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 temedy 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 a mongst 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 salse 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 Saui's sury 1 Sam. 22.23 c. 1 Chr. 12. Nay but Arnisaus saith Davi's fact in resisting Saul and defending himself by arm against him was extraordinary He was anointed and designed by God as successour to Saul But the man is far mistaken for if it be lawful in an extraordinary case to resist Kings no question in it self it is lawful to resist them And so it being in it self a thing lawful it may be put in action both in an extraordinary and ordinary case See subsect 2. prop. 1. And though David was designed King by the Lord yet was he not formally called thereto by the People in the time of Saul's reign Will any deny but Saul so long as he lived was King over Israel and that David was his subject Otherwise David was very far out of it in calling him The Lords Anointed his Master Lord and King We say no more but refer you to Lex Rex quoest 32 Salmasius finding-out another starting-hole faith David with arms only defended himself against Saul's tyranny but not to cut him off as the English Rebels and bloody butchers did in cutting-off Charls 1. Def. Reg. cap. 4. This is all we say concerning David And there was very good reason for it why David did not cut him off though he was several times at his mercy Firstly because he could not do it legally Though he had power legally to resist him yet had he not power legally to cut him off The very Law of Nature teacheth self-defence though by the sinallest means But the off-cutting of the Delinquent only belongeth to the Magistrate and Judge unlesse it be in an extraordinary cafe Nature hath alwaies Law enough for self-defence but not so for punishing Delinquents The one is natural the other political Secondly no question David by extraordinary impulsion was carried-by the off-cutting of Saul Whileas Abishai went about to kill him David forbade him And told him he should be cut-off and perish another way 1 Sam. 26. Where you shall find David dehorting Abishai from laying hands on Saul from these two grounds Firstly from the non-legality of the fact He is the Lords Anointed Thus he holdeth Saul as his superiour And therefore he had not power to cut him off 'T is usurpation in the inseriour to rise against the superiour Secondly from the assurance of Saul's perishing another way As the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battel and perish Would David say It is needlesse either for me or for thee Abishai to lay hands on Saul Assure thy self he shall be cut off another way But I belceve this man cannot say the Representative of the English Commonwealth had such reasons for them for keeping them back from cutting off Charles Stuart 3. Elishah commanded to shut the door upon Jehoram's teeth He calleth him the son of a murderer See ye how the son of a murderer hath sent to take-away mine head Look when the messenger cometh shut the doer and hold him fast at the door 2 Kin. 6. Thus he giveth orders to the Elders those who did fit in the Sanhedrin being with him in the house violently to keep it out against Jehoram and his messenger The word in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proporteth a most violent way of resisting it signifieth a holding fast at the door with pressing so the seventy Chaldee paraphrast Avenarius and
others do render it 'T is a vain thing in Royallists to imagine Elishah and the Elders with him did not resist the King but his messenger 1. The text maketh clear against this 1s not the found of his masters feet behind him Thus Elishah commandeth the door to be shut upon the messenger because the King was backing him and coming-in immediatly after the cut-throat This intimateth to us the shutting of the door and the out-keeping of the house was mainly against Jehoram himself His immediate approaching upon the back of the messenger is the ground of shutting the door and keeping-out the house They alleadge also this to be an extraordinary act Quasi vero self-defence were not a thing most natural and ordinary Away with this elusion 2. Because what the King's emissary doth in the King's name is done by him as in the King's person and authority And so virtualiter at least it is all one to resist the King's emissary and to resist the King himself Salmasius would loose the knot another way And faith he the impure Puritans can conclude nothing from thus for cutting-off the head of Charles 1. The Prophet did not take it on him to cut-off Jehoram That was done by Jehu whom God extraordinarily stirred-up thereto Def. Reg. cap. 4. Who ever saw such a man as this He only raileth and shifteth the Question The Question between us now is not concerning the off-cutting but the simple act of resisting Kings And though Elishah did not cut-off Jehoram yet he cannot deny but he withstood him and defended himself against his violence This is all for the present we crave Neither can he deny but Elishah gave orders to one of the children of the Prophets to anoint Jehu King Whereupon he went forth and did cut-off Jehoram executing the purpose of God on the house of Ahab From which example is shewed already to be lawful to cut-off delinquent Kings It is the Magistrat's part and not the Prophet's unlesse it be by extraordinary impulsion to cut-off the delinquent And so as from the example of Elishah it is lawful to resist so from the example of Jehu whom Elishah caused to be anointed for cutting-off the house of Ahab it is lawful to cut-off delinquent Kings 4. Libnah made defection from Jehoram and revolted from him 2 Kin. 8.2 Chr. 21. Salmasius studieth to elude this yet he faith nothing against it but what others of his own tribe said before him And faith he Libnah's revolt in respect of God the Judge of all the earth was a just punishment of Jehoram 's sins But in respect of the revolters it is no where justified in all the text Def. Reg. cap. 4. But with his leave the text insinuateth the contrary This you may learn from comparing the revolt of Libnah with the revolt of the Edomites So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day There is nothing added to that The same time also did Libnah revolt from under his hand This is added as a reason because be had for saken the Lord God of his fathers Thus is abundantly holden-one unto us that Edom and Libnah revolted from Jeboram in a different way No question in respect of God the cause and ground of the revolt of both is one God caused both to revolt to punish the sins and transgressions of Jehoram But in respect of the Revolters there are different causes The Edomites revolted because they disdained to live under the yoke of the King of Judah The text faith they chose a King of their own And from that which is added as a ground of Libnah's revolt it 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 King 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 facrificing Secondly because they did thrust Uzziah violently out of the Temple Azariah the chief Priest and all the Priests thrust him out from thence Ibil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisieth to thrust out with violence They hurried him out of the Temple as the word importech 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 sacrisice 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 estecm him to have exemption and immunity therefrom And Uzziah the King was a leper unto the day of his death and dwelt in
by Nature be free-born so neither are all capable of governing nor of choosing to govern The Scripture is clear in this that only such ought to govern who are men fearing God and hating Covetousness Exod. 18.21 Deut. 1.13 Job 34.17 29 30. Psa 12.8 Eccles 20.16 17. And thus uppon a Scripture-accompt according to the primitive pattern of Judges in the choicest of Commonwealths there be these four qualifications necessarily required in those that govern 1. ability 2. fearing of God 3. truth 4. hatred of Covetousness Whence according to the primitive and Scripture-mould of Judges all men are uncapable of governing but such who be so and so qualified Now the question is Who shall choose such who are endowed with these qualifications In answer to this J premise this distinction As the Legislative power radically is in the People so by Nature they ought to choose their own Governours and Rulers But Nature being contaminated all men upon that accompt are not fit to make choice of their Rulers For all men are either godly or ungodly Now the major part of the People being ungodly will and do choose men like themselves as experience teacheth unlesse upon some selfish accompt they happen now and then here and there to choose some godly person or persons But the Scripture doth not allow any to rule but the Righteous And therefore according to the Word of God and the dictates of pure Nature godly men who are known to be such by their fruits should be searched thorowout all the Tribes of Israel and appointed Rulers So did Moses And our Moseses ought to do so too to which the People in reason will be forced to condescend and the rather when they see judgment and righteousness abounding while the righteous govern And which is more in all heathenish ancient Commonwealths in which the Rulers were chosen by the People the whole multitude therein followed the counsel of some few wise-men among them Otherwise the whole matter among them should have turned into confusion And is it not known by experience how that some one faction or other doth sway in all elections though the free choice of the People be pretended Now the generality of the People are swayed rather by the disaffected then wel-affected party in al free choice til they be constrained to do otherwise Which is a clear demonstration that they cannot improve their own Interest but are apt to give it up into the hands of strange Lords and cruel Task-masters And therefore all our wise and godly Moseses whom the Lord hath impower'd ought to assay all means possible to find out among all the Tribes of Israel able men such as fear God men of truth and hating Covetousness that they may bear burden with them in the management of affairs And such of them as be poor there is enough in the world to make them rich But I do not expect the full accomplishment of such things till the Ancient of dayes be come for I see under the sun the place of judgment that wickedness is there and the place of righteousness that iniquity is there I say in mine heart God shall judge the righteous and the wicked for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work Eccles 3.16 17. Till which time hoping all these things shall be acceptable to your Lordship I remain My Lord Your Lordships undoubted wel-wisher and unfeigned servant P. ENGLISH To the Very Honourable Major General Lambert and the rest of the Honourable Commissioners for ordering and managing affairs in Scotland AS ALSO To the Right Honourable Colonel R. Lilburne Commander in chief of the English Forces in SCOTLAND May it please your Honours I Do look upon it as incumbent to me at present to express and manifest my thankfulness toward you for not only by your Authority but also upon the accompt of your Mecoenatick gratuity did this Treatise issue out to publick view And not only so but likewise it was preffered to me by you the honourable Commissioners That any charge in this Nation suitable to my capacity should be devoted to my trust Which no question had been accomplished had not your Honours from hence on a sudden been removed Vpon consideration of which things I cannot but thus humbly demean my self in tendering my respects to your Honours The greatest reward I either desire or expect is That your Honours would be companions of all such who fear the Lord being willing to live and die to stand and fall with such by joynt-concurrence espousing the Quarrel of the Lamb against the Beast the false-Prophet the Kings of the earth and their Armies I shall crave leave of your Honours to offer my single judgment in order to the right regulating of Law-matters which I suppose you will not look upon as matters too high for me unless you should so judge of all that I have written in the following Treatise Howsoever I shall contribute my mite to the treasury in prosecuting these following Positions Posit 1. The Law in its substantials needeth no reformation being grounded upon the principles of pure Nature I shall glance a little at the discovery of the general and substantial principles of the Law In general it consisteth of a direct and indirect part The direct part of the Law is secundum allegata probata The indirect is secundum allegata improbata The direct principles thereof resolve upon Allegation Probation or upon Claim and Instruction Claim is either in order to Movables or Immovables In order to immovables the grounds thereof be heirship disposition donation and conquest Heirship is either of Line or of Conquest Of Line secundum descensum proprium v. g. as is between father and son And secundum descensum accidentalem v. g. as is between the elder and younger brother Of conquest ne ultra unum gradum ascendat v. g. Conquest being disponed to the third son cannot fall to the first In order to which the Law doth say well Primogenito Primoginitura caeteris Proportio Justitia enim fit secundum proportionem Disposition is either mutual by way of contract or personal by way of assignation But saith the Law Ne ulla sit dispositio in fraudem creditorum Donation is either absolute or conditional In order to which saith the Law Volenti non fit injuria Conquest is that which is purchased by the proper industry of the Owner not being derived from any Predecessour But Quod Propria virtute acquiritur Propria ac libera voluntate disponitur As for the Instruction of Claim whether in order to Immovables or Movables it must be by Evidences either of Writ Witnesses or Confession Confession is either formal or virtual Virtual aut per silentium aut per absentiam Qui tacet consentire videtur Non dormientibus sed vigilantibus sunt jura All which principles be very consonant to Nature and sound Reason as is evident from the very tenor of them To which all
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 tyrannous 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. Herefrom 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 bonnds 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 Dent. 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 intrinscco 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 convenit 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 boundlesie 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 these who govern after a Kingly manner This jus Regum saith
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 lord lig 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 Dide 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 â— 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 Machaus 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 Machaus his father they clothed him in Purple and put a Crown of Gold upon his head This signifieth that Machaus was of a Kingly Power though not boundless and arbitrary Just ibid. 2 Because the Lacedâ—monian Kings had no power but of the battel And yet they were properly Kings But Machaus had such a power as that 3 Because it cannot be denied but Machaus had as great power as Hannibal Mago succeeded to Machaus 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 sled 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 Senatonrs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 faith That Cosmi amongst the Cretians had the same povver vvhich Ephori had amongst the Lacedemonians I consesse in that chap. he faith 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 Scnatours And faith 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
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 sorrain 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 aftâ—rwards in a more convenient place in a word not soaring 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 â—n the dayes of the Heroes Kings had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe by the way that thoâ—gh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 draweth nigh to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet is there some difference between them but how they diffâ—r as also how Aristotle in this place is to be understood you have at length expressed afterward Now Aristotle foâ— his saying assigneth many causes amongst which these be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by gathering people togâ—ther or by puâ—câ—asing a kingdom Pelit 3. cap. 10. Now Brutus aâ— 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 sâ—cceeded hâ—m 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 absolutenesle 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 tâ—e to whose conduct and valour the Englâ—shes were much engaged 〈◊〉 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 ford 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 theâ— there was little time left for exercising Policy and putting Lawes in execution This Polydo us Virgâ—lius 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 Des Reg. câ—p 8. to have troubled himself to have cited any Authors for proof thereof Very reason it-self teacheth the pâ—t 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
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 not withstanding 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 factunt 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 quoest 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 Isâ— 45. Deat 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 〈◊〉 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 facte ibid. But the simple truth is Ambrose is altogether of Salmasius opinion Rex unique er at 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. 7. Sozâ—m lib. 7. cap. 24. Hondorf Lonic theatr bist exempl 5. proec 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 Anonymâ—s He alleadgeth that David 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 bad no place undor theâ— Testament O! saith he what ignorance and wickednesse go hand in hand in these knaves Def. Reg. cap. 3. This glossâ— which Salmasius so much hisseth-at is the very words of Lyra. And it is cited by our dear Country-man Lex Rex quoest 26. Well then let that Anonymâ—s 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 Lyna ignorant also And I must needs say Hell and the Dâ—vil 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 Aeny 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 now 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 rail 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 destroving 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 Jewiâ—h 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 Salmasius 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 sleeth cap. 9. to what Josephus saith as to a main ruth 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 faith is the common judgment of Jewish Writers Rex obediat curioe senatus majoris i. e. The King let him be obedient to the authority of the higher Sanhedrin Deut. 17. Senatus major intersiciendi gladio jus habeat i.e. Let the higher Sanhedrin have the right and power of killing by the sword Exod. 21. Nemo sese opponat decretts sanctioris Senatus i.e. Let none withstand and resist the Statutes of the greater Sandedrin Deut. 17. R. Mos Egypt proec aff 176. and 225. proec 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 faith Qui ex familia Davidis sunc judicant judicantur And so in expounding that Rexneque judicat neque judicatur 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 Gematick Writers from these words Ob house of David execute judgment in the morning and deliver him that is spoiled out of the band of the oppressour Jerem. 21. move this Question Nisi in jus vocari póssent 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 uuto 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
to uâ— that there is greater danger and hazard to be expected and looked for at the hands of Kings then good So it fared with the people of the Jeâ—s at the hands of their Kings Amongst them all there were but six good all the rest wicked Of whom it is said That they walked in the wayes of Jerâ—boam who made Israel to sin And it is not for nought that such a causal epithet is most often registred in Scripture and anncxed to the wicked Kings of the Jews 1 King 15.16 22.2 King 3.10.13.14 15. Now let the indifferent Reader judge whether or not that causal epither be so often ascribed and given to them in vain There is a great emphasis in that who made Israel to sin If we plumb the bottom of it arightly we shall find it coucheth as much as that Kingly Government is most dangerous and produceth badest effects And it is the more evident by comparing the state of the Jeâ—ish Commonâ—ealth under Kings with the state of it as it were under Judges Peter Martyr from severall pregnant reasons proveth That the condition of the Jews was far better under the Judges then under the Kings Com. in Judic cap. 1. His Reasons we digest thus 1. The Judges did alwaies deliver them from misery and bondage Judg. 2.3.4.5.6.7.1.1.13.14.15.16 20. Whereupon it island Nevertheless the 〈◊〉 raised up Juriges who delivered them out of the hand of those that 〈◊〉 them Judg 2. But the King did not alwaies so 1 Sam. 28. 29 1 Kin. 24.2 Km. 6.7.12.13.16 17 2 Chr. 12.8.21 8. They oftentimes destroyed them 1 Sam. 22.2 Sam. 21.1 Kin. 18. 22.2 Kin. 16. 21.2 Chr. 24. They compelled them to slavery to 〈◊〉 and idolatry 2. The people of the Jews were not led into captivity under the Judge as they were under the Kings 2 Kin. 18 2 2 Chr. 3b Yea under Judges as is clear from the places above quoted touching them the people were never brought into any misery and affliction because of them They were not only ordained by God to deliver and did deliver the Jews out of all their calamities but also they laboured to keep them back from sinning which was the cause of all their sorrows Judg. 2. But the wicked Kings who did reign over them not only did not disswade them from committing iniquity but also did draw them-on unto the perpetrating of manifold and most greivous abominations whence it was many sad and sore Judgments were 〈◊〉 upon them 3. There were very few good Kings But we read 〈◊〉 of any evil Judges save Abinelech and Samue's sons And it is very observable that because Abimelech perverted judgment and usurping the authority did reign as King God judicially plagued him 〈◊〉 9. Yea for the bribery of Samuel's sons he rented the Kingdom from them And it was 〈◊〉 wonthough the most part of the Judges were good and few of them wicked 1 Because as Peter Martyr saith in electing them they had no regard to their riches but to their vertue and godlinesse Exod. 18 and Deut. 1. 2 Because as the same author saith they were not declared by the voices of men but by the ordinance and inspiration of God Posterity or succession was here of no force Judg 2. And 'c is remarkable these two conditions being slighted the Judges were corrupt and dissolute But they being observed they were ever found holy and much so the good of the people Then tell me is it any wonder though the Jews were in a far better condition under Judges then under Kings The Judges for the most part were holy They alwaies dehoried the people from prophanity alwaies delivered them from slivery 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 jats 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 Common wealth are fully regestred in the books of Ezra and Nebemiah Mace 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 tweetnesse of their condition under Judges it speaketh to us That Kingly Government 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 〈◊〉 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 sard 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 signisie 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. Sam. 2. Sam. 7 1 King 18. But a place or two we expresse for further clearing this purpole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they are doing into this very day after their former manners 2 Kin. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And their customs keep not Ezek. 20. Secondly because 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
judge now whether or not the Spirit of GOD in these words doth manifestly reprehend them as they had sought after a king The Royalâ—ist would do well not to imagin that these things do exclude the Prophet's disswading the people's seeking a king as a king They rather include then exclude the king in this notion And so Royallists in propounding these reasons proceed a Divisione They take inadaequatum for adaequatum the part for the whole But for the more satisfactory resolution of the fourth particular we demand whether or not the Prophet doth tax the Jews in seeking a King after the manner of the Nations as they sought a King or as they sought a tyrannous King If the former we gain the point But the other is builded upon a mis-supposition 1. Because it is altogether repugnant to Nature earnestly to thirst after tyranny oppression and misery The like was never heard amongst any people though never so rude and barbarous far lesse amongst the people of the Jews to whom were given the Statutes and Ordinances and who in secking a King covered their knavery with fair pretences 2. They seek a King as they suppose to be free of tyranny and injustice done by Samuel's sons who judged them for the time That did set them a work to seek a King 3. Having gathered themselves together in seeking a King from Samuel they adde this to their discourse Thou art old Would they say not onely thy sons oppress us and pervert rigliteous judgement but even thou thy self art unsit to judge us Old age hat rendered thee unable dexterously to go about matters of judgment Therefore let us have a King who wil supply thy wants One who will judge us justly as thou didst in the time of thy youth Let us have a King to judge us uprightly as thou didst and not unjustly as do thy sons Now let any rational man judge it such people who sought a King under such fair pretences for promoving vertue and removing vice would ever have sought a King to tyrannize over them See Josephus ant Jud. lib. 6 cap. 4. and Brent hom 25. in 1 Sam. 8. 'T is remarkable Salmasius will not lâ—t it be heard that they sought a tyrannous king Def. reg c ip 2. And it can not be said that all the kings of of the nations at that time were tyrants This is shewed already and somewhat illustrated by Salmasiâ—s loc cit In the interim I humbly defire Salmasius that he speak without reflection and more modestly then he doth He insinuateth that what Samuel did in disswading the people from seeking a king that he did it through by-â—espect and self-interest But we have shewed that what he spake against their course was from GOD's expresse and positive command He did not disswade them from it for his own good but their good He shewed them they would be in a far worse condition under kings then under Judges It was not for the advantage of his sons but for the advantage of the people that he condescended to grant their desire So is manifested already This man is so malicious that he spareth not to traduce GOD also He alleadgeth what God did in keeping-back the people from following out their desire was to gratifie Samuel Poor man doth he imagine that ever God would have connived with Samuel and put words in his mouth to disswade the people from following-out their defire if it had been for his glory and their well-fare Verily this argueth that God did preser the gratification of Samuel to his own honour and that which conduced most thereto and the well-fare of his people This Gentle-man needeth not boast that Moses Deut. 17. foretold the up-setting of kingly government amongst the Jews This he did not because he allowed it and preferred it to the government which he firstly instituted amongst them The LORD commanded Samuel to hearken to the peoples voice and condescend to their defire Yet it doth not follow that God allowed it He commanded Samuel positively to protest against it and disswade them therefrom by displaying the evils thereof So Moses through the Spirit of prediction infallibly forseeing the Jews in their stiff-neckednes and pride of heart would undoubtedly â—eek-after and set-up kingly government amongst them thereupon taketh occasion to prescribe a true plat-form of constituting and moulding kings And to this day it serveth as a morall rule according to which the structure of kingly government should be squared Thus the Holy Ghost bringeth forth a most good effect from the foresight of their evil and sinister purpose We can stay no longer here but only put the Reader in mind of this that it is not for nought God denied his applause and consent in setting-up Kings amongst the Jews That is a strange word They have set-up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8. I confesse this mainly relateth to the Kings of the ten Tribes Yet you must give me leave to say That it is spoken also in order to all the Kings of the Jews Would the authour of the exercitatiou conc usw p. pow ch 1. compare this place with 1 Sim. 8. he would find that God as much disowned the one King as the other I suppose this is not a word of applause but dis-affent in making Saul King I gave thee a King in mine anger and took him away in my wrath Hos 13. Sure I am this is spoken against the King both of Israel and Judah It cannot be denied but the direct and main strain of this Prophet is against the ten Tribes and the Kings thereof Yet he hinteth both at Judah and Israel and their Kings as occasion serveth In things common to both he speaketh of both So he doth in the text immediatly fore-going Sure I am both Israel and Judah had hand in seeking Saul to reign over them Not only Israel but Judah said Give me a King and Princes And why shall we not think that the former text speaketh likewise of the Kings of Judah and those who did reign over both The Lord's dislike and dis-owning of Kings is as much in the one text as in the other And sure I am Jeroboam was as notably called both by God and the ten Tribes to reign over them 1 Kin. 11. 12.2 Chron. 10. as Saul was to reign over Judah and Israel Howsoever I deny not Kingly Government to be from God I confesse God essectively called Saul to reign over the Jâ—ws So did he David Soloman and others whom he called to reign in a most special way Yea he gave an hereditary assignation to David's posterity to the Crown upon conditions But what then This only saith that Kingly Government is good and in some cases much approved of God Yet it never concludeth that it is the best of Governments most approved of God and that the people of the Jews did not sin in setting-up it and shaking-off another It is laid before
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 necessaires 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 if 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 Gon 4 37. Dan. 11. Mic. 5. and in many other places It hath affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Graecians changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signisieth 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 forth with befooled themselves And if Gideon had not kingly power neither had any other of the Judges He had that same power and no losse which they had They were all Judges alike Secondly Abimelcch 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 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 paâ—able to Abimelech In it is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence is deâ—ived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 dolefulness of the want of Authority or of persons in Authority And I must needs say that authoritativeness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
a soveral house being a leper for be was cut-off from the house of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisie 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 unsit men to reign We shall speak nothing here of these examples whereby is holden-out not only the lawsulnesse 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 sury 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 mereilesse 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 confidered as it is in it-self to work unsquarely and producc 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. 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 premiseth 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 〈◊〉 they did live under the greatest of Tyrants Did not Nero reign then And yet the Apestle 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