a Commonwealth amongst them from the dayes of Theseus untill some of their annuall Princes began to usurp and brought them under bondage for not onely as is said already their Princes of the third kinde but also their Kings and Princes of the first and second sort were subjected to Law and the people had a ruling power over them And so all of them had the like power according to the essentiall frame of a regulated and non-absolute power though the Kings had a more vaste authority and might extend their power further according to Law then the Princes and those of the first kinde then the Princes of the second or at least of the third kinde Even-as Majors v. g. have greater power then Alder-men and Alder-men then Counsellours Howsoever we find that the Princes of the third kinde are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the rest They are said to have had the power of the battell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sacrifices He who had this power is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King Thus we finde that he had that same power which the Lacedemonian Kings had But it is afterward shewed that such were proper though not absolute Kings Well I regard not though you esteem not such as Kings properly so called I lose nothing by this If we argue from examples of former and ancient Commonwealths then have we the Athenian and Lacedemonian Republicks as presidents of a popular government and Common-wealth Friend this is the mark we drive most at in the matter in hand Those Princes who governed as Kings did usurp a greater power then what according to the fundamentall government of the Kingdome and the institution of Theseus did belong to them So Cylon endeavoured but his attempt was choked in the bud Herod lib. 5. Thucid. lib. 1. Herac. de Pol. Ath. Cic. de leg Phutar de Sol. But what he intended Pisistratus acted as is storied by the same authors together with Diogenes Laertius Valerius maximus and Diodore And that usurpation continued untill Thrasybilus and Rhinon's dayes These did vindicate the liberty of the Athenians against those tyrants who did keep them under bondage Herac. de Pol. Ath. Val. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. Aemil. Prob. de Thras And so their government turned meerly popular and became an even-down Commonwealth Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 23. And as for these Princes we deny not nor can we say otherwise but they had not onely as great but also greater power then any of the Athenian Kings whether Theseus or any King that succeeded him And that they were of equall power at-least is evident for they did reign not as Princes but as Kings Her de Polit. Ath. And Pisistratus one of these usurping Kings in his Epistle to Solon saith plainly that he walked according to Solon's Lawes differing in nothing from the people but in honour and dignity But he addeth that he took upon him that power which the Athenians conferred upon Codrus and his posterity And in this he acknowledgeth that he failed and had such a power not by the Law of the Kingdom but by a Law of his own making Whence it is evident that Pisistratus by usurpation took upon him as great power as did Codrus or any of his race Yea and that they had greater power is also clear for Justine storieth That after Codrus while-as the Administration of the Republick vvas given over into the hands of yearly Magistrates the King's lust became the People's law Thus he telleth us that in the times of defection and vvhile-as corruption entered the State of Athens Kings became absolute and vvere of an arbitrary povver Post Codrum administratio Reipublicae annus Magistratibus permissa est Sed Civitati nullae Leges tunc erant quia
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
consulting the Senat. Senatores voluti praesides Reipublicae custodes tantae authoritatis fuere ut si populus Regem aut magistratum quempiam jussisset id sic ratum foret si Senatus author fieret Alex. ab Al. lib. 4. cap. 11. i. e. The Senatours as Praesidents and keepers of the Republick were of so great authority that if the people had commanded the King or any Magistrate that accordingly should be ratified if the Senat authorized it See also Liv. lib. 1. Dionys lib. 2. Digest lib. 1 tit 9. Luci. Ann. lib. 1. cap. 1. Plut. in Romul Aye which is more Dictatours whereof Julius Caesar was one who amongst the Romans were of greater power then Kings were subjected to the Tribunes for it is reported that M. Fabius appealing from L. Papyrius Dictatour to the Tribunes by their authority exempted his son Q Fabius from punishment Alex. de Alex. lib. 1. Well we shall not alledge that the Tribunes the Representative of the people had greater authority positively in exercising acts of Law then the Dictatours for not onely Alexander ab Alex. lib. 1. Geni di cap. 3. lib. 4. cap. 23. lib. 5. cap. 2. but also Pomponius Laet. de magist Rom. and Fenestella de mag Rom. lib. alt do plainly say that in respect of positive authority the Dictatours were above the Tribunes and there was no aâ—pellation from them Yet all of them say that in respect of negative authority the Tribunes were above Dictatours Consuls and all the rest of the Roman Magistrates because they had power of interdicting and discharging all the rest of the Magistrates Dictatours or any other from undertaking any thing as they judged fit and expedient should neither be acted-for nor against And so having this power de jure as is condescended upon by Alexander himself and all others I admire why Alexander maketh any question concerning M. Fabius appellation from the Dictatour to the Tribunes for so he did not appeal to them as to judges of greater authority then the Dictatour but as to propugnatours and defenders having a power of inhibiting what was done as they judged amisse by the rest of the Magistrates Albeit they had not a main voice in judging wherein the power of the Dictatour was above their's and in descerning yet had they a main voice in defending approving and disapproving And whereas this man alledgeth that Aristotle is of his judgement he is close mistaken For Aristotle doth not define the Laconick Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of the battell according to a perpetuall title from blood-right because he opinionateth that the Lacedemonian Kings were not properly Kings but because the greatest authority the Lacedemonian Kings had was in leading-forth the Army There indeed they were primi above the Senat and Ephorie Whereupon he also calleth the Laconick Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power of leading forth the Army by it's own power He is so far from being of Salmasius opinion that contrariwise he reckoneth up the Laconick Monarchy amongst the proper species and and kindes of royall power Polit. 3. cap. 10. and 11. And whileas he speaketh of the Lacedemonian Kings he doth so call them Pol. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Inst 2. Aristotle doth so saith Salmasius 1. Because the power of the battell was hereditary to the Lacedemonian Kings 2. Because the Lacedemonian Kings in battell had a full free and Kingly power Aye saith he they had also a power in those things which related to the ceremonies wherewith Kings in old were solemnly entrusted Def. Reg. cap. 8. Ans The first reason is forthwith nought 'T is a bad consequence The Lacedemonian Kings were hereditary Commanders of the Army in chief Ergo Aristotle because of that calleth them Kings Quasi vero he had had no such reason for him to call them Kings if they had onely been entrusted with the power of the battell by election Friend you are a-little mistaken in this 1. Because Aristotle divideth the power of the battell into hereditary and elective power Pol. 3. cap. 10. Thus he contra-distinguisheth the one from the other as two different species properly and specifically differencing the power of the battell in generall 2. Because a Kingly power is not therefore Kingly because it is hereditary Yea which is more a Kingly power caeteris requisitis is properly and formally elective And therefore Aristotle should have had more reason to have called them Kings if their power had been by election and not by succession So the man himself judgeth whileas he saith that the Carthaginian and Cretian kings were better ordained then the Laconick Because saith he the Laconick kings are ordained by succession and they by election And he addeth a reason to this because saith he by election the best are choosed whereas by blood-right the like cannot be had Whereupon saith he the heriditary title of Kings amongst the Lacedemonians hath brought great hurt and detriment unto the Commonwealth Polit. 2. cap. 9. And as for his second reason it plainly contradicteth himself for so he confesseth that in the battell they had a Kingly power And he hath little reason to say that Aristotle called them Kings because they had a power of over-seeing the sacrifices So had the Athenian annuall Princes whom properly he will not admit to be called Kings Howsoever it cannot be denied but properly they were Kings albeit they were subjected to Law 1. Because it doth not follow that a King properly is not a King because he is a regulated King We have shewed already that GOD no otherwise mouldeth the King but as he subjecteth him to Law Assert 2. And afterward we shall shew how that the Kings of the Jews were regulated Kings And yet who will deny but they were proper Kings 2. The King is not properly King unlesse he be a regulated King and subjected to Law as both already and afterward is shewed And therefore the Lacedemonian Kings were Kings properly the rather because they were regulated 3. Because Salmasius himself confesseth that in the battell the Lacedemonian Kings had a full and Kingly power And yet then their power was not absolute and arbitrary They had not then a full power to act against Law but according to Law as you may learn from Conclus 6. in comparing their power with Agamemnon's power Therefore either Salmasius will contradict himself or else he must needs say that Kings are properly Kings though they be regulated 4. Because all that write of the Lacedemonian Commonwealth of whom we have cited many already do call the Captain-Generals of their Armies Kings And 't is remarkable that Lysander in an oration which was found after his death perswaded the Lacedemonians to shake-off the Kingly government and elect a Captain-Generall for governing the battell Plut. Aemyl prob in Lys This he speaketh of the Lacedemonian Kings as contradistinguished from Captain-Generals of Armies O but saith Salmasius Lysander onely dehorted the people
Thereus by his Nobles was constrained to flee for fear of them Durstius was killed in battel by his People Gillus his People and Nobles arising against him diffiding his own fled into Ireland and at last was discomfited taken and killed Evennus 3. was taken in battel by his Nobles condemned into perpetual bonds Dardanus was taken in battel and being beheaded his head was hanged-up for a spectacle and his body cast into a Sinck Lugthacus once was censured by a Parliament for slighting the counsel of the States in appointing base men to Publick Offices and at last he was killed by the Noblemen and People The like hapned to Mogaldus Conarus degraded and imprisoned where he died till he resigning the Kingdom they substituted another Athirco being pursued by his Nobles killed himself Donaldus 3. usurper was killed by Crathilinthus idonea manu collecta Romachus was censured by the Parliament and being beheaded by his Nobles his head was put upon a pole Constantinus 1. was punished by his States Ferchardus 1. Renuentem arce expugnata in jus pertrahunt in prison killed himself Ferchardus 2. was also censured by the Parliament Egenus 8. was put to death by the Parliament all consenting thereto Donaldus 5. being censured by the Parliament was put in prison where he killed himself So Ethus being dethroned in prison died of grief Constantine 4. was killed in battel Grimus being taken in battel his eyes were put out and he died of wounds and grief Macbethus being vanquished fled into the Castle of Dunse where he was killed Donald 7. was made to flee by Duncanus for whom the Nobles sent in Aebudas Duncanus was made to flee and afterward put in prison where he died This was done by Edgar sent for by the Noblemen to that purpose Edward Baliol was expelled and shut-out of his kingdom James 3. was killed in the pursuit by his Nobles Q. Mary was arraigned in Parliament and by a great part condemned to death by many to perpetual imprisonment What will Salmasius say to these practises Or rather what will the Scots speak of them O marvelous and unspeakable Providence Never enough admired never enough praised Behold and see in this matter the stately steps of Providence It is known this day to the world that no Nation is so malignant as Scotland so much idolizeth a King and doteth upon him as it doth It is not ashamed to postpone Christ's Interest to Caesar's No Nation pleadeth so much for absolute power to the King as it doth It pleadeth for an absolute immunity to the King from all punishment and restraint And yet albeit I have read most of the ancient and chief Chronicles of all the ancientest and chiefest Kingdoms of the world I never read of any Kingdom that proceeded so much against and so often did punish delinquent Kings as the Scots in old have done No question our LORD in his wisdom hath done this that the ancient Scots may stand up in judgment to-day to condemn the practice of the latter Scots who are not ashamed to idolize a King a creature like themselves Having most abundantly evidenced how that Regal power in many forrain Kingdoms in old hath been subjected to Law no lesse then any inferiour power we do now in the next room drawing home toward our own doors demonstrate the King of Britain to be a regulated and non-absolute King according to the Laws and Customes of England and Scotland As for England we must needs take it under these notions 1. As it was before Julius Caesar conquered it for that time it is thought very doubtsome and uncertain and therefore I minde to passe it at this time till afterwards in a more convenient place in a word not sparing to say that Brutus the first King of England was an absolute King for as he lived in the dayes of the Heroes wherein Regall power was most in request so by his own proper conduct and industry he firstly founded and planted a Kingdom there This cometh nigh that which Aristotle saith alledging that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe by the way that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 draweth nigh to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet is there some difference between them But how they differ as also how Aristotle in this place is to be understood you have at length expressed afterward Now Aristotle for his saying assigneth many causes amongst which these be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by gathering people together or by purchasing a Kingdom Polit. 3. cap. 10. Now Brutus as is reported did both these And consequently we need not scruple to say that he had a full and absolute power We dare not say so much in behalf of his posterity and those who immediatly succeeded him Heroîcisme then was upon the declining hand and withall the people were not so much engaged to them as to Brutus himself And after the Line of Brute was ended it is reported that Corbomannus K. 28. was deposed by the people which could not have been if he had had an absolute and arbitrary power Emerianus K. 34. when he had tyrannously reigned seven years was deposed Chirennus K. 41. through his drunkennes reigned but one year Whereupon we may very probably conclude that from Brutus unto Cassivelanus who was subdued by Julius Caesar the English Kings were not absolute 2. As it was from Julius Caesar unto William the Conquerour As for this time there may be something said for the absolutenesse of the English Kings If we speak of those Kings whom the Roman Emperours deputed it is likely they had an absolute power by derivation from the Roman Emperours as had Herod from Antonius and the Roman Senat. Jos an t lib. 15. cap. 4. And whileas the Englishes were subdued by the Danes and Saxons I think it no wonder though then the Kings of England had an absolute power and that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have shewed already that conquering Kings are all-commanding Kings See Concl. 1.4 And those who are acquainted with the English History do know that from Cassivelanus unto William the Conquerour the Kingdom of England was never free either of intestine or of forraigne wars It was no time then for exercising Laws to the full against any much lesse Kings There were some of their Kings at that time to whose conduct and valour the Englishes were much engaged in maintaining their Liberties and withstanding the force and fury of the common Enemy No wonder though such by way of gratification were invested with a full and large power Others again were meer Conquerours or else deputed by the Conquerour And so we think there was reason for it why such were clothed with an absolute and plenary power for then the Kingdom of England was not under Kings but under Masters And what can Masters do but lord over their servants All that while the Kingdom of England was an unsettled Kingdom and could
scarcely be called it 's own Which maketh me in reason conclude that 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
either by the command of the King or of the People it was holden null unlesse it had been ratified by the Parliament In it every one whether King or other Members thereof have alike and equal power of speaking And withall nothing spoken in it is of validity and force unlesse it be concluded on by the major part together with the approbation of the King Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 11. It is observable That by the authority of the Parliament it was ordained That Steven so long as he lived should remain King of England and that Henry 2. afterward should succeed him By whose mediation and authority the debate between Henry and Steven touching the Crown was decided And I pray you how could these things have been unlesse the Parliament had been above the King Inst 4. But saith Salmasius the power af convocating and dissolving the Parliament belongeth to the King of England The power of the Parliament is extraordinary and pro tunc But the power of the King is ordinary and perpetual And likewise the King of England in Parliament hath a negative voice And therefore in many Acts of Parliament he is called the King and Lord of the Parliament and what is ordained is enacted in his Name And so saith he though the King of England doth act according to the Laws of the Kingdom and concurrence of his Parliament yet notwithstanding he is an absolute King Otherwise the Kings of the Jews had not been absolute who had power to do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin And Artaxerxes had not been absolute who could not be reconciled to Vasthi because the Law discharged it Yea if Kings were not absolute because they act according to the Law and the advice of their Parliament then Cambyses had not been absolute who conveened a Councel whileas be intended to marry his german sister and demanded of them if there was any such law for allowing such a marriage Def. Reg. cap. 8. 9. Answ Salmasius shall do well to consider these few things 1. What the power of the English Parliament is Which is defined by Camdenus to be made-up of three Estates having the highest and most sovereign power in making Laws confirming Laws annulling Laws interpreting Laws and in doing every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is concerned Brit. chorog de Tribun Ang. This is far from Salmasius mind who Def. Reg. cap. 9. opinionateth that the Parliament hath not power over every thing in the Kingdom But Polydore summeth-up the power of the Parliament under these notions First Every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is interested is referred to it Secondly Whatsoever is done at the command whether of King or People is of none effect unless it be authorized by the Parliament Thirdly It establisheth and taketh away Laws as it judgeth fit Fourthly Every Member of it hath a-like power and freedom in voicing And what is decreed and enacted by Parliament he calleth it the proper and municipal Law of the Kingdom Seing then the Parliament is the most sovereign and supream power in the Kingdom of England according as it was in old how can it be said That the King of England hath power over it If it be so then you admit two Supream powers and a power above a Supream power which is contradicent The Lacedemonian Ephori were no otherwise above their Kings but because they were invested with the highest and supream power All things were referred to the Parliament even as the Roman Consuls as Festus out of Coelidus saith did refer every thing to the Senate Now because of this the Senate had the highest power and was above the Consuls Ergo seing all matters of the Commonwealth in old in the Kingdom of England were referred to the Parliament no question it had power above the King The Roman Senate is therefore said to have been of the supreamest power Fenest de Magistrat Rom. cap. 1. because neither Kings nor Consuls nor Dictators nor any other Magistrate could do any thing without their advice and counsel Ergo seing whatsoever the King of England or any other of that Kingdom did in old was to no purpose without the authority and approbation of Parliament without all controversie the King of England was subjected to the Parliament Salmasius concludeth the King to be above the Parliament because he alledgeth the Parliament can do nothing without the King Why may not I then conclude the Parliament to be above the King because re ipsa and according to the Law of the Kingdom the King can do nothing without the authority and consent of the Parliament Where then I pray you is the King 's negative voice There is not a Member in Parliament cui aequa loquendi potestas non competit So saith Polyd. Angl. hist lib. 11. What Do you imagine that ever the Parliament could by their authority have drawen-up the foresaid agreement between Steven and Henry 2. unlesse they had had power above the King What they did therein was a direct acting both over Steven their present King and Henry 2. their future King But will you tell me whileas the States of England did seek of K. John to be governed by the ancient Lawes made by Edward the Confessour whether or not were these Lawes Acts of meer pleasure giving the King a liberty to do as he would either to tyrannize over the people or not You can not hold the affirmative because what they demanded of the King was to be restored to liberty to be freed of tyranny Polyd. Vir. Angl. hist lib. 15. And if you hold the negative part then do the ancient Laws of England pull absolutenesse out of the king's hands and subject him to Law Magna charta saith The King can do nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law And the States of England were so far from permitting John to rule at randome and not according to the ancient Lawes of the kingdom that contrarywise they combined against him entering in oath together to pursue him still on till he should govern according to Law and establish the ancient Lawes of the kingdom Yea albeit that Pope Innocent commanded them to lay-down arms and though upon their deniall thereof they were declared enemies by the Pope they notwithstanding followed on their purpose and cryed-out that they would be avenged by fire and sword on such a wicked tyrant who did so much slight the people Aye which is more they sent into France and from thence brought Ludovick the French king's son and created him king notwithstanding any thing either John or the Pope could do in the contrary Thus they never rested till in sorrow they brought John's head into the grave Where I pray you is the absolutenesse of the king of England whenas the States would not suffer him to govern but according to Law and in denying to do so pursued him in arms unkinging him enkinging another in his room
and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the Parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Laet. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum praelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praef stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i. e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit ita praeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodem die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i. e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensatotius Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i. e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wisely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well lest he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius
in Rufus Henry 1. Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though saith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derogated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am notwithstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conflicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Vnder Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgmet-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Vnder Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But notwithstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to erect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first saith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17. 1532. But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim
but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle 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
Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denie not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of Scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear our purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be sive sic sive non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am causa est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat quod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power he ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24. sect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8. lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Angliae libera fuit omni tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratiam agnoscat Fuit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum humanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parasit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for Salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examine the strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood-relation therefore flattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater
authority then what Malignants have now a-dayes And tell me do not Malignants at this day make use of the King 's pretended greatnes and hereditary right to the Crown of Britain for cloaking their knavery and effectuating their malignant purposes Do not you imagine but Papists and Malignants in England had that same reason for them to make use of K. Jame's power What I pray you is the over-word of Papists and Malignants in Britain to-day The King say they is the undoubted heir of the kingdom and absolute in power Who then should rise against him This is even the most they have to cloak their knavery and to cast a lustre upon their Antichristian and malignant endeavours Do you imagine that the devill was sleeping in K. James time No verily And there hath nothing been done these twelve or thirteen years by-gone whether against State or Church but what was moulded then The very plat-form of all was cast in his dayes By the Scotish Parliament his power was declared absolute And by the English Parliament his right to the Crown of 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.
Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec uuquam ad unius libidinem sed ad legum prescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parl. at Sterl 1567. and 1578. concerning Q. Mary This was practised by Mogaldus who did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Whence the kings of Scotland had no power to do any thing without the advice and counsel of the Estates They had no power to establish or abrogate laws according to their pleasure This my dear Country-man proveth at length in the place above-cited In the interim take-alongst with you that decree made in Finnanus Rex 10 his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernment but by the authority of Parliament and that they should not administer the Republick by private and domestick councell nor the businesses of the king and publick should be managed without advice of the fathers and that kings by themselves without the ordors of the fathers shires and governours should not make or break war peace or leagues 2. As the Lacedemonian king did bind himself by oath to govern according to the Lawes of the kingdom Xenoph. de Repub. Laced N. Damasc de mor. gent. Laced so the king of Scots by Oath and Covenant is tied to do the like The plat-form of the king's coronation-oath is set-down K. James 6. Parl. 1. Whereby he is obliged to maintain the true Kirk of GOD and Religion now presently professed in purity and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the Realm causing justice and equity to be ministred without partiality This did both James 6. and Charles swear And that this is no new custome amongst the kings of Scotland you will find it more then abundantly proved by our learned Country-man in the place above-quoted 3. The Lacedemonian kings were subjected to the stroke of justice Which maketh Pausanias so to write of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Concerning the Lacedemonian King judgment was so ordered Twenty eight in number who were called Senatours were appointed to judge And with them did sit the Ephorick magistracy together with the King of the other family So the king of Scots was censured by the Parliament made up of three Estates His neck was brought under their yoke as my learned Country-man maketh good in the place fore-quoted And so as the Lacedemonians did cut-off and turn-out many kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 5. cap. 10. so the Scots in old did the like as is made good already See Lex Rex loc cit I have read much of the non-absolutenesse of the Athenian Cretian Lacedemonian kings c. But I may justly say that no kingdom in the world as I can learn from history hath exercised Law more or so much on their kings as the Scots have done There is indeed a strange change in Court amongst the Scots if we compare the latter times with the former For my self I observe GOD's speciall providence in it who wil have the practices of the ancient Scots much to condemn and plead against the endeavours and practices of the latter Scots to day Yea the ancient Scots even in this do go beyond the Lacedemonians viz. the Lacedemonian king was hereditary But till Kenneth 3. the Scotish king was elective though for favour of the Fergusian race those who came of Fergus were created kings See Lex Rex ibid. It remaineth now that we make good the conclusion it-self from the examples of kings in the second notion i. e. of those kings whose power was one way or other limited though for the most part absolute In this we will observe Aristotle's method He brancheth-forth Monarchy into four species The first he calleth Laconick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. which cap. 11. he reckoneth-up as the fourth branch of Royall Government Of this we have spoken already at very great length The second kind he calleth herill and despotick Such kind of Monarchy saith he was in Asia And albeit he saith that under such kind of Royall power the people lived as slaves and servants yet withall he telleth us that the government was carried-on and administred according to the Laws of the kingdom We stand here a-litle to illustrate this by example v. g. The Median King had an absolute power over the Medes Any thing the Kings of the Medes decreed and enacted was unalterable Because of the vastness of their power the wicked Presidents obtained a Decree from Darius That none should make prayer to any save to the King for fourty dayes Dan. 6. And yet notwithstanding Darius had not power to recall his Decree after it was made albeit he laboured till the going-down of the Sun to revoke it Ibid. The King of Persia was an absolute Prince Esth 1. Dan. 6. Herod lib. 3. And yet notwithstanding Ahasuerus not only in divorcing Vasthi did call a Councel of wise-men experienced in the Laws but also he submitted himself to their determination Esth 1. And albeit he desired through the abundance of love he did bear to Vasthi to be recnociled to her yet could he not recall the Divorcement because the Law made against it Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 11. cap. 6. I deny not but the Persian Kings had an arbitrary power in making Laws Yet being made they had not power at their own pleasure to recall them Their Laws were irrevocable Esth 1. Dan. 6. And consequently though their power was absolute in making Laws yet was it limited in abrogating them They had power to make them though not to break them 'T is observable that Cambyses a most wicked and tyrannous King desiring in marriage his german-sister called a Councel to consult thereabout Albeit he had an arbitrary power to do what he listed yet went he not about that matter brevi manu but sought and followed the advice of his Counsellours therein And at this day there be many Kingdoms wherein Monarchy and Regal Government is of this same stamp and tenour as namely amongst the Turks The third is elective and aesymnetick This kind of Monarchy also Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he illustrateth by the example of the Mityleneans who elected Pittacus to reign over them Truly for my-self I do imagine that they did give Pittacus an uncircumscribed power because of his personall endowments to govern as he pleased Therefore they did not restrict him to govern according to the Law of the Kingdom but voluntarily submitted themselves to Laws of his making They did not tie him by Law to them and in this his power was illimited and without bounds Yet in so far as they conferred absolute power upon him but as because of his personall endowments he would undoubtedly govern according to Law in so far his power was limited and circumscribed See Gyraldus de vit Pittac And Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac The like power did the Athenians
all men what I please Sueton. in Calig cap. 29. Thus he putteth a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power And beside this even ordinary Heroes namely the founders of primary Colonies had an absolute power without al restriction Con. 2. Where also is shewed that Heroes in after-times as founders of after-Colonies had an absolute power though not so intense and uncircumscribed as founders of primary Colonies Such indeed had power to do all things though not to undo all things And so according to the rules of proportion as the after-Heroes were of lesse power then the former so the last of them had lesser power then any of them Aristotle saith That at last the power of Kings became exceedingly lessened This was after the flower of heroicism was quite faded This could not be at the first but hath come on by degrees After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the erectors of primary Colonies had in-stepped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Aristotle saith was in ancient times i. e. in the times of the after-Heroes in and about the dayes of the founders of the secondary Colonies And then toward the close or in and about the middle time of Heroicism the Kingly power in some things became restricted as Aristotle saith And so he subjoyneth that at last it became exceedingly lessened Now you see that in reason no better construction can be put upon this fourth species of Monarchy assigned by Aristotle And for reverence of the man's memory I suppose that the third species of Royal power is taken by him both in an ordinary and extraordinary acceptation And he only illustrateth it as it is taken in an extraordinary sense because that way it is more material then the other way He passeth the illustration thereof as it is taken in an ordinary notion because so it is not only lesse material but also that way it is more clear then the other way Or I may say that Aristotle confoundeth these two notions together because comparitively aesymnetick Monarchy taken in an extraordinary notion may be called ordinary The reason of this is because men at least may be because of personal endowments more frequently called to govern in an absolute and ordinary way then for extraordinary Heroicism and such like Howsoever this I know that Aristotle reckoned-up no other kinds of Monarchy but such as have power to and do govern according to Law But these who are advanced to an illimited power because of personal endowments are not precisely called thereto to govern whether according to or against Law That doth militate against the ground and motive of their call They are no otherwise called to govern according to their pleasure but as people expect their will shal bring forth the choicest Laws Whence precisely and formally their power both according to the subject and object thereof is restricted and kept within the bounds of Law But we cannot say so of absolute Monarchy acquired and conferred by extraordinary heroicism and such like And consequently we may very justly say that Aristotle referreth absolute Monarchy obtained because of personal endowments to the third species of Regal government and doth not refer absolute Monarchy because of extraordinary heroicism and such like to any species or kind of Monarchy he speaketh of The reason we say is this because any kind of Monarchy he speaketh of doth not exceed the bounds of Law But illimited Royal power conferred beeause of extraordinary qualifications precisely and formally doth not exceed the bounds of Law Whereas being conferred upon grounds of extraordinary heroicism purchase and such like precisely and formally the power thereof out-reacheth all Laws Thus we judge Aristotle's mind to be cleared concerning all the specics and sorts of Monarchy summed-up by him I confesse Salmasius imagineth that Aristotle by Pambasilick or all-governing Monarchy doth mean arbitrary Monarchy having power to govern at random either according to or against Law But the Gentleman in this is a little mistaken for otherwise in the moulding of the King he had not required such conditions and limitations as he doth Which be these 1. That he should descend of such a race which in vertue and goodnesse should exceed all others Pol. 3. cap. 12. Whence is it that both there and Polit. 1. cap 3. he saith that the best according to nature over-ruleth that which is worse and lesse good 2. That the King himself should exceed the rest in vertue and goodnesse Yea but for a King to govern according to his own hearts lust even against Law and Reason there is no necessity of vertue and goodnesse seing illegality and injustice flow from a vicious and corrupt principle Therefore Aristotle in opposing Monarchy or Government laid upon one to Government carried-on and managed according to Law doth not insinuate an arbitrary power in the King having immunity and freedom from Law but in so doing he only opposeth the power of Government laid upon one to its power being laid upon many implying that as in this respect the Governour is subject to the rest and cannot act any thing of Law without their consent and assistance so in the other respect the Governour in carrying on things according to Law hath immunity from subjection to any other beside and in doing things legally may perform them without the interposition of any other man's authority Whence we see that Aristotle alloweth an absolute power in the king to act according to Law but not to act either according to Law or against it And therefore in so far he taketh these by the hand who deny Monarchy to be according to nature in as far as they contend that to be against Nature which is against Law Which maketh him conclude Tyranny to be against Nature it being against Law and Reason And consequently he doth not allow arbitrary power in the king to do either good or bad according to his pleasure He only pleadeth for power to the King which is according to Nature Justice and Utility He will have him a man excelling others in vertue and governing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 12. Moreover it is contrary to the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Aristotle expresseth cap. 11. to render it an arbitrary power There is a very great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Howsoover he expoundeth it himself cap. 10. and defineth it to be a power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to govern the City and all the Publick matters whether at home or abroad Thus the man speaketh of a governing power But arbitrary power is a misgoverning-power He speaketh of a power ordering and doing all things But arbitrary power is a power of misordering and undoing all things It doth not follow that because kings of old had power over all things Ergo they had power to dispose on them according to their pleasure
Quasi vero there were not an all-commanding power according to Law This consequence doth not immediately follow from the Antecedent It is a fallacy ab homonymia for there is a twofold all-commanding power one according to and another above Law 'T is therefore a poor shift to conclude an arbitrary power from an all-commanding power The original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth bear an arbitrary power only by way of analogy And it is known that the Roman Dictator had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Well let it be so that Aristotle saith That kings in ancient times had an arbitrary power a power above Law But I pray you what kings then doth he understand Either they are the Founders of the primary Colonies or the after-Heroes and-Founders of the secondary Colonies If of the first kind ergo you gain just nothing We have granted that already Concl. 2. Their power was extraordinary If of the second kind we might also therein take you by the hand Howsoever with some distinction or other you have our mind cleared in this ibid. Therfore howsoever you understand the latter part of the fourth Species I lose nothing If you say that Aristotle only meaneth in it an all-commanding power according to Law then do I gain my purpose And if you suppose his meaning to be otherwise you learn from what foregoeth that I lose nothing Thus the case is extraordinary And I deny not but Royal power that way hath been arbitrary Yet you cannot deny but the first second third and fourth or the former part thereof Species of Monarchy do not speak a word of Royal power above Law Although Aristotle's words may bear this construction yet do we judge it were corresponding to his sense and meaning to put this sense upon them In the former part of the fourth Species he contradistinguisheth the times of the Heroes from the ancient times which he expresseth in the latter part thereof But the one being opposed to the other if we speak rigorously and properly by the ancient times can be nothing understood but the golden age which after the flood Ethnick Writers know no time before the flood lasted as some say 250 years and as others say with better warrant 131 years All which time if we speak properly and rigorously there was no kingly government at all for as is shewed already Concl. 3. there was no government then but natural and oeconomick In qua nullo ferente legem natura ipsa vivebatur Mnes Phoen. Damasc lib. 97. hist Archil de temp Notwithstanding this I do imagine that Aristotle opinionateth there were Kings in the golden age Fuerat enim antiqua Civitatum saith he guhernatio rationabiliter paucorum regia Polit. 4. cap. 13. So say Salust conjur Catel and Trogus or Justin hist lib. 1. Indeed these two do diametrally oppose the ancient times to the dayes of the Heroes for they contradistinguish them from the times wherein the Assyrian monarchy took its beginnings Which was the very first birth of herocisme And yet they say before this time Imperium penes Reges erat What is meant by these Reges Fabius Pictor explaineth Principes saith he quia justi erant religionibus dediti jure habiti Dii dicti De aur sec c. lib. 1. And yet in the preceding words he saith Ea aetate nulla erat monarchia quia mortalium pectoribus nondum haeserat ulla regnandi cupiditas Therefore by these Reges and Principes can be nothing else understood but the fathers and heads of the chief families as Shem Japhet c. over all whom Noah did rule as a common father And it cannot be denied but such had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power yea and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power Concl. 3. which maketh Trogus say Principio rerum arbitria Principum pro legibus erant Lib 1. This was because those Fathers and Princes did not only stand in order to the People as natural fathers to natural children each of them being by the intimate bonds of Nature tied to other which maketh Aristotle compare the fifth Species to oeconomick and paternal government but also because they did far go beyond their people in the matter of qualification Yet we must not imagine that this arbitrary power which they had was so precisely and formally If we speak rigorously arbitrary power conferred because of intimate and natural relations and personal endowments is rather limited then illimited for as the grounds thereof tie the people to all due obedience and subjection so they tie the Prince to every due and lawful way of governing and that in a most intense and extraordinary way Therfore speaking precisely Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all-commanding power doth not include 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power But let it be so that Aristotle speaketh of an arbitrary power given to Princes and heads of chief families yet can it be no other wayes understood but as it is already explained by us Concl. 3. Which speaketh nothing but of an arbitrary power in an extraordinary case But ab extraordinariis ad ordinaria non est sequela As Aristotle is very unclear in the latter part so is he likewise intricate in the former part of the fourth species In it he saith that the Kings in the in the dayes of the Heroes were in some things limited and did govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law This indeed deserveth a distinction No question extraordinary Heroes and the founders of primary Colonies had a vast and arbitrary power concl 1. and 2. What power other Heroes had I stand not much on it to determine Yet I may very conveniently use those distinctions which are expressed concl 2. But for further clearing this point we shall stand here a-little to illustrate by Example all these wayes Aristotle setteth down in the former part of the fourth species whereby heroick Kings came to their Crowns In summing them up we shall observe a more exact and resolutory method then Aristotle doth 1. By gathering people together and planting Colonies Which is considered four wayes Firstly by way of lot and division Thus the primary Colonies were planted And no question the founders of such had power to govern at randome concl 2. Secondly by way of donation Thirdly by way of subordination Fourthly by way of purchase and acquisition Though we cannot be of Aristotle's minde in respect of the founders of the first sort of Colonies yet in respect of the second and third we may take him by the hand And notwithstanding this we may very probably conclude either of the parts whether by granting or by denying the arbitrarinesse of the founders of these Colonies Howsoever concerning all the four sorts you have our judgement expressed concl 2. 2. By way of battell Firstly by way of regaining So did Dionysius
and notion for the Frenches are called Cimbri as Valerius maximus Cicero and Appianus say and Gomeri as Josephus and Zonaras teach So the Britains are called Kimbri changing C into K. and Cumeri changing Go into Cu. They are so both called from Gomer or Comer the name of Gallus And consequently seing they both have one common epithet from his forename why may they not also passe under one notion and be called Galli from Gallus his surname I wil not much contend whether the Frenches or Britains had Kings after the dayes of Comerus and his nephews or not And if they had any sure I am they were governed by moe then one No question the Land in both was divided into divers Satrapees So we find the Kingdom of Italy in old to have been so divided Yet we do not think but amongst those Satrapees there hath been one greater then any of the rest As no question in Italy the Comars were more powerful then any of the rest of the Colonies and inhabitants of the Kingdom as you may learn from Beros an t lib. 5. So amongst the Frenches the chiefest Kingdom was the Satrapee of the Celtes Thence it is that Berosus ant lib. 5. doth reckon-up in a catalogue the Kings of the Celtes as he doth the Assyrian Kings and Manetho beginning where Berosus left summeth-up one by one the Kings of the Celtes as he doth reckon-up the Egyptian Kings Thus there is no repugnancie between the divisions of Berosus and of Caesar and Mela for he speaketh of a general and large division and they keep themselves within more restricted and narrow bounds They only speak of the division of France separating it into three parts Belgia Aquitania and Celtae And if we beleeve them in old ever unto the dayes of C. Câ—esar these were three distinct Satrapees governed by different Magistrates and distinct Laws The chief people in Aquitania were called Ausci in Belgia Treveri and in Celtae Hedui Mel. de sit Orb. cap. 2. And the chief Magistracy amongst the Hedui was called Vergobretus With which in Caesar's dayes Divitiacus and Liscus were invested Which was a yearly Magistracy having power both of life and death as Caesar saith de bel Gal. lib. 1. What the Vergobret did amongst the Hedui was done convocatis eorum principibus Those who were clothed with it as they were annual and but for a time so they did nothing absolutely and by themselves but according to the counsel and advice of the Princes This is far from the arbitrary power that Salmasius speaketh-of Yet we will not say that the power of the Celtick Kings was alwayes so hemmed-in by Law I do not think but their primary founders not only amongst the Celtes but also amongst the Aquitans and Belgists had a vast and arbitrary power Yea and their after Kings so long as the flower of Heroicism lasted had such power as Aristotle speaketh-of and which by us is already expressed in the fourth species or in the former part of the fourth species of Monarchy Polit. 3 cap. 10 11. And so the flower of Heroicism fading and Kingly Government wearing out of request no question there hath been no more power left to their Kings then what Caesar speaketh-of in the place above-cited Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith concerning the detracting from and dimitting of the power of Kings in after-times Polit. 3. cap. 10. Although we may very justly say That the Kingdom of France was divided into distinct Satrapees ever until the dayes of C. Caesar yet we dare not adventure positively to say so much of Britain if we take it by restriction for the Kingdom of England And that this may be cleared We 2. Must diligently observe the cause and reason why England and Scotland are called Britain Thus we come to consider England in a second notion as it was in the dayes of Brutus untill in and about the days of C. Caesar By the way I must needs confesse that this is a hard businesse on which I now enter more difficult to be found-out then any thing we have spoken to this purpose The originall of France and Britain is very easily learned from Beros an t lib. 5. M. Porc. Cat. Orig. lib. Solinus and others But now Britain was secondly inhabited is much controverted amongst the Writers Some imagine that it was secondly planted by Brutus son to Ascanius Of this opinion is Galfredus But this cannot be for we read of no such man whether in Maneth de Reg. Aegypt Sempr. de div Ital. Solin cap. 1. Marl. lib. 1. cap. 2. or in any other Writer beside who speak of Aeneas and his posterity Others again imagin this Brutus to have been a Roman Consul Of this opinion is Gildas But for this he can produce no Author But others think that he was either Brito Centaurus of whom Hyginus speaketh or els Bretan whose daughter as Parthenius Nicaeus saith was Celtice on whom Hercules begot Celtus the father of the Celtes From him Hesychius draweth the denomination of Britain For my self I subscribe to this albeit I suppose this Brito Centaurus to be all one with Bretan Howsoever if we may give credit to these Writers Britain was secondly inhabited by one named Brutus or Bretan or Brito according to the Greek And why may we not I pray you as it were a posteriori conclude Britain to have been secondly planted and governed by one called Brutus or Brito Kingdoms ordinarily use to derive their denominations from such To this very pertinently agreeth that of Sibylla a most ancient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Britains And I think the derivation of it very pertinent to deduce it from Brutus as Media from Medus and Gallia from Gallus And it is observable that she addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The point being thus established I make no reckoning whether this Brutus be called a Trojan or a Grecian And if he was a Trojan then I may justly say if it be true which Ammian lib 15. saith That while as the Trojans came into France they did also come into Britain And that such came into France is confirmed by Manetho who saith that Francus about the 9. year of the Egyptian dynastie was created and ordained the Celtick King Him he calleth one of Hector's sons De Reg. Egypt Now this could not have been unlesse as Ammianus reporteth many fugitive Trojans had come along into France And so in all probability as the dispersed Trojans took-up their residence and erected a Kingdom in France they have done the like also in Britain the one lying contiguous with the other But for further clearing the point we must not lightly over-leap that which Parthenius saith The man imagineth that Celtus son to Hercules begotten on Celtice daughter to Bretan was the begetter and founder of the Celtes Here is need of a distinction Surely Samotes as is said already firstly erected the Kingdom of the Celtes
it was in and about his time 1. Because it is very unlike that ever he would have called the Roman Caesars Princes 'T is an epithet of lesse honour and power then Kings And so I imagine that he would rather have called the Kings of England Princes then them Sure I am the Roman Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradistinguisheth in positive termes the Government of England as it was in old from what it was of late saying That in old Britain obeyed Kings but now saith he it is governed by many and divided into factions And Salmasius himself cannot get this denied Of which Princes Caesar speaks himself Principesque undique convenire se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt De bel Gal. lib. 4. Thus the kingdom was delivered-up into Caesar's hands not by one man the King but by many the Princes And lib. 5. he saith Summa imperii bellique administrandi communi consilio permissa est Cassivelauno On which words Camden noteth That Britain then was not governed by one but by many taking that same course by common consent in choosing Cassivelaunus General and chief leader to them as the Frenches did in choosing Divitiacus to repel Caesar Brit. chorogr de prim incol But what needeth us to stand here We shall make it more appear in proving the second particular The first is also confirmed by the testimony of Mela Fert Britannia saith he populos regesque populorum De sit Orb. lib. 3 cap. 6. And what power those Kings had I mind not to say precisely that it was so restricted as the power of the Lacedemonian Kings Neither will I say that it was so narrow as the power of the English Kings after the Conquerour Yet I may justly say That it was not boundless and arbitrary as Salmasius dreameth-of So saith Dio Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet i. e. Amongst them viz. the Britains the People in a great part do govern This telleth that in old even in the time of Kings in Britain there was Popular Government Kings then in Britain were not sole Lords but the People did govern also Hence it is that Cordilla jussu populi was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jussu Rex dicitur Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 1. Because of the People's swaying power of old in Britain Kingly Government somewhat before the dayes of C. Caesar was altogether abrogated as in part is shewed already But Salmasius shall not think that of old England was singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the Aebuaan Isles Solinus thus speaketh Rex unus est universis Rex nihil suum habet omnia universorum ad aequitatem certis legibus stringitur Ac ne avaritia divertat a vero discit paupertate justitiam utpote cui nihil sit rei familiaris cap. 25. i. e. all of them have one King The King hath nothing proper all things belong to the people he is compelled to equity by certain Laws And lest avarice should withdraw him from the truth he is taught justice by poverty to wit as one that hath nothing belonging to himself The second particular is manifest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Princes or Rulers Thus they were governed toward his time by many and not by one And Salmasius from this is made so to say albeit he endeavoureth to elude what Tacitus saith hist lib. 1. The words are already cited and vindicated But Diodore is most clear to this purpose speaking of Britain Reges principes que ibi sunt plures pacem invÃcem servantes Rer. ant lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salmasius will not say that such had an absolute power over the people Their Kings had not such power Ergo far lesse they Yea the Heduan Vergobret who did reign over moe then any of them had not an absolute and arbitrary power Which maketh me think far lesse had they any such power And 't is observable what they did was communi concilio Caesar de bel Gal. lib. 5. So much touching the State of England in the second notion i. e. as it was from the dayes of Bretan Brito or Brutus 3. We come now to speak of England as it was under the Romans Saxons and Danes As it was under the Roman yoke speaking precisely England had no Kings but the Roman Emperours And what power they had is spoken already concerning the Roman Dictators And as for the power of the Danish and Saxonick Kings in England no question they had greater power then any of the Kings of England in old or since the dayes of the Conquerour if we except K. James But to say that their power was boundless and arbitrary is more then I dare affirm I will not deny but the first whether of the Danish or the Saxonick Kings had that same power which the Conquerour had over England As he subdued England so did they And it is the Conquerours priviledge to rule at random Such do ordinarily conquer against Law And I pray you why do they not also rule without Law But that all who succeeded these had the like power also I cannot be moved to affirm It cannot be denied but even under their reign there were Parliaments and Councels And I trow they were not cyphers I might enlarge this but I judge it needless for I care not which of the parts be affirmed Under these Kings England was not its own but a subdued and unsetled Nation Which maketh me say that it was no wonder albeit then there was no time for it to exercise the Laws against its Kings Thus at length I have offered my judgment freely concerning the power of the Kings of England both of old and of late And that we may shut up this whole purpose in a word for cutting-off all that Salmasius can object you shall be pleased carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Monarchy As for an extraordinary Regal power which was conferred on Kings whether for extraordinary heroicism personal endowments or such like we shall not stand to say that such had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power See Concl. 1 2 3 4. Yet we cannot say so much of ordinary Monarchy if we look to the precise and ordinary way of the power of Kings This by example is at length shewed already And so we come Secondly to prove it by reason Can any in reason imagine that people unlesse it be for some extraordinary cause or other will subject their necks to the pleasure and arbitrement of any Nay it is a combing against the hair for
people to resign their liberty into the hands of any man giving him a full power to dispose upon them at random It is very observable That once Kings in Asia had not only an all-commanding but also an all-willing power So Nimrod Belus Ninus and Semiramis as is shewed already Concl. 1. And yet at last this pambasilick and arbitrary power turned over into a despotick power governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Polit. 3. cap. 10. Under these four Kings the condition of Regal power was very extraordinary And so it was no wonder though they did reign in an extraordinary way having more will then other Kings But the kingdom becoming setled the power of their successours was hemmed-in Their wings were a little clipped And may we not judge so of all other Nations Verily I think it holdeth a majori for the Assyrian Kings were universal Monarchs and no kingdom could ever match with the Assyrian empire Which makes me imagin that as the Kings of the Assyrian empire in an ordinary and setled case were reduced to Law far more in that respect hath the case of other kings been such And withall observe there was a time when Regal Government was much in request It was much cried-up in the dayes of Heroicism And that rather in the flower and beginnings then in the fadings and after-times thereof And so it was no wonder though at that time kings were invested with a vast power But by process of time Monarchy became lesse esteemed The power of it became much lessened partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings themselves dimitting and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people detracting from their greatnesse So saith Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 10. So then we must not imagine that though kings sometimes had a vast and arbitrary power they alwaies had such a power and their wings were never clipped Nay the disposition of every age is not for Royal power it-self much lesse for the arbitrariness thereof Let me never dream that the ordinary way of people is to bring their necks under such a yoke What is more consonant to nature then libertie and what is more dissonant to it then tyranny Can any deny but arbitrary power in actu primo is tyranny It is still in a capacity either of tyrannizing or non-tyrannizing It hath still a disposition for acting either according to or against Law Can people then have an ordinary temper for taking with such a yoke No verily that is against the haire with them 'T is repugnant to their innate liberty and the natural desire thereof Yea 't is repugnant to the natural antipathy which all bear in hand against tyranny This being done we hasten now to give a direct and particular answer to that which Salmasius alleadgeth for proof of the second Proposition We confesse that some Kings of Assyria had an absolute and arbitrary power But we deny that such power was competent to all the Assyrian Kings as is proved already It will never follow that because the first Kings of Assyria who were extraordinary Heroes in whose time the condition of the Kingdom was unsetled had an arbitrary power therefore all the Assyrian Kings had the same power also while as the Kingdom became established The one way the case is extraordinary and the other way it is ordinary But there is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries And Salmasius concludeth very unjustly the Assyrian Kings to have been absolute because the Persian Kings were so I confesse the Persian Kings had a power to do any thing they pleased but this was by the means of the great Persian Monarchs Cyrus and Darius We read in Daniel 6. ch that in their dayes the Persian Laws were unalterable And so we conceive that Law which gave the King of Persia a power to do every thing according to his pleasure was made under their reign Otherwise they could not have decreed unalterably Neither could Darius have decreed that none for fouâ—â—y dayes should pray to any but to him unless he had had an absolute god-like power conferred upon him by the Law of the Kingdom Of this Law Herodot speaketh lib. 3. in the history of Cambyses marriage with his german sister And it is known that Cambyses did shortly after succeed to Cyrus And it is already said by us more then once that conquering Kings may and did reign at random And so it was no wonder though the Persian Kings had an absolute power 1. Because it was established amongst the first and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdom It was enacted by the power and means of the first Founders of the Persian Monarchy who subdued the Assyrians and brought them under But you can never shew me a Law amongst the Assyrians establishing the arbitrary power of their Kings 2. I do not deny but arbitrary power may be retained in succession being once acquired by some of the predecessours for some short time So arbitrary power acquired by Nimrod continued till in and about the reign of Zames And if you say that it lasted longer sure I am it did not exceed the dayes of Heroicism After which time Monarchy in Asia became despotick and heril Neither can you shew me as is proved already that in the dayes of the Heroes regal power was arbitrary unlesse it had been in some extraordinary case Well I stand not to grant that arbitrary power once acquired may endure some few hundred years But I cannot be brought to say that such a power can be retained into many ages This you may learn from what foregoeth Now the Assyrian Monarchy continued about 1547 whereas the Persian Monarchy lasted but 230 years And though Ottanes defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably yet he doth so by way of taxing the greatnesse thereof And positively he taxeth the greatnesse of the Persian Kings objecting to the people the licentious arbitrarinesse of Cambyses and Magus Thus he endeavoureth to disswade the People from establishing Monarchy telling them that it was neither good nor pleasant And he giveth this reason for it because saith he it hath a priviledge to do every thing unpunishably Herod lib. 3. So then he defineth Monarchy after that manner not because he esteemeth it to be its due priviledge but because he holdeth it as that which is competent to it against the pleasure and profit of the people Therefore is it that he useth it as a disswading motive for provoking the people no longer to set-up Monarchy amongst them We stand not here to glosse Artabanus mind who commendeth that Law amongst the Persians whereby was enacted That the King should be honoured as the Image of GOD. He was a great Courtier with the King of Persia And it is the least thing Courtiers can do to flatter Although we do verily think that Artabanus did allow vast and arbitrary power in the Persian King yet that can be hardly drawn from his words In Scripture Kings are
cod San. cap. 11. he saith That it is true in respect of the Kings of Israel but not in respect of the Kings of Judah And in what sense it is true concerning the Kings of Israel is already explicated by us The Gemarick Writers from these words Oh house of David execute judgment in the morning and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour Jerem. 21. move this Question Nisi in jus vocari possent quomodo judicarent i. e. How could the house of David judge unlesse they were judged This they prove because in Scripture we are commanded to search and try our wayes i. e. as they say Corrige te ipsum deinde alios corrige Salmasius rageth at this and he denieth what they infer I shall not take it upon me to make good their consequences Let Salmasius impugn them as much as he will My purpose is only to shew That they are not of his opinion They are contented not only to say That the king of the Jews at-least of Judah as Salmasius himself out of Sichardus R. Lakises hath was subjected to Law but also they dispute for that and endeavour to enforce it by Arguments Secondly from their acting with the concurrence of their Princes And David consulted with the Captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader And David said unto all the Congregation of Israel If it seem good unto you let us send abroad unto our brethren that they may gather themselves unto us 1 Chron. 13. There is much in this If it seem good unto you This insinuateth that as David would not act without the advice and counsel of his people so his acting depended from their determination For the King had taken counsel and his Priests and all the Congregation in Jerusalem to keep the Pass-over in the second moneth He doth it not of his own head without advice And the thing pleased the King and all the Congregation It is a thing done by common consent So they established a decree Mark it is not said So the King established a decree But the Authority both of King and Princes is interposed The decree floweth from the joynt-authority of both Therefore it is added So the posts went with Letters from the King and the Princes 2 Chron. 30. They go not forth as commissioned only from the King but also from the Princes And it is most remarkable that which Zedekiah said unto the Princes The King is not he that can do any thing against you Jerem. 38. Ergo if the King could do nothing against the will of the Princes he had not an arbitrary power to dispose upon matters as he pleased Inst The King delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes saith Salmasius not because he was inferiour to them but by way of courtesie and gratification and perhaps for fear of sedition Def. reg cap. 4. Ans I confesse Josephus ant lib. 10. cap. 10. doth insinuate as much But by your leave I must needs say that Zedekiah might have delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes whether through gratification or through jealousie and yet he needed not to say that he could do nothing against them And sure I am if he had had an arbitrary power over them he would never have said so 1. Because it had been a known and manifest lie Which he would have been ashamed to have spoken in the presence of the Princes 2. He should have done altogether against gallantry and wisdom Against gallantry because if he should have denied his power by way of gratification then should he have been simple And if through jealousie then he had been base and cowardly Against wisedome because the high way of fomenting sedition is to dash upon suspition thereof The seditious party is encouraged upon the fainting and relenting of the other Well I do not dispute upon what grounds Zedekiah delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes Whether it be the one way or the other it is not materiall Yet you must give me leave to add that you can assign no reason whether from gratification or from jealousie why he should have said that he could do nothing against the will of the Princes if he had had an arbitrary and boundlesse power Nay but the words are so clear that they need no commentary Thirdly from the councell of the old men given to Rehoboam who said to him If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day and wilt serve them and speak good words to them then they will be thy servants for ever 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. They perswade the king to keep himself within bounds and not to rule at randome They would have the King to carry himself as a servant toward the people This is far from an arbitrary and lording power It came to this that either Rehoboam behoved to govern according to Law and dimit of the power which his father had although it was not boundlesse and arbitrary in the full vastnesse of arbitrary power or else the people would leave him and revolt from him Thus it was not in Rehoboam's option to lessen or not to lessen the yoke of his father which he held upon the peoples neck No verily Neither did the old men counsell him to dimit any thing of his father's power as meerly depending from his own arbitriment but in relation to the people's desire And that not onely because of necessity but also because of conveniency Verily the old men had been far in the wrong to Rehoboam to have counselled him to dimit any thing of his power if he might have retained it justly No necessity lawfully could have moved the old men to perswade Rehoboam to dimit his power if he had had such a power of GOD and if the desire of the people had been unhonest and unjust No evill should be done that good may come of it Rom. 3. Verily the young mens counsell had been more just and reasonable then the counsell of the old men if Rehoboam lawfully might have kept the people under his fathers yoke and if the peoples desire had been unlawfull But it is known as Salmasius himself confesseth that Solomon unjustly keeped the people under heavy pressures 1 Kin. 11. and the counsell of the old men was just and reasonable yea and the desire of the people was honest and equitable 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. Ios an t Jud. lib 8. cap. 3. Now tell me whether or not the Kings of the Jewes de jure had an arbitrary and lording power over the people If they had such a power de jure then did the people contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to dimit his father's power which of the most can be called nothing but absolute and uncircumscribed and the old men did also contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to satisfie the people's desire Salmasius himself will not say so But he acknowledgeth that the peopl's desire was just and the old mens counsell
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
cap. 24. And at her death she desired the Sanhedrin to dispose upon the Kingdom as they pleased even while her son Aristobulus was in arms for bringing the Kingdom to himself Yea the Sanhedrin not onely accused Antipater but also arraigned Herod before them who for fear of them was constrained to flee Ant. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 17. And what arbitrary power Herod had was by Antonius concession whom Herod blinded and deluded with gifts Ant. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 4. I confesse while as Herod was cited before the Sanhedrin he was not King but Governour of Galilee But what then I hope Salmasius will not deny which indeed he confesses that his father Antipater did reign as King And yet the Elders of the People did accuse him before Hyrcanus But neither Hyrcanus who indeed was King of the Jews nor Antipater who was Procurator and managed the matters of the Kingdom because of his weakness were able to absolve Herod notwithstanding Caesar the President of Syria wrote some Letters to Hyrcanus threatning him if he did not absolve him The Sanhedrin went-on so precisely against Herod that they went about to condemn him to death So that Hyrcanus was necessitate in satisfying Caesar's desire to cause Herod flee quietly away Now I would fain know of Salmasius if either Hyrcanus or Antipater had had an absolute and arbitrary power might they not have absolved Herod at their pleasure the Sanhedrin nilling or willing and not basely for fear of the Sanhedrin have dismissed Herod secretly Therefore Salmasius must give me leave to say though he imagineth the contrary that Sichardus very pertinently urgeth this example to prove that the power of the Sanhedrin was above the King And Salmasius himself denieth not Def. Reg. cap 2. 5. but the strain and current of Rabbinick Writers doth run this way Inst Nay but saith he in the Jewish Talmud it is spoken otherwise And therefore it is said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non dicit testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur in Cod. San. cap. 11. Def. Reg. cap. 2. Answ Verily this Gentleman needeth not brag much of this for the Jewish Writers pull this out of his hands by a distinction Some of them understand it concerning the Kings of Israel and some of them refer it to the Samaritan Kings But they deny it to have place in the Kings of Judah and those who came of David I admire much that he should cite the authority of Jewish writ for him He doth not deny but the Jewish Writers are no friends to Kingly Government And they positively say which he denieth not himself that the King of the Jews was subjected to Law And which is more they particularily condescend upon three cases wherin the King was judged and punished by the Sanhedrin viz. Idolatry Murder and Adultery Let Salmasius impugn their sayings and consequences as much as he will no question they speak many things from the purpose I regard not All that I seek of them is to shew that they are far from his opinion though he leaneth much to humane authority Yea that which in their sayings seemeth most for him he himself is not fully satisfied therewith He is constrained to put a fair face upon that Rex neque judicat saying That it only hath place in the Kings of the Jews after the Captivity But if his construction stand then we shall expound the words thus Rex neque judicat i. e. The King of the Jews after the Captivity did not judge neque judicatur i. e. The King of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity was not judged And so you must after the same manner expound the words which are added to these And for my self I take this exposition of his to be meer non-sense And sure I am there is no Humanist who according to the rules of true Rhetorick can admit such an exposition I see he will have Rex taken in an ambiguous sense But I know not if ever he read that one and the same word in a continuate Oration is taken under divers senses Such cryptick expressions become not Humanists but Sophists Amphibologick Prophets Well we have given the sense of these words already in this same Section Concl. 2. And we mind no more to stand here but only put Salmasius in mind of this That the Kings of the Jews whether according to the Law of God or the Law of man had no prerogative royal above Law Ergo far lesse any other Kings are so priviledged Fourthly Absolute power in actu primo is a tyrannick power Ergo it is not a lawful power and a power from God The Antecedent cannot be denied because absolute and arbitrary power putteth the King or any invested therewith in a disposition for and capacity of acting either according or contrary to Law of tyrannizing and non-tyrannizing over the People Now this aptitude of arbitrary power is the very actus primus thereof The consequence is also undeniable for God cannot be the author of any evil and tyrannous power Power in so far as it is tyrannous in as far it is sinful and unlawful either in lesse or more The Scripture of God crieth-down tyranny and so doth the very Law of Nature But who will say That God hath hand in any thing that is evil and unjust unlesse he will not be ashamed to say That God is the author of sin And if it be so that absolute and arbitrary power is not of God I admire how Malignants are not ashamed to plead so much for it The point being thus established from Scripture and reason grounded thereupon the next thing we have to do in this businesse is to shew that it is not onely my judgement but even that also which the very light of Nature taught Ethnicks to embrace Herodot approveth Pindarus because he called Law the King and Lord of every thing lib. 3. And lib. 7. he saith that amongst the Lacedemonians Law was King In like manner Plutarch approveth Pindarus for that same comment in Princ. Plato doth much cry-up Lycurgus because he prevented tyranny in choosing some to govern with him in the Kingdom and made Law King So that saith he Law became the King of men and not men the Kings of Law In epist ad famil Dion And in the politicks he saith We should not call the civill and kingly power absolute Aristotle reproveth arbitrary power in the Lacedemonian Ephorie and in plain terms saith that it had done better to judge according to Law then according to it 's own will Polit. 2. cap. 7. And Polit. 4. cap 4. he saith in even-down termes that Law ought to rule all Which maketh him say that where Law doth not lord there is not a Republick Yea cap. 5. he calleth absolute optimacy tyranny calling it all one with the tyranny of kingly government Pol. 5. cap. 10. he differenceth the tyrant from the King in this viz. that the object of the King is honestum
and of the tyrant quod placet Thus he maketh Salmasius his cui quod libet licet the propriety of a Tyrant not of a King And therefore shutting-up the whole matter in a word he calleth all powers above Law meer tyrannies But you shall not need to imagine that Aristotle in this contradicteth himself while as Pol. 3. cap. 11. 12. he alloweth pambasilick monarchy 1. Because as is above said there is great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And already we have shewed that Aristotle doth not absolutely but comparatively oppose government laid upon one governing ex voluntate to government mannaged and carried-on secundum legem 2. It is far from Aristotle's mind to dispute simply and absolutely for such a power But his main purpose is to dispute against these who deny pambasilick and all-governing monarcny to be according to Nature And it cannot be denied but both mixed and unmixed monarchy are naturall albeit arbitrary and unlimited regall power be against the very Law of Nature it self It is no wonder though Aristotle speak something for Royall power Had he not Alexander to deal-with who could endure none to govern but himself Church-Prophets or rather prating parasites such as are the lying spirits and King-flatterers now a-dayes were they as great Courtiers as Aristotle was I trow they should not be ashamed in plain language and positive terms to prefer the King to CHRIST The Ethnicks called Jupiter primus But they could find in their heart to change that and say Caesar primus Tell not me that Aristotle is for absolute and uncircumscribed monarchy Compare place with place and you will finde the contrary Yea Polit. 3. cap. 12. he layeth down this as a ground That Monarchy transgressing the right model is against Nature it self But sure I am a power to tyrannize and act against Law is against the right model for both in actu primo and actu secundo it is a tyrannick power Howsoever Aristotle in that same place explaineth what the right model is as is shewed by us already And it is far from taking-in arbitrary power And which is more Aristotle is so far from allowing arbitrary Monarchy that as afterward is shewed no Government taketh so much room in his heart as Democracy And what need we stand here do not all Law-givers disclaim arbitrary and uncircumscribed power viz. Zaleucus Charondas Onomacritus Thales Lycurgus Philolaus Plato Dracon Pittacus and Androdamas of whom Aristotle speaketh Pol. 2. cap. 10. These could not have precisely prescribed Laws for hedging-in the wayes of people unlesse they had been positive and even-down enemies to absolute and arbitrary power Howsoever it is without controversy That the chiefest Law-givers we read of amongst the Ethnicks could not away with arbitrary and uncircumscribed Government Solon was altogether against it Arist ibid. Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Val. Max. lib. 5. cap. 3. lib. 7. cap. 2. lib. 8. cap. 7. Trog lib. 2. See also Isocr Areop Panath. De permut Pittacus was so much against it that having reigned a-while over the Mityleneans at last he resigned the Kingdom Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac See also Simonid carm Val. Max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 6. cap. 5. Who will deny Lycurgus to have despised arbitrary power So Xenoph. de Repub. Laced and many others do report as Herodot Plato Aristotle c. Neither can it be denied that Plato was an enemy thereto as is shewed already He could not endure the tyrant Dionysius as Laertius Plutarch and others do report And that Minos did abhor arbitrary power is shewed already Concl. 6. Because he was a most noble Law-giver therefore he is feigned by Homer Odyss 11. to be Justiciar over the souls departed In a word that of Pindarus Lex omnium est Regina mortalium atque immortalium passeth current amongst the chief Law-givers and Philosophers To which Plato the great Philosopher and Law-giver in terminis doth subscribe lib. 24. de Rhetor. What shall we over-leap the most noble Lacedemonian King Theopompus indeed not unlike the signification of his name No verily While as it was said by his friends to him having superadded the Ephorick power That he should leave lesse power to his successors then he had of his predecessors he forthwith answered saying Nay but I leave them a far greater power Arist Pol. 5. cap. 11. See also Valer. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. Plut. de doctr princ lib. Of the heroick Theseus we have spoken enough already to this purpose And which is to be admired the very King-flattering Isocrates doth story much of his disclaiming arbitrary power And this he reporteth not to his discredit but to his praise Helen laud. Panath. What needeeth us thus to multiply the actings and judgments of men against arbitrary Monarchy Have we not already at large shewed it to be repugnant to the ordinary course and strain of all Commonwealths We will stand no longer here but hasten toward another Question SECT II. Whether or not is Royal Government the choicest of Governments AS in the former Question we have offered our judgment very freely so shall we do the like here And that we may do so to some purpose and distinctly we offer our judgment to you in these Assertions Assert 1. Royal power ectypically is the choicest of Governments This is to be taken two wayes 1. In order to the Creatour It cannot be denied but Monarchy ectypically and by way of assimilation commeth nearest to the Government of God and doth liveliest represent it for the Divine Essence is simply one admitting no diversity Now a thing is no otherwise good and pure but as it is squared according to the perfect pattern of the Divine Essence And consequently Monarchy having a more intimat assimilation to the Divine Essence then any other Government ectypically and by way of assimilation it cannot but be the chiefest of Governments This breaketh the neck of all that is objected from the resemblance that is between Regal Government and the Government of God to prove Monarchy to be the choicest of Governments So do some object expresly Isoc Nic. Aquin. de Pr. reg lib. 1. cap. 2. Clicht de reg off cap. 1. 3. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 1. cap. 4. Salmas def reg cap. 5. and some insinuatively Cypr. de Idol van tract 4. 2. In order to the Creature We find that both amongst inanimate and animate creatures a natural kind of Monarchy is observed Is there not in the complex body of the Universe one above all the rest We see the Heaven is above all the four Elements And in the Heaven all the stars in height vertue and excellency are inferiour to the Sun Therefore Dionysius calleth the Sun imaginem Coeli terraeque regem Lib. de Divin nom Amongst living though brutish creatures have not Bees their own King and flocks of Sheep their own leader Apol.
never used under any other signification then King Precisely and ordinarily it is onely attributed to one of a kingly power You will finde it so in innumerable places of Scripture 3. From Jotham's application of the parable to Abimelech In it is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And both of them ordinarily are onely applied to persons of kingly authority See Judg. 9. This is according as it is written in Chron Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. this is Abimelech who made himself King in the Kingdom or who tyrannously made himself King I pray you why doth the Holy Ghost call the Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and Abimelech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King if he had not been of a Kingly and different power from them I confesse Judg. 17 18 19 and 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken concerning the Judge Yet not properly but metaphorically It is spoken so moeroris gratia to expresse the dolefulnesse of the want of Authority or of persons in Authority And I must needs say that authoritativenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is competent whether to the Kingly person or to the Kingly power Therefore the Holy Ghost in these places expresseth his purpose by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this he doth not apply to one particular Judge as to Abimelech but to the whole incorporation of Judges Then hear Either Abimelech had different power from the Judges or not If different ergo the Judges were not Kings and had not Kingly power The greatest power Abimelech had was Kingly And therein he was differenced from the Judges You cannot say that his power was not different from theirs as is shewed already And consequently his power at the most being kingly and notwithstanding different from the authority of the Judges it necessarily followeth that the Judges had not kingly power Thirdly If the Judges had had kingly power then there had been no change in the Government after Saul was ordained King Thus there had been change nomine but not re And so the people in vain had sought a King and Samuel in vain had denied them a King Thus they sought nothing and he denied nothing but what they had before Bellarmine de Rom. pont lib. 1. cap. 2. though to no purpose laboureth to elude this distinguishing between Rex Prorex Indeed we cannot but much commend him because he saith That God in the time of the Judges was the proper and peculiar King of the Jews This is shewed already And so implieth Gideon's answer Judg. 8. And this cutteth the back of what Bellarmine saith for so they being but Viceroys and God the only King then had they not properly kingly power This is what I crave Yet in the interim I demand whether or not they could extend their power as the Kings And that they could not is manifest Because they had no more power then any of the Seventy and higher Sanhedrin The Seventy were chosen to bear equal burden with Moses and the Judge in all the weightiest and most publick matters Num. 11. Now either conjunctively or disjunctively they had equal power with Moses and the Judge If but conjunctively these two absurdities will follow Firstly that the Judge was not subject to the Sanhedrin for the equal is not subject to the equal And if not subject to the Sanhedrin I see no reason why he was not also unpunishable and absolute And so the Judge had greater power then the King Which I am sure none will admit Secondly before the institution of the Sanhedrin all the greater and hard matters were referred to Moses Ex. 18. And in this Moses power was greater then the power of those Judges which he appointed at the advice and counsel of Jethro But Moses finding that he alone was not able to manage all the weightiest matters therefore in greatest earnestnesse he besought the Lord to adde some to him who might help him therein and exonerate him of his burden Mark a little Either Moses as yet remained the only Judge of greatest matters or else every one of the higher Sanhedrin had equal power with him The reason is because Moses power was according to the object of it The greater matters the greater power Ex. 18. So proportion of Nature requireth If you say that notwitstanding the institution of the Sanhedrin and its intermedling with great and weighty businesses the greatest of matters were reserved for Moses and the Judge's managing I understand not that That is against Moses desire The thing which he prayeth for is That the Lord would ordain some to bear burden with him in discharging the weightiest matters We find no such distinction in his desire as that some might be appointed to oversee some weighty matters and himself notwithstanding to reserve in his own hand the managing of the greatest affairs Friend this had been but a little easing of Moses burden under which he did grievously groan Yea in this case there had been great by-respect and self-interest in Moses desire No lesse forsooth then he should be eased of his burden and notwithstanding reserve a lording power over his brethren There is no little carnality in this desire and as great absurdity to bind it upon Moses Yea were this true he had been in power above the Seventy for so his power did reach further then theirs and might do what they could not Tell not me that his desire was to be eased of his burden and notwithstanding to remain chief man in the Commonwealth There is great carnality and self-interest there also Moses desire is positive without distinction And if he or any of the Judges was major singulis I see no reason why they were not as essentially Kings as Saul David c. The Kings had no more power None of them according to Law was major universis So is demonstrated already And so in the ordination of Kings there was no essential and substantial change in the Common-wealth The people sought a King from Samuel Was it not a foolish desire to seek what they had already Samuel denied a King to them Was it not foolishnesse in him to deny them that which already they had and debate so much against it Verily there was nothing between them if this be true but pugna de lana caprina And verily Bellarmine wrongeth the people of the Jews very much in alleadging they sought a despotick heril and hereditary King There is no such thing in their desire as is shewed already They sought no more but a King According to the Law he was regulated And it is known that they did not give the kingdom to Saul's posterity Well let it be so the Judge had greater power then any one member of the Sanhedrin yet doth it follow that he only had such power as the annual Magistrate v. g. in the Athenian Commonwealth He had greater power then any one of the Councel And yet he had not a
Answ About the place Rom. 13. Royallists amongst themselves do not agree Some are so impudent that they blush not to say by higher powers are only understood Kings But the contrary of this is true 1. Because the kingly power is not the higher power as if there were no power above it It is not absolute but limited as is already demonstrated 2. The King is not above all the people One of the best Kings we read of is but worth some thousands of the people David a matchlesse King at the most is called worth ten thousand 2 Sam. 18. So then though the kingly power secundum quid may be called the higher power yet simpliciter it is not The power of the people simply and absolutely is the higher power The authour of the Exercitation Conc. usurp pow by higher power understandeth no other then lawful and unusurped Magistracy And this man bringeth some Arguments but to no purpose to prove this ch 5 Which we take-up shortly into these two particulars 1. Usurped powers are not powers ordained of God The powers the Apostle speaketh of have their ordination from God 2. The powers the Apostle speaketh of may not be resisted under the pain of damnation and are appointed for the good of people Usurped powers are not so This man mistaketh the matter very far He will do well carefully to distinguish between the usurped power as it is usurped and as it is a power In the first notion it is not of God but of the Devil But sure I am in the second notion it is of God As it is a power it is a real beeing But who will deny that every thing effectively dependeth from God and is ordained by him A thing as it is in it self is good And so it cannot but be ordained by God approved of him Thus it carrieth along with it God's Image and species And sure I am God never hated his own Image in any of his creatures This is more deep then half-wit can draw It is handled by us at length curs Philosophico-theol disp 8. sect 29. I wonder if this Gentle-man will deny but Nebuchad nezzar's power which he had over the Nations was usurped The best title he had to them was his sword And yet the Lord owneth him in his undertakings commissionateth him to undertake and setteth-up his throne Jer. 43. What had he any right over the Jews but the lawlesse right of usurpation Yet Jeremiah many times exhorted them to subject their necks to him upon losse to themselves and disobedience to God And Ezekiel ch 17. threatneth them with destruction because of their denying obedience to him And I pray you what better right had Cyrus to the Kingdoms of the Nations then Nebuchad-nezzar And yet the Lord calleth him his shepherd and his anointed He promiseth to concur with him and help him in subduing the Nations Isa 44. and 45. Thus it is most evident that not only usurped powers as powers are ordained of God but also all lawful obedience is due to them Sure I am whileas the Apostle wrote this to the Romans they did live under the greatest of Tyrants Did not Nero reign then And yet the Apostle commandeth to give obedience to such and calleth their power an ordinance of God This man imagineth that C. Caesar and all his successours even unto Nero had lawful and sufficient calls to govern I shall not examine this by history sensibly perceiving the man's weaknesse in not adverting to the usurpation of Julius and Augustus I passe this and shortly tell him such vile Ethnicks as they had never right to govern as may be learned from what foregoeth But to make shorter work he shall do well to observe all usurped powers to be either Kingly Aristocratick or Popular I demand Whether or not usurped powers taken under such notions be Ordinances of God This he cannot deny Will he say that the Kingly or any other lawful power in abstracto is not of divine institution 'T is bad reasoning the Kingly power in it-self to be unlawful because it is in an usurper's hands Usurpation is accidental whether to the thing as King or to the Kingly power as it is in it self Tell me I pray you what Philosoph will admit a consequence a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per accidens ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per se Will any conclude a thing to be evil in it-self because it is abused No verily It is foolishnesse to say the skin is not good because it is itchy I go forward And for the other particular I would have this Gentleman observing with me 1. Paul prescribeth the duty of the inferiour towards the superiour This he presseth by several arguments 2. He prescribeth the duty of the Magistrate and superiour towards the inferiour I confesse more expresly and largely he speaketh of the first then of the second for as he presseth the duty of the inferiour toward the superiour tacitly and by the way he interlaceth the duty of the superiour toward the inferiour Now albeit the Apostle presseth obedience upon the inferiour both toward good and bad tyrannous and non-tyrannous powers and Rulers yet hath he very great reason for him to exhort all Rulers and powers to exercise and administer justice Albeit it be the duty of the inferiour to give obedience to the usurped and tyrannous power yet it becomerh the Magistrate not to usurp nor tyrannize And so the one being incumbent to the inferiour and the other to the superiour the Apostle presseth upon both of them their duty No question both of them may and doe fail in their duty yet it doth become the Apostle to presse their duty upon both And in this that the Apostle saith the Magistrate is God's minister appointed by him for the good of the people in exercising judgment and righteousnesse it doth not follow that he only speaketh of lawful and un-usurped powers No verily But he tacitly herein disclaimeth such powers and prescribeth what should be the nature and power of Magistrats de jure and not what it is de facto And as it is the superiour's jus to rule in righteousnesse so it is the jus of the inferiour to give all lawful and due obedience whether to the usurped or non-usurped power So is proved already The reason that maketh this man so far misconstrue the Apostle's meaning is to cut-off allegeance from the usurped power and as he saith from the Commonwealth of England which he is not ashamed to call an usurped power But he beateth the aire To make short work of this we demand Whether or not the people of the Jews did lawfully give-up allegeance to the King of Babylon If they did lawfully ergo it is lawful to give-up allegeance to usurped power Sure I am Nebuchad-nezzar's power over the Jews was meer usurpation And therefore the Lord threatneth to punish the King of Assyria and destroy his Kingdom Is 10. If unlawfully ergo it was lawful for them to
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
essentially distinguisheth Melech a king from Sophet a Judge because the one is of an absolute power and the other is not he shal do well to advert that he lose not more this way then he gaineth for so he putteth the essentiall frame of the king in an absolute and uncircumscribed power But in our first argument against this we have shewed the incongruity and absurdity thereof Which afterward shall more appear from what is spoken as followeth Fourthly There can be no example alledged in the Book of God whereby is pointed-out the subjection of Kings to Law We read not that ever the Sanhedrin or the people of the Jews did punish Kings for their faults And yet many of their Kings were most guilty of many great and criminall faults as namely David and Solomon Def. Reg. cap. 5. Ans This argument is like the first Both of them speak much de facto but nothing de jure This is a very bad consequence The people of Israel sought an absolute King to reign over them and did set-up such a King over them Ergo the power of an absolute King is lawfull and Kings de jure are not subject to Law Friend you break-off too soon Though I should grant you the Antecedent yet before I can approve the validity of the consequence you must prove the validity of their practice You count your reckoning too soon whileas you thus conclude There is no practice in Scripture holding-out to us that the Jewish Sanhedrin did ever execute judgement on any of their Kings who transgressed the Law and did violate it Ergo Kings are not subject to Law What if I should grant the Antecedent You have notwithstanding to prove the lawfulnesse of their non-executing judgement on their kings who transgressed before I can at any time subscribe to the consequence Philosophs know though many Humanists do not that à facto ad jus non statim valet consequentia Aye they can tell you that argumentum negativum nihil concludit Well as I deny your consequence so I do not admit your Antecedent I illustrate the vanity of it from examples in Scripture both ordinary and extraordinary Ordinary Jehojadah in the face of the Assembly commanded to fall upon Athaliah and kill her 2 Kings 11. 2 Chron. 23. And though you shall deny this practice as concluding any thing against your purpose yet I pray you what can you say of that practice in killing Amasiah We have shewed elsewhere that such a thing was done in a Publick and legall way Extraordinary The Prophets rebuked the Kings of Israel and Judah for their faults and transgressions And what is rebuke but a degree of punishment And so Kings not having immunity from the lesser degree of punishment why are they not also lyable to the greater according to their delinquency Magis minus non variant speciem Yea Jehu executing the purpose of the Lord on the house of Ahab slew both the King of Israel and the King of Judah 2 King 9. and withall he caused cut-off all the sons of Ahab 2 King 10. O but you will say These practises of the Prophets and of Jehu were extraordinary And then It is a very bad Argument The Apostles preached by the extraordinary instinct of the Spirit Ergo Ministers who have nothing but an ordinary spirit should not preach So it doth not follow The Prophets and Jehu acted against delinquent kings through an extraordinary call thereto Ergo those who have nothing but an ordinary call thereto should not do so It may be you will say The People can have no ordinary call to act against their kings Be not mistaken 1 Extraordinary things supply the room of ordinary things whileas they are wanting So Samuel killed Agag because Saul the ordinary Judge was wanting in his duty 1 Sam. 15. 2 At least it followeth that the same thing which is done extraordinarily may also be done lawfully in an ordinary way Otherwise many absurdities and blasphemies should follow 3 Dato uno oppositorum datur alterum And consequently seing there is an extraordinary call for punishing Kings there is also an ordinary call for doing it The reason of this is because esse extraordinariae vocationis is so called and is so in it-self because it standeth in opposition to esse ordinariae vocationis as we have shewed at length curs Philosophico-theolog disp 4. Sect. 6. And therefore there can be no extraordinary call for punishing Delinquent Kings unlesse there be also an ordinary call for doing so 4 Punishing of delinquent Kings either in it-self is sinfull and unlawfull or not If sinfull and unlawfull then neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily may Kings lawfully be punished for no sin can be committed by an extraordinary Divine providence Otherwise God should extraordinarily sin But we have shewed already that Kings may be punished by vertue of an extraordinary call And consequently it is not a sin in it-self to punish delinquent Kings If lawfull and unsinfull I see no reason why a thing which is in it-self lawfull and honest may not lawfully be done by ordinary as well as by extraordinary midses for either the exercise of ordinary midses is in it self lawfull or not None I am sure will say that the exercise of ordinary midses is unlawfull Otherwise every thing that is done ordinarily is done sinfully Which to say is absurd And if you say that the exercise of them in it self is lawfull then it is lawfull in it self by vertue of an ordinary call to punish delinquent Kings But if there be any fault and escape in the way and manner of imploying that cal that no whit hindereth but the call in it self is lawfull and commendable for such things are meerly extrinsecall to the nature of the call it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum non est sequela 5 Jehu and the Prophets had no other reasons for them in speaking and acting by vertue of an extraordinary call against delinquent Kings but what those may have in proceeding against them by vertue of an ordinary call They no otherwise proceeded against them by vertue of their extraordinary call but as it was for the good of the LORD's People and for executing Justice on their delinquency that others might learn not to offend But sure we are such grounds are competent to an ordinary call for proceeding against delinquent Kings And 't is an undoubted maxim Idem est jus ubi eadem est ratio juris Inst That example concerning Athaliah saith Salmasius deserveth not an answer for saith he she usurped the kingdom and killed the whole Royall Family And so there was lesse executed against her then she deserved And withall according to the Jewish Lawes it was not permitted to women to sway the Scepter and sit on the Throne for it is not said Deut. 17. Thou shalt set a Queen over thee but a King over thee Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans That the example concerning Athaliah very much concludeth our
lib. But Berosus cleareth it how the Italians had their arisal from Janus his son saying that having left his daughter Grana Helerna together with his son Cranus whose posterity to diffâ—r from the Aboriginists he called them Razenues after his son Cranus Razenuus Long before this time Italy was inhabited by the posterity of Comerus Gallus and his Colonies Myrsilus also telleth us that some do opinionate the Tyrrhenians to have their arisal from the Lydians saying that Aâ—ys King of Maonia begotten by Hercules upon the virgin Omphalis daughter to Jardana Queen of the Maeonians begot two twins to wit Lydus and Tyrrhenus But when as one Kingdom could not contain them both Atys commanding his son Tyrrhenus to go from him he forthwith went toward the Septentrional part of Tiber and there built Cities and Towns calling them after his own name But the Grecians mistake this very far Indeed Hercules the Egyptian came into Italy and built Cities there leaving his son Thuscus behind him to reign over them Ber. ant lib. 5. And as Myrsilus saith the Thuscits onely worshipped Jupiter and Juno So Osiris and Isis were called the parents of Hercules the Egyptian Ber. ant lib. 5. Diod. rer an t lib. 1. cap. 2. That the Italians had their arisal from the posterity of Noah see M. Burc Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Fab. Pict de an saec c. lib. 1. Sempron de divis Ita. c. In the twelfth year of Nimrod Jubal gathering a number of Colonies together erected a Satrape in Celtiber called Spain and afterward planted other Colonies called Samâ—tes In the fifteenth year of his reign Oceanus and Chemesenuus with their Colonies erected a Kingdom in Egypt In the eighteenth year Gogus with his Colonies inhabited Arabia felix Triton Libya Japet Atlaa-Africk Cur Aethiopia and Getulis Getulia In the twenty fifth Thuyscon with his Colonies erected a Kingdom at Sarmaria and Masa with the sons of Ister erected Colonies from the hill Adula unto Pontica Mesembria In the thirty eighth Saga with his Armenian Colonies possessed all the region of Caspia from Armenia unto Bactria and Janus translated the Janean Colonies unto Hyrcaria as also the Janilians unto Mesopotamia In the fourteeth some Colonies of the sons of Gomer erected a Kingdom in Bactria and Ganges in India In the third year of Belus Tyras erected a Kingdom in Thracia Arcadius in Arcadia and Aematnia or Macedonia Yea Phaëton whom Porcius calleth the first of all the Grecians erected a Kingdom in Italy by emplacing Colonies therein after he had abandone Attica Ber. ant lib. 5. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Janus erected Colonies in Arabia felix calling them â—anineans and Camesennus in Italy calling them Montan aboriginists An. Nin. 4. Yea Janus coming out of Africk unto Celtiber-Hispania emplaced two Colonies calling them Noelans and Noeglans Berosus also reporteth that Dardanus being gifted by Ato with a part of the Land of Maeonia with his Colonies there erected the kingdom of Dardani An. Ascat 41. About which time Tyrrâ—enus planted the Tyrrhenians to Italy Where also the Griphonians and the Colonies of Phaëton were planted together with the Colonies of Auson An. Aral 8 9 10. and 49. And Armatr an 20. Cydnus and Eridanus erected the Kingdom of Ister in Italy Ber. ant lib. 5. In shall not be amiss for us here to use a distinction Some of these forenamed Colonies were immediatly planted after the flood about the 150. year thereafter Such are these who were planted under the reign of Nimrod Belus and Ninus or thereabout Some of them were planted a long time after while-as all the Countries round about where they took up their residence were afore-hand planted So the Tyrrhenians Griphonians Dardanians Istenians the Colonies of Rhaëton and Auson were planted Indeed I may say that the heads of the Colonies of both sorts were absolute and of an arbitrary power Yet I cannot imagine but the absoluteness of the heads of the first sort of Colonies was more intense then that of the other 1. Because the heads of the first sort were holden and worshiped as gods Thus Cur is called the Saturn of Aethiopia Chemesenuus the Saturn of Egypt Xenoph. de â—quiv And it is observable that all the first founders of Kingdoms are called Saturns and those who immediatly succeed to them are called Jupiters And consequently the first and primary erecters of Kingdoms being holden as gods yea as the chief gods to us it is more then apparent that such have been of a most intense and absolute power They could not be honoured and esteemed as gods unless a God-like power had been ascribed unto them But we judge that the after-planted Colonies who came in upon other men's share sheltering under their wings and receiving places of abode from them had no proper gods of their own but honoured those as their gods from whom they received the places of their residence and abode So the Thuscits worshiped Juno and Jupiter i. e. Isis and Osiris who are Egyptian gods These they worship because Hercules Osiris son who is also called Jupiter erected them and gave them his son Thuscus to reign over them Yea the Tyrrhenians do not worship Tyrrhonus though he was their first King but Janus who was the first planter of Italy by whose Colonies Janus had planted there Tyrrhenus was graciously received And it is observable that the chief Kingdoms which were first inhabited as Assyria Italy Egypt and Ethiopia did honour and worship their first Kings and Planters as great gods And so we do not think but the first and primary Founders of other Kingdoms as Mese and Getulis who erected the Kingdom of the Masagets in India as did Anamaeon the Kingdom of Maeonia An. Nim. 45. were likewise holden by their People and Colonies as prime gods to whom they did owe God-like worship and respect Thence it is that Xenophon saith Saturni dicuntur familiarum nobilium Regum qui urbes condiderunt senissimi De aequiâ— And as the first and primary Founders of Kingdoms are holden as Saturns primary gods so their first-born are holden as Jupiters and Junoes the chiefest of their grand-children as Herculeses And so as Xenophon saith the secondary gods are multiplied according to the multiplication and diversity of the primary gods So then seing the primary Kingdoms and first Colonies have their own proper gods and the secondary Kingdoms which were planted in after-times the chief parts of the Continent being afore-hand planted by primary Colonies had no proper gods but such as were common both to them and the primary Colonies or the first inhabiants It is evident to us that the heads and leaders of the secondary and after-Colonies had no such absolute power as the heads and leaders of the primary Colonies The power is proportioned according to the honour and respect people give to their Kings and Rulers A primary honour a primary power a secondary honour a secondary power And consequently the Kings of
the primary Colonies being attended with a primary respect whereas the Kings of the after-Colonies got but honour in a secondary way no question the power of the one was more intense then the power of the other 2. Because the heads of the after-Colonies being in after-times were neither men of such ancient descent and root as the heads of the primary Colonies nor do I think they were men of such courage and strength as they Strength and courage was the more in vigour how much more they approached the youth and beginings of time Time's youth declining man's youth also faded After-time after-strength And withall after-Colonies coming in upon other men's lot both the Law of courtesie and obligation unlesse the primary Colonies by way of gratification or else in simplicity had past all claim of priviledge over them of which we read nothing neither is it probable did tie them to hold one way or other of the former and primary inhabitants This maketh nothing against the absolute power of their own proper Kings though they honoured the first Kings of the primary Colonies as gods They might very well have acknowledged their own proper Kings as their absolute Lords though ascribing a divine and more intense honour and respect to the first Kings of the primary Colonies This maketh us think that the Thuscites albeit Thuscus was their proper King held Hercules the Egyptian though Hercules to the Egyptians as Jupiter Idem quoque qui unis populis est Hercules alteris est Jupiter They held of Hercules more then of Thuscus Thuscus was their King but they had their being and residence of Hercules Whereupon we conclude that the first of Kings were most absolute of a more vaste and intense power then Kings of after-times and secondary Colonies Yet we cannot deny but even such were absolute also they being men of great valour and courage and not onely such but even those from whose conduct and means the being of their people did in a most special manner depend They did not only govern them as a people but they made them a people But notwithstanding this I cannot imagine that their power was so absolute as that it admitted no restraint And so in respect of them I take Aristotle by the hand who saith that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were absolute though some of them in some things were restricted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. I say some of them because the first founders of Kingdoms and the grand Heroes wer absolute without all restriction But afterwards we shew that Aristotle's meaning is concerning Heroes of the secondary rank and such who in after-times erected Kingdomes and planted Colonies Moreover as there were colonies planted in old by way of donation shelter and gratification as were the Griphonians the Tyrhenians and the colonies of Phaëton and Auson so colonies were planted by way of commission and subordination So the Assyrian Median and Magogan colonies were planted in Asia together with the Moscits who at one time erected their tabernacle both in Asia and Europ An Nimr 45. This they did by vertue of a Commission which Assyrius Meâ—us Magogus and Moscus their four chief leaders had from Nimrod I can not imagine that such had a vaste and arbitrary power over their colonies for what power they had over them was by way of Commission and in subordination to the Assyrian Monarchy But we shal not stand much to grant that even such had an absolute power over their colonies though not so vast intense as that of Nimrod's 1. Because though the Princes of these colonies were subordinate to Nimrod yet it is very likely that their Colonies had no power over them for as the being and residence of these colonies did in a most special manner depend from the conduct and means of their Princes and leaders so then a dayes people did much adore Princely Government and they knew very little then what it was to call consistories and exercise the Lawes Xenophon telleth us that Ninus was Iupiter to the Assyrians De aequiv and so we conceive that their Hercules hath been Assyrius their first Prince and leader for so by proportion Nimrod was their Coelum Belus thir Saturn Ninus their Iupiter and consequently their Hercules behoved either to be Assyrius or else Saturn's grand-child Xenophon alleadgeth that the chiefest of Saturns grand-children are the Herculeses But Belus had not a grand-child who succeeded to him in the Kingdom And so we suppose that their Saturn's grand-child being wanting they have conferred the honor of Hercules upon their own native Prince And what the Assyrian colonies did in that purpose is most probable the rest of the foresaid colonies did the like also And so they conferring a Divine honour upon their Princes and first leaders no question they have given them all obedience and absolute subjection And Ashur whom Berosus calleth Assyrius is reckoned up Gen. 10. as a very mighty and active Prince 2. Because Herod though a precary and substitute King yet was he not subject to Law was declared unanswerable to any for the murder which he had committed against Aristobulus Ioseph an t lib. 15. cap. 4. I confesse this was by the means and vindication of him of whom Herod in a precary and substitute way held the Kingdom And why may we not think far rather that the Princes of these Colonies though but Nimrod's deputies were of an absolute and arbitrary power though you should say that they had it not because of themselves but because of Nimrod Howsoever I stand not much here but let the Reader choose either of the parts he wil. And I onely put him in mind of this that the Colonies of Gelnus and Eridanus were Commissionary and subordinative for they erected a Kingdom in Istria by ordors and Commission from Ligur An. Armat 20. Furthermore observe there were some Colonies planted by meer purchase So Hercules the Egyptian planted the Thuscits whom Berosus calleth Arnits Libarnits and Musarnits These he planted by his own power and conquest So did Aeneas plant his Trojans in Italy and Brutus his Trojans in England Yea Iolaus upon his own proper purchase planted a Colonie in Sardinia calling it Iolaa Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. And as for the Kings and heads of such Colonies I see nothing against it but they have been of an absolute and arbitrary power for as they planted their Colonies without all obligation to the natives so the beeing and residence of their people did more intimately depend from their conduct and means then any of these sorts of colonies we have spoken-of already did depend from their Captains and leaders And so I think caeteris paribus there was more reason for the absolutenes of the leading men of such colonies then for the absolutenesse of the heads of any of the rest of the colonies spoken-of already Here meer purchase carrieth the businesse but there the businesse is carried-on by the
free donation of others and by lot or land for the up-taking Thus the colonies were the more oblidged to the conduct and industry of their Leaders Whereas in the plantation of Colonies according to this last sort they are extremely engaged to the endeavour and conduct of their heads and overseers This maketh me think the fondnesse of the people in ascribing too much to their industry hath made them devolve their whole power over upon their Kings who by their conquest and purchase made them a people and possessed them in land Conclus 3. Personall endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on people to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men We may make this good from the example of Noah The Scripture acquainteth us with his compleatnesse how that there was none like him in his time Gen. 5 6 7 8 and 9. Yea Berosus talketh much to his praise and commendation ant lib. 1 2 3 4. 5. He holdeth him as a God yea as the first and chiefest of all Gods So did the Italians Myrs de orig Ital. M. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig frag Fab. Pict de aur saec c. lib. 1. Sempr. de divis It. c. So do Archilochus lib. de Temp. Xenophon de aequiv Metasthenes de judic temp annal Pers lib. But for the clear up-taking of this matter you shall observe with me that in Noah's time about the 131. or 150. year after the flood the whole earth was divided But before this time they were all of one minde without all sedition and division Then men conveniently lived without any Civill and Politick Government for so they lived under Noah as under a common father receiving the Law from his mouth and withall every one of his posterity did know how that nature had laid most strict and neer bonds of relation upon each one to other Whence peace and piety were preserved amongst them Gen. 8.9 and 10. Ber. ant lib. 3. Ios an t Iud. lib. 2. cap. 4. and 5. Men then were given more to Piety then Policy They were little or rather nothing acquainted with the rules of complex Policy They studied more to entertain simple ingenuity and the ties of pure nature then to rule one of them over another Hence saith Archilochus that 250. years after the flood there was a golden age in which Nature it self lived within the bounds of Law without all politick sanction ever and while Ninus and Semiramus by force of Armes began to corrupt the way of Man's living Lib. de temp So saith Mues Phoex Damasc 97. histor and likewise Ovid. Metam lib. 1. But Fabius Pictor nobly storieth to this purpose saying That in the golden age there was no Kingly Government because then the desire of governing had not entered any man's breast De aur saec c. lib. 1. In the interim observe concerning the duration of this golden age there are different opinions Some who alledge Ninus to have been the first that usurped authority and government do reckon it to have lasted 250. years So Mnes hist lib. 97. Xenoph. de aequiv Por. Cat. ex lib. orig frag Pict de aur saec lib. 1. These again who alledge Nimrod to have been the first King and erecter of government after the flood alledge it to have endured 131. years Beros an t lib. 4. Whom both Manetho and Metasthenes do follow But Archilochus halteth between these two opinions Yet we incline to the judgement of Berosus and the Caldean Writers Therefore seing immediatly after the Flood 131. years Noah was honoured by all as a common father no question all power was devolved over upon him And that not onely because of his paternall priviledge which he had over them all but also because of his personall endowments wherein he exceeded all his posterity at that time Therefore nobly saith Fabius Pictor that because those who commanded them were just men and devouted to Religion they were called and esteemed as Gods for then saith he they did not depart from the Law whether the governours or the governed All then of their own accord did hold that which is good either without fear or constraint Shamefastnesse governed the people and Law the Princes De aur sec lib. 1. But by the Princes he doth not understand Kings or politick Governours As you may find it above written he saith in terminis that at that time there were none such Therefore by Princes he understandeth the chief Fathers and the heads of the chiefest Families As Noah his sons and his sons sons Whom indeed these Ethnick Writers which before we have often already cited call and hold as Gods Philo-Judaus giveth us a very large and expresse Catalogue of these Princes and chief heads of Families at that time Bibl. ant lib. what can we say of Noah who was the father of al but that he was also the chief and head of all Whereupon we need not fear to conclude but Noah then had a vast and absolute power And this may be considered two wayes in respect of the obiect of his power 1. In respect of good And so I do not think but he had a power without al limitation to order and govern every thing in an orderly and beseeming way Firstly because he was the common father of all and by nature it-self had the precedency over them Secondly the case then was extraordinary for at that time he was the only man who best knew how to order and govern affairs Men at that time were little or nothing acquainted with Lawes and constitutions Knowledge and Learning were but in their beginnings then Therefore the ignorance of these times necessarily called them to take the word at Noah's mouth who was extraordinarily endowed with grace and knowledge from above None like him in his time All the rest weak and ignorant in respect of him Therefore seing he had the precedency before all not onely in respect of nature but also in respect of gifts and graces and not onely so but likewise all stood in need at that time of information from him no question all the reason in the world maketh for an absolute power in Noah in respect of every good thing Thence it is storied of him that he went abroad from Country to Country planting Colonies and ordering things wherein GOD's honour and the peoples weal were concerned 2. In respect of evill Indeed I will not say that such a Saint of GOD as he did take on him a power to rule at randome and according to his heart's lust I conceive indeed he took upon him an absolute power to govern according to Law but not against Law Neither did he take on him such a power because he delighted to govern and to be above others No verily But because he was necessarily called to govern so Both the precedency in respect of nature and likewise in respect of gifts as also the weakness and ignorance of the times called him
to over-rule all according to Law with a vast and full power His government was extraordinary and by necessity And therefore we can conclude no ordinary government from it absolutely to govern according to Law devolved-over upon the shoulders of one man or of some few Much lesse can there be concluded therefrom a power of governing contrary to Law without all bounds of limitation Albeit I make it no question whether Noah took upon him an absolute power of governing whether against or according to Law yet do I think it very probable that none at this time would have taken it upon them to have judged him accused him or condemned him 1. No question drunkenness is punishable by Law But we hear of none that did so much as rebuke him for it but wicked Cham who therefore derided him and was therefore accursed 2. He was the common father of all at that time 3. Of all at that time he was the most reverend wise and eminent 4. They knew little what it was to hold Assizes and call Consistories All which move us to apprehend that none at that time would have dared to judge him even albeit he should have desired them David far inferiour to him wanting many priviledges over his People which Noah had over his in the golden age notwithstanding both his adultery and murder was spared and over-leaped by the Sanhedrin So Solomon was not judged by it notwithstanding his idolatry and multiplication of wives horses which were punishable and inhibited by Law And yet Solomon had no such priviledges over his people as Noah had over his posterity And I do verily beleeve that the emency of David and Solomon and because they were extraordinary persons moved the Sanhedrin to spare them Yea it is to be considered that such eminent men do not fal through a preposterous and malignant humour but through an extraordinary desertion of God for noble and high ends best known to God himself No question this hath been taken to heart by the Sanhedrin And this being conferred with the eminency and singularity of the men hath carried the Sanhedrin by from inflicting punishment upon them I shall not stand to dispute whether they did this de jure or not But sure I am as they did it de facto so they have been much moved thereto from pregnant considerations of the men's personal endowments And for my self though I think a David subject to Law yet would I think it a great temptation to me though as Judge to sentence such a man with death The eminency of the man and the way of his falling would put me to my second thoughts albeit I should endeavour nothing therein but justice Well call it injustice in the Sanhedrin to have spared David and Solomon yet would I not have you to wonder too much thereat There is great difference between a David and an Ahab a Solomon and a Jeroboam Such are not all dayes men And therefore I must needs say that as the Sanhedrin spared David and Solomon from thoughts of the singularity and eminency of the men far more would Noah's posterity in the golden age have spared Noah though in many things delinquent for as the man was most eminent and singular and could not have fallen but by an extraordinary desertion and for most good and noble ends so he had a priviledge from Nature above all in his time Yea in David and Solomon's time people were well seen in Laws and politick Constitutions The Sanhedrin needed not to have spared David and Solomon through ignorance and want of skill But it was far otherwise in the golden age in Noah's time Then men were but Apprentises and spelling the first side of the Catechisme of Policy Every thing was but in its beginnings in its first rudiments Let it be so that de facto and not de jure in the golden age Noah's posterity denied not to him an absolute and uncircumscribed power I seek no more but that And I may say that though at that time de facto Noah should have had immunity from the exercise of Law against him though much delinquent yet shall I not think that ever Noah claimed such a priviledge to himself as competent to him de jure and according to the Law As for Noah's authority and power after his posterity was divided into factions before we can determin upon it you shall mark with me immediatly after the golden age that there were three divided and distinct parties 1. The godly party 2. The heroick party 3. The politick party The godly party was of the posterity of Shem. These followed Noah and walked in his wayes The heroick and politick party were of the posterity of Ham and Japhet And as the heroick party followed Nimrod so the politick party followed Ham whom the Chaldeans call Chemesenuus No question Noah immediatly after the golden age had a vast and absolute power over the godly and those who walked in his wayes You may learn the reasons of this from what is above-written And as for the heroick and politick party it would seem probable that they contemned Noah and slighted his Authority for they walked contrary to his wayes Gen. 10.11 It is known how that Ham the head of the politick yea and of the magical party did mock Noah Gen. 9. Beros an t lib. 3. Yea Nimrod the head of the heroick party contrary to the mind and purpose of Noah caused Babel to be built Gen. 10.11 Ber. ant lib. 4. But notwithstanding this we may say that at the most it concludeth that such were disobedient to Noah and walked contrary to his will But it will not conclude that such denied to Noah immunity from the Law V. g. A prodigal and riotous son may work and act contrary to his father's will But it doth not follow ergo sach a child doth strike and punish his father Nay a debording child may act contrary to his father's wil and be so far from eclipsing his power over him that he may in patience endure his correction over him So we read that Ham did not repine against his father's reproving and cursing him Gen. 10. Yea Berosus storieth that Noah did shut him out from his presence and he did so accordingly ant lib. 3. And beside that he telleth us that Noah Nin. an 19. gave him liberty to stay beside him three years in Italy But finding how he did corrupt the Colonies there he commanded him to be gone and he did so And yet at this time he was the Saturn of Egypt a mighty King and of great power both in Egypt and in Italy Ant. lib. 5. I think there is very good reason for it to say that Noah in so far had an absolute power over them as that none of them in a direct and positive way would have acted against his commandment despising him as an enemy and as one on whom they would and did execute their fury The most we can call them is
libido Regum pro legibus habebatur And aftervvard he speaketh how they vvere reformed by Solon and hovv Pisistratus and others vvho succeeded him did tyrannize over them Lib. 2. Solon looked upon the Athenians under Pisistratus reign albeit he governed according to Solon's Lavvs as under the yoke of bondage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. And it is reported that Cleon and those who followed him destroyed the Commonwealth Great tyranny there indeed and arbitrariness of power Her de Pol. Ath. Thus we see clearly how that not onely Kings in after-times were regulated and in all things subjected to Law but also as some of the Athenian Princes were inferiour so some of them were superiour to the Athenian Kings In Corinth the Kingly Government was also regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herac. de Pol. Corinth i. e. Periander first changed the Commonwealth taking to himself a guard and at last appointing to himself a Senate Now you must not think that this Senate had not power over Periander 1. Because that Senate cannot properly be called a Senat wherein the King hath a negative voice It is but at the most a cypher far from the nature of Senates that were in old amongst the Athenians Carthaginians c. 2. Because Periander in his Epistle to Solon advised at him what he should do in securing himself from those who went about to kill him And Solon in his Epistle to him advised him to lay-down his lording power It is very easie to know what hath been the cause why his own subjects endeavoured to cut him off for it is reported of him that he was the first King who went conveyed with a guard of Souldiers Whereupon he suffered none to live in the City This could not but irritate his subjects against him and make them conspire against his life See Herod lib. 5. Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Periand Herac. de Pol. Corin. Thra. sibulus counsel was just contrary to Solon's He desired him to spare none whether friend or foe but cut all off Which he did indeed as Herodot reporteth But we must think that he advised with Solon after he had put in execution Thrasibulus counsel for Solon in his Epistle to him telleth him That the way to secure himself in his Kingdom was not to cut-off any but to lay-down his lording power over them This insinuateth that he had followed Thrasibulus counsel and had cut-off his subjects before either Solon wrote to him or he had advised with Solon And Heraclid saith in even-down terms That he was neither unjust nor violent hating all gross and scandalous vices and commanding all those to be drowned in the sea who were prostitute to such manner of wickedness This could not be in the time of his tyranny when he made havock of his people and of which Heraclid speaketh before he entereth a-talking any thing of his justice and reservedness Which is more then apparent to us that he became a just and moderat man leaving-off his tyranny and oppression upon Solon's counsel and advice And so we fear not to say that he did put power in the peoples hand adding a Councel to him for keeping him within the bounds of Law This we may learn from Heraclid who having spoken of his moderation and justice telleth us That he did constitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Councel or Senate Verily we cannot think but it was Periander's wisdome and choice to follow Solon's counsel in giving liberty to the people and in priviledging them with a power over him to hedge-in his wayes by the rules of Law Aristotle saith that his lording over the people made them lay their heads together against him Pol. 5. cap. 10. And Solon counselled him to leave-off his lording power as the chief and only vvay of securing himself and conciliating the favour of the people Who can think that such a vvise man as he who is reckoned-up amongst the seven Sages vvould have despised the counsel of such a vvise man another of the Sages also Yea Chilo in his Epistle to Periander though in a satyrick way is little or nothing different from that vvhich Solon counselled him to And that Periander practised according to Solon's advice and counsel is clear by comparing it vvith vvhat Heraclid speaketh concerning Periander He had the vvise men his fellows in vvisdom in greater respect then to postpone any of their advices as is evident from his Epistle vvhich he vvrote to them Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Per. 3. Because it vvas Periander's express judgment that Popular Government was better then Monarchy Dio. La. ibid. Now this could not be while-as Periander delighted to lord and tyrannize over his people And so 't is more then probable that as he changed his judgment he likewise changed his practice These two go alwayes hand in hand together Wherefore to me it is more then evident that Periander gave his people power over him and willingly subjected himself to Law Regal Government amongst the Carthaginians in after-times was regulated and in all things subjected to Law But you will do well to consider with me these things 1. As Carthage was in its beginnings 2. As it was in after-ages In the first respect it cannot be denied but Regal Government in it was absolute Firstly Because Dido the first founder of Carthage was worshipped by the Carthaginians as a Goddess Secondly Because Dido by her own proper industry builded Carthage and made the Carthaginians a People Just lib. 18. Thirdly Because in the beginning Kingly Government was most in request And therefore Kingdoms in the beginning were governed by Kings So say Aristotle Justin and Salust Then men were little acquainted with the rules of Policy Which makes Aristotle say that Kingly Government in the beginning was established because it was then difficult and hard to find-out many men of wit and judgment to govern the Commonwealth Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. We shall therefore not judge it strange that Kings in the beginning of any Kingdom were absolute and of an arbitrary power People then had not policy and knew not how to exercise Law aright and to keep their Kings within the bounds thereof But according to the second respect we must think that there was a change in Court Then the Carthaginian Kings became subjected to Law It is therefore reported that Machaeus or as Orosius saith Mezeus vvas banished by the Carthaginians And finding that after he vvas by strength of hand released from his banishment he endeavoured to lord over them they accused him and executed judgment on him as on a malefactor and paracide both as a Rebel against his Country and as a murderer of his son Just lib. 18. Tell me not that Machaeus was not their King but the general Captain of their Army 1 Because his son Cartalo was by the Carthaginians trimmed-up in a Kingly attire instead of
from setting over their Armies Captain-Generalls by succession and perswaded them to take from them the name of Kings Def. reg cap. 8. See how the man bewrayeth himself for Lysander was Captain-Generall of the Lacedemonian Army And yet he was not their King Therefore amongst the Lacedemonians it was one thing to be King and another thing to be Captain Generall of the Army I confesse their King had also the power of the Army But he had not onely other power beside but also he had power of the battell in a more intense way then any deputed and substituted Captain amongst the people Otherwise there had been no difference between Lysander and the King who was but onely Captain of the Army Yea which is more Lysander doth not speak of shaking-off regium nomen but regiam potestatem as is clear out of Probus But sure I am regia potestas is not nomen regis but res regis Salmasius shall have no need to deny that the Carthaginian annuall Kings were Kings properly so called But in the interim he shall give us leave to consider and take a light view of the nature of the word sufetes Which is taken in a twofold sense 1. Largely And so the word may be derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sapha Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophe speculator inspector episcopus or ephorus Thus sufetes may be referred to judges of any sort And in this sense Alexander ab Alexandro referreth it to the Graecian aesymnetae the Egyptian dioecetes the Persian megistanes the Oscian medix c. Geni di lib. 4. cap. 23. Him Julius Scaliger followeth whileas he saith Porro qui Hebraïce sciunt non ignorant Poenos Tyrorum colonos esse concedent mihi Sufes idem esse quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the man supplying Festus words saith Sufes dictus est Poenorum lingua summus magistratus ut Oscorum medix c. 2. Strictly and by limitation And so it is derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saphat Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophet Which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judge In this sense it is applyed to the Carthaginian yearly Kings and Roman Consuls Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. The word sufes by Festus and T. Livius is rendered consul So it is by Sabellicus Aen. 5. lib. 5. It cannot be denied but as sufetes is a Punick word so in it 's most strict and rigorous acceptation it is only relative to the Carthaginian annuall Kings Yet I must needs say that as it is taken strictly and by way of limitation with very good reason in may be referred to the Roman consuls for they had that same power which the Carthaginian Kings had and both of them were yearly Magistrates Having thus discussed the grammary of the word you may observe that in it's first acceptation it is not onely relative to those who in old were above Kings but also to those who were inferiour to them And in the second acceptation it is relative to such who amongst the Carthaginians were both re and nomine Kings and amongst the Romans to such who were Kings not nomine but re But if we take sufetes precisely for sophetim unlesse you take sophetim in a larger sense then it is taken in the book of the Judges you must needs say that it is onely relative to such who were Kings neither re nor nomine for afterward I shall make it appear that the Judges of Israel were so far from being of a Kingly power that contrariwise they were but of equall authority with any of the Sanhedrin At least it is easy to prove that they were not of a Kingly power or of such power as had the Roman consuls and the Carthaginian sufetes albeit we should say that they were the first of the Sanhedrin having greater power then any of the rest for the Athenian annuall Princes had more power then any member of the Athenian councel and yet they were not properly Kings We may say the like also concerning the decennal Princes and those Princes who amongst the Athenians did govern for their life-time I deny not but these may be yea and were called Kings who were not so indeed as the Judges of Israel Judg. 18. And we deny not as Salmasius will have it Def. reg cap. 8. but many both of old and new also were and are not called Kings who were and are of greater honour authority then they What then This will never conclude that the Carthaginian sufetes were not of a Kingly power Though the word sufetes may be taken for sophetim yet shall we never conclude therefrom that the Carthaginian sufetes had no more Power then the Judges of Israel At the most it concludeth that they had not a kingly power in a full and intense measure And therefore the word in its most native signification is all one with Consules who had a kingly power though not in the highest degree And for my-self I can find no essential difference between the Carthaginian Sufetes and the Lacedemonian Kings Whereupon I am made to conclude That as the one so the other also were of a kingly power This man looketh upon the off-cutting of Kings as a thing of another world even as if such a thing had never been practised before since the world began He telleth us of Agis how that amongst all the Lacedemonian Kings none was cut-off but he But in the interim he shall observe that though in the examples which we shall alledge to this purpose there be some of them which speak nothing of the off-cutting of Kings Yet all of them do speak of the punishment of Kings either one way or other And know likewise that in old Kingdoms in punishing of capital faults used diverse wayes of punishment Amongst the Indians the delinquent though guilty of the greatest crime got no more for his punishment but to be shaved at the King's command This was thought amongst them a capital punishment Nicol. Damasc de Mor. Gent. Ind. Some Nations who dwelt about Caucasus on capital transgressours did execute banishment as a capital punishment They executed it instead of death It is reported That the Tratlians thought it punishment enough to inflict upon a murderer if he did give a bushel or measure of Pulse to the friends of the defunct The Druids and Cercets for the greatest faults did no more but interdicted the delinquent from being accessory to the sacrifice The like punishment was also executed upon sacrilegious persons in Elephantine Ethiopia Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 5. Where if the Reader shall be pleased a little to trouble his eyes he shall see how that some Nations in old according to the Laws of the kingdom in their punishments were most severe though against the smallest faults and some were not so but were most remisse in their
punishment though against the greatest crimes Therefore Salmasius shall not think that those who did not punish their Kings with death were any more favourable to them then those who did bring them to the scaffold and cut-off their heads for he may see that amongst some Nations even a small punishment was thought capital We shall therfore think that the Egyptians of old in with holding stately and glorious burials from their delinquent Kings did esteem that as great if not a greater punishment then if they should have brought them forth and caused cut-off their head Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. In Meros they withdrew themselves from the society of their delinquent Kings till through want of company they consumed away in languish This they esteemed a greater punishment and indeed so it was then if they should have brought him to the scaffold Alex. ab Alex. lib. 3. cap. 5. And how the Egyptians plagued Amasis their King is storied already Prop. 1. Ans The Senate amongst the Cumaeans which they called Phylactus holding their Kings by the hand still detained them till they either rewarded them or punished them according to their deserts Alex. ab Alex. ib. The heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 5. Plut. in Thes Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his subjects Arist Po. lit lib. 5. cap. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just lib. 1. Diod. Sic. ant lib. 3. cap. 7. And as Herodotus lib. 1. storieth after Sardinapalus was put out of the way both the Assyrians and Medes for a long time were governed without Kings by Popular government The Athenians did cut-off Cylon together with his complices who intruded himself upon the Kingdom or at least endeavoured to do so So did they cut-off Hipparchus son to Pisistratus and also endeavoured the off-cutting of Thessalus another of his sons who succeeded to him in the Kingdom They did also cut-off Cleon together with 1500 with him who had destroyed the Commonwealth Herac. de Pol. Ath. They caused Miltiades to die in prison although he was King of Chersonesus Herod lib. 6. Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Miltiad Plut. in vit Cim And you will find Aristotle tell you in the general concerning Pisistratus and his posterity who were Kings in Athens how they were punished and shut from their Kingdom Pol. 5. cap. 10. Leonidas King of Lacedemonia was banished So was Cleombrotus And Agis was imprisoned and cut-off in prison though I must needs say unjustly Plut. in Ag. Cle. But Aristotle shutteth-up all this in a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Therefore the Lacedemonians have destroyed many kingly powers Pol. 5. cap. 10. The Syracusians under the conduct of Dion expelled Dionysius and banished him Arist Pol. 5. cap. 10. Aemil. Prob. Plut. in Dion The Carthaginians once banished and at last did cut-off Machaeus Just lib. 18. They also banished Hannibal and forfeited his estate And if he had not stolen away privily they had cut him off Plut. Prob. in Han. Tarquinius superbus C. Caesar and D. Nero were cut-off by the Romans Luc. An. lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 4. cap. 2. Plut. in C. Caes Carol. M. Suet. in C. Caes Ner. Aurel. victor in Ner. Epit. vit Caes in C. Caes Ignat. Rom. prin in lib. 1. Inst 3. O but saith Salmasius Nero was cut-off not de jure but de facto And saith he there was as great a difference between Charls and Nero as was between the Roman Senators and the English Butchers Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans This poor man â—oweth not what he would be at His over-word is Did ever any as the Rebels in England cut-off their King Was ever any Nation saith he so monstruous so cruel and so barbarous as the English Rebels Cut-purses and bloody Butchers who dared to put hand in their dread Sovereign Read this man's Book all over and you wil find this to be over-word What Did not the Senat of Rome cut-off Nero And yet saith he never any before did cut-off their King but the English Enthusiasts and giddy-headed Traytours The man needeth not to look upon the off-cutting of Charls as a thing singular If he will not be wilfully deluded he may learn from what foregoeth many examples of punishing and cutting-off delinquent Kings The Question between us is not only whether or not Kings de jure may be cut-off but also whether or not de facto Kings were punished and cut-off by the People Concerning the fact Salmasius cannot get it denied albeit he strives to justle us out of it by changing the state of the question and starting aside from that which for the present is most in hand And I wonder much that the man calleth in question the lawfulness of the fact of the Roman Senat in causing Nero to be cut-off And as for the jus and lawfulness of the Roman Senat 's fact in cutting-off Nero I know not if any beside Salmasius can deny it but an incarnat Devil he was a murderer a paricide a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth And Royallists themselves have not a face to deny that it is lawful to cut-off Tyrants And whereas he saith That there was a difference between Nero and Charls and between the Senatours of Rome and the Representative of England So say I too Nero was an Ethnick but Charls a Christian But friend nomine Christian and re Antichristian In this he was worse then Nero more dangerous at least though not so grosse Nero was a paricide but not Charls Yet let me tell you as they differed in some things they agreed in other things As Nero was an enemy to Christ's reign so was he As Nero was a murderer so was he As Nero was a persecuter of the Saints so was he And as Nero was a destroyer of the Common-wealth so was he And as for the Representative of England they differ from the Roman Senatours in this that they professed friendship to Christ the Roman Senatours in Nero's time were not so And who but enemies to Christ will say That Ethnicks had more power to execute judgment on a Tyrant a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth then such had in executing judgment on a man of that same stamp rather worse then better And to draw home to our own doors we will give you some examples out of the English and Scotish Chronicles how Kings were punished and brought upon the stage Amongst the English Kings we find these Gorboniannus Emeriannus Vortiger Edwine All these were dethroned and put from their Kingdom Edward 2. was imprisoned by the Barons with the help of the young Queen and Prince Edward 5. was dethroned and obscurely buried in the Tower of London Amongst the Scotish Kings we find not a few who were either banished imprisoned or cut-off
also offer to Solon as is above-said The fourth he referreth to Monarchy as it was in the dayes of the Heroes This kind of Monarchy he calleth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 3. cap. 10. and cap. 11. he calleth it a Regall power restricted in some things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what these things be he hinteth at cap. 10. saying that they had not power over the sacrifices which concerned the Priesthood and that some of them were either tied by oath to the people or by lifting-up the scepter to govern according to Law Thus it is manifest that all the four kindes of Monarchy Aristotle speaketh-of which were set up in old one way or other are limited and subjected to Law But concerning the fourth kind which was in the dayes of the Heroes we must stand a-litle here Hence the question ariseth whether or not doth Aristotle refer this fourth species of Monarchy to the Heroes without exception We shall not stand much upon what may be Aristotle's mind in this matter It appeareth to us that he is in this indefinit I confesse his words with a distinction may bear a good sense Yet I must needs say that neither in this nor in the third species the man is clear for I take him to be summing up all the ordinary species of Royall power But either he erreth or else he confoundeth in the third and fourth species both ordinary and extraordinary kindes of Royall power together taking them both under the same power and notion And in this he erreth also But that we may clear our purpose the Reader shall mark this way of differencing the species of Monarchy one from another Generally it is divided into ordinary and extraordinary Monarchy In an ordinary acceptation it is pambasilick and non-pambasilick In this sense Aristotle is to be understood as we covceive And so the pambasilick Monarchy i. e. which hath a power over all things relateth to the fifth species of Royall power which Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 11. superaddeth to the four foresaid species thereof And the non-pambasilick i. e. which hath not a power over all things is relative to these foure species above-written Each of them according as both Aristotle and example teach is either one way or other limited and kept within bounds And afterward we shall also shew it from reason itself But observe by the way that the third species of Monarchy in this sense cannot be illustrated by the example of Pittacus What power was laid upon Pittacus as is shewed already was done in an extraordinary way Now Aristotle in this species cannot confound that which is ordinary and extraordinary together and illustrate them both by one and the same example As for the fourth species taken in this sense I do verily imagine that his words deserve a distinction Whereupon the question may be moved whether or not doth Aristotle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he maketh the fifth species of Royall Government understand an all-commanding power according to Law or both according to and against Law It cannot be imagined as afterward shall appear that Aristotle understandeth an all-commanding power above Law Therefore is it that Polit. 3. cap. 10. he interlaceth the fifth species of Monarchy with the fourth Without any clear and formall distinction as he doth cap. 11. he passeth from the one to the other in a continuat way linking the one with the other And so taking up the fourth and the fifth species under a continuat notion we easily resolve Aristotle's meaning by this distinction In the former part of the fourth species he averreth That Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes was in some things restricted wanting this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power And in the latter part of it he saith that in ancient times kings had that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the man in this is very cryptick and unclear He speaketh of the dayes of the Heroes indefinitly So doth he of ancient times But opposing ancient times to the days of the Heroes they can be relative to no times but to the golden age which was immediatly after the Deluge about 131 years All this time as is shewed already there was not so much as any politick government at all And to this Age immediatly succeeded the time of Heroicisme Nimrod and many other heroick Blades immediatly after that Age did break-forth who erected kingdoms and did many valiant acts And if we speak of the ancient times before the Flood we find also as is shewed already that contradistinguishing ancient times from the time of Heroicisme there was no kingly power set-up till men of renown and heroick spirits did erect it about the 1556 year of the world And all the while before which was the Golden Age before the Flood there was no kind of Politick government at all as is shewed already So then whether before or after the Flood the times of the Heroes did immediatly succeed to the ancient times And as in the ancient times there was no Monarchy or Regall power so it was firstly erected and set-up by the Heroes Therefore you may see that is very hard to purge Aristotle's meaning in this from errour Yet for respect I bear to the man I will put upon his words the best sense they can bear And so I suppose that he referreth both the parts of the fourth species to the dayes of the Heroes Now it cannot be denied but even amongst Heroes of the secondary kind there was difference of power some being of a more intense and some of a more remisse power No question those of them who in respect of time were prior to others were also in dignity and power prior to them I cannot think but how much more Regall power was in request so much more the power of it was extended Therefore was it as is shewed already that some kings were altogether illimited and uncircumscribed in power But in the fore-times of Heroicism Monarchy was more in request then in the after-times thereof And consequently those ordinary Heroes who had the first start of time before others of that same kind were of a more vast and intense power then they As they were superiour to them in time so likewayes in power In this sense Aristotle's words hold good if he refer the former part of the fourth species to the after-most times and ultimat center of Heroicisme and the latter part to the prior though not to the first times thereof You cannot say that the former part is relative to ordinary and the latter part to extraordinary Heroes It is already proved by us Conel 1. That extraordinary Heroes had more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power They had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an arbitrary power to do what they listed These two Caligula speaking of himself to Antonia pertinently distinguisheth Remember saith he that I may do all things and that I have power to do to
Hercules Ber. lib. 5. and Orestes Dict. de bel Tro. lib 6. Secondly by way of conquest So did the extraordinary Heroes as is shewed already concl 1. Ordinary Heroes who subdued Kingdoms be these Amongst the Assyrians Arius Baleus c. Beros an t lib. 5. Amongst the Grecians the Heraclids who subdued Mycenae and Alemeon who subdued the Kingdom of Thebes Diod. lib. 5. cap. 4. and 6. 3. Because of the benevolence and bountifulnesse of ancestours So Crana and Cranus were dignified with the swaying of the Scepter amongst the Razenues because of the singular benevolence and courtesie of Janus their father toward the Italians For the same reason also Thuscus son to Hercules the Egyptian was graciously admitted by the Arnites Libarnites Musarnites to reign over them Beros an t lib. 5. 4 By cunning and art This may be taken two wayes Firstly as it implieth a conferring of the Kingly power because of engine and invention Thus the Thebans advanced Oedipus to reign over them Sophocl in Oed. tyr Diod. lib. 5. cap. 6. Secondly as it implieth a cunning and subtil way of obtaining the Kingdom So Camesenuus obtained the Kingdom of Bactria Ber. lib. 5. and Neoptolemus acquired the Kingdom of Thessaly which belonged to his father Achilles Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 6. 5 By acquisition This is taken three wayes Firstly by way of emption Thus Agamemnon obtained the military power over all the Grecian Princes in the Trojan expedition by letting-out amongst the Souldiers a huge masse of money Dict. Cret lib. 1. Secondly by way of compensation So Antenor was created King of Dardany in compensation of his pains in betraying Troy to the Grecians Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 5. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. Thirdly by way of meer purchase and simple acquisition Thus did Aeneas acquire Melena with its Continent Dict. Cret loc cit Salust conjur Catel So did Iolaus purchase a Kingdom to himself in Sardinia Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. These things being thus illustrated by example I do nextly desire the Reader carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Heroes and between those of them who were in the precedent times and those who were in the subsequent times of Heroicism For my-self I cannot say but extraordinary Heroes at least and the founders of primary Colonies were invested with a vast and arbitrary power But as for the ordinary Heroes and the after-founders of Colonies I am contented with Aristotle to say That their power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law We find several examples amongst the after-heroes to this purpose Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did therein either firstly or lastly was according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours Dict Cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. 5. Dar. Phr. de excid Tro. lib. And though Dares Phrygius reporteth that Priamus determined and voiced otherwise then they who followed Antenor and Aeneas who appear to us to have been the major part of the Senat for we gather from both these Historians that not only the greatest part of the Senate but also the whole body of the People were for the concluding and drawing up peace with the Grecians I confesse Dares Phrygius in plain terms saith that Priamus voiced against peace and truce taking-up with the Grecians and what he voiced was established and holden as a thing concluded-on by all Indeed he carried it contrary to all who opposed him as Dares will have it Yet Dictys storieth the just contrary and saith that Priamus followed the advice and determination of the Senat. And indeed Q. Calaber lib. 12. and Tryphiâ—dor de Il. exc insinuate no lesse for they observe Dictys way which he hath in storying the Grecian stratagem which ensued upon terms of peace concluded-on between the Trojans and Grecians Howsoever albeit I think my-self rather oblidged to encline to Dares relation yet lose I nothing thereby if I do so I am not of that opinion to think that Priamus was so hemmed-in by Law as the Lacedemonian Kings Let it be so he had a negative voice in Senate as Dares insinuateth yet sure I am none will say that the Senate was a cypher having no authority at all You will learn from these fore-cited historians the contrary of that And in so far as Priamus did act according to the advice counsel of the Senat in as far he did act according to Law Thus he did not simply act according to pleasure and in an arbitrary way No verily In this his power was somewhat limited And this is all that both Aristotle and we do crave And so we must not think but Alcinous was some way or other regulated by his Princes and Rulers as you may read Hom. odys 8. And how much Agamemnon was subjected to Law is shewed already Of him is made good that which Aristotle speaketh of the tying of the King to the People by the elevation of the Scepter as by Oath and Covenant Hom. Il. 2. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10. We need not think it strange to say that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were somewhat subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no lesse subjected to Law as is shewed already then the Lacedemonian kings 'T is observable that Orestes son to Agamemnon and King of Mycenae was judged and absolved by the Councel of Areopagus Him Mnestheus son to Theseus and King of Athens could not get set free till firstly he was examined by the Areopagites whom Dictys calleth most strict Justiciaries de bel Tro. lib. 6. Mark that the Mycenan King was judged by the Athenian Judicatory Then tell me seing a King of another Kingdom in the dayes of the Heroes was subjected to the Law and Judicatory of Athens shall we not think that Kings in those dayes in some things at least were restricted and subjected to Law Verily this is an argument from the greater to the lesser But hear what Alexander ab Alexandro saith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubitarit lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisistratus doubted not to undergo judgment there And I would have Royallists to observe that in this matter I give them more of their will then Aristotle doth for according to this last sense and exposition his words insinuate That all Kings in the dayes of the Heroes in some things were rest icted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yea in the latter part of the fourth species he saith That Kings in ancient time had but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-governing power But we go further-on with the Malignant and say That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Yet precisely
and properly their power was but Pambasilick an all-governing and not arbitrary and illimited We shall stand here a while to speak of the Kingdom of England for it is not only the chief subject of our discourse in order to which we drive all that we speak but also it falleth-in here by a string-line Already we have spoken of it at length from the dayes of the Conquerour or a little before until now It therefore remaineth we speak of it as it was from its beginning unto the reign of the Normans And so we consider it under these notions 1. As it was in its first beginning and original And though I will not say that Britain was inhabited so soon as other Kingdoms which lie in and about the middle and chief part of the Earth No question such parts were firstly inhabited as both history and reason doth teach Yet I may very conveniently say that the chiefest Kingdoms and those which lie next Armenia being planted after people were extreamly multiplied on the earth they did seek out to inhabit the uttermost Isles of the world There was a physical necessity for this People daily multiplying could not dwell all in one part but of necessity they behoved to depart one from another for residence sakc Yea there was a moral reason for it also No question desire of great lands and possessions so soon as people were greatly multiplied on the earth after the flood could not but set them a-work to seek-out the remotest parts This is confirmed by what the holy Ghost saith The sons of Japhet Gomer by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands every one after his tongue after their families in their nations Gen. 10. I pray you tell me while as the holy Ghost speaketh there indefinitely of the Isles of the Nations if he doth exclude the Isle of Britain What more reason is there to exclude it then any other And for my self I think there is more reason to include it then any of the rest Firstly because it is the chiefest Isle in the world And therefore in it self the more delectable and the more to be sought after Secondly because Gomer whom Berosus calleth Comerus Gallus did come into Italy and erected Colonies there Ant. lib. 5. Now tell me is it not most probable that Gomer did translate Colonies from Italy into France and from thence into Britain every-one of them lying contiguously one with another We find as much in his name as pointeth-out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gomer signifieth to end And is not Britain as it were the last center and extreame part of EUROPE Berosus giveth him a surname calling him GALLUS Now the Frenches are called Galli And Gallus commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 milk But the Frenches are called white or fair in respect of other nations which lie nearer the Sun But Britain was called Albion which signifieth whitenesse And thus very appositely it partaketh of the signification of Gomer's surname And why shall we not think whether France or Britain one way or other have their denomination from the names of their first founders as well as other nations and kingdomes have their names from the founders who firstly erected them V. G. Israelites from Israel Assyria from Ashur Media from Medus c. Camden largely disputeth for the plantation of Britain by Gomer But the man is somewhat intricate and confused in it alleadging that the originall of the Britains is as it were derived from the Frenches I will not deny but Gomer hath sent Colonies firstly to France it lying next to Italy where Gomer himself took up his residence Yet I may say that he did send Colonies nextly into Britain which is adjacent to France Verily he might have simul and semel translated Colonies into both for as France is next adjacent to Italy so Britain is next adjacent to France I cannot imagine that Britain lying so near Italy that ever Gomer would have left it unplanted till by the multiplication of Colonies in France people out of France had been translated into Britain to plant it Howsoever I stand not on this but sure I am both Frenches and Britains have their original from Comerus Gallus as Camden very notably and at length proveth Brit. Chorog descr Albeit Caesar de bel Gal Diodore rer an t lib. 6. imagine that the Britains be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aboriginists Thirdly because Theophilus Antiochenus saith Cum in priscis temporibus homines post linguarum divisionem aucti multiplicati paulatim sunt nec prius desierant terram ubique occupare quam etiam ad Britannias in arctois climatibus accesserint i. e. When in ancient times men after the division of tongues encreased and multiplied by little and little neither did they leave-off to possess and take-up the earth every-where until they did also come into Britain situated under the Pole Artick In this notion I take Britain to have been under Gomer as its King and Saturn And so I conceive he had an arbitrary power over them Concl. 2. But what Government they had amongst them after Gomer's death cannot be determined Yet in all probability they had no Kingly Government amongst them till Brutus dayes And in respect of this time Dio Nic. ex Xiphil epit de Brit. saith very pertinently Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet And Camden noteth That as the Frenches so the Britains in old were not governed by one but by many So say Caesar bel Gal. lib. 1 5. and Pomponius Mela de sit Orb. lib. 3. cap. 2 6. But I take all these to speak of the Government amongst the Frenches and Britains as it was immediatly before the conquest of Julius Caesar or at least as it was from the first beginning of these Kingdoms until his dayes Howsoever you will do well to observe with me that in old France was divided into three parts according as Caesar and Mela do story But Berosus divideth it into two parts the one he calleth Gallia and the other Celtae But for reconciling these divisions you shall know that Berosus speaketh of a more large division then they do He contradistinguisheth these three Kingdoms one from another viz. Italy Celtae and Gallia The inhabitants of Italy he calleth Comari from their King Comerus The inhabitants of Celtae he calleth Disceltes or Celtes whose first King saith he was Samotes The inhabitants of Gallia he calleth Galli for saith he Comer's nephews did so call them from his surname Gallus This insinuateth that Comer's nephews sent-out with Colonies from him did firstly plant and inhabit Gallia Which maketh us conclude that Gallia includeth both France and Britain No question the inhabitants of both in old have been called Galli from Gallus the surname of Comerus seing both of them were alike planted by him and his posterity We need not think it strange to say that both of them do pass under the same epithet
And Hercules the Egyptian as Berosus saith coming thorow the Celtes into Italy begot on Galtea whom Nicaeus calleth Celtice with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis or as Nicaeus saith Celtus who was created King over the Celtes And from him they were called Galli Which as is imagined the Latines use for Galatae Howsoever here from it appeareth that the Celtes had not their beeing but their name from Hercules son And so reconciling Parthenius with Berosus we may call Hercules son Galatis-Celtes Whence from his name they were called Galatae or as the Romans say Galli and from his surname Celtae Indeed Bâ—rosus doth not expresse the name of Galtea or Celtice her father unlesse we take Celte who did reign over the Celtes at that time when Hercules came along them Which maketh us opinion at that Galtea or Celtice was daughter to Celte for as Berosus saith with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis was born of her King to the Celtes And who I pray you had power to put such a disposition and right upon Galatis but the King and Queen of the Celtes I warrant you such a thing standing upon consent and renunciation without being obtained by strength of Arms the consent and permission given to Hercules son to reigne over the Celtes was not sought from any inferiour but from him whose interest it was to reign as King I trow it stood not upon the consent and permission of any subject that Hercules son should be born King to the Celtes And consequently Celte at this time being King over the Celtes was Galtea's father by whom it was given that Galatis Hercules son should be born his successor and King after him Therfore following Berosus I conclude that the Celtes were so called from Celte grand-father to Galatis and Galli or Galatae from Galatis nephew to Celte and son to Hercules Yet Nicaeus positively and expressely calleth Celtice or Galtea her father Bretan From whom Hesychius as is said already deduceth the originall of the Britains And this being true it followeth that Britain's Brutus is more ancient then they ordinarily talk-of Although I do fully imagine that Britain hath it's denomination from this Bretan yet I will never think but Britain was inhabited ere ever this Bretan was The Celtes are so called from Celte and Galli or Galatae from Galatis And yet they were a people long before their dayes Verily I think it most likely that Britain hath it's denomination from Bretan and was secondly enpeopled by him for resigning the Kingdom of the Celtes to Hercules son his nephew it is more then apparent that being a King all his life-time before for his own honour and advantage he hath gathered a number of people together out of his own Kingdom and translated them into Britain and there erected a Kingdom This was more honorable and advantageable to him then to live a privat life in subjection to his nephew What can it be imagined but desire of wealth and honour both to himself and his posterity would have drawen him on to such an under-taking No question he being a powerfull King and father-in-law to the great Monarch Hercules on whose son he had conferred a singular courtesie in renouncing the kingdom to him did want nothing that conduced not only for undertaking but also for effectuating such a purpose Wanting his own kingdom Britain a glorious kingdom lying next to France either at that time scarcely en peopled or at least filled with men of rude breeding it cannot come in my mind to think otherwise but this Bretan became Brutus to Britain And this I take to be him about whom they controvert so much Which agreeth with that which is storied saying That the Britans were a people of lesser Britany which is in the Celtick region who in old did inhabit the Isle of Britain Whether you shall imagine this Bretan and Brito to be all one or that the Trojans came into Britain while as they came along into France I remit it to the Reader to judge as a thing arbitrary and indifferent And herein I do not contemn the authority of Waldhave who calleth Britain Brute's Lands Thus concerning the original of Britain firstly and lastly I have offered my judgment freely which being arightly considered doth much serve to reconcile all different opinions in this matter Well whether you say that Bretan came into this Isle with Bretanes or Brutus with Trojans I shall not stand to controvert if he be Brito of whom Hyginus speaketh while as Francus son to Hector came along into France and did reign there what power they had is already shewed but namely concl 2. It being sufficiently proved that Britain was secondly enpeopled by Bretan and very probably concluded to have been enpeopled the third time by fugitive and dispersed Trojans under the conduct of Brito of whom as we may probably say though the contrary may be also holden Hyginus speaketh It now remaineth to consider what power those Kings had who succeeded Bretan and Brito The tract of time which interveened between these two Kings may be easily learned for it is gatherable from Berosus that Bretan erected his kingdom under the reign of Baleus R. Assyr XI in or about the fourteenth or sixteenth year of his reign ann mund 2225 or 2227. and Brito did set-up his kingdom in Britain as may be gathered from Manetbo in or about the first or second year of Teutheus reign King of Assyria XXIX in and about the year of the world 2791 or 2792. Concerning the power of these two Kings we have spoken And we come nextly to speak of the power of those Kings who succeeded them untill the dayes of C. Caesar Out of no ancient Writer we can learn in particular what those Kings were But in the general we learn these two things 1. That in old Britain was governed by Kings 2. That afterward though before Caesars time it was divided into Satrapees and governed by many Princes We take it upon us to illustrate and prove both these The first is evident from Tacitus who saith Olim Regibus parebant To which he immediatly subjoineth Nunc per principes factionibus studiis trabuntur Thus he distinguisheth between the condition of Britain as it was in old and as it was in and about his time In old saith he it was governed by Kings but now being divided into factions it is governed by Princes And therefore in another place he saith a ragibus usque ad priâ—cipes But Salmas by principes understandeth the Roman Caesars Def. Reg. cap. 8. He saith so that he may elude the Government of England by many He would have it to passe if he could get it that it was never governed but by Kings It is no wonder that he be blinded in other things seing he shutteth his eyes at so clear a light as this It cannot be denied but Tacitus speaks of the government of England as it was in old and as
saith so because God only could pardon him But saith Salmasius this cannot be for the remission of sins obtained by the blood of Christ under the new Testament unto life eternal had no place under the old Testament O! saith he what ignorance and wickednesse go hand in hand in these knaves Def. Reg. cap. 3. This glosse which Salmasius so much hisseth-at is the very words of Lyra. And it is cited by our dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 26. Well then let that Anonymus be what he will whom I take not to be the authour of Lex Rex Salmasius hath no reason for that interpretation to call him ignorant unlesse he call Lyra ignorant also And I must needs say Hell and the Devil never invented worse then what now Salmasius speaketh I wonder if he dare deny but Christ was also mediatour under the old Testament aswell as under the new Dare he say That under the old Testament remission of sins unto life eternal was not centred upon Christ and acquired by him Hath this man a face to deny Christ to be the Redeemer of Beleevers under the Law By whose mediation I pray you did they pass from death to life if not by the righteousness of Christ who is the only Advocat before the Father for the sins of all the Elect I confesse those who were under the Law beleeved in Christ who was to be incarnated and who was about to shed his blood on the Crosse for the Redemption of Beleevers But doth this take-away Christ's blood shed under the new Testament as the ground and center of Salvation and remission of sins to Beleevers under the old Testament Howsoever sure I am this Gentleman cannot deny but under the old Testament God only could pardon sin Now this Authour whom he calleth an ignorant and pestilent knave saith no more but this And I shall let any indifferent Reader judge between Salmasius and him whether or not Salmasius hath reason to fail so much against him because he saith That under the old Testament GOD only could pardon David's sin Oh! that this poor wretch is not ashamed to speak so blasphemously This truth is old enough and can speak for it self And sure I am there is no honest heart who will allow Salmasius in this Royallists need not to brag much because David was unpunishable by man for his murder and adultery Arguing from this the state of the Question between us and them is changed And thus the Question is moved Whether or not a man according to God's own heart one worth ten thousand and as in qualification so in station above every one of the People should be cut-off and punished by the State for committing adultery with a privat woman and committing murder against a privat man And what if I should hold the negative of the Question as indeed I make it a great case and do spare to determine upon either of the parts at this time yet would Royallists gain just nothing The Question between them and us is this Whether or not the King is unpunishable by man though turned a positive tyrant and forthwith a destroyer of the Commonwealth Friends shew me the like practice in David and the Sanhedrin's sparing him notwithstanding and I shall yeeld to you Ye are so far from being able to do so that weighing David's murder in a square ballance you will find it lighter then is supposed for neither he nor his had formally but virtually a hand in the murder of Uriah This is far from a destroying of the People 'T is not like Nero's wish that all Rome had but one Neck that he might cut it off Now Royallists must object from the Sanhedrin's sparing a Nero. Otherwise they beat the air and change the state of the Question Conclus 4. The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power This we make good firstly from divine institution and God's moulding of the King Deut. 17. from which is already proved Subsect 1. Assert 2. That the power of the Jewish king is hedged-in by Law And Josephus on the place saith That he should do nothing without the consent and advice of the Priest and Sanhedrin Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 8. 'T is but vanity in Saâ—nasius to clude Josephus speech saying That his meaning is only concerning the Kings of the Jews after the captivity Def. Reg. cap. 2. Is he not blind that seeth not this man's deceit Sure I am that which is spoken of the King Deut. 17. was spoken long before the Kings of the Jews after the captivity yea long before there was any King in Israel 'T is the very positive rule and pattern of all Kings And Josephus in the place above cited as it were commenting on Moses words giveth the meaning of them Nay but you shall further observe the fallacy of this Gentleman He studieth to put his own construction as most beseemeth his honour upon Josephus words And yet notwithstanding he refelleth Josephus and cannot rest satisfied with his own construction Yea which is more he fleeth cap. 9. to what Josephus saith as to a main truth in respect of all the Kings of Israel both before and after the Captivity Then tell me what manner of man can he be who cap. 2. declineth from and cap. 9. enclineth to Josephus In the one place he plainly denieth That the Kings of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity were tied to do nothing without the consent of the high-Priest and Sanhedrin And yet in the other place he affirmeth the contrary But he loseth all his labour whether to deny what Josephus saith or to glosse it according to his own humour for as afterward is shewed Josephus was no friend to Monarchy And which is more what Josephus saith is the common judgment of Jewish Writers Rex obediat curiae senatus majoris i. e. The King let him be obedient to the authority of the higher Sanhedrin Deut. 17. Senatus major interficiendi gladio jus habeat i. e. Let the higher Sanhedrin have the right and power of killing by the sword Exod. 21. Nemo sese opponat decretis sanctioris Senatus i. e. Let none withstand and resist the Statutes of the greater Sandedrin Deut. 17. R. Mos Egypt praec aff 176. and 225. praec neg 316. It cannot be denied but the Jewish King was regulated seing not only he was oblidged to give obedience to the higher Sanhedrin but also every one without exception was tied not to contraveen the Acts and Sentence thereof He had not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The power of the sword was not in his hand but in the Sanhedrin's Thus his power was restricted as was the authority of the Lacedemonian king and the power of other Kings as is spoken-of already at length Yea Maimonides saith Qui ex familia Davidis sunt judicant judicantur And so in expounding that Rex neque judicat neque judicatur
Nil Hierog lib. 1. Virgil Geor. 4. Plin. nat hist lib. 11. Cypr. tract 4. Ambros hexam lib. 4. Veg. disp in t ter sol c. Cranes have also a King Apol. hierog lib. 2. Plin. nat hist. lib. 10. Hieron in Epist ad Rust Ambr. hex lib. 5. Hence the back of that Argument is also broken which Salmas def reg cap. 5. and others do draw from the natural kind of Monarchy that is amongst inanimate and brutish creatures to prove Regal Government of all Governments to be the choicest Assert 2 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the choicest of Governments This cannot be denied for of all Governments Monarchy is the most ancient Before the flood we read of no Government Political but of Royal power Gen. 5. 6. Ber. ant lib. 1. And after the flood it was that also which had first footing Gen. 10. Beros ant lib. 4. Archil lib. de temp Xenoph. de aequiv Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Pict de aur sec lib. 1. Metast de Pers annal Iscâ—r Panath. Jos an t Jud. lib. 2. cap. 4. 5. Philo. Jud. ant Bibl. lib. To this also Aristotle Trogus and Salust do subscribe with the whole current of Writers Royallists do meanly object Monarchy simply to be the choicest of Governments because it is the ancientest of Governments So argueth Salmasius def reg cap. 5. We confesse in respect of antiquity it is the best 'T is a bad consequence Monarchy is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of antiquity and priority of time Ergo it is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply and absolutely This is a caption indeed a secundum quid ad simpliciter Assert 3. Monarchy demotically in respect of the temper and disposition of the people is the best Government In clearing this you shall observe with me these three times 1. The golden time 2. The heroick time 3. The non-heroick and after-time As for the golden time it cannot be denied but people then had only a disposition for natural and oeconomick government See subsect 2. concl 3. But the heroick time did extreamly encline to Monarchick Government Before the flood Giants and men of renown did enlarge their power and brought all in subjection to them After the flood about 131 years Nimrod began to erect a Kingdom for himself And afterward the heads of Colonies went forth and established Kingdoms At that time heroick spirits one way or other came to Crowns Of this is spoken already by us at large We shall not now need to repeat any thing we spoke whether concerning the extraordinary or ordinary Heroes That time had such a disposition for Regal Government that it carried the People of Israel to seek a King whether God would or not 1 Sam. 8. We find very reason for it why then the disposition of people did most intensively carry them toward that kind of Government 1. Because men then were ignorant They were then more prodigal then politick There could be found at that time few or no Commonwealth's-men And to this very pertinently agreeth that which Aristotle speaketh Polit. 3 cap 11 Pol. 4 cap 13 saying That Kingly Government was in the beginning because then men were ignorant and few Commonwealth's-men could be found I confess his meaning is mainly concerning the golden age And in respect of it he also speaketh true No question then every thing was but in its beginning Men then were but acquainted with the rudiments of learning and policy and scarcely that Any Government they had then was not Politick but Natural and oeconomick At least it did not much differ therefrom And it must needs be said That then people were not acquainted with the Rules of Policy in the Heroick age It cannot be denied but in the Heroick time men had greater insight and experience then in the Golden time In the heroick age Policy began to have footing And no question at the end thereof men were better acquainted therewith then at the begining thereof Their experience and insight then could not but be the greater Yet we must needs say that comparing the age of Heroicism with after-times men in it were but meanly acquainted with the Rules of Policy As far as the herock time therein exceeded the golden time so far therein did after-times exceed the heroick time And we find that alwaies the latter times do abound more in Learning and Policy then the preceding and former 2. Because in those dayes men were of a gigantine strength and vast courage Then they were much given to warlike exploits to the building of Cities and to the enlarging of their own dominions What I pray you then could be more suitable to the disposition of men then Kingly Government Prodigality was then more stood-by then Policy Then men were alwaies set a-work on haughty and heroick designments Therfore they could not be governed and ordered but by such who were far above their reach What did not then the haughtiness of Israel cry for a King 1 Sam. 8. They tell Samuel they will have a King as other Nations And this is as much as if they had said We cannot endure to be inferiour to other Nations And therfore we will have a King What was it I pray you that made Nimrod to take Royal Power to himself but because he was a mighty hunter Gen. 10. one of an haughty and arrogant disposition Pride of heart and arrogancy of spirit would not admit Caesar to be Pompey's equal and Pompey Caesar's superiour Liv. dec 14. Luc. An. lib. 4. cap. 2. Plat. de Pomp. The very instinct of Nature doth abundantly teach Kingly Government most to beseem the disposition and temper of the proud and haughty Cranes and Bees which Nature hath taught to erect amongst them Kingly Government in haughtiness and proudnâ—sse amongst all beasts are matchlesse Apol. in hierogl lib. 1. 2. Virg. Geor. 4. Plin. nat hist. lib. 11. Juv. Sat. 13. Ambr. hex lib. 5. Is it any wonder then though in the heroick age men did much dote upon Kingly Government Then men were extream haughty and arrogant and could not be governed by equals They were much given to high and lofty undertakings And what could expede them therein more then Kings In after-times I deny not but Monarchy did go much out of request if we compare the non-heroick with the heroick time This maketh Aristotle say Polit. 3. cap. 10. That in after-times the kingly power was extreamly lessened partly by the King 's dimitting thereof and partly by the People's detracting therefrom This is already illustrated by us by manifold examples No wonder that this was for as the heroick age in Policy did exceed the golden age so therein after-times did exceed the heroick times yea much more Thence was it men then so abounded in Learning and Policy that in many Commonwealths they could endure no Kings at all At last the number of Commonwealth's-men greatly encreased till they did not leave so much
as the name of a King much lesse the power So it was amongst the Cretians Athenians Cyrenians Romans and other Republicks Yet observe this distinction there is a threefold kind of people 1. Haughty and malignant 2. Ignorant and servil 3. Witty and politick The first sort can endure no Government but kingly And that not only because they would be great Courtiers themselves and promoted to dignity but also because they cannot endure to be governed by their equals The second sort Stoically are incapable of the sence of slavery and apprehend some deified lustre in the King They are silly base common spirits And because of their sillinesse they are contented to live in slavery And as they are base so they are ignorant And because of their ignorance they apprehend all their slavishnesse abundantly to be made-up with a glimpse of the King's countenance for in their delusion they look upon it as some deified species apprehending him to be much more then a man And the third sort upon no terms can away with kingly Government And that because they delight in freedom and the enriching of the Commonwealth We see that the most witty and politick Kingdoms we read of did either extreamly lessen the power of their Kings or else did shake-off their yoke altogether and that both in former and after-times So the Egyptian Ethiopian Indian Athenian Lacedemonian Cretian Cyrentan Carthaginian and Roman Kingdoms And to day know we not that the most witty and politick Kingdoms of the world which delight in the liberty of the Subject and wealth of the Republick cannot away with kingly Government So Venice Florence Holland and England What I pray you can be the reason that England cannot away with kingly Government and Scotland so much thirsteth after it Speaking naturally there can be no reason given but because England is a witty and politick Nation and Scotland is not What doth not Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 11. Pol. 4 cap. 13. impute it to the ignorance and unpolitickness of people that in old they did set-up Kings to reign over them And in the same places he saith That Policy abounding and Commonwealth's-men encreasing Kings were suffered no longer to govern But although this be true That people in after-times do not so much prize Monarchy as in former times and though even to day some kingdoms be lesse disposed for it then other kingdoms having shaken it off altogether yet notwithstanding I am constrained to say That in respect of the general and common disposition of the people nothing doth relish so much to them as kingly government No wonder forsooth for there are moe who are malignant and haughty desiring to set their feet upon the necks of others then are politick and witty And besides this the general and common sort of people are meerly ignorant and insensible of slavery There are far more indeed of the first and second sort then the third Assert 4. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments This we make good Firstly from example It cannot be denied but the good Kings who in old did reign over the Jews did set-up most glorious and eminent Reformations amongst the people They most nobly reformed both Church and State 2 Sam. 6 and 7. 1 King 8 1 Chron. 13.15.16.17.22 28. Psa 101. So much of David Of Solomon 1 Kin. 1.2.5.6 7. 8. 1 Chr. 5.6.7.24.28 29. 2 Chr. 2.3 4. 8. Of Asa 1 Kin. 15. 2 Chr. 14. 15. Of Jehoshaphat 2. Chron. 17. 19. Of Hezekiah 2 King 18. 2 Chr. 29.30 31. There is much also spoken of Josiah in acting for Reformation 2 King 23. 2 Chron. 34 35. See also Joseph Ant. lib. 7.8 9. concerning the actings of these Kings They were so instrumental in setting-up the Work of God amongst the people that therein they did far exceed the Judges Hence is it we do not read the people of the Jews at any time so cheerfully so fully so speedily and with such a plenary consent to have gone about duty as under the reign of these Kings Under the conduct of the best Judges we read of great grudgings altercations and slips amongst the people notwithstanding the non-consent of the Rulers thereto Exod. 32. Numb 11.12.13.14.16.20 25. Josh 7. Jud. 2. But we read not of any such slips amongst the people under these reforming Kings Secondly Monarchy is attended with many noble proprieties wherein it exceedeth any other kind of Government By vertue of which now and then here and there it produceth more noble and eminent effects then any other Government In reckoning-up these proprieties we observe Bellarmin's method 1. Order 2. Intense Authority Whereby it preventeth division and speedily attaineth its purpose In this sense the Poet saith well componitur Orbis Regis ad exemplum From the second propriety Darius disputing for Monarchy against Ottanes concludeth it to be the choicest of Governments Herod lib. 3. It made Ulysses to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Il. 2. In English That many rule it is not a good thing One Prince let be and let there be one King And therefore he sharply rebuked the dividing and murmuring Grecians saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. ibid. In English We shall not Grecians in this place All reign indeed in any case From this Isocrates concludeth Monarchy of all Governments simply to be the best ad Nic. So do Seneca lib. 2. cap. 20. Athanasius Orat. adv Idol Hieronymus par 3. tract 9. epist 39. and Plutarch in Num. Sol. But they are far mistaken for this only concludeth Monarchy secundum quid to be the choicest of Governments Yea Plato in Polit. Aristotle Eth. 8. cap. 10. Justine in Or. exhort Cyprian tract de idol van in this respect call Monarchy the chiefest of Governments Yet not simply and absolutely as do Isocrates Darius and others 3. Power and strength For in so far as Monarchick Government is lesse obnoxious to division and more attended with union then any of the rest in as far it secureth and strengtheneth the Commonwealth more then any of them The strength of the Kingdom dependeth from union consent and harmony The contrary of this is the ruin of it Mat. 12. Whence after Kingly Government had perished amongst the Romans many intestine divisions did ensue as D. Halicarnassius Val. maximus T. Livius Fenestella Plutarch L. Annaeus c. do report 4. Stability and diuturnity Now it is attended with this propriety for these reasons Firstly because it is most authoritative and farthest from the subjects reach Secondly because it is lesse liable to division and confusion then any of the rest of Governments Because of these things it is more free then any other Government whether from forrain or intestine jars Hence is it that amongst all Governments it hath endured longest as is agreed on by all Historians I confesse
Judges then under Kings The Judges for the most part were holy They alwaies dehorted the people from prophanity alwaies delivered them from slavery at no time brought evil upon them But the Kings for the most part were wicked the contrary effects were produced by them This as a speaking commentary intimateth to us That the condition of the people is most desperat and hazardous under Kings We cannot passe-by the condition of the Jews after the captivity as it was under Captains or Judges and as as it was under Kings All the while they lived under Captains their condition was most happy and blessed Albeit at that time now and then they were crossed with the bondage of strangers yet were they free from intestine jars Their Captains did not rise against them and bring them under slavery as did their Kings Their zeal and forwardnesse in acting for the weal both of Church and Commonwealth are fully regestred in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah Macc. 1. and 2 Jos an t Jud. lib. 12. and 13. And how much the Jews under the reign of Kings after the captivity suffered is storied at length by Josephus ant Jud. lib. 13.14 15. In a word the case of the Jews under Kings being most desperat far unlike the sweetnesse of their condition under Judges it speaketh to us That Kingly Governmâ—nt of all Governments is the most hazardous What better fruits I pray you needeth any kingdom to expect at the hands of Kings then the people of the Jews were served with at their hands Verily I suppose we may expect rather worse then better fruits then the people of the Jews were made to tast of under the reign of Kings Secondly from the Lord's unwillingnesse to set-up Kingly Government amongst the people of the Jews in remonstrating to them the extream hazard and tyranny they should lie under if they subjected their necks thereto This is seen 1 Sam. 8. And for making good our purpose therefrom we move the question Whether or not doth Samuel in it describe the office or rather the tyranny of the King Royallists do proudly aver That in it is understood the Office and Law of the King And none herein is more forward then Salmasius Def. Reg cap. 2. 5. But that we may dispatch the businesse between us we shall firstly try the sense of v. 11. what may be imported in the original text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said This shall be the manner of that King who shall reign over you But Salmasius starteth very much at this translation And for manner he placeth law or right So the man will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Yea but he is far mistaken Firstly because in many places of Scripture we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for manner consuetude or custom Gen. 40. Exod. 21. Numb 29. Josh 6. â— Sam. 2. 1 Sam. 27. 1 King 18. But a place or two we expresse for further clearing this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they are doing into this very day after their former manners 2 Kin. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And their customs keep not Ezek. 20. Secondly bâ—cause it is the ordinary and common translation So the Chaldee Paraphrast translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one and the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is to be rendered manner Josephus ant Jud. lib. 6. cap. 40. is close of our judgment And Cl. Alexandrinus in plain termes saith That the Lord doth not promise them a King but threatneth them with a Tyrant And Salmasius though he leaneth to humane authority yet he standeth not to say That Clement and all who expound the words contrary to his mind do erre Def. Reg. cap. 5. I suppose the man is for nothing but what is for him Ex ungue Leonem But we have many moe Interpreters and Writers of our judgment Beda lib. 2. in expos Sam. Glos interl Hug. Card. Lyr. Cajet Serar Corn. a lap Mend. in loc Tust Abul in 1 Reg. cap. 3. quest 17. Rebuf tract de incong Calv. in loc P. Mart. in loc Jun. Trem. Riv. Diod. Pisc Brent in loc So saith Buchanan de jur reg ap Scot. I confesse the Septuagints render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Salmasius runneth-to as to a strong tower withall further alleadging that sometime they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he buildeth upon a sandy foundation We make not reckoning how the Septuagints elsewhere translate it They do also in some places render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word in it-self hath diverse significations But to our purpose we contend that here it signifieth nothing but manner or custome And though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath it's arisal properly signifieth jus justitia and fas yet improperly it is called ritus mos and consuetudo It is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odys And likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist de mun According to this latter sense we understand the meaning of the Seventy Thirdly we clear it evidently from the text it-self And that according to these reasons 1. Because the LORD commanded Samuel to describe to them the State and condition of the King to use it as a motive for disswading them from following-out such a desire Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the King that shall reign over them i. e. before thou shalt set a King over them thou shalt protest solemnly against it And in so doing thou shalt draw arguments and motives of disswading them from their purpose from the very condition and nature of the King that shall reign over them And R. Judas speaking on the place saith that what the LORD commanded Samuel to speak did serve to strike a terrour in the hearts of the people Salmasius vainly shifteth this as subtilly he expoundeth that of R. Jose Quicquid dicitur in capite de Rege eum Regum jus habere to relate to 1 Sam. 8. and not to Deut. 17 Def reg cap. 2. Howsoever see what Josephus saith Now I command thee to make them a King whom I shall design But before thou shalt do so forewarn them of the great evils that shall ensue thereupon and protest that in so doing they cast themselves loose of a good estate into a worse Ant. Jud. lib. 6 cap. 4. To this same purpose Brent speaketh more plainly and largely Hom. 26. in 1 Sam. cap. 8. Now tell me if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be understood concerning the office and right of the King how could Samuel have objected it as a disswading argument to alienate the people's minde from seeking after Kingly government Either he here speaketh of lawfull or unlawfull power If of lawfull power either he describeth to the people the good or the bad of it If the good ergo
for long life to him She answered When I was young a grievous tyrant reigning over us I prayed that he might be taken away To whom one worse succeeded I prayed for his death also To whom thou Dionysius worse then either of them succeeded And now I pray for the lengthning of thy dayes lest one worse then thy self should come in thy room Brus lib. 6. cap. 21. That must be of a strange stamp which can make very Ethnicks to pray against it Mark to pray for the continuing of it to prevent another of its own kind worse then it self Fr. Pat. Senensis saith Tyranny devoureth after death lib. 10. cap. 3. All which bear us in hand that of all things tyranny is most dangerous and cruel And it being the ordinary and proper bad consequence of Monarchy who can deny Monarchy to be of a I Governments the most dangerous Secondly Kingly Government as is said already is most authoritative and of more commanding faculty then any other And consequently as a good King by his example may and doth draw the people into obedience and due performance so an evil King may and doth by his example ensnare the people So Claudian Regis ad exemplum totus componitur orbis What doth not the holy Ghost say Riches beget friends Prov. 14. and 19. And many do intreat the favour of the Prince Prov. 19. and 29. 'T is storied that the Souldiers of Ant. Epimanes a most leacherous King did imitate his prophane and bad example Val. max. lib. 9. cap. 1. Many of the Syracusians did follow the evil example of the tyrant Dionysius Plut. Whence is concluded Plerique magis actiones aliorum quamlibet pravas imitantur quam infortunia eorum cavent Dion lib. 53. If the King be altogether wicked as ordinarily he is More Tyrants then Kings Few of them in any age friends to Christ Most part of them destroyers of the Commonwealth Oh! in how great danger under such doth Religion stand and are the Liberties of the subject exposed to Tell not me of a regulated King 'T is but a playing fast and loose Aristotle Pol. 5. cap. 8. saith The least thing of the Law is not to be changed This he saith because it maketh way for the abrogating of the whole Law He falleth upon that principle Principiis obsta sero medicina paratur Set-up to day regulated Monarchy and to morrow it shall be absolute If the King once get-in his litle finger he shall soon thrust-in his whole body Small beginnings can produce great effects 'T is good to kill them in the birth Make Caesar perpetuall Dictator Augustus shall become absolute Emperour One degree bringeth on another The least of Kings hath greater favour and power with the people then the greatest of Councels All will be called his The word subditi is current then But aequales is detestable If Alexander's neck be crooked all his Courtiers must hang their heads to that side I know not what the most of people for the Prince's favour be what he will regulated or absolute will not do Tell me if he be not for GOD and the good of the people do not both Religion and the Commonwealth stand in greatest hazard This dolefull experience teacheth in all ages Of our judgment are Jos an t lib. 4. cap. 8. lib. 6. c. 4. Mat. Agr. de insip Reg. Th. Mor. Anonym monit lib. 2. Brent hom 25. in 1 Sam. 8. Pet. Mart com in Jud. cap. 1. Virg. Malvez disc 39. See also Buchanan de Jur. Reg. ap Scot. SECT III. Whether or not is a Common-wealth the best of Governments WE know Rollists hold the Quaerie absurd But with their leave I freely offer my judgment in the following Assertion Assert Without all controversie Democracy arightly instituted simply and absolutely is of all Governments the sweetest and contributeth most to the good of the people In establishing this we observe this order Firstly from the first and primary institution of the Jewish Commonwealth It cannot be denied but it was popular and democratick and that for these reasons 1. Because the Judges and Rulers of Israel were not choosed and set-apart upon the accompt of any nationall and carnall priviledge The Holy Ghost giveth them no preeminence above their brethren for old descent worldly honour and riches Men to govern in it were not choosed for their riches nobility and blood-respects No verily They had onely place to govern because of vertue and godlinesse Moreover thou shalt provide able men such as fear God men of truth hating covetousnesse and place such over them to be rulers and let them judge the people at all seasons And Moses choosed able men and made them heads over the people rulers And they judged the people at all seasons Exod. 18. Mark there is not a word here of choosing the rich and honorable or of any carnall or blood-tie The Judges that are choosed are men qualified vertuous and godly able to discharge their trust And this was not onely required in inferiour Judges but even in the higher Judges also members of the Sandrin The Seventy were wise men and understanding and known amongst the tribes Deut. 1. They were not choosed at randome or at all adventures No verily They were selected out from amongst the Judges spoken of Ex. 18. And the LORD said unto Moses Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people and officers over them Num. 11. Now it is shewed that such men were vertuous and godly able for places of trust And yet the LORD rested not satisfied therewith but being about to entrust them with higher matters he doubleth the spirit upon them And I will come-down and talk with thee there and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee and will put it upon them and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee that thou bear it not thy-self alone And the LORD came down in a cloud and spake unto him and took of the spirit that was upon him and gave it unto the seventy elders Num. ib. Neither can it be denied but those who were called Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency were most eminently qualified far beyond any other GOD had a most speciall hand in calling them to the charge Judg. 2. So Moses Joshuah c. Tell me I pray you have not we more then reason to say That the first and primary Government amongst the people of the Jews was popular I denie not but qualification may be looked-to and have place both in Monarchy and Optimacy But observe both of these Governments in their best institution do look to riches and honour as a necessary condition As for Monarchy there is no question And Aristotle distinguisheth between the government of few and Optimacy Both which ordinarily passe under the notion of Aristocracy And Oligarchy saith he onely looketh to riches and honour Pol. 4. cap. 5. as Optimacy
doth both to riches and vertue cap. 7. Thus whether in Monarchy or Aristocracy in their most reformed condition not onely qualification is looked-to but also naturall priviledges are required as necessary conditions But we hear not a word of any naturall priviledge in choosing and setting-apart the Judges and Rulers of the Jewish first Commonwealth There is not a word spoken of their riches and honour but of their abilities for the discharge of their trust The Holy Ghost saith not The wise men rich and honorable together with the heirs of the Rulers were appointed to govern There is not a word of any such naturall respect And do you imagine that the Holy Ghost at any time would have past-by in silence these naturall priviledges if they had been required as necessary conditions in the Judges and Rulers of the Jewes Well is it so that according to the Holy Ghost's way only the vertuous and godly should govern and none other did bear rule in the first institution of the Jewish Commonwealth why shall we imagine but the people did bear rule amongst them I hope you will not say that vertue and godlinesse is not to be found amongst the people but amongst the great ones The contrary is rather true 'T is hard for a rich man to enter Heaven Mat. 19. Job 32 9. 1 Cor. 1 26 27 28 29. 'T is observable at this time there was but small difference amongst the people of the Jews in the matter of riches The most they had was the gold and silver they had gotten from the Egyptians Ex. 3.11 and 12. And every man and woman amonost them gote jewels of silver and gold from the Egyptians Nay but it was not a time of their wealth while as they travelled in the wilderness Their condition then was very unsetled What they had then was from hand to mouth Any provision they had was from GOD'S extraordinary furnishing And they were all that way a-like served And after they had entered the Land and gotten possession of it we read the Land was equally divided amongst them according to their Tribes and Families They lived then as a peculiar people claiming neerer relation one to another then any people did In after-ages and corrupt times they could all tell you they all were the children and seed of Abraham The neerest bonds of Nature tied every one of them to supply another's wants And as for Titles of honour amongst them we read of none till they gote Kings Such vile and prodigali titles as to day are used then were unknown Yet obeserve there was a two-fold and only a two-fold sort of Titles amongst them 1. A Title of Office And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Officers Ex. 18. Deut. 1. Josh 24 Both which were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers And as by their vertue they came to be Judges and Rulers so by that same they attained to these Titles of Office Which are most approved and commendable as they are most ordinary and usuall 2. A title of meer nature Thus in the time of Judges and Captains they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heaâ—s Josh 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief of the Fathers Ezr. 4.8 and 10. These Titles and Priviledges they had from the precedency of Nature as the first-born hath from the younger The very Law of Nature it-self admitteth precedency both in respect of office and of naturall generation and priority Otherwise every thing should be turned topsie turvie and all should run into confusion But you shall not find thorow all the Book of GOD any other sort of titles used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King is also a title of office You shall not shew me where the Rulers of the people of Israel are called Dukes Marquesses Earles Vicounts c. Such titles I tkink came from hell and I wish they may thither return Now tell me whether or not I have good reason to say that the Jewish Commonwealth under Judges was popular and democratick No precedency amongst them was known then but what either office or nature did bear them to They knew not precedency because of honour and riches what it meaned Any precedency amongst them was either from naturall generation or from qualification And none amongst them was advanced to any place of trust because of any natural priviledge and carnal respect but because of vertue and godlinesse And this was to be found amongst the people We believe qualification hangeth not at the girdles of great men And such were not amongst the people of the Jews in the time of the Judges And though the Seventy were chosen out from amongst the Judges and Officers of the people yet doth it not follow but they were popular for the Rulers were chosen from amongst the people And so the Seventy being of the Rulers it necessarily followeth that they were chosen from among the people It will never conclude that they were not popular Governours but that afterward they were advanced to an higher degree of office then they were formerly The Sanhedrin was entrusted with the management of the most publick and greatest matters 2. It is said Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men And Moses chose able men out of all Israel Ex. 18. There is a noble emphasis in all or in all Israel Mark the vastnesse and latitude thereof It is not said Judges were chosen from amongst the rich and honorable of Israel That indeed had insinuated the restriction of places of office and trust to the rich and honourable Blood-respect and natural ties had been necessary conditions in the choosing of Judges if that had been said But the word all a note of universality doth exempt none therefrom It declareth all and every one of the people without exception who were vertuous and godly and fit for the discharge of publick trust secluding all natural ties and priviledges to be capable of official power Indeed you need not take all in a restricted sense for at this time they had none inclosing rich men worldly worms and vain-gloriously honourable They knew nothing but the priority of Nature and the precedency of Vertue And if you call not this Popular Government I know not what you call Popular Howsoever let me have this and I crave no better Because it is alleadged Moses Joshua and the other Judges did reign as Kings we shall shortly demonstrate to you what power they had Therefore shortly observe these Conclusions Conclus 1. Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly Power This is more then manifest Ever till then Moses governed all and none but he Exod. 18. This he did not because he delighted to lord over the people and that none should rule but he 'T is known that he rested not contented with what Rulers he had appointed at the desire and counsell of Jethro He intreated the Lord to appoint other Rulers to bear burden with
him Num. 11. Deut. 1. Neither will I say that Moses out of meer simplicity and ignorance before Jethro's counsel did forbear to set any Rulers over the people beside himself The very light of Nature taught him that help was good and that he alone was not able to discharge all the businesses of the people But I conceive he did it upon other grounds He knew that the people of Israel were the Lord 's peculiar people whom he had brought out of Egypt extraordinarily and over whom he had set him in an extraordinary way Yea he waited for judgment to the people at the very mouth of the Lord. What Laws and Ordinances he delivered to the people and what judgment he executed amongst them were done according to extraordinary and immediat revelation from the Lord. Which maketh me think that Moses in all matters of importance taking the word from God's mouth and depending from his immediate revelation wholly waited upon God's Oracle where and when one way or other should be revealed to him how and what Judges should be appointed to rule with him And so he perceiving Jethro's counsel to be wholesome and from the Lord and that God had employed him as an instrument of accomplishing his expectation therefore he thought good not to despise it but speedily to embrace it So we see he wholly casteth the election of the Seventy over upon God and therein only taketh the word at his mouth Num. 11. Deut. 1. Albeit Moses all this while did reign as King yet doth it make nothing for Kingly Government 1. Because he was the Lord's extraordinary Lieutenant He was extraordinarily and immediatly designed by God to the charge And to speak properly and precisely in a politick notion not Moses but God himself was their King What Moses did was by an immediate dependency from the Lord. He took the word at God's mouth He enquired of God judgment and was for the people to God-ward Ex. 18. He was as God's mouth to the people God employed him to deliver his Laws and Ordinances to the people because they were afraid the Lord should speak to them They could not without fear behold his glory and terrour Exod. 20. And Moses finding that his charge immediatly and extraordinarily depended from the Lord therfore he waited upon God till he manifested one way or other where when and how other Governours should be designed to rule with him over the people And thus all the while he did govern alone not he but God properly and in a politick notion was their King for he did nothing to the people but by a special extraordinary and immediat dependency from the Lord. 2. Till in and about the time of Jethro's counsel there was no fit time to create Rulers over the people All the while before they were in a chased most unsetled condition In which time Moses did reign through meer necessity and exigency of the times He did rule alone because the case of the times so required Thus Moses was King per accidens and not per se 3. Although Moses had had an absolute and arbitrary power over the people of Israel yet would it plead no whit for Kingly Government By manifold and most eminent obligations they were tied to him For their sake he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter preferring affliction with them to all the pleasures and pomp of Pharaoh's Court. He conducted them thorow the Red Sea he was as the mouth of God to them and by his favour with the Lord he furnished them with all necessaries in the wildernesse And it is known that the man was most eminently endowed matchlesse in his time Thus what Kingly power Moses had was not only accidentall but extraordinary Therefore it can be no ground to Royallists to build upon Conclus 2. After the institution of the seventy elders and the accomplishment of Jethro 's counsell neither Moses nor any other of the Judges had a Kingly power Firstly The people desired Gideon to reign over them and offered to devolve the Kingdom over into the hands of his posterity And Gideon refused to do so and embraced not their offer Judg. 8. And he addeth this as the reason of his deniall The LORD shall rule over you As it he had said Neither I nor any of my posterity can take upon us to reign over you as your Kings Ye are the LORD' 's peculiar people Of whom the LORD hath a most special care Any that rule over you must be deputed by God in an extraordinary way They must take the word at his mouth ruling over you by an immediat dependency from him Now tell me whether or not was Gideon King at this time If he was King ergo he refused to embrace the power which he had And that is ridiculous If he was not King I obtain the point Again either they offered to Gideon a Kingly power or not If a Kingly power ergo either Gideon was not King or else by way of gratification they offered him the power which he had already And that had been in them greater impertinency then courtesie Yea they had dealt altogether ridiculously And sure I am Gideon had never answered them so as he did if he had had such power He had positively denied to enjoy that which really he did enjoy And that they did offer him a Kingly power is manifest 1 Because the word in the Originall text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to lorde and govern in a Kingly way Gen. 4.37 Dan. 11. Mic. 5. and in many other places It hath affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Graecians changing מ in say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which signifieth to reign in a kingly way 2 It could be no other then kingly power because Gideon wanted no power but that He judged them led-forth their Armies and commanded in chief And consequently either he was not King or else the people offered no other power to him then what formerly he had And I cannot imagine that ever they would have been so impertinent to gratifie his labours with the offer of just nothing If they had done so they had forthwith befooled themselves And if Gideon had not kingly power neither had any other of the Judges He had that same power and no lesse which they had They were all Judges alike Secondly Abimelech had different power from the Judges What power he had was kingly This is evident 1. From the question he putteth-up unto his mother's brethren whereby he pleadeth to reign over the people of Israel He useth there the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the people used in offering to Gideon and his posterity power to reign over them And as is said already it implieth a kingly-ruling power 2. From Jotham's parable wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used And this under a parabolick notion he alludeth to Abimelech And it cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is seldome or
kingly power Here from we draw this Argument That Government is simply and absolutely best and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth which the Lord not only did firstly institute amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof But the Lord not only did firstly institute Democracy amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof Ergo Democracy simply and absolutely is the best Government and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth The Proposition I suppose cannot be denied for whatsoever is most for the good of Church and Commonwealth is most also for the glory and honour of God And shall not I imagine that the Lord most endeavoureth that which is most for his honour As there is nothing which is so precious in the eyes of God as his own honour so he endeavoureth most to erect preserve and maintain that which most contributeth thereto None will say that the Lord slighteth his own honour and postponeth it to any created interest The Assumption is made good from what foregoeth not only in this but also in the preceding Subsection Secondly from the judgment of the gravest and wisest Philosophs So Solon of whom it is storied 1. That he not only refused himself to reign over the Athenians as King but also he much endeavoured that Pisistratus should not attain thereto This he did for preserving the liberties of the Athenians and popular government amongst them inviolable 2. He wrote severall verses against the Athenians because they had set Pisistratus over them sharply rebuking them that they had gone from the better to the worse 3. Because the Athenians had set-up Monarchy amongst them therefore he left Athens and went into Egypt 4. Not desiring to live under Kingly government he left Egypt Cyprus and Lydia and came into Cilicia where he built a City and called the name of it Solos And it is very observable that Craesus having desired him to come and live beside him he thanked him for his benevolent courtesie But withall he added that if he desired not to live in a free Common-wealth which he had set-up in Cilicia he would choose rather to live with him then in Athens 5. Being desired by Pisistratus to return to Athens he told him he would not lest he should appear an approver of his deed in taking upon him to reign as King 6. He wrote an Epistle to Epimenides wherein he exceedingly regrateth the foolishnesse of the Athenians in translating Democracy into Monarchy 7. He wrote to Periander King of Corinth desiring him to lay-down his Kingly power 8. It is reported that he did institute popular government amongst the Athenians But the simple truth is it was long before instituted by Theseus And by processe of time the Commonwealth and the Laws thereof being corrupted Solon reformed both And as Solon so likewaies all the rest of the Sages did prefer Democracy to any other government Thales wrote to Solon in exile desiring him to come and dwell beside him at Miletum And if he did abominate the Milesian Monarchy there was no-where he could be free of the trouble of Kings And therefore he thought it best he should live with him and his own friends Putting him in mind how that Bias one of the Wisemen had desired him to come to Priene And if he did so he told him they meaning himself the rest of the Sages would flock about him I suppose their sympathizing in affection with Solon doth also insinuat their sympathizing with him in the matter of judgement 'T is storied that the Wiseman Chilo was the first who instituted the Lacedemonian ephori the representative of the people This is controverted Sosicrates saith Chilo did firstly institute the Ephorick Magistracy To this enclineth Laertius de vit Phil. lib. 1 in Chil. Herodot Xenophon and Satyrus say it was instituted by Lycurgus Aristotle and Val. Maximus by Theopompus Howsoever I may determine on either of these two 1. That Chilo was one of that Magistracy himself Which made his brother envie him 2. That not onely Lycurgus and Theopompus but also Chilo acted much for the maintenance and preservation of that Magistracy And in an epistle to Periander he spareth not to say that nothing is secure to a King nor is he happy though he should die in his bed without blood Pittacus one of the Sages after he had reigned about ten years over the Mityleneans willingly resigned the Kingdom Tell me if that man desired not people's liberty who though able to do so would not so much as keep them under an easie yoke for he did govern them according to most wholesome laws and constitutions And in his answer to Craesus he avoucheth that Law is the greatest commander Compare this speech with his practice and you will find he was a great friend to Democracy and people's liberty Cleobulus greatly sympathized with Solon in his exile And in his Epistle to him he desireth him to come and dwell beside him in Lind which he calleth a free City not subjected to Kings and Princes And there saith he you shall be free of all fear at Pisistratus hands Periander one of the Wise-men also though at the first both a King and Tyrant yet at last he appointed a Councell to govern at Corinth Which I must needs think was popular because in even-down terms he saith that popular government is better then Royall And how much he was taken with high and noble thoughts of the Sages and Wise-men doth more then appear from his Epistle directed to them Epimenides in his epistle to Solon saith that the Athenians before Pisistratus reigne being free and governed by most notable laws would not still lye under slavery and bondage Observe he calleth Kingly government servitude and bondage And in the interim he intreateth him to come and dwell beside him in Crete where there was no King to trouble him Anaximenes in his Epistle to Pythagoras commendeth him much for departing from Samos into Croton for avoiding the yoke of Monarchy And withall he regrateth his own condition for being not onely subjected to the Milesian Kings but also threatned by the Median King with bondage albeit the Ionians did contend for the liberty of all This made him dolefully cry out Oh how can I Anaximenes search out Heaven 's secrets being exposed to the hazard of death and bondage And it cannot be denied but Pythagoras was all the way for Democracy 1. Because Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras speaketh of liberty But sure I am Aristocracy doth as much if not more take-away liberty as Monarchy What it is the government of many Kings And the tyranny of many is worse then the tyranny of one 2. Because he went into Crete and Lacedemonia And being fully instructed in their Laws he returned from thence into Croton where he set-up a Councell
accidens and in a secondary way intendeth government The reason of this is clearer then the light for in the state of corruption Nature lieth between two straits Either it must be altogether be slaveâ—â—o the predominant tyranny of it's corruption or else patiently submit it-self to Government 's yoke Thereby it mindeth to redintegrat that which by Corruption it losed It knoweth that it would be overcharged by the super-dominion of lording lusts if it did not come under the reverence of government It chooseth rather to take it's hazard of subjection to a friend then become captive to a foe and alwayes remain his prisoner Thus it no otherwise mindeth government but as in the case of fallen man it cannot be secure nor preserved from the rage of lust without it Therefore Writers do very pertinently call it naturall Arist Pol. 1. cap. 2. Ulp. Inst lib. 1. Just Dig. lib. 1. tit 1. loc 1. 3 4 5 6 7 9. Inst lib. 1. tit 2. loc 1. and 2. And the Lawyer Vasquez in plain terms saith that same which we do Illustr quaest lib. 1. cap. 41. The Law saith De jure gentium secundarius est omnis principatus I. fin ad med C. de long temp praest I. This being done you may abundantly learn herefrom what man's condition is in the state of perfection 〈◊〉 integrity 'T is a condition altogether unliable to any Politick subjection It rendereth all free unsubjected to government Yet we must not think that it giveth man immunity and exemption from the Morall Law That were a giving him power above his duty Thus he should be rendered an out-law But in the state of integrity man was most strictly engaged to all the duties of the Morall Law He was obliged to perform them under pain of highest censure He was answerable then to no humane Judicatory but only to the Judge of judges His case was such that he needed no governours to hedge-in his ways He needed nothing for that but his own nature It 's integrity and perfection was the best governor and government But since the fall Man is become exceeding labill and standeth in need of many things which he did not before Since the fall he is obliged no lesse then before it to observe GOD's Law And though before the fall he was free and subject to none but to GOD yet now he cometh under Tutory Before the fall he needed no Tutors having wit enough then to govern himself But since the fall he is become infirm and ignorant and standeth now in need of Tutors to help his infirmities And the best Tutor he can have is government Now tell me which of the governments is best No question that which advanceth him neerest his first and primary condition Nature no otherwise intendeth government but as it contributeth in some measure or other to make up what it hath losed in the state of corruption And as it hath losed integrity so likewayes liberty It had both these in the state of perfection Well will any deny but of all goverments Democracy is most for liberty Monarchy and Aristocracy draw people's liberty within a narrow compasse In the one the whole liberty of the people is devolved upon one and in the other upon some few Thus the liberty which Man had in the state of perfection is extreamly eclipsed It denieth his native liberty to him though in a larger measure he be capable of it But Democracy giveth people their full liberty which they had in the state of perfection in so much as they are capable of it It withholdeth nothing of it from them which in conveniency and without violation of the Law it can give unto them It cannot conveniently give them the whole liberty which they had in their primary condition Otherwise they should be without government And so they should become out-laws loose and dissolute Thus they should come under the dominion of sin Which is not liberty but slavery To prevent the incurable and extreame contagion of which Nature hath provided Government as a remedy And that government which advanceth Nature in the state of fallen man in as much as it is capable of to the liberty which it had in the state of innocency and before the fall no question must be the chiefest remedy against such contagion Thus Nature in the state of Corruption is advanced so neer as is possible to it's state it was in in the case of perfection But Democracy amongst all Governments is that which advanceth Nature neerest to the liberty which it had in the state of perfection It giveth liberty not onely to one and some few but also to all It with-holdeth liberty from none in so far as it can consubsist with obedience to the Law to which Man was subjected in the very state of innocency It no otherwise with-holdeth liberty but as it preventeth Corruption's slavery Ergo of all Governments it is simply best No wonder for it advanceth Man neerest the condition he was in in the state of perfection SECT IV. Whether or not is it lawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority IT will be greater ease for us to remove this difficulty then those which formerly by the Lords abundant help we have fully discussed You learn our mind in this matter from that which followeth Assert 1. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly Power as the Kingly power There is very good reason for this for the King as King is ordained by God and Kingly Government in it self is God's Ordinance Therefore formally positively and directly we cannot resist the King nor the Kingly power unlesse we be found fighters against God This is at length made good by us sect 1. ass 1. Assert 2. It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power This we make good from several examples in Scripture 1. From the example of Saul's Army which in resisting him rescued Jonathan from his fury 1 Sam. 14. Royallists such as Mr. Symons and Ferne do opinionate this was done by no violence but by prayers and tears But this is false There is not a word of prayers and tears in the text The people without and contrary to the King's consent enter in oath for rescuing Jonathan Yea which is more contrary to the King's oath they laid their heads together and did bind themselves by oath to rescue him The King's oath is God do so and more also for thou shalt surely die Jonathan The People's oath is contrary to that As the Lord liveth there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground They go not behind his back but they tell it him in his face the people said unto Saul Shall Jonathan die Thus they withstand him to his face The very highest degree of resistance 2. David resisted and withstood Saul's fury 1 Sam. 22.23 c. 1 Chr. 12. Nay but Arnisaeus saith David's fact in resisting
is more then apparent to us it revolted from a principle of Religion And these who comment upon the text say Libnah revolted because Jehoram pressed the people of the Land to Idolatry I suppose upon good reason Libnah's revolt is far more justifiable then the defection of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam The one revolted upon a natural and the other upon a spiritual accompt And yet as is shewed already the ten Tribes revolted allowably 5. Uzziah was withstood by Azariah accompanied with fourscore valiant Priests of the Lord. And in this contrary to the doctrine of Royallists we shall make good these three things 1. That they resisted him violently 2. allowably 3. that they dethroned him The first is evident from the text Firstly because it is said they withstood him They withstood Uzziah the Kiâ—â— 2 Chron. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are words of violent resistance signifying to stand against And for this cause the fourscore Priests are called men of valour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of strength So the Seventy and Arius Montanus translate them It maketh us imagine they were purposely selected from amongst the rest of the Priests because of their valour and strength to withstand Uzziah in sacrificing Secondly because they did thrust Uzziah violently out of the Temple Azariah the chief Priest and all the Priests thrust him out from thence Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to thrust out with violence They hurried him out of the Temple as the word importeth The second is also manifest because the Lord attended the undertaking of the Priests with miraculous and extraordinary succesfulnesse They no sooner laid hands on the King but beyond all expectation the Lord did put hand in him also He did back them notably They no sooner did resist the King but assoon the Lord from Heaven did strike him with Leprosie And is it imaginable but the Lord one way or other had plagued them also if they had failed in their duty to the King I can see no reason why he should have spared them in failing in their duty more then he did not spare Uzziah in failing in his duty And which is more the Priests do not groundlesly withstand him They argue from the King's duty and from their duty They tell him in plain terms It did not become the King to sacrifice Num. 18. but the Priests Ex. 30. Upon these grounds they set-to to withstand him and keep him back from burning incense Which insinuat that their act of resisting him was in no part of his duty and that which was proper to his kingly charge but only in maintaining their own liberties and what according to God's Law was due to them Would they say We will withstand thee O King and have reason to do so because as thou dost that which is not incumbent to thee so thou encroachest upon the peculiar liberties of our charge The third is beyond controversie though Royallists start much at it 1. Because he was cut-off from the house of the Lord. This was because of his Leprosy for according to the Law the Leper was cut-off from the Congregation Thus the Priests spare not to execute the Law upon the King though Royallists esteem him to have exemption and immunity therefrom And Uzziah the King was a leper unto the day of his death and dwelt in a several house being a leper for he was cut-off from the house of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a solitary house far from resort and society Thus Uzziah was separated so long as he lived from the society of men Which is the Law concerning the Leper Levit. 13. 2. Because his son was enkinged so soon as Uzziah was separated from the Congregation And Jotham his son was over the King's house judging the people of the Land Ibid. and 2 King 15. Tell me is it likely or can it stand with reason they would have enkinged the son the father as yet remaining King And I pray you had it not been great madnesse in them to retain the kingly power in Uzziah's hand after he was cut-off from the house of the Lord because of his leprosie Firstly because he was as an excommunicate man And those who had not interest in the Church had not interest in the State the Jewish Church being national What David doth in reforming the State is in relation and subordination to the good of the Church Psa 101. Secondly the man being thus cut-off was as unfit to govern as either stock or stone I beleeve God appointed not idiots and unfit men to reign We shall speak nothing here of these examples whereby is holden-out not only the lawfulnesse of resisting but also of off-cutting of Kings this not being the proper place thereof We do only here speak of the simple act of Resistance We adde to these examples a few reasons Firstly These who have power to resist the tyranny of the King and will not offering both their bodies goods to his fury may very justly be called negative murderers and robbers of themselves Thus they expose them needlesly to the Kings mercilesse cruelty Not unlike the man who being able to preserve both his life and his goods from the robbers committeth all unto their mercilesse hands Who will not say and that justly but such an one is a self-murderer and self-robber Secondly It is against very Nature it-self men having power in their hands to defend themselves against the unjust violence and rage of the King and yet to be wanting therein Either Nature hath conferred upon them such power in vain or not You cannot say in vain unlesse you reflect upon the Authour of Nature who worketh every thing to good purpose And Nature as it is in it-self is good and perfect So it is repugnant for it considered as it is in it-self to work unsquarely and produce bad effects 'T is against the proportion that is between the cause and the effect Which maketh Aristotle say God and Nature adoe nothing in vain De Coel. lib. 1. cap. 5. Thirdly It is a negative betraying of God and his interest 'T is a denying to act for God contrary to the King's will Sure I am Christ cannot away with negatives He putteth them up in the score of enemies Mat. 12. 'T is against the practice of the Apostles not to act for God against the will of the Ruler They determine to act for him whether man will or not Man without exception They make no reservation of the King They resolve to do God's will though contrary to man's Acts 4. and 5. And I beleeve the King be but a man Inst It is altogether against that which Paul saith Rom. 13. say Royallists to resist the King This is much urged by Salmasius He concludeth the Apostles of Christ altogether to have been against the doctrine of Resistance This he gathereth not only from the place above cited but also from Tit. 3. 1 Pet. 2. Def. Reg. cap. 3.
break the oath of allegeance given to him But this they could not for the Prophets threatned them with wrath for the violation thereof But because this matter is not only most clear in it self but also we have little or nothing to do with it therefore we content our self with this slender view we have taken of it We leave this and come to Salmasius who is of an higher strain then he Indeed he pleadeth for subjection and allegeance to the worst of powers But to take away all that he objecteth observe these few things concerning the clear meaning and exposition of the place Rom. 13. 1. Carefully distinguish between the superiour and inferiour 2. between the power it-self and the abuse thereof For the first we say It is unlawful and not permitted whether by the Law of God or the Law of Nature to the inferiour to resist the superiour And as it is not lawful for the inferiour to resist the superiour neither is it lawful to resist the superior power as it is in it self We find both these in the text Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers The higher or superiour presupposeth lower and inferiour The one is correlat of the other Thus it is evident the subjection and non-resistance spoken-of by Paul Rom. 13. is between the inferiour and superiour And withal remark the Apostle presseth subjection to the power and non-resistance thereof He doth not command obedience to the abuse and tyranny of it We do therefore say the place maketh nothing against us but much for us Though it be not lawful for inferiours to resist superiours That cannot be done unlesse the inferiour intrude himself upon the right of the superiour and usurp that which he hath not Yet is it very commendable for the superiour to resist the inferiour Therefore it is undoubtedly lawful for the people or their Representative to resist the King And that because their power is above his His power is not absolute admitting no bounds And consequently the text speaketh against the resistance made by the King against the people The people's power is the higher yea the supream power And so subjection and obedience is so much more to be performed thereto The Apostle commandeth subjection and non-resistance to any higher power though but higher secundum quid His words are indefinit and without exception Ergo much more to the highest and the higher power simpliciter And thus the Apostle to good purpose exhorteth Christians up and down the Roman Empire and namely in and about the City of Rome to subject their necks to the yoke of the Roman Magistrates They were indeed inferiour to them both in power and dignity They could not have withstood them being but an handful unlesse they had become self-murderers and usurpers of power which both God and Nature had denied them And though it be unlawful to resist the power as it is in it self yet it is lawful as is said already to withstand the abuse and tyranny thereof It doth not follow that Paul commandeth subjection and non-resistance to the tyranny of the power because he commandeth subjection and non-resistance to the power it self This is a fallacy ab accidente The abuse of the power is altogether extrinsecal to the power it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum the consequence is vain Thus these of Tit. 3. and 1 Pet. 2. are to be expounded after the same manner Verily if we might not use distinctions here or in respect of what the Apostles speak concerning Kings then were it altogether unlawful for us to pray against Kings because the Apostle commandeth us 1 Tim. 2. to pray for them I wonder if these words can be taken without all limitation and restriction No verily Otherwise it were unlawful for us to pray against Popish Mabumetan and Paganish Kings Such side with the Beast and whom the Lord appointeth to destruction Rev. 12.17.19 20. In many places of Scripture we read of prayers poured-out against such Therfore the Apostle's words deserve a distinction and must be taken in a restricted sense And if 1 Tim. 2. why not also Rom. 13. the Apostle's words deserve a distinction And so it is no otherwise lawful for us to pray for them but as it is lawful to obey them and subject our necks to their yoke There is a time when we are necessarily tied to obey them This is in the time of non-ability to resist And if it be lawful then to obey them it is lawful then to pray for them When the People of God are brought to such a condition that they are not able to resist wicked Kings nor shake-off their yoke there is nothing left them then but prayers and tears And what is the end of their prayers for them It is most for their own good and advantage That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty The People of God in the time of weaknesse and want of power can do no more but roll their Kings over upon God and intreat him to do with and in their Kings what they cannot perform But whereas the People of God have power to resist Kings and shake-off their yoke no question as it is lawful to act so likewise to pray against their proceedings And that ever with a reservation of God's secret decree for disposing upon their persons according to his pleasure And whereas he saith Def. Reg. cap. 6. that if the power of the People be the higher power under any kind of Government it followeth there is no distinction and difference of Governments He is not a little mistaken It is great want of Philosophy that maketh him say so The power of the people is the ground-work of the power of all Governments The original and fountain-power is still reserved in the people And so the kinds of Government though they be different formally yet not materially Democracy is dilatated Aristocracy and Aristocracy dilatated Monarchy Aristocracy contracted Democracy and Monarchy contracted Aristocracy Thus the three differ not essentially but accidentally Even as the hand v. g. is one whether folded or unifolded Assert 3. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up in its room This is made good from what is above written SECT V. Whether or not doth the Covenant tie us to preserve Monarchy inviolably IN removing this difficulty there be two things in the Covenant which we must carefully look to 1. Christ's Interest And this is 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. Art 2. The Interest of King and Kingdom Art 3. In order to these things we give you these Assertions Assert 1. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon We shall not need to stand here It is a matter without all controversie and denied by none who professe Christ This way there must be no rescinding of our Oath though to our own hurt Psa 15. He
that swareth to his own hurt and changeth not still espousing Christ's quarrel shall abide in the Lord's tabernacle and shall dwell in his holy hill Assert 2. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy inviolably There is very good reason for this To stand-by and maintain Kingly power either it is a duty simply necessary or not Simply necessary it cannot be 1. Because any Civil Government in it-self is lawful And consequently as they are in themselves we may lawfully give-up our allegeance to any of them But if Monarchy were simply necessary at no time could we lawfully by Oath bind our selves to maintain any other Government for so we are absolutely and in all respects obliged to maintain Monarchy and submit our necks thereto 2. The preservation and maintenance of Monarchy is not necessary to salvation Who will say that none can be saved who act against it and do not maintain it What is every Government sinful but it and do all sin who oppose it No verily The contrary is shewed already And if the preservation of and standing by Monarchy be not in it-self simply necessary it is great rashnesse and unlawfulnesse to enter in Oath and Covenant absolutely to maintain it notwithstanding all hazards may ensue thereupon 'T is to make our duty necessary where it is not so in it-self Thus we bind the conscience where God bindeth not Whereupon I demand whether or not are we any otherwise obliged to set-to to our duty but in answerableness thereto and as it is in it self Sure I am none will say but the Oath should be suitable and proportionable to the duty And if by our Oath we swear either to adde to or diminish from our duty then are we either supererogatory or wanting therein And thus we walk not the right way but encline either to the right or the left hand Whereupon we make our duty wil-worship either freeing the conscience where God freeth not or binding where God bindeth not So then the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy being in it-self a duty not simply necessary it must needs be granted that we cannot swear absolutely to maintain it unlesse we make our duty wil-worship and supererogatory And that God never required at our hands Upon this we conclude this argument That duty which in it-self is not absolutely necessary we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set-to to it But the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy is a duty in it-self not absolutely necessary Ergo we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set to to it The Proposition is manifest from the proportionablenesse that should be between the Oath and the Duty sworn to The Assumption is no lesse evident from the proportionablenesse that ought to be between the duty and the object of the duty And if that be not kept entire then verily there is an enclining either to the right or to the left hand And so we either diminish from or supererogat to our duty Moreover it is to swear to an impossibility to enter in Oath and Covenant to stand absolutely by Kingly Government 'T is a matter very ordinary and possible that all power be blocked-up from thee till thou canst not so much as endeavour to maintain it much lesse actually stand in defence and preservation thereof I confesse the People of God even in the matter of Religion may be brought to this But deceive not thy self The People of God cannot swear absolutely by force and might not only to endeavour but also to act for Religion That is also a vain Oath and a swearing to impossibilities How many times have the People of God been brought so low that their power hath been wholly eclipsed They can absolutely swear no more but to employ all power God shall put in their hands in the defence and preservation of Religion and never alter nor change their faith notwithstanding they run the hazard of perishing goods lives and fortunes Tell me wilt thou say thou art obliged to swear so in standing by Monarchy Dost thou imagine thou art necessarily tied to stand by Monarchy as by Religion Thou canst not change thy faith nor decline it if it be true whether before or after thou hast sworn to maintain it unlesse thou run the hazard both of sin and condemnation Thou canst not embrace the contrary faith and Religion without sin Which draweth-on as its inevitable consequent if persevered therein the wrath and eternal displeasure of the Almighty But I pray thee thinkest thou it damnable to subject thy neck to the yoke of any other Government beside Monarchy Are not other Governments lawful as well as it Are not they consubsistent with Religion and the matter of salvation no lesse then it How darest thou absolutely tie thy self by Oath and Covenant to stand by one only kind of Government when-as thou mayest lawfully submit thy neck and give-up thy allegeance to any kind thereof Thus thou not only overchargest thy conscience but also exposest thy self needlesly to hazard And so much the rather of this because of all Governments Monarchy is most dangerous and least to be wished Art thou not of all fools the greatest to swear absolutely to maintain that Government which is least good though thou mayest obtain that which of all Governments is the sweetest The Authour of Exerc. con usurp pow cap. 3. mistaketh the matter very far whileas he saith We are equally and that same way obliged by League and Covenant to maintain the King's Person and Authority as by it we are tied to maintain Religion The contrary of this is already cleared Lastly I deny not but not only Monarchy in it-self is consistent with Religion but also secundum quid it is the best of all Governments Yet if we speak simpliciter and of the ordinary fruits and Consequences of Kingly Government the King's interest alwaies cometh in competition with Christ's interest So is proved invincibly as we suppose already Now wilt thou swear absolutely to maintain that which absolutely and ordinarily standeth in opposition to Christ and his interest Thus thou swearest to maintain that which serveth to over-turn both Church and Common-wealth And hereby thou preferrest man's interest to God's interest for so thou exposest both Church and Commonwealth to ordinary and inevitable danger and hazard in maintaining Kingly Government inviolable The foresaid Authour in the place above-cited endeavoureth to justle us out of this He taketh much upon trust but he proveth nothing He would have us to take it upon his word that Monarchy is most consubsistent with Religion and the good of the People We cannot take him in this as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have already upon this concluded more by force of argument then he either may or doth speak by word What is it any wonder though he saith so He is not ashamed to aver against Heaven and experience it-self That Religion was consubsistent with the preservation and
defence of the last King's Person Let God judge this O my soul come not thou into his secret Unto the Assembly of such mine honour be not thou united COROLLARY HAving through the Lord 's more then ordinary assistance discussed these five Questions above-written it now remaineth to try what strength is in them to conclude the Commonwealth of England to be a lawful Government and not usurped power And we make it good thus If the Cōmonwealth of England be an unlawful usurped power then either because the power of the King of England not only according to the Law of the Kingdom but also of God is absolute And so without usurpation he can neither be judged nor his Kingdom taken from him by any but by God Or because Monarchy is of all Governments the choicest And so cannot be altered nor exchanged with any other Government unlesse we go from the better to the worse And it is rash madnesse or sinful rashnesse to exchange the best with the worst Or because Popular Government is least to be desired Or because it is unlawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority Or lastly because we are tied not only by the Oath of Alleageance but also by solemn League and Covenant to maintain and preserve Monarchy inviolably But none of all these you can alleadge to bind usurpation upon the Commonwealth of England as is shewed already Ergo it is a lawful and not usurped power FINIS Errors to be corrected thus REad Page 6. line 8. Beros P. 9. l. ult carrying-on P. 10 l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 12. l. 10. tanes P. 20. l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 30 l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 35. l. 4. Satrapie P. 60. l 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P 64. l. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 65. l. ult hos P. 67. l. 25. naught P. 74. l. 17. Gorbomannus l. ult censured P. 75. l. 2. excommunicated and to be punished l. 3. Eugenius l 10 for Duncanus read Again usurping he P. 76. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 79. l. 20. after Steven r. King P 85. l ult after Inst r. 5. P. 95. l. 17. Imperator P. 96. l 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 123. l. 30. exclusive P. 125. l. 32. sect 1. P 129. l. 32. subsect 1. P. 132. l. 20. subsection P. 134 l. 21. before Concl. 6. r. subsect 1. P. 136. l 21. subsect 1. P. 144. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 148. l 22. hath P. 163. l. 40. P. 171. l. 35. subsect 1. P. 174 l. 19. hurled P. 175. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 175. l. 37. doe APPENDIX In which the seven Angels sounding are compared with the seven Angels plaguing in overturning all Powers and Potentates READER I Have thought it expedient to annex to the fore-going Treatise concerning the Commonwealth of England a small addition concerning the sounding and plaguing by seven Angels And that because they do relate to the overthrowing of all Kings and Kingly Powers whatsoever Whence my purpose in the fore-going Treatise is abundantly enforced and established That I may the more conveniently give thee my thoughts in order to these Angels I would have thee in the first place with me to remark that the Angels sounding are all one with the Angels plaguing And that not only because they are alike in number but also one and the same effects are produced by them though some things are enlarged in speaking of them the one way which are abbreviated the other I do therfore conceive these Angels are not distinguished but only in order to different relations and employments And thus one and the same Angels both proclaim and execute the wrath of God upon all the enemies of Christ's Interest and his People And as for their proclaiming by sounding with trumpets see Joel 3. v. 9 10 11 12. Of their executing the vials of God's wrath on the enemy and the avenger see v. 13 14 c. of that same chapter I shall a little glance at that which the holy Ghost intendeth Rev. 16. And to this end I divide the chapter in these three parts The first is a preface v. 1. The second is a narration from v. 2. to v. 18. The third is a peroration from v. 18. to the close of the Chapter The first I pass in naming of it In the second there be these two things considerable 1 a party plaguing to wit Angels the Ministers and executors of God's wrath And they be in number Seven Secondly a party plagued in number Seven also The first of which is the Earth v. 2. Which in Scripture in general is taken two wayes 1 Relatively i. e. as it is joyned with some other words to make up the sense of it I have nothing to do with it as it is thus taken 2 Absolutely Thus it is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.1 2 As it is contradistinguished from Zion standing in opposition thereto Isa 60.2 compared with ver 1. and chap. 58. v. 14. And thus it can be no other but Babylon or a People walking in a Babylonish state for upon a Scripture accompt Babylon directly immediately and diametrally opposeth Zion as from many and sundry places is evident 3 For the assistants of the Church Rev. 12.16 In this Rev. 16.2 the Earth cannot be understood to be one of the four Elements Sense and Reason will teach us so much that this noisom and grievous sore Rev. 16.2 expounded to be hail and fire mingled with blood Rev. 8.7 cannot properly be called the punishment or plague of the Earth one of the four Elements It is then to be taken mystically for the assistants of the Church not only because they will rather be preserved then plagued in contributing their help to the Saints the Kenite escapeth when Amalek perisheth because of his kindness to Israel in his coming up from Egypt but also they have rather upon them the mark of the Woman then of the Beast Now the Earth spoken of in the foresaid place is expounded to be men who worship the image of the Beast having his mark upon them who cannot be the opposers but the worshippers thereof and therefore must needs be such as be in and of Babylon which must fall the vials of the wrath of God being powred forth upon her Isa 21.9 Rev. 11. v. 13. chap. 14.8 chap. 18 v. 3. The second party plagued is the Sea which is taken in general two wayes 1 comparatively Isa 57.20 2 absolutely And that these five or six wayes 1 For the navigable and salt water Exod. 14.2 2 For the brasen and molten sea in which the Priest did wash 2 Chron. 4.6 3 For traffique Jer. 51.36 4 For the powers of the Nations Isa 60.5 Jer. 51.42 5 For the glassie-Sea in the new Jerusalem Rev. 4.6 No man will understand the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3
the Seat of the Beast Rev. 16.10 i. e. his power and authority which shall be smitten with great darkness his kingdom being full thereof Rev. 16.10 compared with chap. 13.2 A smoke rising out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace by which the Sun and Air are darkened at the sounding of the fifth Angel while-as a star falleth from Heaven on the Earth Rev. 9.1 2. whence Babylon is overthrown by violence and darkness the day of the Lord upon it being a day of wastness and desolation a day of darkness and gloominess a day of clouds and thick darkness Zeph. 1.15 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light even very dark and no brightness in it Amos 5.20 And thus with a whirlwind of violence and a cloud of darkness the Lord cometh up from the North Ezek. 1.4 to lay Babylon with all her glory in the dust for as by violence the powers of Babylon are overthrown so by darkness they are hardened in heart contemning the truth blaspheming God and not repenting of their deeds Rev. 16.9 10 11. So that the greater violence is executed against them the more obstinate in wickedness they become blaspheming God his People and Interest Rev. 16.21 Pharaoh-like the more plagued the more hardened As appeareth in some measure at this very hour among the enemies of Zion's Interest The more to day the Egyptians are plagued the more blasphemously do they reproach and are hardened in heart The sixth party plagued is the River Euphrates Rev. 16.12 Concerning which there be these things considerable 1 The up-drying of it Which cannot be understood mystically seeing in no place of Scripture the word Euphrates is taken in a mystical sense It is read twenty times only in the Scriptures and no where is it taken mystically but literally as is more then evident to any that shall enquire after it We must needs therefore say that the River Euphrates shall be dried up the Lord with his mighty wind shaking his hand over it smiting it in the seven streams and making men to go over it dry-shod Isa 11.15 2 The end for which it is dried-up Which is to prepare a way for those Kings that come up from the East or the rising of the Sun Rev. 16.12 And thus there shall be an high way for the remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up from the Land of Egypt Isa 11.16 Whence the Lord setting his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people Israel from Assyria and from Egypt Isa 11.11 shall miraculously deliver them as he did while-as he set his hand the first time in bringing them up from Egypt by the conduct of Moses for as at the first time he dried-up the Red-sea before them so at the second time of their recovery he will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian-sea and dry up the River Euphrates before them smiting it in its seven streams that they may go over it dry-shod Now upon what accompt the people of the Jews are called the Kings of the East you may reade for this The Saints Kingdom sect 7. 3 The engagement the people of the Jews come to as they come up from the East Then do the unclean spirits like Frogs draw forth the Kings of the Earth with their Armies to a day of engagement against the Kings of the East The Paganish Mabumetan and Antichristian spirits Frog-like indeed shall engage all the Heathenish and Mahumetan powers against the four Angels which are bound in the great River Euphrates prepared for a day a month and a year for to slay the third part of men the number of the Army of the Horse-men being two hundred thousand thousand Rev. 9.14 15 16. And thus at this day of engagement Babylon the powers of the Nations with all their Potentates and glory shal be overthrown for in that time when the Lord shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem gathering all Nations bringing them into the valley of Jehoshaphat to plead with them there causing his Mighty-Ones the Kings of the East the hundred thousand thousand to come down upon them putting in his sicle the harvest being now ripe Joel 3.1 2 12 13. The Winepresse shall be troden without the City till blood come out even to the Horse-bridles by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs Rev. 14.20 Thus Gog and Magog the Beast the false-Prophet the Kings of the Earth and their Armies shall be destroyed in engaging against him who sitteth on the white horse attended with the Armies in Heaven Ezek. 39 8 9. c. Rev. 19.11 12 c. 4 the time of this up-drying and engagement Which is secret and unknown It is a time and season which the Father hath put in his own power Acts 1.7 'T is not for us to know the time when the Kingdom shall be restored again to Israel It cometh as a thief in the night Rev. 16.15 and therefore both secretly and suddenly Let us therefore watch and keep our garments lest we walk naked and they see our shame The seventh party plagued is the Air Rev. 16.17 Which in Scripture is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.26 2 as it signifieth that which is done in vain and to no purpose 1 Cor. 9.26 chap. 14.9 3 for the power of Satan Eph. 2.2 whose power is airy indeed because of its subtilty and vanity And thus as the Lord poureth-out the vials of his wrath upon the power of the Beast so doth he likewise upon the power of the Dragon for as in the day of vengeance in the reign of the Ancient of dayes while-as Christ reigneth in power the seat and power of the Beast is overthrown by the up-coming of the Kings of the East so in the time of Christ's Personal presence and reign Satan is chained and bound a thousand years that he may deceive the Nations no more till the thousand years be finished Rev. 20.2 3. And this is while-as a great voice cometh-out of Heaven from the Throne saying it is done Rev. 16.17 the Mysterie of God being finished and time being no longer in the dayes of the voice of the seventh Angel Rev. 10.6 7. at whose sounding there be great voices in Heaven saying The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and be shall reign for ever and ever Rev. 11.15 In the third and last part of the Chapter of which I shall speak but a little the holy Ghost recapitulateth and summeth-up in few words all that he hath spoken at length in the second part of the Chapter in order to the fall and ruin of Babylon from vers 18. to the close In vers 18. is spoken as to the shaking of Babylon by wars and rumors of wars Nation rising against Nation and Kingdom against Kingdom there being tumults and earth-quakes in divers places In vers 19. is spoken of the dividing of Babylon after its shaking into three parts Of the fall of the Nations and of Babylon's utter overthrow and desolation as it is designed in laying the Nations desolate In vers 20. is foretold the overthrow of the Forces Power and Glory of the Nations in bringing into contempt all the Honourable of the Earth In vers 21. is spoken as to the grievousnes of the plagues by which Babylon shal be shaken divided and overturned the Nations their Forces and their mighty Ones shall be destroyed together with men's blaspheming God his Truth and his People thereupon the more plagued being the more hardened as at this time in some measure doth appear FINIS