renown Gen. 6. Hence mark these two things 1. That in the 500. year of Noah's age there were men of a gigantine strength mighty men given to hard and warlike exploits minding their own honour and renown 2. That such men lived at random not subject to law nor under the command of any Their extraordinary valour and desire of renown led them on to rule and not to be ruled Therefore they took them wives of all which they chose Gen. 6. Their awless and lawles living maketh the Lord say My Spirit shal not alwayes strive with man Ibid. But the faithful Historian Berosus giveth us great clearness in this matter He saith that before the Flood there was a City called Oenon about Libanus a receptacle of Giants who did reign over the whole world from the Occident to the Orient These saith he considing in the vast strength and stature of their body having found Arms and Engins of war oppressed all and governed according to their pleasure Antiq. lib. 1. After the Flood the first King we read of is Nimrod of whom it is said And Cush begat Nimrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the beginning or the head of his Kingdom was Babel and Erech Gen. 10. This Nimrod the holy Ghost calleth a mighy one in the earth or the mighty hunter before the Lord Gen. 10. i.e. a man matchless none like him in the earth for strength and gallantry Because of this he erected a kingdom despising the commandment of Noah Beros an t lib. 4. and disdaining to be in subjection whether to God or man Joseph an t Jud. lib. 1. cap. 5. his aspiring thoughts drew him on to build a Tower that thereby he might get himself a name to secure himself both before God and man Gen. 11. Phil. Jud. bibl an t lib. And Josephus in even-down termes telleth us that he incited his followers to pride and to the contemning of God telling them that their happinesse did not depend from GOD but from their own proper strength Whereupon at last he tyrannized and governed at randome Ant. Iud. lib. 1. cap. 5. To Nimrod succeeded Belus to Belus Ninus and to Ninus Semiramis in the Kingdome of Assyria Every one of which acted more then another for enlarging their Empire They subdued all and ruled over all libidine dominandi Ber. ant lib. 5. Mnes lib. 97. hist Archil lib. de temp Fab. Pict de aur sec c. lib. 1. Metast lib. de judic temp annal Persic Herod lib. 1. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 1 2 c. And as amongst the Assyrians we find these four grand and matchlesse Heroes who governed at random without any subjection to Law so we find amongst other Nations some also of that same stamp Amongst the Egyptians Osiris who succeeded to his Father Chemesenuus in the Kingdom of Egypt commanding the whole earth except these Nations and Kingdoms that were under the Authority of Zames King of Assyria In the eight year of whose reign Osiris returned into Egypt with triumph over all the Nations beside what were under the jurisdiction of the Assyrian Empire And as Osiris did reign as an universall Monarch so did his son Hercules who succeeded Osiris in the Kingdom under the reign of Baleus the eleventh King over the Assyrians Ber. ant lib. 5. We read also of Simandius and Sesostris two Egyptian Kings who subdued the whole world Herod lib 2. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. But it is very easie to prove from Berosus that Simandius is Osiris and Sesostris is Hercules Amongst the Libyans Dionysius was the great Heros Herodot and Diodore report that he subdued the world and conquered many Kingdoms by battell And Berosus saith that Dionysius gave to Osiris the Kingdom of Egypt Albeit Herodot and Diodore opinionate him to be a Grecian yet I rather incline to the judgment of Berosus who saith he was begotten of Rhea by Hammon and became Jupiter to the Libyans even as his mother was the pretended Goddess of the Egyptians Hesiodus Marcianus and other Grecian Writers hold him as a God and alledge him to have been begotten of Semele by Jupiter Howsoever for valour and strength he was a most extraordinary person and swayed many Kingdomes by his Scepter Amongst the Grecians we find namely two extraordinary Herees Hercules and Alexander M. What great things were done by Hercules and how he vanquished many Kings and subdued many Kingdomes is clear from many grave Writers Hesiod scut Here. Pindar od 1. 7 Sophot Trach. Diod. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 2. Of him Herodot Theocritus and others do write The extraordinary valour and courage of Alexander Justin Plutarch Q Curtius and other grave Writers do abundantly testifie I need not to stand here in a particular and exact way to prove that these Kings had an absolute immunity from Law without all restriction and reservation But to satisfie the curious ear alittle therein we shortly make it good thus 1. These Kings came not to their Crowns whether by election or succession At least all that they commanded fell not to them either of these wayes They held the right to their Crown by their sword And so over-ruling all by force and strength of hand they could be tied to no Law by any civill sanction but as they pleased voluntarily to subject their necks to the yoke of Law But as they delighted to over-rule men no question they have thought it their glory to be I kewâ—se above the Law it-self I confesse it is very gatherable both out of Berosus and Diodore that Osiris and Hercules the Egyptian did live according to the Lawes Yet I do not think that it was by command but according to their own free and voluntary resignation That held true in them which the Reman Emperours speak of themselves Licet legibus â—eluâ—i simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Indeed there is great difference between a Kingly power had by succession and election and a Kingly power obtained by conquest and sword-right In an elective and heriditary Crown people have at least a Physicall power to binde the King to them by Oath and Covenant But the case is far otherwise between a conquered people and the Conquerour They have no power to tie him to them by Law He may put them all to the edge of the sword if he will And it is in his own goodness whether to spare them or square himself according to their Laws Experience teacheth to-day what boundless power the Turk and the King of Spain have over those Kingdomes to which they have no title but sword-right Therefore it is no wonder though these grand and matchlesse Heroes had an arbitrary and boundlesse power over the Kingdomes which they conquered by strength of hand 2. The men themselves were esteemed and honoured as Gods And so by proportion a GOD-like power was given unto them Nimrod was called the Babylonian Saturn and Dionysius
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
And why shall we think other wayes of it seing the Conquerour came not to the Crown of England by blood-right but by meer Conquest having the whole Kingdom of England against him And Polydore saith Hinc colligere licet vel Edovardum non servasse sidem Gulielmo quam à principio de hereditate regni non satis considerate dedisset vel nullum qnod verisimilius est fecisse promissum Angl. hist lib. 8. This he gathereth from that which Edward spake to Haraldus whileas he prayed GOD that either he would avert the comming of England into the Conquerours hand or else that he would keep him back from it so long as he lived Therefore to me it is more then apparent that the Confessour did not in his Testament assigne the Conquerour to the Crown albeit Salmasius alledgeth the contrary Def. Reg. cap. 8. What Doth not Polydore tell us that because Edgarus was of young and tender years he was not admitted by the people to reigne And fearing lest the Conquerour should succeed to the Crown they rejoyced greatly that Harald took upon him to reigne in Edward's room Whereat as may be learned from Polydore Edward was not displeased himself but very well satisfied that Harald should succeed to him Whereupon we fear not to say that not onely the power of enkinging was in the people's hands but also that the Confessour did not promise the Kingdom to the Conquerour after him although the contrary be alledged And is it likely that the people would have so much declined and withstood the Conquerour if Edward had assigned him to the Crown as his heir No verily for they adored him as their Law-giver It is known that Rufus was but third son to the Conquerour and yet he was created King Him the people preferred before Robert his eldest brother What Would they have done so if blood-right by the Law of the Kingdom had been the title to the Crown No verily It is remarkable that Rufus was ordained King and it was not so much as objected that Robert was elder then he he being but the third son to the Conquerour and Robert being the eldest Yea Rufus dying without children they appointed Henry the Conquerours fourth son King as yet passing-by Robert the eldest And which is more though Henry 1. had left in his Testament his daughter Mathildis together with her sons as heirs of the Kingdom yet not withstanding the people created Steven Nephew to Henry 1. By the authority of Parliament it was ordained that Steven so long as he lived should enjoy the Kingdom of England and that Henry 2. son to Marthilais daughter to Henry 1. should succeed to Steven in the Kingdom of England passing by any that was begotten by Steven Likewayes the people created John King although K. Richard dying without heirs had lest Arthure son to Gaufredus who was elder then John heir to the Crown I might speak more for clearing this putpose but I forbear judging this sufficient Whence it is more then evident that the Crown of England since the dayes of Edward the Confessour by no Law of the Kingdom is hereditary I confesse since that time now and then the Kings eldest son did succeed and was holden as Heir of the Kingdom But this was onely by custome through favour of the Race in which according to the manner of Nations which I must needs call an abuse very ordinarily the first-born is preferred as the onely lawfull Heir of the Crown Therefore seing the Crown of England since that time hath not been at least precisely hereditary to me it seemeth very probable that for that time it hath not been absolute and arbitrary for so the original and fountain-power of enkinging is in the People's hands And consequently in this respect the People are simply above the King as the cause is simply above its effect Philosophers say That can a est nâ—bi◠〈◊〉 effect 〈◊〉 And so seing the King of England dependeth from the People no question they have simply a power over him and not he an absolute power over them Secondly Because according to these Laws the liberty of the subject is vindicated and the Prince is subjected to Law Because in Henry 1. his time a Parliament was holden At which time Parliamentary Power by the Law of the Kingdom was declared the Supream and highest Authority for any thing of weight was referred to it So that whatsoever was done either by the command of the King or of the People it was holden null unlesse it had been ratified by the Parliament In it every one whether King or other Members thereof have alike and equal power of speaking And withall nothing spoken in it is of validity and force unlesse it be concluded on by the major part together with the approbation of the King Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 11. It is observable That by the authority of the Parliament it was ordained That Steven so long as he lived should remain King of England and that Henry 2. afterward should succeed him By whose mediation and authority the debate between Henry and Steven touching the Crown was decided And I pray you how could these things have been unlesse the Parliament had been above the King Inst 4. But saith Salmasius the power of convocating and dissolving the Parliament belongeth to the King of England The power of the Parliament is extraordinary and pro-tune But the power of the King is ordinary and perpetual And likewise the King of England in Parliament hath a negative voice And therefore in many Acts of Parliament he is called the King and Lord of the Parliament and what is ordained is enacted in his Name And so saith he though the King of England doth act according to the Laws of the Kingdom and concurrence of his Parliament yet notwithstanding he is an absolute King Otherwise the Kings of the Jews had not been absolute who had power to do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin And Artaxerxes had not been absolute who could not be reconciled to Vasthi because the Law discharged it Yea if Kings were not absolute because they act according to the Law and the advice of their Parliament then Cambyses had not been absolute who conveened a Councel whileas he intended to marry his german sister and demanded of them if there was any such law for allowing such a marriage Def. Reg. cap. 8. 9. Answ Salmasius shall do well to consider these few things 1. What the power of the English Parliament is Which is defined by Camdenus to be made-up of three Estates having the highest and most sovereign power in making Laws confirming Laws annulling Laws interpreting Laws and in doing every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is concerned Brit. chorog de Tribun Ang. This is far from Salmasius mind who Def. Reg. cap. 9. opinionateth that the Parliament hath not power over every thing in the Kingdom But Polydore summeth-up the power of the Parliament under these notions First
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
to the equal And if not subject to the Sanhedrin I see no reason why he was not also unpunishable and absolute And so the Judge had greater power then the King Which I am sure none will admit Secondly before the institution of the Sanhedrin all the greater and hard matters were reserved to Moses Ex. 18. And in this Moses power was greater then the power of those Judges which he appointed at the advice and counsel of Juthro But Moses finding that he alone was not able to manage all the weighticst matters therefore in greatest earnestnesse he besought the Lord to adde some to him who might help him therein and exonerate him of his burden Mark a little Either Moses as yet remained the only Judge of greatest matters or else every one of the higher Sanhedrin had equal power with him The reason is because Moses power was according to the object of it The greater matters the greater power Ex. 18. So proportion of Nature requireth If you say that not witstanding the institution of the Sanhedrin and its intermedling with great and weighty businesses the greatest of matters were reserved for Moses and the Judge's managing I understand not that That is against Moses desire The thing which he prayeth for is That the Lord would ordain some to bear burden with him in discharging the weightiest matters We find no such distinction in his desire as that some might be appointed to oversee some weighty matters and himself notwithstanding to reserve in his own hand the managing of the greatest affairs Friend this had been but a little easing of Moses burden under which he did grievously groan Yea in this case there had been great by-respect and self-interest in Moses desire No lesse forsooth then he should be eased of his burden and notwithstanding reserve a lording power over his brethren There is no little carnality in this desire and as great absurdity to bind it upon Moses Yea were this true he had been in power above the Seventy for so his power did reach furthe othen theirs and might do what they could not Tell not me that his desire was to be cased of his burden and notwithstanding to remain chief man in the Commonwealth There is great carnality and self-interest there also Moses desire is positive without distinction And if he or any of the Judges was major singulis I see no reason why they were not as essentially Kings as Saul David c. The Kings had no more power None of them according to Law was major universis So is demonstrated already And so in the ordination of Kings there was no essential and substantial change in the Common-wealth The people sought a King from Samuel Was it not a foolish desire to seek what they had already Samuel denied a King to them Was it not foolishnesse in him to deny them that which already they had and debate so much against it Verily there was nothing between them if this be true but pugna de lana caprina And verily Beliarm me wrongeth the people of the Jews very much in alleadging they sought a despotick heril and hereditary King There is no such thing in their desire as is shewed already They sought no more but a King According to the Law he was regulated And it is known that they did not give the kingdom to Saul's posterity Well let it be so the Judge had greater power then any one member of the Sanhedrin yet doth it follow that he only had such power as the annual Magistrate v. g. in the Athenian Commonwealth He had greater power then any one of the Councel And yet he had not a kingly power Here from we draw this Argument That Government is simply and absolutely best and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth which the Lord not only did firstly institute amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof But the Lord not only did firstly institute Democracy amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof Ergo Democracy simply and absolutely is the best Government and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth The Proposition I suppose cannot be denied for whatsoever is most for the good of Church and Commonwealth is most also for the glory and honour of God And shall not I imagine that the Lord most endeavoureth that which is most for his honour As there is nothing which is so precious in the eyes of God as his own honour so he endeavoureth most to erect preserve and maintain that which most contributeth thereto None will say that the Lord slighteth his own honour and postponeth it to any created interest The Assumption is made good from what foregoeth not only in this but also in the preceding Subsection Secondly from the judgment of the gravest and wisest Philosophs So Solon of whom it is storied 1. That he not only refused himself to reign over the Athenians as King but also he much endeavoured that Pisistratus should not attain thereto This he did for preserving the liberties of the Athenians and popular government amongst them inviolable 2. He wrote severall verses against the Athenians because they had set Pisistratus over them sharply rebuking them that they had gone from the better to the worse 3. Because the Atheniums had set up Monarchy amongst them therefore he lest Athens and went into Egypt 4. Not desiring to live under Kingly government he left Egypt Cyprus and Lydia and came into Cilicia where he built a City and called the name of it Solos And it is very observable that Craesus having desired him to come and live beside him he thanked him for his benevolent courtesie But with all he added that if he desired not to live in a free Common-wealth which he had set-up in Cilicia he would choose rather to live with him then in Athens 5. Being desired by Pisistratus to return to Athens he told him he would not lest he should appear an approver of his deed in taking upon him to reign as King 6. He wrote an Epistle to Epimenides wherein he exceedingly regrateth the foolishnesse of the Athenians in translating Democracy into Monarchy 7. He wrote to Periander King of Corinth desiring him to lay-down his Kingly power 8. It is reported that he did institute popular government amongst the Athenians But the simple truth is it was long before instituted by Theseus And by processe of time the Common wealth and the Laws thereof being corrupted Solon reformed both And as Solon so likewaies all the rest of the Sages did prefer Democracy to any other government Thales wrote to Solon in exile desiring him to come and dwell beside him at Miletum And if he did abominate the Milesian Monarchy there was no-where he could be free of the trouble of Kings And therefore he thought it best he should live with
of Politick Governments and sayings of men These arguments also are to be found here You shall find that even certain of your Poets Kings Law-makers Historians Orators Philosophers have said so as saith this Treatise And that this Government is neither new-found out nor usurped nor bad and dangerous but by example of the first and best the oldest sweetest and most to be desired and by lawful practises of old far from usurpation But if thou imaginest that thou art engaged by the League and Covenant to stand for Monarchy and so canst not take a contrary Engagement That case also is answered and cleared here I counsel thee who doubtest to search whether the things which are laid down in the Treatise as truths be so or not That is Nobility indeed O! if the sons of men could learn to be Berean-like more noble then those of Thessalonica Shut not thine eyes stop not thine ears at the seeing and hearing of things of such use and concernment But possibly courteous Reader thou art fully perswaded in thy mind of the truths spoken-of in this Book and therefore apprehendest it to be useless or born out of due time Well but art thoâ— so full of knowledge and so clear in the thing that thou canst not receive any more Be not deceived It may be thou shalt receive greater information therein if it pleaseth thee diligently to weigh and consider Dâ—st thou engage thy life estate name or pains one way or other in defence of that truth which here by arguments is defended thou shalt do well to inform thy self well and to strengthen thy self with good and sound grounds that with the better and cleaner conscience or greater courage thou mayest go on thy way Moreover if the Book had come forth when first it was written thou couldst not but have said it had been born in the due time But hitherto it hath been hindered Yet I suppose it is born in a due time if we look upon the greatest part of men And if the spirits of men chiefly of such as know not this truth were so framed as in moderation impartiality and simplicity to read the Treatise they should rejoyce at the birth thereof and say it is very seasonable Yea and find more perhaps in it then in ethers of that same nature They would see the adversaries of these truths discomfited and overthrown by their own weapons in which they so much glory even by Reason the testimonies of men and that of all stations and conditions and example of the most refined Policies and Governments And what obscurity or obstrusness is in the Book it is because of such boasters whose mouthes the Author judged expedient to stop with arguments of that kind and so to beat them from that place in which they thought their strength did lie I have no more to adde but do again wish that without prejudice malice envie hatred selfishness in moderation and sobriety thou wouldst peruse the Treatise and I dare say thou shouldst receive more good thereby then possibly thou in the least expectest And for thine ease I have written the heads of it as so many Assertions or Conclusions I leave thee and it to the disposal of Him who ruleth all things in the Army of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth whose Kingdom and Dominion are everlasting in whose hand the hearts of the most mighty are as the rivers of water and He turneth them whithersoever he will And do remain Thy ingenuous wel-wisher DAVID PIERSON ANAGRAM MONARCHIE and DEMOCRACIE described under the names of ΜοναÏχικοσ ΔημοκÏατικοσ ΜΟÎΑΡΧΙΚΟΣ μονοσ alone αÏχικοσ desirous of reigning ὀνοσ an Asse and the upper part of an Asse-mill αÏχαιοσ ancient ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΣ δημοσ People κÏατιστοσ most strong á¼€Ïιστοσ best δικη right κÏιμα or κÏισισ judgment ΜΟΠHe MilstONe like weighs-down and grinds the state The people poor Asse-like enslaveth and He Reigns alone and Hath an AnCIEnt date ΔΗΜ People Do rule Electing who command MOst strong and best he 's and from Clear debate Makes Right Appear and Causeth IudgmEnt stand And if αÏιστοσ best Doth signifie This is me thinks Pure ARISTOCRACIE THE CONTENTS Of the whole BOOK SECT I. THe Power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot belaw fully contraveened pag. 2 The King hath not a Power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason p. 6 SUBSECT 1. The Jewish Sanhedrin had power over the Kings of Israel and Judah p. 11 Because of extraordinary Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 41 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very
Athenian Kings were differenced from the Athenian Princes so it is most probable that after such a manner these three foresaid kindes of Athenian Princes were differenced each-one from another and therefore it is alledged that a Commonwealth was not erected amongst the Athenians till annuall Princes were set over them Which maketh the Princes of the first and second kinde though not of the third to be reckoned up as Kings Yet they must give me leave to say that though the Athenian Common-wealth was not fully and compleatly established till the up-setting of annuall and yearly Princes notwithstanding in some degree or other there was ever a Commonwealth amongst them from the dayes of Theseus untill some of their annuall Princes began to usurp and brought them under bondage for not onely as is said already their Princes of the third kinde but also their Kings and Princes of the first and second fort were subjected to Law and the people had a ruling power over them And so all of them had the like power according to the effentiall frame of a regulated and non-absolute power though the Kings had a more vaste authority and might extend their power further according to Law then the Princes and those of the first kinde then the Princes of the second or at least of the third kinde Even-as Majors v. g. have greater power then Alder-men and Alder-men then Counsellours Howsoever we find that the Princes of the third kinde are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the rest They are said to have had the power of the battell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sacrifices He who had this power is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King Thus we finde that he had that same power which the Lacedemonian Kings had But it is afterward shewed that such were proper though not absolute Kings Well I regard not though you esteem not such as Kings properly so called I lose nothing by this If we argue from examples of former and ancient Commonwealths then have we the Athenian and Lacedemonian Republicks as presidents of a popular government and Common-wealth Friend this is the mark we drive most at in the matter in hand Those Princes who governed as Kings did usurp a greater power then what according to the fundamentall government of the Kingdome and the institution of Theseus did belong to them So Cylon endeavoured but his attempt was choked in the bud Herod lib. 5. Thucid. lib. 1. Herac. de Pol. Ath. Cic. de leg Phutar de Sol. But what he intended Pisistratus acted as is storied by the same authors together with Diogenes Laertius Valerius maximus and Diodore And that usurpation continued untill Thrasybilus and Rhinon's dayes These did vindicate the liberty of the Athenians against those tyrants who did keep them under bondage Herac. de Pol. Ath. Val. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. Aemil. Prob. de Thras And so their government turned meerly popular and became an even-down Commonwealth Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 23. And as for these Princes we deny not nor can we say otherwise but they had not onely as great but also greater power then any of the Athenian Kings whether Theseus or any King that succeeded him And that they were of equall power at-least is evident for they did reign not as Princes but as Kings Her de Polit. Ath. And Pisistratus one of these usurping Kings in his Epistle to Solon saith plainly that he walked according to Solon's Lawes differing in nothing from the people but in honour and dignity But he addeth that he took upon him that power which the Athenians conferred upon Codrus and his posterity And in this he acknowledgeth that he sailed and had such a power not by the Law of the Kingdom but by a Law of his own making Whence it is evident that Pisistratus by usurpation took upon him as great power as did Codrus or any of his race Yea and that they had greater power is also clear for Justine storieth That after Codrus while-as the Administration of the Republick vvas given over into the hands of yearly Magistrates the King's lust became the People's law Thus he telleth us that in the times of defection and vvhile-as corruption entered the State of Athens Kings became absolute and vvere of an arbitrary povver Post Codrum administratio Reipublicae annuis Magistratibus permissacst Sed Civitatinnullae Leges tune erant quia libido Regum pro legibus habebatur And aftervvard he speaketh how they vvere reformed by Solon and hovv Pisistratus and others vvho succeeded him did tyrannize over them Lib. 2. Solon looked upon the Athenians under Pisistratus reign albeit he governed according to Solon's Lavvs as under the yoke of bondage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. And it is reported that Cleon and those who followed him destroyed the Commonwealth Great tyranny there indeed and arbitrariness of power Her de Pol. Ath. Thus we see clearly how that not onely Kings in after-times were regulated and in all things subjected to Law but also as some of the Athenian Princes were inferiour so some of them were superiour to the Athenian Kings In Corinth the Kingly Government was also regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herac. de Pol. Corinth i.e. Periander first changed the Commonwealth taking to himself a guard and at last appointing to himself a Senate Now you must not think that this Senate had not power over Periander 1. Because that Senate cannot properly be called a Senat wherein the King hath a negative voice It is but at the most a cypher far from the nature of Senates that were in old amongst the Athenians Carthaginians c. 2. Because Periander in his Epistle to Solon advised at him what he should do in securing himself from those who went about to kill him And Solon in his Epistle to him advised him to lay-down his lording power It is very easie to know what hath been the cause why his own subjects endeavoured to cut him off for it is reported of him that he was the first King who went conveyed with a guard of Souldiers Whereupon he suffered none to live in the City This could not but irritate his subjects against him and make them conspire against his life See Herod lib. 5. Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Periand Herac. de Pol. Corin. Thra. sibulus counsel was just contrary to Solon's He desired him to spare none whether friend or foe but cut all off Which he did indeed as Herodot reporteth But we must think that he advised with Solon after he had put in execution Thrasibulus counsel for Solon in his Epistle to him telleth him That the way to secure himself in his Kingdom was not to cut-off any but to lay-down his lording power over them This infinuateth that he had followed Thrasibulus counsel and had cut-off his subjects before either Solon wrote to him or he had
Every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is interested is referred to it Secondly Whatsoever is done at the command whether of King or People is of none effect unless it be authorized by the Parliament Thirdly It establisheth and taketh away Laws as it judgeth fit Fourthly Every Member of it hath a-like power and freedom in voicing And what is decreed and enacted by Parliament he calleth it the proper and municipal Law of the Kingdom Seing then the Parliament is the most sovereign and supream power in the Kingdom of England according as it was in old how can it be said That the King of England hath power over it If it be so then you admit two Supream powers and a power above a Supream power which is contradicent The Lacedemonian Ephori were no otherwise above their Kings but because they were invested with the highest and supream power All things were referred to the Parliament even as the Roman Consuls as Festus out of Coelidus saith did refer every thing to the Senate Now because of this the Senate had the highest power and was above the Consuls Ergo seing all matters of the Commonwealth in old in the Kingdom of England were referred to the Parliament no question it had power above the King The Roman Senate is therefore said to have been of the supreamest power Fenest de Magistrat Rom. cap. 1. because neither Kings nor Consuls nor Dictators nor any other Magistrate could do any thing without their advice and counsel Ergo seing whatsoever the King of England or any other of that Kingdom did in old was to no purpose without the authority and approbation of Parliament without all controversie the King of England was subjected to the Parliament Salmasius concludeth the King to be above the Parliament because he alledgeth the Parliament can do nothing without the King Why may not I then conclude the Parliament to be above the King because re ipsa and according to the Law of the Kingdom the King can do nothing without the authority and consent of the Parliament Where then I pray you is the King 's negative voice There is not a Member in Parliament cui oequa loquendi potesias non competit So saith Polyd. Angl. hist lib. 11. What Do you imagine that ever the Parliament could by their authority have drawen-up the foresaid agreement between Steven and Henry 2. unlesse they had had power above the King What they did therein was a direct acting both over Steven their present King and Henry 2. their future King But will you tell me whileas the States of England did seek of K. John to be governed by the ancient Lawes made by Edward the Confessour whether or not were these Lawes Acts of meet pleasure giving the King a liberty to do as he would either to tyrannize over the people or not You can not hold the affirmative because what they demanded of the King was to be restored to liberty to be freed of tyranny Polyd. Vir. Angl. hist lib. 15. And if you hold the negative part then do the ancient Laws of England pull absolutenesse out of the king's hands and subject him to Law Magna charta saith The King can do nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law And the States of England were so far from permitting John to rule at randome and not according to the ancient Lawes of the kingdom that contrarywise they combined against him entering in oath together to pursue him still on till he should govern according to Law and establish the ancient Lawes of the kingdom Yea albeit that Pope Innocent commanded them to lay-down arms and though upon their deniall thereof they were declared enemies by the Pope they notwithstanding followed-on their purpose and cryed-out that they would be avenged by fire and sword on such a wicked tyrant who did so much slight the people Aye which is more they sent into France and from thence brought Ludovick the French king's son and created him king notwithstanding any thing either John or the Pope could do in the contrary Thus they never rested till in sorrow they brought John's head into the grave Where I pray you is the absolutenesse of the king of England whenas the States would not suffer him to govern but according to Law and in denying to do so pursued him in arms unkinging him enkinging another in his room and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat
though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Let. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum proelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praf stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i.e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit it a proeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodcm die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i.e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensu totïus Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i.e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wifely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well left he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a-little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius in Rufus ' Henry 1◠Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though faith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derog ated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am not withstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna
Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conslicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Under Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgment-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Under Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But not withstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to crect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Caâ—ses And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first faith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17.1532 But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle faith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in a relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he beapproved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or sorensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i.e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self effentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successoursto act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the
king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am cause est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for prepter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat qnod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power be ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24 fect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8 lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Anglie libera fuit omnt tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratlam agnoscat Euit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum bumanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parafit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examinet he strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood relation therefore slattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater authority then what Malignants have now a-dayes And tell me do not Malignants at this day make use of the King 's pretended greatnes and hereditary right to the Crown of Britain for cloaking their knavery and effectuating their malignant purposes Do not you imagine but Papists and Malignants in England had that same reason for them to make use of K. Jame's power What I pray you is the over-word of Papists and Malignants in Britain to-day The King say they is the undoubted heir of the kingdom and absolute in power Who then should rise against him This is even the most they have to cloak their knavery and to cast a lustre upon their Antichristian and malignant endeavours Do you imagine that the devill was sleeping in K. James time No verily And there hath nothing been done these twelve or thirteen years by-gone whether against State or Church but what was moulded then The very plat-form of all was cast in his dayes By the Scotish Parliament his power was declared absolute And by the English Parliament his right to the Crown of Englana was declared undoubted and hereditary They stood not to swear obedience to him and his posterity into all ages And how far on he drew the power of Episcopacy and how much he acted for intruding the Masse Book upon the Kingdom of Scotland is more then known Many wits and many Pens in his dayes were imployed for carrying-on and effectuating malignant antichristian designments Sal. is a child to object from the practice of the English Parliament in K. James time He may as well object for evincing his purpose from the practice of the Parliament holden at Oxford by Charles And if he doth either of them he doth nothing but beggeth the question He telleth us that the Parliament of England K. James an 1. declared and enacted his right to the Kingdom of England to be undoubted hereditary Well I can tell him that William the Conquerour the Normane-Lawgiver doth denie to the King of England any such title or claim to the Crown Diaaema regale saith he quod nullus autecessorum meorum gessit adeptus sum quod divina solummodo gratia non jus contulit haeriditarium Nemincm Anglici regni constituo haeredem sed aeterno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim tantum decus baeriditario jure possedi sed diro insiictu multa effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haraldo abstuli interfectis belfugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi Camd. Brit. chorogr deser
which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his succestors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtonionsis and other English histortans who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and sidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by bath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasies conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore whileas he faith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and interiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuce gratiae tuorum progenitorum Misalmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatom tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Coktus words doth not speak of the absoluteneste of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa tgitur lages bajus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly 81 dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10 so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q. Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nee unquam ad untus libiâ—inem sed ad legum praescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parl. at Sterl 1567. and 1578. concerning Q. Mary This was practised by Mogaldus who did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Whence the kings of Scotland had no power to do any thing without the advice and counsel of the Estates They had no power to establish or abrogate laws according to their pleasure This my dear Country-man proveth at length in the place above-cited In the interim take-alongst with you that decree made in Finnanâ—s Rex 10. his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernments but by the authority of Parliament and that they should not administer the Republick by private and domestick councell nor the businesses of the king and publick should be managed without advice of the fathers and that kings by themselves without the ordors of the fathers shires and governours should not make or break war peace or leagues 2. As the Lacedemonian king did bind himself by oath to govern according to the I awes of the kingdom Xenoph. de Repub. Laced N. Damasc de mor. gent. Laced so the king of Scots by Oath and Covenant is tied to do the like The plat-form of the king's coronation-oath is set-down K. James 6. Parl. 1. Whereby he is obliged to maintain the true Kirk of GOD and Religion now presently professed in purity and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the Realm causing justice and equity to be ministred without partiality This did both James 6. and Charles swear And that this is no new custome amongst the kings of Scotland you will find it more then abundantly proved by our learned Country-man in the place above-quoted 3. The Lacedemonian kings were subjected to the stroke of justice Which maketh Pausanias so to write of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Concerning the Lacedemonian King judgment was so ordered Twenty eight in number who were called Senatours were appointed to judge And with them did sit the Ephorick magistracy together with the King of the other family So the king of Scots was censured by the Parliament made up of three Estates His neck was brought under their yoke as my learned Country-man maketh good in the place fore-quoted And so as the Lacedemonians did cut-off and turn-out many kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 5. cap. 10. so the Scots in old did the like as is made good already See Lex Rex loc cit
singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the AEbudan Isles Solinus thus speaketh Rex unus est universis Rex nihil suum habet omnia universorum ad aequitatem certis legibus stringitur Ac ne avaritia divertat a vero discit paupertate justitiam utpote cui nihil sit rei familiaris cap. 25. i. e. all of them have one King The King hath nothing proper all things belong to the people he is compelled to equity by certain Laws And lest avarice should withdraw him from the truth he is taught justice by poverty to wit as one that hath nothing belonging to himself The second particular is manisest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signisieth Princes or Rulers Thus they were governed toward his time by many and not by one And Salmasius from this is made so to say albeit he endeavoureth to elude what Tacitus saith hist lib. 1. The words are already cited and vindicated But Diodore is most clear to this purpose speaking of Britain Reges principesque ibi sunt plures pacem invicem servantes Rev. an t lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salinasius will not say that such had an absolute power over the people Their Kings had not such power Ergo far lesse they Yea the Heduan Vergobret who did reign over moe then any of them had not an absolute and arbitrary power Which maketh me think far lesse had they any such power And t is observable what they did was communi concilio Caesar de bel Gal. lib 5. So much touching the State of England in the second notion i. e. as it was from the dayes of Bâ—etan Brito or Brutus 3. We come now to speak of England as it was under the Romans Saxons and Danes As it was under the Roman yoke speaking precisely England had no Kings but the Roman Emperours And what power they had is spoken already concerning the Roman Dictators And as for the power of the Danish and Saxonick Kings in England no question they had greater power then any of the Kings of England in old or since the dayes of the Conquerour if we except K. James But to say that their power was boundless and arbitrary is more then I dare affirm I will not deny but the first whether of the Danish or the Saxonick Kings had that same power which the Conquerour had over England As he subdued England so did they And it is the Conquerours priviledge to rule at random Such do ordinarily conquer against Law And I pray you why do they not also rule without Law But that all who succeeded these had the like power also I cannot be moved to affirm It cannot be denied but even under their reign there were Parliaments and Councels And I trow they were not cyphers I might enlarge this but I judge it needless for I care not which of the parts be affirmed Under these Kings England was not its own but a subdued and unsetled Nation Which maketh me say that it was no wonder albeit then there was no time for it to exercise the Laws against its Kings Thus at length I have offered my judgment freely concerning the power of the Kings of England both of old and of late And that we may shut up this whole purpose in a word for eutting-off all that Salmasius can object you shall be pleased carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Monarchy As for an extraordinary Regal power which was conserred on Kings whether for extraordinary heroicism personal endowments or such like we shall not stand to say that such had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power See Cocl 1 2 3 4. Yet we cannot say so much of ordinary Monarchy if we look to the precise and ordinary way of the power of Kings This by example is at length she wed already And so we come Secondly to prove it by reason Can any in reason imagine that people unlesse it be for some extraordinary cause or other will subject their necks to the pleasure and arbitrement of any Nay it is a combing against the hair for people to resignitheir liberty into the hands of any man giving him a full power to dispose upon them at random It is very observable That once Kings in Asia had not only an all-commanding but also an all-willing power So Nomrod Belus Ninus and Semiramis as is shewed already Concl. 1. And yet at last this pambasilick and arbitrary power turned over into a despotick power governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Polit. 3. cap. 10. Under these four Kings the condition of Regal power was very extraordinary And so it was no wonder though they did reign in an extraordinary way having more will then other Kings But the kingdom becoming setlâ—d the power of their successours was hemmed-in Their wings were a little clipped And may we not judge so of all other Nations Verily I think it holdeth a majori for the Assyrian Kings were universal Monarchs and no kingdom could ever match with the Assyrian empire Which makes me imagin that as the Kings of the Assyrian empire in an ordinary and sotled case were reduced to Law far more in that respect hath the case of other kings been such And withall observe there was a time when Regal Government was much in request It was much cried-up in the dayes of Heraicism And that rather in the flower and beginnings then in the sadings and after-times thereof And so it was no wonder though at that time kings were invested with a vast power But by process of time Monarchy became lesse esteemed The power of it became much lessened partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings themselves dimitting and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people detracting from their greatnesse so saith Aristatle Polit. 3. cap. 10. So then we must not imagine that though kings sometimes had a vast and arbitrary power they alwaies had such a power and their wings were never clipped Nay the disposition of every age is not for Royal power it-self much lesse for the arbitrariness thereof Let me never dream that the ordinary way of people is to bring their necks under such a yoke What is more consonant to nature then libertie and what is more dissonant to it then tyranny Can any deny but arbitrary power in actu primo is tyranny It is still in a capacity either of tyrannâ—zing or non-tyrannizing It hath still a disposition for acting either according to or against Law Can people then have an ordinary temper for taking with such a yoke No verily that is against the haire wiâ—h them 'T is repugnant to their innate liberty and the natural desire thereof Yea 't is repugnant to the natural
antipathy which all bear in hand against tyranny This being done we hasten now to give a direct and particular answer to that which Salmasius alleadgeth son proof of the second Proposition We consesse that some Kings of Assyria had an absolute and arbitrary power But we deny that such power was competent to all the Assyrian Kings as is proved already It will never follow that because the first Kings of Assyria who were extraordinary Heroes in whose time the condition of the Kingdom was unseded had an arbitrary power therefore all the Assyrian Kings had the same power also whileas the Kingdom became established The one way the caso is extraordinary and the other way it is ordinary But there is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries And Salmasius concludeth very unjustly the Assyrian Kings to have been absolute because the Persian Kings were so I consesse the Persinn Kings had a power to do any thing they pleasâ—dâ— but this was by the means of the great Persian Monarchs Cyrus and Darius Wâ—read in Dantel 6. ch that in their dayes the Persian Laws were unalterable And so we conceive that Law which gave the King of Persia a power to do every thing according to his pleasure was made under their reign Otherwise they could not have decreed unalterably Nelther could Darias have decreed that none for fourty dayes should pray to any 〈◊〉 to him unless he had had an absolute god like power conserred upon him by the Law of the Kingdom Of this Law Herâ—dot speaketh lib. 3. in the history of Cambyses marriage with his german sister And it is known that Cambyses did shortly after succeed to Cyrus And it is already said by us more then once that conquering Kings may and did reigniatorandom And so it was no wonder though the Persian Kings had an absolute power 1. Because it was established amongst the first and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdom It was enacted by the power and means of the first Founders of the Persian Monarchy who subdued the Assyrians and brought them under But you can never shew me a Law amongst the Assyrians establishing the arbitrary power of their Kings 2. I do not deny but arbitrary power may be retained in succession being once acquired by some of the predecâ—ssours for some short time So arbitrary power acquired by Niâ—â—rad continued till in and about the reign of Zames And if you say that it lasted longer sure I am it did not exceed the dayes of Heroicism After which time Monarchy in Asia became despotick and heril Neither can you shew me as is proved already that in the dayes of the Heroes regal power was arbitrary unlesse it had been in some extraordinary case Well I stand not to grant that arbitrary power once acquired may endure some few hundred years But I cannot be brought to say that such a power can be retained into many ages This you may learn from what foregoeth Now the Assyrian Monarchy continued about 1547 whereas the Persian Monarchy â—asted but 230 years And though Ottanes desineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably yet he doth so by way of taxing the greatnesse thereof And positively he taxeth the greatnesse of the Persien Kings objecting to the people the licentious arbitrarinesse of Cambyses and Magus Thus he endeavoureth to disswade the People from establishing Monarchy telling them that it was neither good nor pleasant And he giveth this reason for it because saith he it hath a priviledge to do every thing unpunishably Herod lib. 3. So then he desineth Monarchy after that manner not because he esteemeth it to be its due priviledge but because he holdeth it as that which is competent to it against the pleasure and profit of the people Therefore is it that he useth it as a disswading motive for provoking the people no longer to set-up Monarchy amongst them We stand not here to glosse Artabanus mind who commendeth that Law amongst the Persians whereby was enacted That the King should be honoured as the Image of GOD. He was a great Courtier with the King of Persia And it is the least thing Conrtiers can do to slatter Although we do verily think that Artabanus did allow vast and arbitrary power in the Persian King yet that can be hardly drawn from his words In Scripture Kings are called Gods and we are commanded to honour them as GOD's Vicegerents yet doth it not follow that according to Scripture-stile they are absolute and have an arbitrary power And we admit that of Claudian who saith that the Persians gave alike obedience to cruel and tyranous Kings Therefore was it that by the very Law of the kingdom arbitrary power was conferred upon their Kings and continued so long as the Persian Monarchy endured And though the Fersian King had an absolute power in making yet not in breaking Laws as is said already It is already shewed by us That in some things the power of the Persian King was restricted Salmasius needeth not to tell us that the Egyptians did not bring their Kings to the Stage This is blocked-up already from his singers And though they did bear much with Cambyses it was no wonder for he subdued them And what can a subdued people do but suffer And 't is known that Cambyset himself was a vile tyrant Therefore the story of Judeth calleth him Nabuchodonosor So saith Josephus also And Ottanes addeth to that Herod lib. 3. And what can Tyrants do but tyrannize Such are very ready to usurp an arbitrary power concl 5. As for Busiru I cannot think that ever the Egyptians had any such King though Isocrates saith so I consesse I read of such a man in Diodore Rer. ant lib. 2. cap. 1. But I can read little or nothing of him either in Berosus or in Manetho 'T is true B rosus Ant. lib. 5. saith That Busiris was King of Phoenicia So saith Dtodore Ant. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Herodot repoiteth That Senâ—acherib invading Egypt the Egyptians went about to help him against their own King Sethon because he abused them and did not his duty to them Lib. 2. Thus we see that the Aegyptians did hardly bear with tyrannous kings This at length is shewed already And what power Agamemnon had over the Grccian Army as also what power the Greâ—ian Kings had how they were absolute and how not is shewed abundantly already It is no matter that Philip saith That the king hath equal power with God So did Caligula arrogat an arbitrary and God-like power to himself Suet in Cal. cap. 29. 'T is the least thing that tyrannous kings can do to plead for more interest then either GOD or Nature hath conserred on them And Ecphantas calleth the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because he should be governed by none but because he is above every one seorsim In which notion he is above all and subject to none Yet this doth not conclude but he is subject to the people
tyrannous and usurping kings delight in cruelty They seek nothing but their own ease and if they act any thing according to Law it is only for the fashion as the tyrant Cambyses did in seeking his german sister in marriage What Such hold will for Law They know nothing but Hoc volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione voluntas Juv. Satyr 6. Such Kings do not judge according to the Law of the Kingdom Neither is there power according to the Law of the Kindom laid upon such What they do is done by themselves unanswerable to any They act will-way and not Law-way They were not judged because they did take power to themselves above all Law It cannot be denied but Salmasius concludeth well from 1 Son 8. and 2 Sam. 8. that the King of Israel judged Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he will do well to advert that though this be true Rex judicat concerning the King of Israel according to God's institution the Law of the Nation and the practice of some of their Kings yet this is as true Rex non judicat concerning the ordinary practice of their Kings And it is very observable that Jannoeus whom they called Alexander all the while he did reign over the people of the Jews acted nothing according to Law but tyrannized over them fos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 21.22 But in Gem. tract de Syned cap. 11. it is said that because of Jannoeus it was enacted that the king should neither judge nor be judged And if it be true that it was enacted then then do I not think that it was upon that fabalous ground which doth not so much as relish to Salmasius of which the Rabbinick writers speak but because of the tyranny and cruelty of the man who did not govern law-way but will-way And as Alexander so the tyrant Herod had an arbitrary power though we suppose it did depend much from the concession of Antonius Jos Ant. lib. 15. cap. 4. Conclus 3. The good Kings of the Jews because of personall endowments had exemption and immunity from Law This is manifest in the examples of David and Solomon There were two things chiefly in David which were against the Law 1. Multrplication of wives Whereof David had very many 1 Chr. 3. and 14.2 Murder upon the back of adultery 2 Sam. 11. And Solomon did many things contrary to the Law 1. He multiplied gold and silver 2. Horses and Charets 1 Kin. 10.2 Chron. 9.3 Wives And 4 he fell into adultery 1 Kin. 11. And yet we read no that either David or Solomon were judged therefore by the 〈◊〉 And what I pray you could be the reason of this Not because the king de jure hathimmunity from Law Nor because they over-awed the Sanhedrin by force of armes We read nothing of that And you shall not make me believe that the Sanhedrin durst not attempt the executing of justice upon them 1. You thereby put a great note of reproach upon David and Solomon You do no lesse then insinuate a disposition in them for rebellion if you alleadge that the Sanhedrin which de jure as both already and afterward doth appear had power over them durst not for fear of their resistance execute judgment on them That had been a disposition to resist the higer powers Which the Holy Ghost condemneth Rom. 13. And I will not think that such men had the Spirit of rebellion to repine against the execution of justice 2. We find that the Sanhedrin did execute justice on Amaziah And the people did so against Athaliah 2 Kin. 11.2 Chr. 23. Which maketh me think that it was not for want of power that David and Solomon were spared Other Kings of Judah were punished for their faults The Sanhedrin and people had power to execute justice on them And why not also on David and Solomon They were all Kings alike And it is very remarkable that after Solomon's death ten tribes declined the house of David because of Solomon's heavy exactions and tributes he laid upon the people 1 Kin. 12.2 Chr. 10. I believe they were as powerfull to revolt from Solomon as from Rehoboam And seing the people took so heavily with Solomon's yoke that therefore they did revolt from his son it maketh me think that the Sanhedrin did not spare him for fear of his power Verily both they and the people have born patiently with his slips and heavy impositions because of his rare and singular qualifications Otherwise I can see nothing for it why the people did not make a mutiny against and revolt from Solomon as against and from Rehoboam 3. Because as both already and afterward doth appear the Sanhedrin both according to GOD's institution and the Law of the nation had authority and jurisdiction above the king But sure I am it had been a very uselesse power if they durst not have exercised it It had been all one to have wanted that authority with wanting power to have put it in execution as occasion served And this had been a having and a non-having power Which is ridiculous and repugnant Neither can you alleadge that they were spared because then judicatories were altogether turned corrupt and knew not what it was to exerctse justice for that doth directly militate against the eminent Reformation both of Church and State that was under the reign of both these Kings Therefore seing David and Solomon were spared not because they were absolute nor because the people durst not execute judgement on them nor because the people and judicatories under their reign were altogether dissolute not knowing the way of exercising justice to me it is more then manifest that their delinquency was past-by because of their personall endowments The shining vertues and eminent graces that did appear in them no question have kept back the Sanhedrin from putting hand on them O! what a temptation would it be to me to voice for a David's off-cutting O! how much would my soul be grieved to sentence against a Solomon And shall not I think but those of the Sanhedrin were much taken up with the qualifications of these men as well as I could be with the vertues of such-like I cannot think that I am singular in this In the interim observe that my meaning is not that they had such a vast power as Salmasius dreameth of I do not think that ever the Sanhedrin would have spared them unlesse they could not have done otherwayes if they had turned positive and even-down tyrants and destroyers of the Commonwealth But onely my meaning is that because of their eminent qualifications they had immunity from Law in some notes of delinquency Neither do I speak that they had this priviledge de jure but de facto Thus you see that this is no argument for Royallists who object the Sanhedrin's sparing of David and Solomon as a ground of the King 's arbitrary power And in this none is more ready then Salmasius Def. Reg. cap. 5. But they shall
That Jeroboam was a vile idolater and was not worthy to be a King 2. That the people justly defired Rehoboam to dimit of the power which his father had and that the old men did arightly counsel Rehoboam to do so Neither of these doth Salmasius deny And so I gain the point as is already proved Fourthly from the People of the Jews processing their Kings So did they against Athaliah 2 King 11.2 Chron. 23. and Amaziah 2 King 14.2 Chron. 25. See subsect 2. prop. 1. And as they processed their Kings so did they resist them as afterward is shewed But I pray you could they have done such things lawfully if their Kings had had an arbitrary power over them And that they did such things according to Law and Reason is proved by us Fifthly If Ahab had had an absolute power I see no reason how he could have been refused of Naboth's Vineyard 1 King 21. Sure I am if he had had a prerogative above Law and a power to dispose according to his pleasure either upon the goods or the person of the subject he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard at his own hand without so much as demanding it with Naboth's leave And yet the text saith That Naboth having refused to give it him he went home much dismaid and refused to eat bread because Naboth had denied it to him And which is more he could not get it till a false processe was led against Naboth by the crast of Jezebel But is it imaginable that ever such things would have been done if Ahab's power had been arbitrary and uncircumscribed No verily No question if his power had been boundlesse by vertue of a Royal Act he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard either without grieving himself or without leading a false processe against Naboth And therefore Mr. Withers 〈◊〉 Tom Plain-man saith notably Why I pray Did Ahab grieve that Naboth said him nay Why made he not this auswer thereunto If what the Prophet said some Kings would do Were justly to be done Thy Vineyana's mine And at my pleasure Naboth all that 's thine Assume I may Why like a Turkey-chick Did he so foolishly gro◠sullen sick And get possession by a wicked fact Of what might have been his by Royal Act If such Divinity as this were true The Queen should not have needed to pursue Poor Naboth as she did or so contrive His death since by the King's Prerogative She might have got his Vineyard nor would God Have scourge that murder with so keen a kod On Ahah had be asked but his due For he did neither plot nor yet pursue The murder nor for ought that we can tell Had knowledge of the dead of Jezebel Till God 〈◊〉 it by the Prophet to him Nor is it said that Naboth wrong did do him Or disrespect in that he did not yeeld To sell or give or to exchange his field Brit. Remembr Cant. 8 Now hereby is made to appear That the Kings of the Jews were not absolute whether according to the Law of God or the Law of the Kingdom And why then do Royallists plead so much for the King 's arbitrary power seing the Jewish Kings de jure had it not Which maketh me think other Kings far lesse should have it for the ordination of the Jewish Kings did depend from God in a most special way and God there in was most intimatly concerned We must not think that the Kings of Judah after the captivity de jure had any priviledge above Law more then those who preceded them According to the Law of God they had no such priviledge as is shewed already And that according to the Law of the Nation they had it not is also evident 1. Because after the captivity the store of the Government was changed And they had not so much as Kingly Government much lesse absolute Monarchy till Aristobulus firstly usurped the Crown Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 19. 2. Because the people did withstand the tyrant Alexander And whileas he was dying he was necessitate to exhort his wife who succeeded to him to dimit of his power and to promise to govern according to the advice and counsel of the Senatouis and Pharisees Ant. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 22. 23. Which she did accordingly cap. 21. And at her death she desired the Sanhedrin to dispose upon the Kingdom as they pleased even while her son Aristobulus was in arms for bringing the Kingdom to himself Yea the Sanhedrin not onely accused Antipater but also arraigned Herod before them who for fear of them was constrained to slee Ant. Jud. lib. 12. cap. 17. And what arbitrary power Herod had was by 〈◊〉 concession whom Herod blinded and deluded with gifts Ant. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 4. I confesse whileas Herod was cited before the Sanhedrin he was not King but Governour of Galilee But what then I hope Salmasius will not deny which indeed he confesses that his father Antipater did reign as King And yet the Elders of the People did accuse him before Hyrcanus But neither Hyrcanus who indeed was King of the Jews nor Antipater who was Procurator and managed the matters of the Kingdom because of his weakness were able to absolve Herod notwithstanding Caesar the President of Syria wrote some Letters to Hyrcanus threatning him if he did not absolve him The Sanhedrin went-on so precisely against Herod that they went about to condemn him to death So that Hyrcanus was necessitate in satisfying Caesar's desire to cause Herod flee quietly away Now I would fain know of Salmasius if either Hyrcanus or Antipater had had an absolute and arbitrary power might they not have absolved Herod at their pleasure the Sannedrin nilling or willing and not basely for fear of the Sanhedrin have dismissed Herod secretly Therefore Salmasius must give me leave to say though he imagineth the contrary that Sichardus very pertinently urgeth this example to prove that the power of the Sanhedrin was above the King And Salmasius himself denieth not Def. Reg. cap 2. 5. but the strain and current of Rabbinick Writers doth run this way Inst Nay but saith he in the Jewish Talmud it is spoken otherwise And therefore it is said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non drest testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur in Cod. San. cap. 11. Def. Reg. cap. 2. Answ Verily this Gentleman needeth not brag much of this for the Jewish Writers pull this out of his hands by a distinction Some of them understand it concerning the Kings of Israel and some of them refer it to the Samaritan Kings But they deny it to have place in the Kings of Judah and those who came of David I admire much that he should cite the authority of Jewish writ for him He doth not deny but the Jewish Writers are no friends to Kingly Government And they positively say which he denieth not himself that the King of the Jews was subjected to Law And which is more they particularity
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
confesse the People of God even in the matter of Religion may be brought to this But deceive not thy self The People of God cannot swear absolutely by force and might not only to endeavour but also to act for Religion That is also a vain Oath and a swearing to impossibilities How many times have the People of God been brought so low that their power hath been wholly eclipsed They can absolutely swear no more but to employ all power God shall put in their hands in the defence and preservation of Religion and never alter nor change their faith notwithstanding they run the hazard of perishing goods lives and fortunes Tell me wilt thou say thou art obliged to swear so instanding by Monarchy Dost thou imagine thou art necessarily tied to stand by Monarchy as by Religion Thou canst not change thy faith nor decline it if it be true whether before or after thou hast sworn to maintain it unlesse thou run the hazard both of sin and condemnation Thou canst not embrace the contrary faith and Religion without sin Which draweth-on as its inevitable consequent if persevered therein the wrath and eternal displeasure of the Almighty But I pray thee thinkest thou it damnable to subject thy neck to the yoke of any other Government beside Monarchy Are not other Governments lawful as well as it Are not they consubsistent with Religion and the matter of salvation no lesse then it How darest thou absolutely tie thy self by Oath and Covenant to stand by one only kind of Government when as thou mayest lawfully submit thy neck and give-up thy allegeance to any kind thereof Thus thou not only overchargest thy conscience but also exposest thy self needlesly to hazard And so much the rather of this because of all Governments Monarchy is most dangerous and least to be wished Art thou not of all fools the greatest to swear absolutely to maintain that Government which is least good though thou mayest obtain that which of all Governments is the sweetest The Authour of Exerc. con usurp pow cap. 3. mistaketh the matter very far whileas he saith We are equally and that same way obliged by League and Covenant to maintain the King's Person and Authority as by it we are tied to maintain Religion The contrary of this is already cleared Lastly I deny not but not only Monarchy in it-self is consistent with Religion but also secundum quid it is the best of all Governments Yet if we speak simpliciter and of the ordinary fruits and Consequences of Kingly Government the King's interest alwaies cometh in competition with Christ's interest So is proved invincibly as we suppose already Now wilt thou swear absolutely to maintain that which absolutely and ordinarily standeth in opposition to Christ and his interest Thus thou swearest to maintain that which setweth to over-turn both Church and Common-wealth And hereby thou preserrest man's interest to God's interest for so thou exposest both Church and Commonwealth to ordinary and inevitable danger and hazard in maintaining Kingly Government inviolable The foresaid Authour in the place above-cited endeavoureth to justle us out of this He taketh much upon trust but he proveth nothing He would have us to take it upon his word that Monarchy is most consubsistent with Religion and the good of the People We cannot take him in this as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have already upon this concluded more by force of argument then he either may or doth speak by word What is it any wonder though he saith so He is not ashamed to aver against Heaven and experience it-self That Religion was consubsistent with the preservation and defence of the last King's Person Let God judge this O my soul come not thou into his secret unto the Assembly of such mine honour be not thou united COROLLARY HAving through the Lord's more then ordinary assistance discussed these five Questions above-written it now remaineth to try what strength is in them to conclude the Commonwealth of England to be a lawful Government and not usurped power And we make it good thus If the Comonwealth of England be an unlawful usurped power then either because the power of the King of England not only according to the Law of the Kingdom but also of God is absolute And so without usurpation he can neither be judged nor his Kingdom taken from him by any but by God Or because Monarchy is of all Governments the choicest And so cannot be altered nor exchanged with any other Government unlesse we go from the better to the worse And it is rash madnesse or sinful rashnesse to exchange the best with the worst Or because Popular Government is least to be desired Or because it is unlawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority Or lastly because we are tied not only by the Oath of Alleageance but also by solemn League and Covenant to maintain and preserve Monarchy inviolably But none of all these you can alleadge to bind usurpation upon the Commonwealth of England as is shewed already Ergo it is a lawful and not usurped power FINIS Errors to be corrected thus REad Page 6. line 8. Beros P. 9. l. ult carrying-on P. 10 l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 12. l. 10. tanes P. 20. l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 30 l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 35. l. 4. satrapie P. 60 l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 64. l. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 65. l. ult hos P. 67. l. 25. naught P. 74. l. 17. Gorbomannus l. ult censured P. 75. l. 2. excommunicared and to be punished l. 3. Eugenius l. 10 for Duncanus read Again usurping he P. 76. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 79. l. 20. after Steven r. King P 85. l. ult after Inst r. 5. P. 95. l. 17. Imperator P. 9◠l. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 123. l. 30. exciusive P. 1◠l. 32. sect 1. P. 129 l. 32. subsect◠P. 132. l. 20. subsection P. 134 l. 21. before Concl 6. r. subsect 1. P. 136. l. 21. subsect 1. P. 144. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 14◠l 22. hath P. 163. l. 40. P. 171. l. 35. subsect 1. P. 174 l. 19. hurled P. 175. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 175. l. 37. doe APPENDIX In which the seven Angels sounding are compared with the seven Angels plaguing in overturning all Powers and Potentates READER I Have thought it expedient to annex to the fore-going Treatise concerning the Commonwealth of England a small addition concerning the sounding and plaguing by seven Angels And that because they do relate to the overthrowing of all Kings and Kingly Powers whatsoever Whence my purpose in the fore-going Treatise is abundantly enforced and established That I may the more conveniently give thee my thoughts in order to these Angels I would have thee in the first place with me to remark that the Angels sounding are
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
Publick and legall way Extraordinary The Prophets rebuked the Kings of Israel and Judah for their faults and transgressions And what is rebuke but a degree of punishment And so Kings not having immunity from the lesser degree of punishment why are they not also lyable to the greater according to their delinquency Magis minus non variant speciem Yea Jehu executing the purpose of the Lord on the house of Ahab slew both the King of Israel and the King of Judah 2 King 9. and withall he caused cut-off all the sons of Ahab 2 King 10. O but you will say These practises of the Prophets and of Jehu were extraordinary And then It is a very bad Argument The Apostles preached by the extraordinary instinct of the Spirit Ergo Ministers who have nothing but an ordinary spirit should not preach So it doth not follow The Prophets and Jehu acted against delinquent kings through an extraordinary call thereto Ergo those who have nothing but an ordinary call thereto should not do so It may be you will say The People can have no ordinary call to act against their kings Be not mistaken 1 Extraordinary things supply the room of ordinary things whileas they are wanting So Samuel killed Agag because Saul the ordinary Judge was wanting in his duty 1 Sam. 15. 2 At least it followeth that the same thing which is done extraordinarily may also be done lawfully in an ordinary way Otherwise many absurdities and blasphemies should follow 3 Datounâ— oppositorum datur alterum And consequently seing there is an extraordinary call for punishing Kings there is also an ordinary call for doing it The reason of this is because esse extraordinarioe vocationis is so called and is so in it-self because it standeth in opposition to esse ordinaria vocationis as we have shewed at length curs Philosophico-theolog disp 4. Sect. 6. And therefore there can be no extraordinary call for punishing Delinquent Kings unlesse there be also an ordinary call for doing so 4 Punishing of delinquent Kings either in it-self is sinfull and unlawfull or not If sinfull and unlawfull then neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily may Kings lawfully be punished for no sin can be committed by an extraordinary Divine providence Otherwise God should extraordinarily sin But we have shewed already that Kings may be punished by vertue of an extraordinary call And consequently it is not a sin in it-self to punish delinquent Kings If lawfull and unsinfull I see no reason why a thing which is in it-self lawfull and honest may not lawfully be done by ordinary as well as by extraordinary midses for either the exercise of ordinary midses is in it self lawfull or not None I am sure will say that the exercise of ordinary midses is unlawfull Otherwise every thing that is done ordinarily is done sinfully Which to say is absurd And if you say that the exercise of them in it self is lawfull then it is lawfull in it self by vertue of an ordinary call to punish delinquent Kings But if there be any fault and escape in the way and manner of imploying that cal that no whit hindereth but the call in it self is lawfull and commendable for such things are meerly extrinsecall to the nature of the call it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum non est sequela 5 Jehu and the Prophets had no other reasons for them in speaking and acting by vertue of an extraordinary call against delinquent Kings but what those may have in proceeding against them by vertue of an ordinary call They no otherwise proceeded against them by vertue of their extraordinary call but as it was for the good of the LORD's People and for executing Justice on their delinquency that others might learn not to offend But sure we are such grounds are competent to an ordinary call foâ— proceeding against delinquent Kings And 't is an undoubted maxim Idem est jus ubi eadem est ratio juris Iâ—st That example concerning Athaliah saith Salmasius deserveth not an answer for saith he she usurped the kingdom and killed the whole Royall Family And so there was lesse executed against her then she deserved And with all according to the Jewish Lawes it was not permitted to women to sway the Scepter and sit on the Throne for it is not said Deut. 17. Thou shalt set a Queen over thee but a King over thee Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans That the example concerning Athaliah very much concludeth our purpose we argue thus Either Athaliah had the right and authority of a King or not If the had the right and authority of a King ergo if the King be of an absolute power and not subject to Law then Athaliah was no more subject to Law then any other King for as Salmasius and all Royallists will have it the King is of an absolute power and not subject to Law And consequently Athaliah being invested with the right of a Kingly power and authority she was no more subject to Law then any other of the Kings of Judah Therefore if you say that Athaliah was invested with the right and authority of a King you must either commend the practice of Jehojadah and the people in killing her or else you must charge your opinion and not imagine Kings to be absolute and not subject to Law If she had not the right and authority of a King then either because she usurped the Kingdom and intruded her-self upon it contrary to the consent of the People or because she did cut-off the righteous heirs of the Kingdom and set up her-self in the Kingdom or else because according to the Law women ought not to govern Not the first because according to the Doctrine of Royallists conquest is a lawfull title to the Crown But Athaliah conquered the Crown of Judah to her-self What more I pray you did she in intruding her-self upon the Kingdom of Judah then unjust Conquerers do in thrusting themselves in upon the kingdoms which they subdue As she intruded her-self without the free consent and election of the People so do they And yet Salmasius with the rest of his Brethren will have such Conquerers lawful heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms which they subdue Nor can you say the second because conquerers who subdue other men's kingdoms cut-off all those who by pretended blood-right claim a title to the Crown And yet Royallists will have such lawfull heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms to which they have no title but the sword Nor can you say the third because all Royallists admit Royal birth a just and absolute title to the Crown But women no less then men may be and are of the Royall Off-spring And consequently if the doctrine of Royallists be true and unless Salmasius will contradict himself women may as lawfully govern as men Therefore it doth not follow that because Athaliah was a woman she had not right to govern the People of the Jews and reign over them I confesse
after he had abandoned Attica Ber. ant lib. 5. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Janus erected Colonies in Arabia felix calling them Janineans and Camesennus in Italy calling them Montan aboriginists An. Nin. 4. Yea Janus coming out of Africk unto Celtiber-Hispania emplaced two Colonies calling them Noëlans and Noeglans Beroâ—us also reporteth that Dardanus being gifted by Ato with a part of the Land of Maeonia with his Colonies there erected the kingdom of Dardani An. Ascat 41. About which time Tyrrhenus planted the Tyrrhenians in Italy Where also the Griphonians and the Colonies of Phaëton were planted together with the Colonies of Auson An. Aral 8 9 10. and 49. And Armatr an 20. Cydnus and Eridanus erected the Kingdom of Ister in Italy Ber. ant lib. 5. It shall not be amiss for us here to use a distinction Some of these forenamed Colonies were immediatly planted after the flood about the 150. year thereafter Such are these who were planted under the reign of Nimred Belus and Ninus or thereabout Some of them were planted a long time after while-as all the Countries round about where they took up their residence were afore-hand planted So the Tyrrhenians Griphenians Dardanians Isterians the Colonies of Phaëton and Auson were planted Indeed I may say that the heads of the Colonies of both sorts were absolute and of an arbitrary power Yet I cannot imagine but the absoluâ—eness of the heads of the first sort of Colonies was more intense then that of the other 1. Because the heads of the first sort were holden and worshiped as gods Thus Cur is called the Saturn of Aethiopia Chemesenuus the Saturn of Egypt Xenoph. de aquiv. And it is observable that all the first founders of Kingdoms are called Saturns and those who immediatly succeed to them are called Jupiters And consequently the first and primary erecters of Kingdoms being holden as gods yea as the chief gods to us it is more then apparent that such have been of a most intense and absolute power They could not be honoured and esteemed as gods unless a God-like power had been ascribed unto them But we judge that the after-planted Colonies who came in upon other men's share sheltering under their wings and receiving places of abode from them had no proper gods of their own but honoured those as their gods from whom they received the places of their residence and abode So the Thuscits worshiped Juno and Jupiter i. e. Isis and Osiris who are Egyptian gods These they worship because Hercules Osiris son who is also called Jupiter erected them and gave them his son Thusous to reign over them Yea the Tyrrhenians do not worship Tyrrhenus though he was their first King but Janus who was the first planter of Italy by whose Colonies Janus had planted there Tyrrhenus was graciously received And it is observable that the chief Kingdoms which were first inhabited as Assyria Italy Egypt and Eâ—hiopia did honour and worship their first Kings and Planters as great gods And so we do not think but the first and primary Founders of other Kingdoms as Mese and Getulis who erected the Kingdom of the Masagets in India as did Anamaeâ—n the Kingdom of Maeonia An. Nim. 45. were likewise holden by their People and Colonies as prime gods to whom they did owe God-like worship and respect Thence it is that Xenophon saith Saturni dicuntur familiarum nobilium Regum qui urbes condiderunt senissimi De aequiv And as the first and primary Founders of Kingdoms are holden as Saturns primary gods so their first-born are holden as Jupiters and Junoes the chiefest of their grand-children as Herâ—uleses And so as Xenophon saith the secondary gods are multiplied according to the multiplication and diversity of the primary gods So then seing the primary Kingdoms and first Colonies have their own proper gods and the secondary Kingdoms which were planted in after-times the chief parts of the Continent being afore-hand planted by primary Colonies had no proper gods but such as were common both to them and the primary Colonies or the first inhabitants It is evident to us that the heads and leaders of the secondary and after-Colonies had no such absolute power as the heads and leaders of the primary Colonies The power is proportioned according to the honour and respect people give to their Kings and Rulers A primary honour a primary power a secondary honour a secondary power And consequently the Kings of the primary Colonies being attended with a primary respect whereas the Kings of the after-Colonies got but honour in a secondary way no question the power of the one was more intense then the power of the other 2. Because the heads of the after-Colonies being in after times were neither men of such ancient descent and root as the heads of the primary Colonies nor do I think they were men of such courage and strength as they Strength and courage was the more in vigour how much more they approached the youth and beginings of time Time's youth declining man's youth also faded After-time after-strength And withall after-Colonies coming in upon other men's lot both the Law of courtesie and obligation unlesse the primary Colonies by way of gratification or else in simplicity had past all claim of priviledge over them of which we read nothing neither is it probable did tie them to hold one way or other of the former and primary inhabitants This maketh nothing against the absolute power of their own proper Kings though they honoured the first Kings of the primary Colonies as gods They might very well have acknowledged their own proper Kings as their absolute Lords though ascribing a divine and more intense honour and respect to the first Kings of the primary Colonies This maketh us think that the Thuscites albeit Thuscus was their proper King held Hercules the Egyptian though Hercules to the Egyptians as Jupiter Idem quoque qui unis populis est Hereules alieris est Jupiter They held of Heroules more then of Thuscus Thuscus was their King but they had their being and residence of Hercules Whereupon we conclude that the first of Kings were most absolute of a more vaste and intense power then Kings of after-times and secondary Colonies Yet we cannot deny but even such were absolute also they being men of great valour and courage and not onely such but even those from whose conduct and means the being of their people did in a most special manner depend They did not only govern them as a people but they made them a people But not withstanding this I cannot imagine that their power was so absolute as that it admitted no restraint And so in respect of them I take Aristotle by the hand who saith that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were absolute though some of them in some things were restricted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. I say some of them because the first founders of Kingdoms and the grand Heroes
respect of qualification exceeding all others And so they conclude that a King so qualified may very conveniently be entrusted with an absolute power for they apprehend that though such a man have power above Law yet will he not act against Law And likewise they imagine that such a man being in all respects above all men both in respect of station and qualification can no wayes be inferiour to any man Thus Aristotle inclineth to absolute Monarchy of this moulding Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11 12. Conclus 4. Kings in old were of an absolute power without the bounds of all restriction by vertue of purchase and conquest So were the grand Heroes as is shewed already Hence was it that Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of the Persians had an absolute power over the People of the Jews Conclus 5. Kings in old by meer usurpation and tyranny had an absolute power without any circumscription So Pharaoh had an absolute power over the children of Israel and the wicked Kings of Judah at least of Israel over their people Thus Nebuchadnezzar had an absolute power not only over the people of the Jews but also over all his subjects Of whom it is said Whom he would be slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set-up and whom he would he put-down Dan. 5. After this manner Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes had an absolute power over the people of the Jews though we deny not but what either of them did act or intend against the Jewes was by the mediation of evil Counsellours So had Herod an absolute power Matth. 2. Jos Ant. lib. 15. Yet we deny not but it was through other men's means more then his own that he had a power to tyrannize and govern at random The ten persecuting Kings Dan. 7. Rev. 13. had an absolute power over the People of God But moe examples of Tyrants you may read Judg. 1. and 9.2 Sam. 21. Mat. 27. Luke 23. Act. 12. In the books of Apocrypha as Tob. 1. Jude 2. 3.1 Macc. 10.2 Mac. 4. 14. c. See also Beros Ant. lib. 1. Diog. La. lib. 6. Plut. de Dionys Brus lib. 6. cap. 21. Arist Pol. lib. 5. cap. 10. What needeth us so to accumulate quotations and examples when as it is evident both from divine and prophane writ that there have been almost tot Tyranni quot Reges Conclus 6. Vnlesse it had been for some of these causes above-written there was never at any time any King so absolute but one way or other according to Law his power was restricted In establishing this Conclusion we observe this order Firstly we prove the point from example And in doing so you will do well to observe that examples to this purpose are of a twofold kind 1. There are some which point-out to us That Kings in old were no lesse subject to Law then any of the People 2. Some of them shew to us That though the King's power for the most part hath been absolute yet notwithstanding in some case or other it hath been hemmed-in by Law Of the first kind we have examples both in the dayes of the Heroes and in after-times That in the dayes of the Heroes some Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then the People may be examplified both from the Commonwealth of the Jews as also from the condition of some Kingdoms amongst the Gentiles But we forbear till afterward to speak any thing of the Jewish Commonwealth And amongst the Heathen you have to begin with the ancient and stately Kingdom of Egypt It cannot be denied but the Kings of Egypt in old were most precisely hedged-in by Law Whatsoever they did was according to Law They walked they washed they lay with their wives they did eat and drink according to Law They wrote Letters and dispatched Messages according to Law It was not permitted to them to treasure-up silver to judge or punish any at random and according to their pleasure but as privat men they were subjected to the Laws the yoke of which they did bear patiently willingly submitting themselves thereto and esteemed themselves happy to be subject to them Diod Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. This Diodore as he confesseth himself hath from the writings of the Egyptian Priests which he diligently searched as he saith Out of whose writings he giveth us three reasons why the Kings of Egypt were for the most part good and kept themselves within bounds 1. Because the sons of the chiefest Priests who were the greatest and the most learned of al the rest beyond the age of twenty years were ordained to attend the King day and night By whose on-looking and presence the King was taught reservedness 2. Because the Laws were most exactly and precisely exercised on the King's Person 3. Because the Priests as both before death and after death did celebrate the praises of the good Kings honouring them with hyperbolick encomies so they spake both before and after death to the discommendation and disparagement of the bad and wicked Kings depriving them of stately Exequies at their interring Now the desire of the one and the fear of the other kept them back from extravagency and debording and caused them cheerfully to take with the yoke Ibid. And which is more to be wondered at Sesostris one of the grand and primary Heroes ordained Prators as Judges to govern in the Land of Egypt Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. The care of every thing was cast over upon them Yea Berosus telleth us That Sesostris whom he calleth Hercules delivered Italy from tyranny and slavery Ant. lib. 5. This insinuateth that this Noble Conquerour delighted much to live according to Law when-as he could not endure tyranny to be exercised in a strange Kingdom which he conquered Far leste I think would he have suffered tyranny to be in his own Kingdom The like also did his father O siris whom Diodore calleth Simandius in Italy Ber. ant lib. 5. Him Berosus calleth Jupiter the just I conceive he could not have been so called unless he had been a man that walked strictly according to Law And if these two glorious Heroes and noble Conquerours did subject themselves to Law how much more the rest of the Kings of Egypt in old who were far inferiour to them Let it be so these two lived according to the Law ex voluntate but not ex loge yet will it conclude if we compare arightly the highness of them with the lowness of the rest that the rest ex lege were subject to Law So faith Diod. Ant. lib. 2. cap. 3. Where he also faith out of the Egyptian Writers That the Egyptians choosed-out the best men of their chiefest Cities of whom they made-up a Judicatory not inferiour either to the Councel of Athens or the Senat of Lacedemon judging all impartially without respect of persons Aristotle observeth That it is a sign of a well governed Common-wealth where neither tyranny nor sedition is Pol. 2.
cap. 9. But we read not but very seldom that in old either of these was in Egypt See Beros an t lib. Maneth de Reg. Egypt lib. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1 2 c. Moreover Aristotle prescribeth it as a rule for preventing sedition and keeping the Common-wealth in its integrity to govern according to Law and to abstain from tyranny Pol. 5. cap. 8. 10. The like do all Politicians together with the consent of Machjavel and Salmasius But it is known that the Kingdom of Egypt as in old there was seldom sedition in it so likewise it endured a long time inviolable Which makes us conclude that the Egyptian Kings kept themselves within bounds refrained from tyranny and walked according to the Law But they could not ordinarily and for a long time have done so unless they had been subordinate and subjected to their Counseilours and Parliament The proverb is Who get Liberty do take Liberty And for the most part it alwayes holdeth good We must not imagine that the Kings of Egypt in the days of the Heroes were singular in this matter The Athenians under Theseus had a Kingly government rather like a Commonwealth then Monarchy Therefore faith Heraclid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Pol. Ath. i. e. Theseus having gathered the Athenians together reconciled them making them all of an equall and like authority And Plutarch faith the like But faith he he keeped back the popular government of Athens from confusion differencing between persons and persons De Thes And so Theseus being subject to Law was at last banished by the People Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Diod. ant lib. 5. cap. 5. Plut. in Thes So insinuateth Heraclid in the place above-cited Verily Theseus was both their King and in valour and Heroicisme a second to Hercules the Grecian Yea Agamemnon whom Paterculus and others do call Rex regum was subject to Law albeit Salmasius def reg cap. 5. alledgeth the contrary 1. Because it is reported that he was thrust from his charge because he would not suffer his eldest daughter to be sacrisiced to satissie the fury of Diana for the Roe which he killed feeding about her grove Dict. Cret lib. 1. 2 Because he was put from his Office by common consent of the Officers of the Army and Palamedes put in his room Dict. Cret lib. 1. and Dar. Phr. de exci Tro. 3 In a Convocation of the general Persons of the Army Agamemnon was greatly upbraided Homer Iliad 9. 4 Because Aristotle likeneth the Laconick Government to Agamemnon's power And for this he citeth that of Homer by us already alledged And the Laconick Government he callech it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most according to Law Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. I confess with Salmasius that Agamemnon had the potestas belli But what then ergo he had a power in battel whether to destroy the Army or not either to deliver it up to the Enemy or not It no waies followeth I confesse he had an absolute Power in battel to govern according to Law but not both according to it and against it Questionless the Army never gave him such a power as that over them whereby in the time of command he might have disposed upon them as he pleased They still kept a power in their own hands of deposing him and acting against him according to his deserts They deposed him and acted against him upon meer prejudices and groundless apprehensions Ergo far more would they have acted against him if in the time of battel he should have gone about to have sold them unto the Enemy 'T is ridiculous to say that the General of an Army hath power to sell the whole Army to the Enemy and the Army may not resist him in so doing in the time of battel though the Army may withstand him at any other time Sure I am they have more reason to withstand him at that time then at any other for as then they are most in hazard so then they have most reason to stand by their own security and self-preservation It is reported of Achilles That he disdained to be commanded by Palameoes And yet Palamedes was invested with that same power which Agamemnon had Moreover Minos was not only King but also the Law-giver of Crete Heracl de Pol. Cret Nic. Damasc de mor. gent. Cret Val. max. lib. 1. cap. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 5. lib. 5. cap. 5. alib Plut. de Thes But as afterward is also shewed the Cretian Monarchy was not absolute but regulated And though you Tay that it was so in after-times but not in the dayes of Minos yet do we gain the point for it cannot be denied but the Cretians did use these same Lawes in after-times which Minos first established amongst them So faith Aristotle Pol. 2. cap. 8. The like also faith Plato in the alledged Dialogue between Minos and Socrates Socrates moving the question Whether or not did the Cretians use the ancient Lawes of Minos and Rhadamanthus Minos answered they did Lib. 7. Min. vel de Leg. And Plato extolleth Minos above the very Heavens And for this he citeth Homer and Hesiodus He is holden by Homer to have been such a strict justiciar that he faineth him to be the Judge of the departed souls To which Lucian alludeth Dial. Min. Sost Withall he alledgeth him to have gotten his Laws from Jupiter And Hesiod in even-down terms calleth him the best of all mortal Kings Yea Plato faith That what he commanded the People to do he did it himself also And which is more he alledgeth That the Lacedamonians had their Laws from the Cretians Therefore we may conclude that in Minos time the Cretian Monarchy was regulated for what he commanded the People to do that same he did himself likewise And it was like to the Lacedamonian Monarchy which was not absolute but precisely regulated according to Law What Can I think that such a strict Justiciar and eminent Law-giver as Minos would have assumed any arbitrary and loose power to himself and denied it to others executing on them the full rigour of the Law That verily is against this practice of which Plato 〈◊〉 who faith That he commanded not to do one thin ◠and 〈◊〉 another himself The man is reckoned up amongst the chiefest Law-givers and as Hesiod Homer and Pluto would have it he is the chiefest of them all But afterward it shall be shewed that all such were against a vast and arbitrary power And to close up this whole matter in a word Aristotle faith That in old Kingly Government was amongst the Cretians but afterward the Cretian Cosmi like to the Lucedaemonian Ephori did take it away Pol. 2. cap. 8. This insinuateth that in old amongst the Cretians these Cosmi were whose power was all one with the Lacedaemonian Ephori who indeed had power over their Kings And we read not of any beside Minos who did institute these Cosmi
relative to the Carthaginian annuall Kings Yet I must needs say that as it is taken strictly and by way of limitation with very good reason it may be referred to the Roman consuls for they had that same power which the Carthaginian Kings had and both of them were yearly Magistrates Having thus discussed the grammary of the word you may observe that in it's first acceptation it is not onely relative to those who in old were above Kings but also to those who were inseriour to them And in the second acceptation it is relative to such who amongst the Carthaginians were both re and nomine Kings and amongst the Romans to such who were Kings not nomine but re But if we take sufetes precisely for sophetim unlesse you take sophetim in a larger sense then it is taken in the book of the Judges you must needs say that it is onely relative to such who were Kings neither re nor nomine for afterward I shall make it appear that the Judges of Israel were so far from being of a Kingly power that contrariwise they were but of equall authority with any of the Sanhedrin At least it is easy to prove that they were not of a Kingly power or of such power as had the Roman consuls and the Carthaginian sufetes albeit we should say that they were the first of the Sanhedrin having greater power then any of the rest for the Athenian annuall Princes had more power then any member of the Athenian councel and yet they were not properly Kings We may say the like also concerning the decennal Princes and those Princes who amongst the Athenians did govern for their life-time I deny not but these may be yea and were called Kings who were not so indeed as the Judges of Israel Judg. 18 And we deny not as Salmasius will have it Def. reg cap. 8. but many both of old and new also were and are not called Kings who were and are of greater honour authority then they What then This will never conclude that the Carthaginian sufetes were not of a Kingly power Though the word sufetes may be taken for sophetim yet shall we never conclude therefrom that the Carthaginian sufetes had no more Power then the Judges of Israel At the most it concludeth that they had not a kingly power in a full and intense measure And therefore the word in its most native signification is all one with Consules who had a kingly power though not in the highest degree And for my-self I can find no essential difference between the Carthaginian Sufetes and the Lacedemonian Kings Whereupon I am made to conclude That as the one so the other also were of a kingly power This man looketh upon the off-cutting of Kings as a thing of another world even as if such a thing had never been practised before since the world began He telleth us of Agis how that amongst all the Lacedemonian Kings none was cut-off but he But in the interim he shall observe that though in the examples which we shall alledge to this purpose there be some of them which speak nothing of the off-cutting of Kings Yet all of them do speak of the punishment of Kings either one way or other And know likewise that in old Kingdoms in punishing of capital faults used diverse wayes of punishment Amongst the Indians the delinquent though guilty of the greatest crime got no more for his punishment but to be shaved at the King's command This was thought amongst them a capital punishment Nicol. Damasc de Mor. gent. Ind. Some Nations who dwelt about Cancasus on capital transgressours did execute banishment as a capital punishment They executed it instead of death It is reported That the Trallians thought it punishment enough to inflict upon a murderer if he did give a bushel or measure of Pulse to the friends of the defunct The Druids and Cercets for the greatest faults did no more but interdicted the delinquent from being accessory to the sacrifice The like punishment was also executed upon sacrilegious persons in Elephantine Ethiopia Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 5. Where if the Reader shall be pleased a little to trouble his eyes he shall see how that some Nations in old according to the Laws of the kingdom in their punishments were most severe though against the smallest faults and some were not so but were most remisse in their punishment though against the greatest crimes Therefore Salmasius shall not think that those who did not punish their Kings with death were any more favourable to them then those who did bring them to the scaffold and cut-off their heads for he may see that amongst some Nations even a small punishment was thought capital We shall therfore think that the Egyptians of old in with-holding stately and glorious burials from their delinquent Kings did esteem that as great if not a greater punishment then if they should have brought them forth and caused cut-off their head Diod. rcr an t lib. 2. cap. 3. In Meros they withdrew themselves from the society of their delinquent Kings till through want of company they consumed away in languish This they esteemed a greater punishment and indeed so it was then if they should have brought him to the scaffold Alex. ab Alex. lib. 3. cap. 5. And how the Egyptians plagued Amasis their King is storied already Prop. 1. Ans The Senate amongst the Cumâ—ans which they called Phylactus holding their Kings by the hand still detained them till they either rewarded them or punished them according to their deserts Alex. ab Alex. ib. The heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Diod. Sic. rev an t lib. 5. cap. 5. Plut. in Thes Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his subjects Arist Po. lit lib. 5. cap. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just lib. 1. Diod. Sic. ant lib. 3. cap. 7. And as Herodotus lib. 1. storieth after Sardinapalus was put out of the way both the Assyrians and Medes for a long time were governed without Kings by Popular government The Athenians did cut-off Cylon together with his complices who intruded himself upon the Kingdom or at least endeavoured to do so So did they cut-off Hipparchus son to Pisistratus and also endeavoured the off-cutting of Thessalus another of his sons who succeeded to him in the Kingdom They did also cut-off Cleon together with 1500 with him who had destroyed the Commonwealth Herac. de Pol. Ath. They caused Miltiades to die in ptison although he was King of Chersonesus Hered lib. 6. Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Miltiad Plut. in vit Cim And you will find Aristotle tell you in the general concerning Pisistratus and his posterity who were Kings in Athens how they were punished and shut from their Kingdom Pol. 5. cap. 10. Leonidas King of Lacedemonia was banished So was Cleombrotus And Agis was imprisoned and cut-off in
I have read much of the non-absolutenesse of the Athenian Cretian Lacedemonian kings c. But I may justly say that no kingdom in the world as I can learn from history hath exercised Law more or so much on their kings as the Scots have done There is indeed a strange change in Court amongst the Scots if we compare the latter times with the former For my self I observe GOD's speciall providence in it who wil have the practices of the ancient Scots much to condemn and plead against the endeavours and practices of the latter Scots to day Yea the ancient Scots even in this do go beyond the Lacedemonians viz. the Lacedemonian king was hereditary But till Kenneth 3. the Scotish king was elective though for favour of the Fergusian race those who came of Fergus were created kings See Lex Rex ibid. It remaineth now that we make good the conclusion it-self from the examples of kings in the second notion i. e. of those kings whose power was one way or other limited though for the most part absolute In this we will observe Aristotle's method He brancheth-forth Monarchy into four species The first he calleth Laconick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10 which cap. 11. he reckoneth-up as the fourth branch of Royall Government Of this we have spoken already at very great length The second kind he calleth herill and despotick Such kind of Monarchy saith he was in Asia And albeit he saith that under such kind of Royall power the people lived as slaves and servants yet withall he telleth us that the government was carried-on and administred according to the Laws of the kingdom We stand here a-litle to illustrate this by example v. g. The Median King had an absolute power over the Medes Any thing the Kings of the Medes decreed and enacted was unalterable Because of the vastness of their power the wicked Presidents obtained a Decree from Darius That none should make prayer to any save to the King for fourty dayes Dan. 6. And yet notwithstanding Darius had not power to recall his Decree after it was made albeit he laboured till the going-down of the Sun to revoke it Ibid. The King of Persia was an absolute Prince Esth 1. Dan. 6. Herod lib. 3. And yet notwithstanding Abasuerus not only in divorcing Vasthi did call a Councel of wise-men experienced in the Laws but also he submitted himself to their determination Esth 1. And albeit he desired through the abundance of love he did bear to Vasthi to be recnociled to her yet could he not recall the Divorcement because the Law made against it Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 11. cap. 6. I deny not but the Persian Kings had an arbitrary power in making Laws Yet being made they had not power at their own pleasure to recall them Their Laws were irrevocable Esth 1. Dan. 6. And consequently though their power was absolute in making Laws yet was it limited in abrogating them They had power to make them though not to break them 'T is observable that Cambyses a most wicked and tyrannous King desiring in marriage his german-sister called a Councel to consult thereabout Albeit he had an arbitrary power to do what he listed yet went he not about that matter brevi manu but sought and followed the advice of his Counsellours therein And at this day there be many Kingdoms wherein Monarchy and Regal Government is of this same stamp and tenour as namely amongst the Turks The third is elective and aesymnetick This kind of Monarchy also Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he illustrateth by the example of the Mityleneans who elected Pittacus to reign over them Truly for my-self I do imagine that they did give Pittacus an uncircumscribed power because of his personall endowments to govern as he pleased Therefore they did not restrict him to govern according to the Law of the Kingdom but voluntarily submitted themselves to Laws of his making They did not tie him by Law to them and in this his power was illimited and without bounds Yet in so far as they conferred absolute power upon him but as because of his personall endowments he would undoubtedly govern according to Law in so far his power was limited and circumscribed See Gyraldus de vit Pittac And Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac The like power did the Athenians also offer to Solon as is above-said The fourth he referreth to Monarchy as it was in the dayes of the Heroes This kind of Monarchy he calleth also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 3. cap. 10. and cap. 11. he calleth it a Regall power restricted in some things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what these things be he hinteth at cap. 10. saying that they had not power over the sacrifices which concerned the Priesthood and that some of them were either tied by oath to the people or by lifting-up the scepter to govern according to Law Thus it is manifest that all the four kindes of Monarchy Aristotle speaketh-of which were set up in old one way or other are limited and subjected to Law But concerning the fourth kind which was in the dayes of the Heroes we must stand a-litle here Hence the question ariseth whether or not doth Aristotle refer this fourth species of Monarchy to the Heroes without exception We shall not stand much upon what may be Aristotle's mind in this matter It appeareth to us that he is in this indefinit I confesse his words with a distinction may bear a good sense Yet I must needs say that neither in this nor in the third species the man is clear for I take him to be summing-up all the ordinary species of Royall power But either he erreth or else he confoundeth in the third and fourth species both ordinary and extraordinary kindes of Royall power together taking them both under the same power and notion And in this he erreth also But that we may clear our purpose the Reader shall mark this way of differencing the species of Monarchy one from another Generally it is divided into ordinary and extraordinary Monarchy In an ordinary acceptation it is parnbasilick and non-pambasilick In this sense Aristotle is to be understood as we covceive And so the pambasilick Monarchy i.e. which hath a power over all things relateth to the fifth species of Royall power which Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 11. superaddeth to the four foresaid species thereof And the non-pambasilick i.e. which hath not a power over all things is relative to these foure species above-written Each of them according as both Aristotle and example teach is either one way or other limited and kept within bounds And afterward we shall also shew it from reason itself But observe by the way that the third species of Monarchy in this sense cannot be illustrated by the example of Pittacus What power was laid upon Pittacus as is shewed already was done in an extraordinary way Now Aristotle in this species cannot
as it were the last center and extreame part of EUROPE Berosus giveth him a surname calling him GALLUS Now the Frenches are called Galli And Gallus commeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 milk But the Frenches are called white or fair in respect of other nations which lie nearer the Sun But Britain was called Albion which signifieth whitenesse And thus very appositely it partaketh of the signification of Gomer's surname And why shall we not think whether France or Britain one way or other have their denomination from the names of their first founders as well as other nations and kingdomes have their names from the founders who firstly erected them V.G. Israelites from Israel Assyria from Ashur Media from Medus c. Camden largely disputeth for the plantation of Britain by Gomer But the man is somewhat intricate and confused in it alleadging that the originall of the Britains is as it were derived from the Frenches I will not deny but Gomer hath sent Colonies firstly to France it lying next to Italy where Gomer himself took up his residence Yet I may say that he did send Colonies nextly into Britain which is adjacent to France Verily he might have simul and semel translated Colonies into both for as France is next adjacent to Italy so Britain is next adjacent to France I cannot imagine that Britain lying so near Italy that ever Gomer would have lest it unplanted till by the multiplication of Colonies in France people out of France had been translated into Britain to plant it Howsoever I stand not on this but sure I am both Frenches and Britains have their original from Comerus Gallus as Camden very notably and at length proveth Brit. Chorog deser Albeit Caesar de bel Gal Diodore rer an t lib. 6. imagine that the Britains be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aboriginists Thirdly because Theophilus Antiochenus saith Cum in priscis temporibus homines post linguarum divisionem aucti multiplicati paulatim sunt nec prius desierant terram ubique occupare quam etiam ad Britannias in arctois climatibus accesserint i.e. When in ancient times men after the division of tongues encreased and multiplied by little and little neither did they leave-off to possess and take-up the earth every-where until they did also come into Britain situated under the Pole Artick In this notion I take Britain to have been under Gomer as its King and Saturn And so I conceive he had an arbitrary power over them Concl. 2. But what Government they had amongst them after Gomer's death cannot be determined Yet in all probability they had no Kingly Government amongst them till Brutus dayes And in respect of this time Dio Nic. ex Xiphtl epit de Brit. saith very pertinently Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet And Camden noteth That as the Frenches so the Britains in old were not governed by one but by many So say Caesar bel Gal. lib. 1 5. and Pomponius Mela de sit Orb. lib. 3. cap. 2 6. But I take all these to speak of the Government amongst the Frenches and Britains as it was immediatly before the conquest of Julius Caesar or at least as it was from the first beginning of these Kingdoms until his dayes Howsoever you will do well to observe with me that in old France was divided into three parts according as Caesar and Mela do story But Berosus divideth it into two parts the one he calleth Gallia and the other Celtae But for reconciling these divisions you shall know that Berosus speaketh of a more large division then they do He contradistinguisheth these three Kingdoms one from another viz. Italy Celtae and Gallia The inhabitants of Italy he calleth Comari from their King Comerus The inhabitants of Celtae he calleth Disceltes or Celtes whose first King saith he was Samotes The inhabitants of Gallia he calleth Galli for faith he Comer's nephews did so call them from his surname Gallus This insinuateth that Comer's nephews sent-out with Colonies from him did firstly plant and inhabit Gallia Which maketh us conclude that Gallia includeth both France and Britain No question the inhabitants of both in old have been called Galli from Gallus the surname of Comerus seing both of them were alike planted by him and his posterity We need not think it strange to say that both of them do pass under the same epithet and notion for the Frenches are called Cimbri as Valerius maximus Cicero and Appianus say and Gomeri as Josephus and Zonaras teach So the Britains are called Kimbri changing C into K. and Cumeri changing Go into Cu. They are so both called from Gomer or Comer the name of Gallus And consequently seing they both have one common epithet from his forename why may they not also passe under one notion and be called Galli from Gallus his surname I wil not much contend whether the Frenches or Britains had Kings after the dayes of Comerus and his nephews or not And if they had any sure I am they were governed by moe then one No question the Land in both was divided into divers Satrapees So we find the Kingdom of Italy in old to have been so divided Yet we do not think but amongst those Satrapees there hath been one greater then any of the rest As no question in Italy the Comars were more powerful then any of the rest of the Colonies and inhabitants of the Kingdom as you may learn from Beros an t lib. 5. So amongst the Frenches the chiefest Kingdom was the Satrapee of the Celtes Thence it is that Berosus ant lib. 5. doth reckon-up in a catalogue the Kings of the Celtes as he doth the Assyrian Kings and Manetho beginning where Berosus lest summeth-up one by one the Kings of the Celtes as he doth reckon-up the Egyptian Kings Thus there is no repugnancie between the divisions of Berosus and of Caesar and Mela for he speaketh of a general and large division and they keep themselves within more restricted and narrow bounds They only speak of the division of France separating it into three parts Belgia Aquitani◠and Celtae And if we beleeve them in old ever unto the dayes of C. Caesary these were three distinct Satrapees governed by different Magistrates and distinct Laws The chief people in Aquitania were called Ausci in Belgia Treveri and in Celtae Hedui Mel. de sit Orb. cap. 2. And the chief Magistracy amongst the Hedui was called Vergobretus With which in Caesar's dayes Divitiacus and Ltscus were invested Which was a yearly Magistracy having power both of life and death as Caesar faith de bel Gal. lib. 1. What the Vergobret did amongst the Hedui was done convocatis corum principibus Those who were clothed with it as they were annual and but for a time so they did nothing absolutely and by themselves but according to the counsel and advice of the Princes This is far from the arbitrary power that Salmasius speaketh-of Yet we will
not say that the power of the Celtick Kings was alwayes so hemmed-in by Law I do not think but their primary founders not only amongst the Celtes but also amongst the Aquitans and Belgists had a vast and arbitrary power Yea and their after Kings so long as the flower of Heroicism lasted had such power as Aristotle speaketh-of and which by us is already expressed in the fourth species or in the former part of the fourth species of Monarchy Polit. 3. cap. 10 11. And so the flower of Heroicism fading and Kingly Government wearing out of request no question there hath been no more power left to their Kings then what Caesar speaketh-of in the place above-cited Which cometh just to that which Aristotle faith concerning the detracting from and dimitting of the power of Kings in after-times Polit. 3. cap. 10. Although we may very justly say That the Kingdom of France was divided into distinct Satrapees ever until the dayes of C. Caesar yet we dare not adventure positively to say so much of Britain if we take it by restriction for the Kingdom of England And that this may be cleared We 2. Must diligently observe the cause and reason why England and Scotland are called Britain Thus we come to consider England in a second notion as it was in the dayes of Brutus untill in and about the days of C. Caesar By the way I must needs confesse that this is a hard businesse on which I now enter more difficult to be found-out then any thing we have spoken to this purpose The originall of France and Britain is very easily learned from Beros an t lib. 5. M. Porc. Cat. Orig. lib. Solinus and others But how Britain was secondly inhabited is much controverted amongst the Writers Some imagine that it was secondly planted by Brutus son to Ascanius Of this opinion is Galfredus But this cannot be for we read of no such man whether in Maneth de Reg. Aegypt Sempr. de div Ital. Solin cap. 1. Marl. lib 1. cap. 2. or in any other Writer beside who speak of Aeneas and his posterity Others again imagin this Brutus to have been a Roman Consul Of this opinion is Gildas But for this he can produce no Author But others think that he was either Brito Centaurus of whom Hyginus speaketh or els Bretan whose daughter as Parthenius Nicoeus saith was Celtice on whom Hercules begot Celtus the father of the Celtes From him Hesychius draweth the denomination of Britain For my self I subscribe to this albeit I suppose this Brito Centaurus to be all one with Bretan Howsoever if we may give credit to these Writers Britain was secondly inhabited by one named Brutus or Bretan or Brito according to the Greek And why may we not I pray you as it were a posteriori conclude Britain to have been secondly planted and governed by one called Brutus or Brito Kingdoms ordinarily use to derive their denominations from such To this very pertinently agreeth that of Sibylla a most ancient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Î’Ïυτεσσι signifieth Britoins And I think the derivation of it very pertinent to deduce it from Brutus as Media from Medus and Gallia from Gallus And it is observable that she addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The point being thus established I make no reckoning whether this Brutus be called a Trojan or a Grecian And if he was a Trojan then I may justly say if it be true which Ammian lib 15 saith That whileas the Trojans came into France they did also come into Britain And that such came into France is confirmed by Manetho who saith that Francus about the 9 year of the Egyptian dynastie was created and ordained the Celtick King Him he calleth one of Hector's sons De Reg. Egypt Now this could not have been unlesse as Ammianus reporteth many fugitive Trojans had come along into France And so in all probability as the dispersed Trojans took-up their residence and erected a Kingdom in France they have done the like also in Britain the one lying contiguous with the other But for further clearing the point we must not lightly over-leap that whieh Parthenius saith The man imagineth that Celtus son to Hercules begotten on Celtice daughter to Bretan was the begetter and founder of the Celtes Here is need of a distinction Surely Samotes as is said already firstly erected the Kingdom of the Celtes And Hercules the Egyptian as Berossus saith coming thorow the Celtes into Italy begot on Galtea whom Nicoeus callcth Celtice with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis or as Nicoeus saith Celtus who was created King over the Celtes And from him they were called Galli Which as is imagined the Latines use for Galatoe Howsoever herefrom it appeareth that the Celtes had not their beeing but their name from Hercules son And so reconcling Parthenius with Berosus we may call Hercules son Galatis-Celtes Whence from his name they were called Galatoe or as the Romans say Galli and from his surname Celtoe Indeed Bâ—rasus doth not expresse the name of Galtea or Celtice her father unlesse we take Celte who did reign over the Celtes at that time when Hersules came along them Which maketh us opinionat that Galtea or Celtice was daughter to Celte for as Berosus saith with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis was born of her King to the Celtes And who I pray you had power to put such a disposition and right upon Galatis but the King and Queen of the Celtes I warrant you such a thing standing upon consent and renunciation without being obtained by strength of Arms the consent and permission given to Hercules son to reigne over the Celtes was not sought from any inseriour but from him whose interest it was to reign as King I trow it stood not upon the consent and permission of any subject that Hercules son should be born King to the Celtes And consequently Celte at this time being King over the Celtes was Galtea's father by whom it was given that Galatus Hercules son should be born his successor and King after him Therfore following Berosus I conclude that the Celtes were so called from Celte giand-father to Galatis and Galli or Galatoe from Galatis nephew to Celte and son to Hercules Yet Nicoeus positively and expressely calleth Celtice or Galtea her father Bretan From whom Hesichtus as is said already deduceth the originall of the Britains And this being true it followeth that Britain's Brutus is more ancient then they ordinarily talk-of Althought I do fully imagine that Britain hath it's denomination from this Bretan yet I will never think but Britain was inhabited ere ever this Bretan was The Celtes are so called from Celte and Galli or Galatoe from Galatis And yet they were a people long before their dayes Verily I think it most likely that Britain hath it's denomination from Bretan and was secondly en peopled by him for resigning the Kingdom of the Celtes to Hercules son his nephew it is
or their Representative But knowing that there are many Court-parasites I regard not though you reckon-up Ecphantas amongst them Yea it is already shewed by us That the Roman Kings were regulated And albeit we should grant that Romulus was an absolute Prince yet would Salmasius gain just nothing for by his conduct and industry he made the Romans a People And we have said already that such kings from whose conduct the people's welfare doth intimatly depend have been absolute But the case of such is extraordinary And as for that which Pomponius saith it needeth a distinction It cannot be denied but Romulus had a pambasilick power before the Senat was erected by him But after it was established we deny that he had any such power as is shewed already This distinction you almost find in terminis Digest lib. 1. tit 2. l 2. where Pomponius words are cited This way also Tacitus is to be understood We consesse the Roman Emperours have immunity from Law and that according to the very Law of the kingdom Princeps legibus solutus est Dig. lib. 1. tit 3. l. 31. And upon this ground say Severus and Antoninus Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. And it cannot be denied but Dio approveth that same Law So do all king-flatterers Yet Dion lib 51. saith That this Law was enacted firstly in favour of Octavius And no wonder for he subdued and overcame all that stood by the liberties and priviledges of the people But the Conquerour may rule at random as is often said already So Darius and Cyrus having subdued the Assyrians obtained the like priviledge not only to themselves but also to their successours In such a case we deny not but kings have had an absolute and arbitrary power But though Augustus obtained this priviledge yet sure I am the Dictatours had it not as is shewed already I confesse Diotogenes doth compare the King with GOD in some respects i.e. As GOD is first by Nature and in Himself and hath power over all the creatures so the King by way of imitation and resemblance is first and hath power on earch But I read not a word in him of his comparing the King with GOD in the matter of absoluteness And sure I am he could not make a comparison in order to GOD under the notion of arbitrary power for GOD's essence knoweth not what it is to act against Law and to tyrannize Yet I do verily think that the man is of Salmasius judgment for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The King hath an unsubjected power And we do not deny but Justinian Novel constit 105 saith That the King is above Law He calleth himself also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nov. constit 1. tit 1. Yet sure I am Plutarch doth not say so though Salmasius doth father it falsly upon his name And truly for my self I think it a great wonder that Plutarch being a great Courtier with Trajan the Emperour did not swear what Justinian spoke 'T is the least things Kings can do to say They are absolute and Courtiers to seal it with an Oath A flattering Tacitus can say Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dâ—i dederunt And Virgil before him deluding Augustus with flattery blusheth not to say Divisum imperium cum Jove Caesar habet But this may be admired That Plutarch a most eminent Courtier in plain terms saith Lex omnium regina Com. in Princ. But more of this afterward And though Emperour Justinian claimed an arbitrary power yet neither Theopompus nor Lycurgus do so But you shall hear more of this afterward Well I think it just nothing for Salmasius to tell me that Kings and Courtiers do plead for an arbitrary power to the King They both hold that as their interest and what the one saith the other sweareth But he must think it very material and take it to his second thoughts that both Kings and Courtiers do decline and abominate arbitrary and illimited power Friend there is not self-interest here But the other way you cannot say so much And what is it that interest will not make a man do who regardeth nothing but self-ends As the one way partiality so the other way impartiality taketh room And as for Salust truly Salmasius wrongeth him very much It is not his opinion Impune quae libet facere id est Regem esse But Memmius thereby end eavoureth to disswade the Romans to keep themselves by all means possible from the yoke of King Jugurtha here by insinuating the dangerousnesse and inconveniency of Monarchy just so as Ottanes did to the Persians But neither of them did allow this but taxed it as an unjust and huâ—tful power in Kings I must needs say Salmasius quoteth Memmius and Ottanes their words as the Devil quoted in tempting Christ Mattâ— 4 David's words Psa 91. v. 11. That which directly made against the Devil's temptation he held-out and only expressed that which he thought made for his purpose So doth Salmasius straight-forth in quoting the words of Ottanes and Memmius The thing that maketh against him he suppresseth and that which in shew maketh for him he expresseth SUBSECT 2. The rest of the Arguments for enforcing the second Assertion propounded and followed-forth HAving at length discussed all that Salmasius doth or can reply against our second Argument we make ready now to propound the rest of our Arguments whereby the King 's arbitrary power is dismissed And what further may be objected against our second Argument as indeed Royallists do we shall take it off by the way in prosecuting the rest of our Arguments And so by the way we shall meet with these Royallists who with Salmasius do directly militat against our second Argument Now Thirdly we make good our purpose from the power that the Kings of Israel and Judah had And for clearing this you shall be pleased to take notice of these Conclusions Conclus 1. The wicked Kings of the Jews bad an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. For proof of this see 1 Sam. 13.14.15.22.23 c. 2 Sam. 21.1 King 12.14.15.16.20.22.2 King 3.8.10.13.14.15.16.17.21.24.2 Chr. 10.11.12.18.21.22.24.25.26.27.28.33.36 Conclus 2. The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick There is reason for this for such did reign against Law And why did they not also rule against Law And what can tyrannous Kings do but reduce the people to slavery Now it is known that the Kings of Israel for the most part were of this temper Many of them were cruel tyrants and vile usurpers Therefore is it said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non aicit teâ—imonium xec in ipswn dicitur In cod Sanb 11. This Maimonides expoundeth concerning the kings of Israel in Gemar tract de synedr cap. 11 And this I take to be very true concerning the usurping and tyrannous kings of Israel They did not judge because
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
like Frogs draw forth the Kings of the Earth with their Armies to a day of engagement against the Kings of the East The Paganish Mahumetan and Antichristian spirits Frog-like indeed shall engage all the Heathenish and Mahumetan powers against the four Angels which are bound in the great River Euphrates prepared for a day a month and a year for to slay the third part of men the number of the Army of the Horse-men being two hundred thousand thousand Rev. 9.14 15 16. And thus at this day of engagement Babylon the powers of the Nations with all their Potentates and glory shal be overthrown for in that time when the Lord shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem gathering all Nations bringing them into the valley of Jehoshaphat to plead with them there causing his Mighty-Ones the Kings of the East the hundred thousand thousand to come down upon them putting in his sicle the harvest being now ripe Joel 3.1 2 12 13. The Winepresse shall be troden without the City till blood come out even to the Horse-bridles by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs Rev. 14.20 Thus Gog and Magog the Beast the false-Prophet the Kings of the Earth and their Armies shall be destroyed in engaging against him who sitteth on the white horse attended with the Armies in Heaven Ezek. 39 8 9. c. Rev. 19.11 12 c. 4 the time of this up-drying and engagement Which is secret and unknown It is a time and season which the Father hath put in his own power Aâ—ts 1.7 'T is not for us to know the time when the Kingdom shall be restored again to Israel It cometh as a thier in the night Rev. 16.15 and therefore both secretly and suddenly Let us therefore watch and keep our garments lest we walk naked and they see our shame The seventh party plagued is the Air Rev. 16.17 Which in Scripture is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.26 2 as it signifieth that which is done in vain and to no purpose 1 Cor. 9.26 chap. 14.9 3 for the power of Satan Eph. 2.2 whose power is airy indeed because of its subtilty and vanity And thus as the Lord poureth-out the vials of his wrath upon the power of the Beast so doth he likewise upon the power of the Dragon for as in the day of vengeance in the reign of the Ancient of dayes while-as Christ reigneth in power the seat and power of the Beast is overthrown by the up-coming of the Kings of the East so in the time of Christ's Personal presence and reign Satan is chained and bound a thousand years that he may deceive the Nations no more till the thousand years be finished Rev. 20.2 3. And this is while-as a great voice cometh out of Heaven from the Throne saying it is done Rev. 16.17 the Mysterie of God being finished and time being no longer in the dayes of the voice of the seventh Angel Rev. 10.6 7. at whose founding there be great voices in Heaven saying The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and be shall reign for ever and ever Rev. 11.15 In the third and last part of the Chapter of which I shall speak but a little the holy Ghost recapitulateth and summeth-up in few words all that he hath spoken at length in the second part of the Chapter in order to the fall and ruin of Babylon from vers 18. to the close In vers 18. is spoken as to the shaking of Babylon by wars and rumors of wars Nation rising against Nation and Kingdom against Kingdom there being tumults and earth-quakes in divers places In vers 19. is spoken of the dividing of Babylon after its shaking into three parts Of the fall of the Nations and of Babylon's utter overthrow and desolation as it is designed in laying the Nations desolate In vers 20. is foretold the overthrow of the Forces Power and Glory of the Nations in bringing into contempt all the Honourable of the Earth In vers 21. is spoken as to the grievousnes of the plagues by which Babylon shal be shaken divided and overturned the Nations their Forces and their mighty Ones shall be destroyed together with men's blaspheming God his Truth and his People thereupon the more plagued being the more hardened as at this time in some measure doth appear FINIS
Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotlana had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclefiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the scresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain-power to desend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Ford of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King With the eonsent or at the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go conser them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denâ—e not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaties to ordinaties The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear oâ—r purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be five sic five non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the