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
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
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
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
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
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