Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	king_n	law_n	levy_v	3,963	5	11.2983	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86280	Certamen epistolare, or, The letter-combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr. Baxter of Kederminster. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon. And 4. J.H. of the city of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr. Fullers late Appeal.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Bernard, Nicholas, d. 1661.; Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.; Harrington, James, 1611-1677.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1687; Thomason E1722_1; ESTC R202410	239,292	425

Church as great commotion as if the Article of the Trinitie were called in controversie in making the Scriptures to be ruled by their conscience and not their conscience by the Scripture and he that denies the least jot of their Grounds sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus Publicanus not worthy to enjoy the benefit of Breathing much less to participate with them of the Sacraments and before that any of their Grounds be impugned let King People Law and all be trod under foot Such holy Warrs are to be preferred to an ungodly Peace no in such cases Christian Princes are not only to be resisted unto but not to be prayed for for Prayer must come of Faith and it is not revealed unto their Consciences that God will hear no prayer for such a Prince I would to God you had not put me to these remembrances which cannot be more unpleasing unto you then they are to my self But taking them for most good truths may we not thereupon inferr that as the Masters were such are the Scholars or as the Mother was such are the Daughters and as the Fathers were such are the Sons Nil mirum est si patrizent filii saith the old Comoedian 29. Then for their Heavenly mindednesse we have seen somewhat of it before and shall see more thereof as also of their hatred of all known sin in that which follows And here again we will take the Character which King James makes of them in the second Book of his Basilicon Doron before mentioned In which he telleth us That there never rose Faction in the time of his minority nor trouble since but they that were upon that factious part were ever carefull to perswade and allure those unruly Spirits among the Ministry to Spouse that quarrel as their own and that he was calumniated by them to that end in their popular Sermons not for any evil or vice which they found in him but only because he was a King which they thought to be the highest evil informing the People that all Kings and Princes were naturally enemies to the Libertie of the Church and could never patiently bear the yoke of Christ After which having spoken of the violence wherewith they had endeavoured to introduce a parity both in Church and State he gives this counsel to the Prince Take heed therefore my son saith he to such Puritans very pests in the Church and Common-weale whom no deserts can oblige neither oaths or promises bind breathing nothing but sedition and calumnies aspiring without measure railing without reason and making their own imaginations without any warrant of the Word the square of their conscience protesting to him before the great God that he should never find with any Highlander base● Thieves greater ingratitude and more lies and vile perjuries then with those fanatick spirits And suffer not saith he to his son the principles of them to brook your Land if you like to sit at rest except you would keep them for trying your patience as Socrates did an evill wife Such is the heavenly-mindednesse and such the hatred of all known sin which you have observed in many of those who differ from me as you say in some smaller things nec ovum ov● nec lac lacti similius as you know who said 30. And then as for their Self-denial I could wish you had spared it unless you had some better ground for it then I doubt you have For if you ask the Country people they will tell you generally that they have found in those who live upon Sequestrations so little self denial that they are more rigorous in exacting of their Tithes even in trifling matters and far less hospitable for relief of the Poor or entertainment of the better sort of the Parishioners and consequently to have more of Earth and Self in them then ever had been found or could be honestly complained of in the old Incumbents whom if you look on with an equal and impartial eye you will find them to be of another temper notwithstanding all the provocation of want and scorn which from day to day are laid upon them neither repining openly at their own misfortune nor railing malitiously on those whom they know to be the Authors of them nor libelling against the persons nor wilfully standing out against the pleasure and commands of the higher Powers but bearing patiently the present and charitably hoping for some better measure then hath been hitherto meeted to them as best becomes the scholars of that gracious Master who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not but committeth himself to him that judgeth righteously but the Crow thinks her own birds fairest and so let them be 31. But you proceed and tell us That if God love them not that is to say the persons whom you so extol you have not yet met with the people whom you may hope he loveth and if he do love them he will scarcely take my dealing will spoken with confidence enough But how came you to know the mind of the Lord or to be of his Councel that you can tell so perfectly whom he loveth or hateth e● nos scire Deus voluit quae oportet scire ad vitam aeternam consequendam as the Father hath it God hath communicated to us all those things which are fit and necessary to be known for the attaining of everlasting salvation but keeps such secrets to himself And though we are most sure and certain that the Lord knoweth who are his yet how may we be sure or certain that he hath made you acquainted with it I cannot easily believe that you have been either wrapt up into the third heaven or perused the Alphabetical Table to the Book of Life or have had any such Revelation made unto you by which you may distinctly know whom the Lord loveth or whom he doth not But if you go by outward signs and gather this love of God unto them from the afflictions and chastisements which they suffer under God chastning every son whom he doth receive that mark of filiation runneth on the other side those of your Partie injoying as much worldly prosperity as the reaping of the fruits and living in the houses of other men which you call by the name of carnal accommodations can estate them in If you conclude on their behalf from their outward prosperity you go on worse grounds then before for David tells us of some wicked and unrighteous persons that they are neither in want or misery like other men that they live plentifully on the lot which is fallen unto them and leave the rest of their substance unto their babes And Christ the Son of David tells us that the Lord God makes the Sun to shi●e and the rain to rain as well on the sinners as the just All mankind being equally capable of those temporary and temporal comforts and finally if you collect it from those spiritual graces and celestial gifts which

hunts the Hare is the Hare which is hunted so that although the Religion of the Church of Rome had defined the Deposition of Kings by the Pope for denying Transubstantiation c. as it never did yet could not the Popish Religion upon that account be called Rebellion Rebellion by the Law of England 25. Edw. 3. c. 2. is defined to be an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in h● Realm or an adhering to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere And by the Civil Law all those qui arripiant arma contra eum cujus jurisdictioni subditi sunt who tak up arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject are declared to be Rebels for which see Spigelus in his Lexicon of the terms of Law But that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is not an actual levying of War against our Soveraign Lord the King in his Realm or an adhering c.. Nor the the taking up of Arms against such persons to whose Authority they are subject Therefore that Religion which defineth the Deposition of Princes c. neither is really or nominally to be called Rebellion if either the laws of England or the Civil laws do rightly understand what Rebellion is as I think they do And whereas you hope to mend the matter by calling it a Rebellion doctrinal you make it worse on your side then it was before For besides that there is no such thing as Rebell on doctrinal though some Doctrines there may be too frequently preached for inciting the people to Rebellion you find not the word Doctrinal in the proposition which you have undertook to prove and wh en presents it self simply to you in these words that the Religion of the Papists is Rebellion 37. Such being the faultinesse of your Mejor we will next consider whether the Assumption or your Minor be any thing more evident then your Major was Your Minor is that the Popish Religion is such that is to say such a Religion that defineth the Deposition of Kings by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. This is the matter to be proved and you prove it thus That which is defined by a Pope and General Councel is the Popish Religion But the aforesaid Doctrine is defined by a Pope and an approved General Councel viz at the Laterane under Innocent the 3. Erge c. This makes it evident indeed that you never saw the Cannons nor Decrees of the Laterane Councel and possibly your learning may not lie so high but that you took this passage upon trust from some ignorant hand which had seen them as little as your self Your Major I shall grant for true but nothing can be falser or mere unable to be proved then your Minor is Consult the Acts of that Councel search into all Editions of them and into the Commentaries of such Cannonists as have writ upon them and you shall neither find in the one or the other that the Deposition of Kings and Princes by the Pope was defined to be lawful for that I take to be your meaning either for denying Transubstantiation or for any other cause whatsoever Most true it is that the word Transubstantiation then newly hammered on the Anvil by some of the Schoolmen to expresse that carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as they then maintained was first received in this Councel and received then ad ●vitanda● haere●icorum tergiversationes as my Author hath it for avoiding the wrangling● and fallacious shifts which Hereticks otherwise might use But that the word was made such an Idol in this Councel that all Christian Kings and Princes which would no● fall down and worship it were to be deposed hath neither colour nor foundation in the Acts of that Councel And therefore I wil first lay down the Canon which I think you aim at for otherwise there is none in that Councel which you can pretend to and then acquaint as well with the occasion and the meaning of it and your own mistakings 38. And first the words of the Canon as these now stand in the Tomes of the Councels are these that follow Si quis Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate per Metropolitanum com provinciales Episcopos excommunicationis ●inculo innodetur Etsi satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo Poniifici ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponant catholicis occupandam qui eam exterminatis haereticis ●ine ulla contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure domini principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opp●nat eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales such is the Canon or Decree And this was the occasion of it The Albigenses and Waldenses differing in many points from the received opinions of the Church of Rome and constantly denying the Popes Supremacy amongst other things some years before the calling of this Councel was grown to a very great power and insolencie countenanced therein by the two last Raimonds Earls of Tholouse and some of the Petit Lords of Gascoyn all which though absolute enough in their several Territories in respect of their vassals but were fudataries either to the Empire or the Kings of France as the Lords in chief for the reduction of these Albingenses to the Church of Rome Dominick a Spaniard the Founder afterwards of the Order of Dominical Fryars used his best endeavours in the way of Argument and perswasion but failing of his design therein he instigated Pope Innocent the 3. to call this Councel Anno 1215. and the Prelates there assembled to passe this Canon for the suppressing both of them and their Patrons also for having summed up the principle heads of that Religion which was then publickly maintained in the Church of Rome they framed an Oath to be taken by all secular Magistrates ut haereticos universos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus ex terminare studeant to use their best endeavours for the exterminating of all Hereticks that is to say all such as did oppose those Doctrines before laid down out of their dominions and then it followeth as before si quis vero dominus temporalis c that if any Temporal Lord being thereunto required by the Church should neglect to purge his Territories of that Infection he should be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province in which he lived and if he gave no satisfaction within the year notice thereof was to be given to the Pope that thereupon he might absolve his vassals from their Allegiance and give their Countries to the next Catholick Invador

who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae ● 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are n●● of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which ●e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the man●old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that

did not withal keep up his Army to secure the conquest and that this Army or some other was not kept on foot till the time of Euripon who being either of weaker parts or more apt to be wrought on or else unwilling to be at the continual charge of paying an Army might suppose it an high point of Husbandry to disband his Forces and cast himself entirely on the love of the people And secondly Admitting that of the two former Kings what reason can you give me why that Army should be planted in Colonies the territory of Sparta as you say your selfe being very narrow and consequently not much room nor any necessity at all for many such Colonies to be planted in it A standing Army answerable to the extent of the Country and the number of the old inhabitants disposed of in their Summer Camp and their Winter-Quarters would have done the work and done it with less charge and greater readiness then dispersed in Colonies And therefore when you say in such general terms That the Monarchy that is or can be absolute must be founded upon an Army planted by military Colonies upon the over balance of Land being in the Dominion of the Prince I must profess my self to differ in opinion from you For then how could a Prince possessed of his Kingdom from a long descent of Royal Ancestors and exercising absolute power upon his people be said to be an an absolute Monarch because his standing forces cannot be setled or disposed of in any such Colonies upon the over balance of Land within his Dominion In Countrys newly conquered or farre remote fom the chief residence of the Prince or the seat of the Empire such Colonies have been thought necessary in the former Ages the wisdome of the Romans not finding out any better or more present way to serve their Conquest But then such Colonies wanted not their inconveniencies and may in time produce the different Effect from that which was expected of them For being possessed of City and indowed with Lands and challenging a property in those Lands and Cities they came in tract of time by intermariages and alliances to be all one with the old Natives of the Country and stood as much upon their terms against the incroachments of those Princes under whom they served and by whose Ancestors they were planted A better Evidence whereof we can hardly find then in those English Colonies which were planted in Ireland at the first conquest of that Kingdom many of which by mutuall correspondency and alliances became so imbodied with the Irish that they degenerated at the last from the manner and civility of the English Nation and passing by the name of the English-Irish proved as rebellious if not more then the Irish themselves What therefore hath been found defective in Colonies in reference to the first intent of their plantation the wisdome and experience of these last ages have supplyed in Garisons Which consisting for the most part of single persons or otherwise living on their pay and suddenly removed from one place to another as the nature of the service leads them are never suffered to stay long enough in any one Town by which they may have opportunity to unite themselves with those of the Neighbourhood or Corporation in design and interess 6. But for a further proof of your position that is to say that there can be no absolute Monarch who hath a Nobility and People to gratifie you first instance in the Kings of France which I as well as others and others then as well as I do account for Absolute But it is known say you That in the whole world there is not a Nobility nor a People so frequently flying out or taking Arms against their Princes as the Nobility and People of France This I acknowledge to be true but affirm withall that the frequent flyings out of that Nobility and People against their Kings proceed not from any infirmity in the Monarchy but from the stirring and busie nature of the French in general who if they make not Wars abroad will find work at home so that we may affirm of them as the Historian doth of the Ancient Spaniaras Si foras hostem non habent domi quaerunt And this the wise Cardinal of Richelieu understood well enough when having dismantled Tachel reduced such Peers as remained in the hands of the Hugonets and crusht the Faction of the Monsieur now Duke of Orleans he presently engaged that King in a War with Spain that so the hot and fiery spirits of the French might be evaporated and consumed in a forrain War which otherwise had they stayed at home would ever and anon have inflamed the Kingdom For otherwise that the Kings of France were Absolute Monarchs there be many reasons to evince For first his arbitrary Edicts over-rule the Laws and dispose soveraignty of the chiefe concernments of the State which by the Parliament of Paris the supream Judicatory of that Kingdom and looked on as the chief supporter of the Rights and Liberties of the subject seldom or never are controled though disputed often And if the Observation be true which we find in Justine that in the Monarchies of the first ages Abitria principum pro legibus erant be of any truth or if the Maxime which we find in Justinians Institutes viz. Quod principi placuerit legis habet vigorem be any badge or cognisance of an absolute Monarch the Kings of France may as well portend to such an absoluteness as any of the Roman Emperours or preceding Monarchs ar tell est nostre plaisir with which formal words he concludeth all his Royal Edicts are as significant as that Maxime in Justinians Institutes or the said observation which we find in Justine Nor is his absolute power less visible in the raising of Moneys then in the passing of his Edicts it being in his power without asking the consent of his people in Parliament to levy such sums upon the subjects besides his Gabells Aides and accustomed Taxes as his Treasurers under-Treasurers or other Officers of his Revenue shall impose upon them From the patient bearing of which burthens the King of France is commonly called Rex Asin●rum or the King of Asses Nor doth he want such standing Forces as are sufficient to preserve his power and make good his actions it being conceived by some and affirmed by others that he is able to bring into the field for a sudden service no less then sixty Companies of Men of Arms twenty Cornets of light Horse and five Companies of Harque Bushiers on Horse-Back which amount to 10000 in the total together with 20 Ensigns of French Horse and 40 of Swisses and yet leave his Garisons well manned and his Forts and Frontiers well and sufficiently defended By all which laid together it is clear and manifest that the French Kings are absolute Monarchs and that their Government is as sufficiently Dispotical as a man could wish the frequent

remain in them And then the Government of Sparta had been as meerly Popular and Democratical as of most other Cities in Greece but by no means to be accounted for an Aristocratie by which name Aristotle himselfe and most of our great Masters in the Schools of Politie do most commonly call it And therefore when Isocrates saith as here cited by you that the Lacedemonians flourish'd for this cause especially that their Government is Popular The word Popular is not to be understood in the stricter sence as differing the Government from that which they called an Aristocratie consisting of some part of the people though the wealthier better and more understanding men amongst them but as it did distinguish them from the Regall or Monarchical Government in which neither the whole body of the People nor any of the better wealthier and more sober men could pretend a share 11. And now at last you come to the institution of the Ephori affirmed by me and I had Plutarch for my Author to be ordained by Theopompus the 9th King of the second House with the consent of Polydorus his Colleague to curb the insolencies of the Senate in which you say that I make that to be a practise of the Kings against the Senate which by your Author is plain to have been a combination of the Kings and the Senate against the people If so my Author must contradict himself I am sure of that For positively he ascribes the institution of the Ephori to no other end but the controlling of the Senate nor unto any other person or persons then to Theopompus as out of my Book against Calvin you relate the story That which you tell us out of Plutarch in another place is told by Plutarch upon another occasion which was indeed a combination of the Kings and Senate against the people and a just one too For as your self relates the passage out of Plutarch the people upon the insolency and predominancy of the Kings and the Senate fell upon councel how to defend themselves and so assum'd the power of Debate and that hereupon the Kings Theopompus and Polydore would have added unto the tenour of the Oracle that if the people went about by debate to change the Propositions of the Senate it should be lawful for the Kings and the Senate to null the Result of the people This I acknowledg to be true But this makes nothing to the institution of the Ephori of which Plutarch speaks nothing in that place though he did soon after But whereas you subjoyn that the people incensed at the practise put a bit into the mouth of the Senate by the institution of the Ephori you make therein a grosser addition to the words of Plutarch then the two Kings and the Senate did to the words of the Oracle And then whereas you tell us out of Plato that the Ephorate was set up against the haereditary power of the Kings you either do mistake your Author or else must make him contradict himself as much in this place as you did Plutarch in the other Plato affirming in the place which you find cited in the Margin of the Book against Calvin so you please to call it that Lycurgus did not onely ordain the Senate but that he did also constitute the Ephorate for the strength and preservation of the Regal power But granting that it may be said by Plato in his 3 de legibus as you cite the place that the Ephorate was set up against the Hereditary power of Kings what reason have you to believe but that Plato might as well be mistaken in the end and purpose for which the Ephori were ordained as in the first Author of that institution which he makes to be Lycurgus himself contrary to Aristotle Plutarch and all other writers And finally whereas you tell us That Cicero agreeing in this point with Plato hath affirmed that the Ephori in Lacedemon were so opposite to the Kings as the Tribune in Rome to the Consuls You make therein an Argument against your self and I prove it thus As the Tribunes of Rome were first ordained to oppose the Consuls so were the Ephori of Sparta instituted to oppose the Kings but the Tribunes of Rome were not ordained at first to oppose the Kings but only to interpose in behalf of the people therefore the Ephori of Sparta were not instituted to oppose the Kings 12. The conference between Theopompus and his Queen touching his unadvisedness in ordaining these popular Officers and that which might ensue upon it you relate them no otherwise then I do but that you slight the womans foresight into business as not worth the noting indeed it had not been worth the noting if she had reproved that in the King which was the fact of the people only nor have you made any Answer to the other two Arguments by which I prove that the Ephori were instituted by the Kings and by none but them which might make a credulous man believe that they are unanswerable because unanswered And therefore being of such weight I shall add nothing to them to make them more weightier then they be but an explication of the second That second Argument I derive from the words of Cleomenes as they stand in Plutarch in which he lets the people know that one reason why the Ephori were instituted by the former Kings was that the Kings being ingaged in forreign wars might have some certain friends to sit in judgment in their stead whom they called Ephori And hereupon I may very well infer thus much That if the people had first instituted this Ephori as you say they did they would have chosen them out of such of their own number whom they might confide in and not have chosen them out of those who being the Kings especial friends must have a different interest from that of the people 13. Your discourse about the Ephori drawing towards an end you charge me with omitting as well the ruine of the Ballance as the corruption of the Common wealth which did thence arise and you charge it on me to this purpose That picking up my objections against the Government in vigor out of the rubbish and dissolution of it I may cast oust in m●ns eyes or perswade them that the Ephori trusting to the power or interest they had in the Commonalty came to usurp upon the Kings and to be Tyrants as th●y are called by Plato and Aristotle The first of which two charges is against all Reason for why should I be charged with omitting that which was extrinsecal unto my project and design it being no part of my intent to take notice of the several changes and corruptions in the State of Sparta but only of the institution of the Ephori their insolencies towards their King and their final ruine And the other of these charges is against all truth for how doth it appear or possibly can be made apparent that I have used

though moving in an higher sphere should neither give the light nor impart such influences to the world as the two Great Luminaries such as you fancy the Estates in a Gothick Moddel in case he prove not rather a falling Star as perhaps he may But hoping you will pardon this irruption in me I proceed unto the second part of your Letter in which I am said to speak rather like a Divine then a Polititian And yet not like a Divine neither but like a Divine as I suppose and no more then so 17. But letting all things be as they may you tell me that I aske of Calvin in what part of the word of God we may finde any such Authority given to popular Magistrates as he tells us of And for an answer hereunto you prepare the way by laying down the constitution of the Government of the people of Israel which you affirm to have been founded on a popular ballance And were it so there is no question to be made but that a popular ballance even by the Ordinance of God himself in Scripture both did and may amount to Empire for who ●rt thou O man which disputest with God or callest in question any of the Divine Acts of that heavenly providence The Question will be onely this Whether the Government of the Israelites was founded in a popular ballance which you say it was and I think rather that it was not The reason why I think so I shall show anon and in the mean time I will look upon the Argument which you suppose it to be proved We find say you the people of Israel iudging the tribe of Benjamine and by the Oracle of God leavying War against them Which being an act of soveraign power declares that Government to be founded on a popular ballance But first it appears not by the text that all the people of Israel did sit as Judges on the tribe of Benjamine the judgement might be passed for what you can say to the contrary by the Elders onely that is to say the heads or chiefs of the several families of the tribes of Israel and nothing but the execution of the sentences by them committed to the people Secondly It appears not by the Text that the War was leavied against the Benjamites by any Oracle of God but the contrary rather For it is said that the children of Israel were gathered tother as one man at a place called Mizpeh that they resolved upon the War and concluded how to have it carried before they asked Councel of the Lord Judg. 20. 18. And when they asked councel of the Lord it was not whether they should proceed in the War or not that being a thing resolved before hand but which of the tribes should go up first to the battail again the children of Benjamin as in the Book of Judges Cap 20. 18. which probably might be the cause of their ill success in the first encounter as having engaged themselves in a bloody War against their brethren before they sought for councel at the Oracle of God as they should have done And therefore Thirdly this rather showes the people of Israel to be under no Government at all then to be governed by a Democratical or popular form and serves as a most excellent commentary on the last words of the book of Judges viz In those dayes there was no King in Israel every Man did that which was right in his own eyes Had it been under any one form of Government Popular or Democratical call it what you will every man durst not to have done that which is right in his own eyes though there had been at that time no King in Israel And as they were not under any popular Government by which they might have been restrained from doing what was right in their own eyes so you confess that they were not at that time under the Government of the Sanhedrim for speaking of that passage in the first of Judges where Judah said unto Simeon 〈◊〉 Brother come up with me into my lot that we may fight against the Canaanites and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot so Simeon went with him c. you thereupon infer that by this leaguing at their pleasure one with another it was plain the Sanhedrim their common Ligament was broken so that the Sanhedrim being broken the Kings not instituted nor any form of popular Government set up among them by common consent nothing remains but that they must be governed by the Heads or Chiefs of the several Families into which the Tribes were Generally divided in those times Had there been any such Councel or establisht body as that of the Generall Estates of the united Provinces or that of the Cantons and their Confederates amongst the Switzers they might have been said to have been under such a popular Government as those people are though every Tribe had a distinct Government of its own as those Provinces and Cantons have 18. And here I should proceed to the Examination of that part of your Letter which concerns the Sanhedrim as being the point of greatest difference between us in the present business But considering that you have spent so much of your Paper about the Original institution and authority of the Kings of Israel and consequently of all those who have enjoyed that power and dignity in their severall Countrys I shall first lay all together which you have deliver'd on that subject with my opinion in the same as it comes before me In order whereunto I am first to say that the Government of that people when they were in Aegypt was under the Heads or Chiefes of their several families who by a paternal right derived on them from their first Father Adam challenged and enjoy'd a Fatherly authority over all those who descended of them And unto these did Moses address himselfe when he was to communicate from the Lord that most joyful news of their deliverance out of Aegypt called by the name of Elders in the Book of Exodus 3. 16. 4. 29 not called so onely because they were in honour onely amongst the rest of the people as you seem to say but because they were above them also in this point of power The people else had had no remedy in any differences and debates which might rise amongst them but suing in the Courts of Aegypt which it was as unfit for them to do as it was amongst the Primitive Christians to go to Law with one another in Emergent differences and that before the unbelievers But this dispersed authority being united in the person of Moses as many lines united in one Center from a large circumference the whole Government of the people did remain in him till by the advice of Jethro they were divided and sub divided into several Companies Each of them having over him their appointed Rulers By Gods appointment afterwards a standing Court of 70. Elders which they called the Sanhedrim were chosen to