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
more then apparent that being a King all his life-life-time before for his own honour and advantage he hath gathered a number of people together out of his own Kingdom and translated them into Britain and there erected a Kingdom This was more honorable and advantageable to him then to live a privat life in subjection to his nephew What can it be imagined but desire of wealth and honour both to himself and his posterity would have drawen him on to such an under-taking No question he being a powerfull King and father-in-law to the great Monarch Hercules on whose son he had conferred a singular courtesie in renouncing the kingdom to him did want nothing that conduced not only for undertaking but also for effectuating such a purpose Wanting his own kingdom Britam a glorious kingdom lying next to France either at that time scarcely enpeopled or at least filled with men of rude breeding it cannot come in my mind to think otherwise but this Bretan became Brutus to Britain And this I take to be him about whom they controvert so much Which agreeth with that which is storied saying That the Britans were a people of lesser Britany which is in the Celtick region who in old did inhabit the Isle of Britain Whether you shall imagine this Bretan and Brito to be all one or that the Trojans came into Britain whileas they came along into France I remit it to the Reader to judge as a thing arbitrary and indisterent And herein I do not contemn the authority of Waldhave who calleth Britain Brute's Lands Thus concerning the original of Britain firstly and lastly I have offered my judgment freely which being arightly considered doth much serve to reconcile all different opinions in this matter Well whether you say that Bretan came into this Isle with Bretanes or Brutus with Trojans I shall not stand to controvert if he be Brito of whom Hyginus speaketh whileas Francus son to Hector came along into France and did reign there what power they had is already shewed but namely concl 2. It being sufficiently proved that Britain was secondly enpeopled by Bretan and very probably concluded to have been enpeopled the third time by fugitive and dispersed Trojans under the conduct of Brito of whom as we may probably say though the contrary may be also holden Hyginus speaketh It now remaineth to consider what power those Kings had who succeeded Bretan and Brito The tract of time which interveened between these two Kings may be easily learned for it is gatherable from Berosus that Bretan erected his kingdom under the reign of Baleus R. Assyr XI in or about the fourteenth or sixteenth year of his reign ann mund 2225 or 2227 and Brito did set-up his kingdom in Britain as may be gathered from Manetho in or about the first or second year of Teutheus reign King of Assyria XXIX in and about the year of the world 2791 or 2792. Concerning the power of these tow Kings we have spoken And we come nextly to speak of the power of those Kings who succeeded them untill the dayes of C. Ciesar Out of no ancient Writer we can learn in particular what those Kings were But in the general we learn these two things 1. That in old Britain was governed by Kings 2. That afterward though before Casars time it was divided into Satrapees and governed by many Princes We take it upon us to illustrate and prove both these The first is evident from Tacitus who saith Olim Regilus parebant To which he inunediatly subjoineth Nane per principes Jactionibus studiis trahuntio Thus he distinguisheth between the condition of Britain as it was in old and as it was in and about his time In old saith he it was governed by Kings but now being divided into factions it is governed by Princes And therefore in another place he saith a regibus use an principes But Salmas by principes understandeth the Roman Caesars Def. Reg. cap. 8. He saith so that he may elude the Government of England by many He would have it to passe if he could get it that it was never governed but by Kings It is no wonder that he be blinded in other things seing he shuttcth his eyes at so clear a light as this It cannot be denied but Tatitus speaks of the government of England as it was in old and as it was in and about his time 1. Because it is very unlike that ever he would have called the Roman Caesars Princes 'T is an epither of lesse honour and power then Kings And so I imagine that he would rather have called the Kings of England Princes then them Sure I am the Rontan Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradisting 〈◊〉 in positive termes the Government of England as it was in old from what it was of late saying That in old Britain obeyed Kings but now saith he it is governed by many and divided into factions And Salmasius himself cannot get this denied Of which Princes Caesar speaks-himself Principeâ—â— andâ— convenire se civitatesg suas Caesari commendare coepeâ—unt De bel Gal. lib. 4. Thus the kingdom was delivered-up into Caesar's hands not by one man the King but by many the Princes And lib. 5. he saith Summd imperli bellique administrandi communi consilto permissa est Cassivelauno On which words Camden noteth That Britain then was not governed by one but by many taking that same course by common consent in choosing Cassivelaunus General and chief leader to them as the Frenches did in choosing Divitiacus to repel Caesar Brit. cborogr de print incol But what needeth us to stand here We shall make it more appear in proving the second particular The first is also confirmed by the testimony of Mcla. Eert Britannia saith he populos regesque populorum De sit Orb. lib. 3 cap 6. And what power those Kings had I mind not to say precisely that it was so restricted as the power of the Lacedomoril in Kings Neither will I say that it was so narrow as the power of the English Kings after the Conquerour Yet I may justly say That it was not boundless and arbitrary as Salmasius dreameth-of So saith Die Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte prineipatum tenet i.e. Amongst them viz. the Britams the People in a great part do govern This telleth that in old even in the time of Kings in Britain there was Popular Government Kings then in Britain were not sole Lords but the People did govern also Hence it is that Cordilla jussu papuli was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jassu Rex dicitur Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 1. Because of the People's swaying power of old in Britain Kingly Government somewhat before the dayes of C. Caesar was altogether abrogated as in part is shewed already But Salmasius shall not think that of old England was
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
amongst the Cretians He was the first Law-giver amongst them whose Laws they retained until after-ages as is said already As amongst the Egyptians and Grecians we find Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes in like manner we find it to have been regulated also in other Kingdoms The Ethiopian Kings were so much restricted to Law that it can hardly be determined whether they or the Egyptian Kings were most subjected thereto As Diodore telleth us of the subjection of the one to Law so doth he story of the subjection of the other thereto In expresse termes he faith That the Ethiopian King according to statute and ordination leadeth his life according to the Laws doing every thing according to the Country-fashion neither rewarding nor punishing any but according to the Law of his Ancestors And which is more to be wondered at the Priests have such power over the King that at their command and pleasure he suffereth death And for this they alledge it to have been an old custom amongst all their Kings from the beginning to undergo death at the desire of the Priests Rer. ant lib. 4. cap. 1. I shall not stand here to dispute whether or not Monarchy amongst the Indians in the dayes of the Heroes was regulated and subjected to Law Albeit there be some probability for the non-absoluteness thereof yet we think it good to leap it over because the matter is not clear enough And we shall begin with the Indian Kingdom to shew that in after-times in it Kings were of a non-arbitrary and regulated power It is reported that the Indians established those Laws which they received from their ancient Philosophers the Gymnosophists Who taught that all were free and none were servants This they established by Law And so the Indians like the Lacodemonians had their Ephori and overseers chosen-out from amongst the common people and beside them there were some few chosen who in nobility and prudence exceeded all the rest who were interested in governing and ordering all the great affairs both of King and Kingdom Diod. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 10. In like manner the Egyptians as in the heroick times so in after-times they most precisely subjected their Kings to Law Diod. ant lib. 2. cap. 3. For as in old both the King and the Kingdom were governed and regulated by Pretors so afterward out of their chiefest Cities Heliopolis Memphis and Thebes the best men were chosen to sit in Judgment and to over-rule all not inferiour to the Athenian Areopagites nor to the Lacedemonian Senatours Amongst the Grecians there were severall Kingdoms wherein the Regall power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law in after-times after the dayes of the Heroes Which maketh Aristotle say that in after-times the power of Kings was weakned and subjected to the People partly by the peopl's detracting from their power and partly by the King 's own voluntary dimission Polit. 3. cap. 10. We have examples of these not only amongst the Grecians but also among other nations The Athenians diminished the power of their Kings after the Codrids had become lecherous soft and effeminate At that time they changed their Kings into Princes whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heracl de Pol. Ath. But it seemeth very probable that then they rather changed the name then the power of their Kings for long before the race of Codrus was extirpated Theseus had restored liberty to the Athenians and as is said already had erected a Commonwealth amongst them Which appeareth to have lasted during both the time of the Kings and likewise of the Princes And consequently seeing there was a Common-wealth in both their times there could be no difference in their power But that we may give an exact and punctuall answer to this pre-occupation you shall take notice of the different condition of the Athenian Commonwealth and of the changes thereof First before Theseus reign we do not imagine otherwise but that the Athenians were governed not onely by a Kingly government Ber. art lib. 5. Maneth de reg Egypt lib. Heracl de Pol. Ath. but also their Kings then were of a vaste and absolute power according as the power of the Kings used to be in the dayes of the Heroes Arist Pol. 3. cap. 10. and 11. Secondly under Theseus reign the power of the Kingly government was much impaired Then the people were restored to liberty and got power in their hand as is said already Therefore Euripides faith that the Athenians under Theseus did not come under the yoke of one man but the people as free men governed like a King by course In Thes Yet we must not imagine that then there was a perfect and entire Commonwealth erected No verily for Theseus remained notwithstanding as their Prince and as one having greater authority then any Patriot and Commonwealth's-man I will not say that Theseus retained a power in his hand equall to the power of the People and their Representative That is expresly against what Euripides and others above-cited do report But this much I may say that he retained as much power in his own hand as made him superior and of greater authority then any one at-least whether of the Councel or of the People And that he was the first man in dignity and authority in the Commonwealth is clear 1. Because as both Aristotle and Plutarch report he remained notwithstanding the Prince of the Commonwealth Therefore even unto this day he is reckoned-up in the Catalogue of the Athenian Kings 2. Because he differenced between the Patricians whom we call gentle-men tillers of the ground and Crafts-men giving to them power according to their ranks and stations investing some of them with greater and some of them with lester power and consequently seing he differenced one kinde of persons from another in the Commonwealth making some of them in authority Superiour to others much more hath he retained a power in his own hand whereby he was differenced from any amongst all the rest 3. Because the Codrids and those who succeeded him were properly called Kings and therein they are contra-distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes and diametrally opposed to them But I conceive that there was greater reason why Theseus was a King then they were He was heroick and not so were they Yea Heraclid in plain terms faith that Kings were not abrogated from amongst the Athenians till the posterity of Codrus became effeminate and lecherous At which time faith he they were taken-away and Princes put in their room Observe therefore that from Theseus untill the last of the Codrids the Athenian Monarchy was regulated We establish the point thus 1. Because Theseus himself as is proved already was regulated Ergo far more Codrus and his posterity were regulated Theseus was of an heroick temper such as were not the Codrids And so by nature he was more disposed for an absolute way of governing then they He lived in an heroick time wherein Monarchy was most in request
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
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
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
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
striketh a midst betwixt all Governments Polit. 4. cap. 11. Thirdly Of the chiefest Historians and Orators Berosus imputeth it as a great fault to Nimrod because he erected Kingly Government contrary to what Janus i.e. Noah gave commandment and precept for Ant. lib. 4 I confess what Government was before that time was not purely politick Yet it drew very near the borders of Democracy for then they knew not what it was to be governed by one or by some few because of riches honour and such like No verily they admitted no precedency but purely natural and moral Purely natural because speaking rigorously they lived then as under fatherly and oeconomical Government Purely moral because those did govern who were eminent in godlinesse and vertue It is called the golden age because then men were free of deceit each one living in a brotherly conscionable way with another They knew not what Law-quircks and Politick quiddities meant then All lived as under one common father governed according to the Laws of pure Nature and Justice Subsect 2. Concl. 3. Thus then none were holden-back to govern to whom Nature and Vertue had given the precedency And this I find only to be the difference between Popular Government and what Government was then The one was natural and the other is political Persons then did govern not only because of vertue and godlinesse but also because of natural priority No wonder because then they lived under Governours as under natural fathers Government then was rather oeconomical then political But Popular Government though it giveth place to Physical and natural precedency yet not in the matter of Government It admitteth natural precedency in natural things But in policy only vertue and godlinesse have the first place Yet there is no repugnancy but per accidens in politick things both may consubsist Natural precedency in it self is not repugnantly capable of that which giveth political preferment Herodot seemeth to commend Ottanes who against Darius pleaded for the up-setting of Popular Government among the Persims He saith that Ottanes took the middle way Lib. 3. But in medio stat virtus No wonder though he enclineth to Ottanes judgment rather then to the opinion of Darius who pleaded for Monarchy The man as is said already approveth Pindarus in saying Law is King But amongst the Persians Monarchy was ever above Law Josephus calleth the Government firstly instituted amongst the Jews the best of Governments Ant. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. lib. 6. cap. 4. Howsoever he taketh-up the plat-form of that Government is not material But I may determinately say it was democratick and popular This we take to be the judgment of Salust He opposeth liberty to Regal Government a free City to Monarchy Yea he inveigheth against the Grectans as base free of vertue and painsulnesse because saith he libertâ—em per intertiam amiserint And he speaketh of Noble-men as unprositable members in quibus sicus in statua nihil est additamenti Yea he calleth them socordes tgnavi adding per superbiam cuncta gentibus moderantur Moreover he laieth down this as a maxim Libertas juxta bonis malis strenuis ignavis optabilis est Liberty is to be desired by all good and bad stout and cowardly In fragm Cicero was fully of Pompey's way He greatly commended his cause and did much exhort others thereto This you may see in many of his Epistles lib. 2. ep 18. lib. 4. ep 44. lib. 5. ep 62.64 74. See Plutarch in Cicer. Now Pompey was clearly for the defence and preservation of the Roman Commonwealth at it was established before Caesar's usurpation It is beyond all controversie at that time it was in part popular Then the Romans were governed by Tribunes of the people who had power to defend against any Magistrate whether Dictator Consul or any other of the people Sure I am none will say but Demosthenes was all the way for Democracy Orat. cont Theocr. He pleaded still for the Liberties of the Athenian Commonwealth in many Orations whereby he exhorted the Athenians to withstand Philip for preserving amongst them Popular Government inviolable Plutarch reporteth he incited all Greece both against Philip and Alexander In Demost Fourthly Of notable Kings and warriours Minos who by Homer Hesiod Plato and others is called the chiefest of Kings amongst the Cretians created Cosmi Popular Governours So Theseus whom Isoerates crieth-up above Hercules did institute Popular Government amongst the Athenians Theompompus Lycurgus and Agesilaus most noble Kings and most notable patrons of Popular Government And shall we not think but Miltiades Themistocles Aristides Cimon Hannibal and many other notable warriours who did live under the yoke of Popular Government esteemed it the choicest of Governments They acted much both gallantly and cheerfully for the preservation thereof Men's practice is a more evident testimony of their judgement then their profession 'T is known that Lysander an eminent warriour in an oration to the Lacedemonians perswaded them to shake-off Kingly Government altogether Plut. Prob. in Lys Had that been I suppose the Ephorick Magistracy should have governed all Though Dion a matchlesse warriour was against the popular multitude which inevitably begetteth confusion yet was he for Plato's Aristocracy which is reformed Democracy Fifthly From the example of the chiefest and most reformed Common-wealths whereof some were purely popular and some mixed v. g. dthenian Cyrenian Cumaean Pyrean Horean Syracusian Tarentinian Theban Roman c. Diodore out of Herodot reporteth That the Assyrian Kingdom being overturned by the Medes for a long time after the Cities were governed without Kings by Popular Government The point being thus established both by divine and human authority it nextly falleth into our way to make it good from Reason it-self And for this we shall shortly give you the abridgement of the Arguments of some ancient Philosophers which Aristotle alleadgeth Polit. 3. cap. 11. and 12. As they do plead for Popular Government so they do directly militat against Monarchy The first is taken from the parity and equality of the Members of the Republick the second from the necessity of Magistracy the third from the equity and infallibility of Law the fourth from the inconveniency of setting man above Law the fifth and sixth from example Sparing to repeat their arguments at length we content our self with an argument of our own framing And it is this That Government is simply best which restoreth us nearest beyond all Governments to our condition and liberties in the state of perfection and pure naturals But Democracy restoreth us nearest beyond all Governments to our condition and liberties in the state of perfection and pure naturals Ergo Democracy simply is the best Government The Proposition is undeniable because the state of perfection and integrity is simply the best It is without either spot or wrinkle And consequently the nearer we draw to that condition our case is so much more excellent and good And so whatsoever Government
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
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
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
confound that which is ordinary and extraordinary together and illustrate them both by one and the same example As for the fourth species taken in this sense I do verily imagine that his words deserve a distinction Whereupon the question may be moved whether or not doth Aristotle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he maketh the fifth species of royall government understand an all-commanding power according to law or both according to and against law it cannot be imagined as afterward shall appear that Aristotle understandeth an all-commanding power above Law Therefore is it that Polit. 3. cap. 10. he interlaceth the fifth species of Monarchy with the fourth Without any clear and formall distinction as he doth cap. 11. he passeth from the one to the other in a continuat way linking the one with the other And so taking up the fourth and the fifth species under a continuat notion we easily resolve Aristotle's meaning by this distinction In the former part of the fourth species he a verreth That Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes was in some things restricted wanting this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power And in the latter part of it he saith that in ancient times kings had that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the man in this is very cryptick and unclear He speaketh of the dayes of the Heroes indesinitly So doth he of ancient times But opposing ancient times to the days of the Heroes they can be relative to no times but to the golden age which was immediately after the Deluge about 131 years All this time as is shewed already there was not so much as any politick government at all And to this Age immediately succeeded the time of Heroicisme Nimrod and many other heroick Blades immediately after that Age did breakforth who erected kingdoms and did many valiant acts And if we speak of the ancient times before the Flood we find also as is shewed already that contradistinguishing ancient times from the time of Heroicisme there was no kingly power set-up till men of renown and heroick spirits did erect it about the 1556 year of the world And all the while before which was the Golden Age before the Flood there was no kind of Politick government at all as is shewed already So then whether before or after the Flood the times of the Heroes did immediatly succeed to the ancient times And as in the ancient times there was no Monarchy or Regall power so it was firstly erected and set-up by the Heroes Therefore you may see that is very hard to purge Aristotle's meaning in this from errour Yet for respect I bear to the man I will put upon his words the best sense they can bear And so I suppose that he referreth both the parts of the fourth species to the dayes of the Heroes Now it cannot be denied but even amongst Heroes of the secondary kind there was difference of power some being of a more intense and some of a more remisse power No question those of them who in respect of time were prior to others were also in dignity and power prior to them I cannot think but how much more Regall power was in request so much more the power of it was extended Therefore was it as is shewed already that some kings were altogether illimited and uncircumscribed in power But in the fore-times of Heroicism Monarchy was more in request then in the after-times thereof And consequently those ordinary Heroes who had the first start of time before others of that same kind were of a more vast and intense power then they As they were superiour to them in time so likewayes in power In this sense Aristotle's words hold good if he refer the former part of the fourth species to the after-most times and ultimat center of Heroicisme and the latter part to the prior though not to the first times thereof You cannot say that the former part is relative to ordinary and the latter part to extraordinary Heroes It is already proved by us Conel 1. That extraordinary Heroes had more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power They had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an arbitrary power to do what they listed These two Caligula speaking of himself to Antonia pertinently distinguisheth Remember saith he that I may do all things and that I have power to do to all men what I please Sucton in Calig cap. 29. Thus he putteth a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power And beside this even ordinary Heroes namely the founders of primary Colonies had an absolute power without al restriction Con. 2. Where also is shewed that Heroes in after times as founders of after-Colonies had an absolute power though not so intense and uncircumscribed as founders of primary Colonies Such indeed had power to do all things though not to undo all things And so according to the rules of proportion as the after-Heroes were of lesse power then the former so the last of them had lesser power then any of them Aristotle saith That at last the power of Kings became exceedingly lessened This was after the flower of heroicism was quite faded This could not be at the first but hath come on by degrees After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the erectors of primary Colonies had in-stepped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Aristotle saith was in ancient times i. e. in the times of the after-Heroes in and about the dayes of the founders of the secondary Colonies And then toward the close or in and about the middle time of Heroicism the Kingly power in some things became restricted as Aristotle saith And so he subjoyneth that at last it became exceedingly lessened Now you see that in reason no better construction can be put upon this fourth species of Monarchy assigned by Aristotle And for reverence of the man's memory I suppose that the third species of Royal power is taken by him both in an ordinary and extraordinary acceptation And he only illustrateth it as it is taken in an extraordinary sense because that way it is more material then the other way He passeth the illustration thereof as it is taken in an ordinary notion because so it is not only lesse material but also that way it is more clear then the other way Or I may say that Aristotle confoundeth these two notions together because comparitively aesymnetick Monarchy taken in an extraordinary notion may be called ordinary The reason of this is because men at least may be because of personal endowments more frequently called to govern in an absolute and ordinary way then for extraordinary Heroicism and such like Howsoever this I know that Aristotle reckoned-up no other kinds of Monarchy but such as have power to and do govern according to Law But these who are advanced to an illimited power because of personal endowments are not precisely called thereto to govern whether
drchil de temp Not withstanding this I do imagine that Aristotle opinionateth there were Kings in the golden age Fuerat enim antiqua Civitatum saith he guhernatio rationabiliter pancorum regia Polit. 4. cap. 13 So say Salust conjur Catel and Trogus or Justin hist lib. 1. Indeed these two do diametrally oppose the ancient times to the dayes of the Heroes for they contradistinguish them from the times wherein the Assyrian monarchy took its beginnings Which was the very first birth of herocisme And yet they say before this time Imperium penes Reges erat What is meant by these Reges Fabius Pictor explaineth Principes saith he quia justi erant religionibus dediti jure habiti Dii dicti De aur sec c. lib. 1. And yet in the preceding words he saith Ea aetate nulla erat monarchia quia mortalium pectoribus nondum boeserat ulla regnandi cupiditas Therefore by these Reges and Principes can be nothing else understood but the fathers and heads of the chief families as Shem Japhet c. over all whom Noah did rule as a common father And it cannot be denied but such had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power yea and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power Concl. 3. which maketh Trogus say Principio rerum arbitria Frincipum pro legibus erant Lib 1. This was because those Fathers and Princes did not only stand in order to the People as natural fathers to natural children each of them being by the intimate bonds of Nature tied to other which maketh Aristotle compare the fifth Species to oeconomick and paternal government but also because they did far go beyond their people in the matter of qualification Yet we must not imagine that this arbitrary power which they had was so precisely and formally If we speak rigorously arbitrary power conferred because of intimate and natural relations and personal endowments is rather limited then illimited for as the grounds thereof tie the people to all due obedience and subjection so they tie the Prince to every due and lawful way of governing and that in a most intense and extraordinary way Therfore speaking precisely Aristotles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all-commanding power doth not include 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power But let it be so that Aristotle speaketh of an arbitrary power given to Princes and heads of chief families yet can it be no other wayes understood but as it is already explained by us Concl. 3. Which speaketh nothing but of an arbitrary power in an extraordinary case But ab extraordinariis ad ordinaria non est sequela As Aristotle is very unclear in the latter part so is he likewise intricate in the former part of the fourth species In it he saith that the Kings in the in the dayes of the Heroes were in some things limited and did govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law This indeed deserveth a distinction No question extraordinary Heroâ—s and the founders of primary Colonies had a vast and arbitrary power concl 1. and 2. What power other Heroes had I stand not much on it to determine Yet I may very conveniently use those distinctions which are expressed concl 2. But for further clearing this point we shall stand here a-little to illustrate by Example all these wayes Aristotle setteth down in the former part of the fourth species whereby heroick Kings came to their Crowns In summing them up we shall observe a more exact and resolutory method then Aristotle doth 1. By gathering people together and planting Colonies Which is considered four wayes Firstly by way of lot and division Thus the primary Colonies were planted And no question the founders of such had power to govern at randome concl 2. Secondly by way of donation Thirdly by way of subordination Fourthly by way of purchase and acquisition Though we cannot be of Aristotle's minde in respect of the founders of the first sort of Colonies yet in respect of the second and third we may take him by the hand And notwithstanding this we may very probably conclude either of the parts whether by granting or by denying the arbitrarinesse of the founders of these Colonies Howsoever concerning all the four sorts you have our judgement expressed concl 2. 2. By way of battell Firstly by way of regaining So did Dionysius Hercules Ber. lib. 5. and Orestes Dict de bel Tro. lib 6. Secondly by way of conquest So did the extraordinary Heroes as is shewed already concl 1. Ordinary Heroes who subdued Kingdoms be these Amongst the Assyrians Arius Baleus c. Beros an t lib. 5. Amongst the Grecians the Heraclids who subdued Mycenae and Alemeon who subdued the Kingdom of Thcb. s. Diod. lib. 5. cap. 4. and 6. 3. Because of the benevolence and bountifulnesse of ancestours So Crana and Cranus were dignified with the swaying of the Seepter amongst the Razenues because of the singular benevolence and courtesie of Janus their father toward the Italians For the same reason also Thuscus son to Hercules the Egyptian was graciously admitted by the Arnites Libarnites Musarnites to reign over them Beros an t lib. 5. 4 By cunning and art This may be taken two wayes Firstly as it implieth a conferring of the Kingly power because of engine and invention Thus the Thebans advanced Oedipus to reign over them Sophocl in Oed. tyr Diod. lib. 5. cap. 6. Secondly as it implieth a cunning and subtil way of obtaining the Kingdom So Camesenuus obtained the Kingdom of Baciria Ber. lib. 5. and Neoptolemus acquired the Kingdom of Thessaly which belonged to his father Achilles Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib 6. 5 By acquisition This is taken three wayes Firstly by way of emption Thus Agamemnon obtained the military power over all the Grecian Princes in the Trojan expedition by letting-out amongst the Souldiers a huge masse of money Dict. Cret lib. 1. Secondly by way of compensation So Antenor was created King of Dardany in compensation of his pains in betraying Troy to the Grecians Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 5. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. Thirdly by way of meer purchase and simple acquisition Thus did Aeneas acquire Melena with its Continent Dict. Cret loc cit Salust conjur Catel So did Iolaus purchase a Kingdom to himself in Sardmia Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. These things being thus illustrated by example I do nextly desire the Reader carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Heroes and between those of them who were in the precedent times and those who were in the subsequent times of Heroicism For my-self I cannot say but extraordinary Heroes at least and the founders of primary Colonies were invested with a vast and arbitrary power But as for the ordinary Heroes and the after-founders of Colonies I am contented with Aristotle to say That their power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law We find several examples amongst the after-heroes
to this purpose Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did therein either firstly or lastly was according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours Dict Cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. 5. Dar. Phr. ae excid Tro. lib. And though Dares Phrygius reporteth that Priamus determined and voiced otherwise then they who followed Antenor and Aeneas who appear to us to have been the major part of the Senat for we gather from both these Historians that not only the greatest part of the Senate but also the whole body of the People were for the concluding and drawing up peace with the Grecians I confesse Dares Phrygius in plain terms faith that Priamus voiced against peace and truce taking-up with the Grecians and what he voiced was established and holden as a thing concluded-on by all Indeed he carried it contrary to all who opposed him as Dares will have it Yet Dictys storieth the just contrary and saith that Priamus followed the advice and determination of the Senat. And indeed Q. Calaber lib. 12. and Tryphiodor de Il. exc insinuate no lesse for they observe Dictys way which he hath in storying the Grecian stratagem which ensued upon terms of peace concluded on between the Trojans and Grecians Howsoever albeit I think my-self rather oblidged to encline to Dares relation yet lose I nothing thereby if I do so I am not of that opinion to think that Priamus was so hemmed-in by Law as the Lacedemonian Kings Let it be so he had a negative voice in Senate as Dares in sinuateth yet sure I am none will say that the Senate was a cypher having no authority at all You will learn from these fore-cited historians the contrary of that And in so far as Priamus did act according to the advice counsel of the Senat in as far he did act according to Law Thus he did not simply act according to pleasure and in an arbitrary way No verily In this his power was somewhat limited And this is all that both Aristotle and we do crave And so we must not think but Alcinous was some way or other regulated by his Princes and Rulers as you may read Hom odys 8. And how much Agamemnon was subjected to Law is shewed already Of him is made good that which Aristotle speaketh of the tying of the King to the People by the elevation of the Scepter as by Oath and Covenant Hom. Il. 2. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10. We need not think it strange to say that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were some what subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no leste subjected to Law as is shewed already then the Lacedemonian kings 'T is observable that Orestes son to Agamemnon and King of Mycenae was judged and absolved by the Councel of Areopagus Him Mnestheus son to Theseus and King of Athens could not get set free till firstly he was examined by the Areopagites whom Dictys calleth most strict Justiciaries de bel Tro. lib. 6. Mark that the Mycenan King was judged by the Athenian Judicatory Then tell me seing a King of another Kingdom in the dayes of the Heroes was subjected to the Law and Judicatory of Athens shall we not think that Kings in those dayes in some things at least were restricted and subjected to Law Verily this is an argument from the greater to the lesser But hear what Alexander ab Alexandro faith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubita it lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisiâ—atus doubted not to undergo judgment there And I would have Royallists to observe that in this matter I give them more of their will then Aristotle doth for according to this last sense and exposition his words insinuate That all Kings in the dayes of the Heroes in some things were restricted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yeâ— in the latter part of the fourth species he saith That Kings in ancient time had but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-governing power But we go further-on with the Malignant and say That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Yet preciâ—ely and properly their power was but Pambasilick an all-governing and not arbitrary and illimited We shall stand here a while to speak of the Kingdom of England for it is not only the chief subject of our discourse in order to which we drive all that we speak but also it falleth-in here by a string-line Already we have spoken of it at length from the dayes of the Conquerour or a little before until now It therefore remaineth we speak of it as it was from its beginning unto the reign of the Normans And so we consider it under these notions 1. As it was in its first beginning and original And though I will not say that Britain was inhabited so soon as other Kingdoms which lie in and about the middle and chief part of the Earth No question such parts were firstly inhabited as both history and reason doth teach Yet I may very conveniently say that the chiefest Kingdoms and those which he next Armenia being planted after people were extreamly multiplied on the earth they did seek out to inhabit the uttermost Isles of the world There was a physical necessity for this People daily multiplying could not dwell all in one part but of necessity they behoved to depart one from another for residence sake Yea there was a moral reason for it also No question desire of great lands and possessions so soon as people were greatly multiplied on the earth after the flood could not but set them a work to seek-out the remotest parts This is confirmed by what the holy Ghost faith The sons of Japhet Gomer by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands every one after his tongue after their families in their nations Gen. 10. I pray you tell me whileas the holy Ghost speaketh there indefinitely of the Isles of the Nations if he doth exclude the Isle of Britain What more reason is there to exclude it then any other And for my self I think there is more reason to include it then any of the rest Firstly because it is the chiefest Isle in the world And therefore in it self the more delectable and the more to be sought after Secondly because Gomer whom Berosus calleth Comerus Gallus did come into Italy and erected Colonies there Ant. lib. 5. Now tell me is it not most probable that Gomer did translate Colonies from Italy into France and from thence into Britain every-one of them lying contiguously one with another We find as much in his name as pointeth-out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gomer signifieth to end And is not Britain
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
chiefest Law-givers we read of amongst the Ethnicks could not away with arbitrary and uncircumscribed Government Solon was altogether against it Arist ibid. Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Val. Max. lib. 5 cap. 3. lib. 7. cap. 2. lib. 8. cap. 7. Trog lib. 2. See also Isocr Areop Panath. De permut Pittacus was somuch against it that having reigned a-while over the Mityleneans at last he resigned the Kingdom Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac See also Simonid carm Val. Max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 6. cap. 5. Who will deny Lycurgus to have despised arbitrary power So Xenoph. de Repub. Laced and many others do report as Herodot Plato Auistotle c. Neither can it be denied that Plato was an enemy thereto as is shewed already He could not endure the tyrant Dionysius as Laertius Plutarch and others do report And that Minos did abhor arbitrary power is shewed already Concl. 6. Because he was a most noble Law-giver therefore he is feigned by Homer Odyss 11. to be Justiciar over the souls departed In a word that of Pindarus Lex omnium est Reginal mortalium atque immortalium passeth current amongst the chief Law-givers and Philosophers To which Plato the great Philosopher and Law-giver in terminis doth subscribe lib. 24. de Rhetor. What shall we over-leap the most noble Lacedemonian King Theopompus indeed not unlike the signification of his name No verily Whileas it was said by his friends to him having superadded the Ephorick power That he should leave lesse power to his successors then he had of his predecessors he forthwith answered saying Nay but I leave them a far greater power Arist Pol. 5. cap. 11. See also Valer. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. Plut. de doctr princ lib. Of the heroick Theseus we have spoken enough already to this purpose And which is to be admired the very King-flattering Isocrates doth story much of his disclaiming arbitrary power And this he reporteth not to his discredit but to his praise Helen laud. Panath. What needeeth us thus to multiply the actings and judgments of men against arbitrary Monarchy Have we not already at large shewed it to be repugnant to the ordinary course and strain of all Commonwealths We will stand no longer here but hasten toward another Question SECT II. Whether or not is Royal Government the choicest of Governments AS in the former Question we have offered our judgment very freely so shall we do the like here And that we may do so to some purpose and distinctly we offer our judgment to you in these Assertions Assert 1. Royal power ectypically is the choicest of Governments This is to be taken two wayes 1. In order to the Creatour It cannot be denied but Monarchy ectypically and by way of assimilation commeth nearest to the Government of God and doth liveliest ropresent it for the Divine Essence is simply one admitting no diversity Now a thing is no otherwise good and pure but as it is squared according to the perfect pattern of the Divine Essence And consequently Monarchy having a more intimat assimilation to the Divine Essence then any other Government ectypically and by way of assimilation it cannot but be the chiefest of Governments This breaketh the neck of all that is objected from the resemblance that is between Regal Government and the Government of God to prove Monarchy to be the choicest of Governments So do some object expresly Isoc Nic. Aquin. de Pr. reg lib. 1. cap. 2. Clicht de reg off cap. 1. 3. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 1. cap. 4. Salmas def reg cap. 5. and some insinuatively Cypr. de Idol van tract 4. 2. In order to the Creature We find that both amongst inanimate and animate creatures a natural kind of Monarchy is observed Is there not in the complex body of the Universe one above all the rest We see the Heaven is above all the four Elements And in the Heaven all the stars in height vertue and excellency are inferiour to the Sun Therefore Dionysius calleth the Sun imaginem Coeli terroeque regem lib. de Divin nom Amongst living though brutish creatures have not Bees their own King and flocks of Sheep their own leader Apol. Nil Hierog lib. 1. Virgil Geor. 4. Plin. nat hist lib. 11. Cypr. tract 4. Ambros hexam lib. 4. Veg. disp in t ter sol c. Cranes have also a King Apol. hierog lib. 2. Plin. nat hist. lib. 10. Hieron in Epist ad Rust Ambr. hex lib. 5. Hence the back of that Argument is also broken which Salmas def reg cap. 5. and others do draw from the natural kind of Monarchy that is amongst inanimate and brutish creatures to prove Regal Government of all Governments to be the choicest Assert 2 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the choicest of Governments This cannot be denied for of all Governments Monarchy is the most ancient Before the flood we read of no Government Political but of Royal power Gen. 5. 6. Ber. ant lib. 1. And after the flood it was that also which had first footing Gen. 10. Beros an t lib. 4. Archil lib. de temp Xenoph. de oequiv Porc. Cat. exlib orig fragm Pict de aur sec lib. 1. Metast de Pers annal Isocr Panath. Jos an t Jud. lib. 2. cap. 4. 5. Philo-Jud an t Bibl. lib. To this also Aristotle Trogus and Salust do subscribe with the whole current of Writers Royallists do meanly object Monarchy simply to be the choicest of Governments because it is the ancientest of Governments So argueth Salmasius def reg cap. 5. We confesse in respect of antiquity it is the best 'T is a bad consequence Monarchy is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of antiquity and priority of time Ergo it is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply and absolutely This is a caption indeed a secundum quid ad simpliciter Assert 3. Monarchy demotically in respect of the temper and disposition of the people is the best Government In clearing this you shall observe with me these three times 1. The golden time 2. The heroick time 3. The non-heroick and after-time As for the golden time it cannot be denied but people then had only a disposition for natural and oeconomick government See subsect 2. concl 3. But the heroick time did extreamly encline to Monarchick Government Before the flood Giants and men of renown did enlarge their power and brought all in subjection to them After the flood about 131 years Nimrod began to erect a Kingdom for himself And afterward the heads of Colonies went forth and established Kingdoms At that time heroick spirits one way or other came to Crowns Of this is spoken already by us at large We shall not now need to repeat any thing we spoke whether concerning the extraordinary or ordinary Heroes That time had such a disposition for Regal Government that it carried the People of Israel to seek a King whether God
would or not 1 Sam. 8. We find very reason for it why then the disposition of people did most intensively carry them toward that kind of Government 1. Because men then were ignorant They were then more prodigal then politick There could be found at that time few or no Commonwealth's-men And to this very pertinently agreeth that which Aristotle speaketh Polit. 3 cap 11 Pol. 4 cap 13 saying That Kingly Government was in the beginning because then men were ignorant and few Commonwealth's-men could be found I confess his meaning is mainly concerning the golden age And in respect of it he also speaketh true No question then every thing was but in its beginning Men then were but acquainted with the rudiments of learning and policy and scarcely that Any Government they had then was not Politick but Natural and oeconomick At least it did not much differ therefrom And it must needs be said That then people were not acquainted with the Rules of Policy in the Heroick age It cannot be denied but in the Heroick time men had greater insight and experience then in the Golden time In the heroick age Policy began to have footing And no question at the end thereof men were better acquainted therewith then at the begining thereof Their experience and insight then could not but be the greater Yet we must needs say that comparing the age of Heroicism with after-times men in it were but meanly acquainted with the Rules of Policy As far as the herock time therein exceeded the golden time so far therein did after-times exceed the heroick time And we find that alwaies the latter times do abound more in Learning and Policy then the preceding and former 2. Because in those dayes men were of a gigantine strength and vast courage Then they were much given to warlike exploits to the building of Cities and to the enlarging of their own dominions What I pray you then could be more suitable to the disposition of men then Kingly Government Prodigality was then more stood-by then Policy Then men were alwaies set a-work on haughty and heroick designments Therfore they could not be governed and ordered but by such who were far above their reach What did not then the haughtiness of Israel cry for a King 1 Sam. 8. They tell samuel they will have a King as other Nations And this is as much as if they had said We cannot endure to be inseriour to other Nations And therfore we will have a King What was it I pray you that made Nimrod to take Royal Power to himself but because he was a mighty hunter Gen. 10. one of an haughty and arrogant disposition Pride of heart and arrogancy of spirit would not admit Caesar to be Pompey's equal and Pompey Caesar's superiour Lib. dec 14. Luc. dn lib. 4. cap. 2. Plut. de Pomp. The very instinct of Nature doth abundantly teach Kingly Government most to beseem the disposition and temper of the proud and haughty Cranes and Bees which Nature hath taught to erect amongst them Kingly Government in haughtiness and proudnesse amongst all beasts are matchlesse Apol. in hierogl lib. 1. 2. Virg. Geor. 4. Plm. nat hist. lib. 11. Juv. Sat. 13. Ambr. hex lib. 5. Is it any wonder then though in the heroick age men did much dote upon Kingly Government Then men were extream haughty and arrogant and could not be governed by equals They were much given to high and lofty undertakings And what could expede them therein more then Kings In after-times I deny not but Monarchy did go much out of request if we compare the non-heroick with the heroick time This maketh Aristotle say Polit. 3. cap. 10. That in after-times the kingly power was extreamly lessened partly by the King 's dimitting thereof and partly by the People's detracting therefrom This is already illustrated by us by manifold examples No wonder that this was for as the heroick age in Policy did exceed the golden age so therein after-times did exceed the heroick times yea much more Thence was it men then so abounded in Learning and Policy that in many Commonwealths they could endure no Kings at all Assert 2 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the choicest of Governments This cannot be denied for of all Governments Monarchy is the most ancient Before the flood we read of no Government Political but of Royal power Gen. 5. 6. Ber. ant lib. 1. And after the flood it was that also which had first footing Gen. 10. Beâ—os an t lib. 4. Archil lib. de temp Xenoph. de oequiv Porc. Cat. exlib orig fragm Pict de aur scc lib. 1. Metast de Pers annal Isecr Panath. Jos an t Jud. lib. 2. cap. 4. 5. Philo-Jud an t Bibl. lib. To this also Aristotle Trogus and Salust do subscribe with the whole curreut of Writers Royallists do meanly object Monarchy simply to be the choicest of Governments because it is the ancientest of Governments So argueth Salmasius def reg cap. 5. We confesse in respect of antiquity it is the best 'T is a bad consequence Monarchy is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of antiquity and priority of time Ergo it is best 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply and absolutely This is a caption indeed a secundum quid ad simpliciter Assert 3. Monarchy demotically in respect of the temper and disposition of the people is the best Government In clearing this you shall observe with me these three times 1. The golden time 2. The heroick time 3. The non-heroick and after-time As for the golden time it cannot be denied but people then had only a disposition for natural and oeconomick government See subsect 2. concl 3. But the heroick time did extreamly encline to Monarchick Government Before the flood Giants and men of renown did enlarge their power and brought all in subjection to them After the flood about 131 years Nimrod began to erect a Kingdom for himself And afterward the heads of Colonies went forth and established Kingdoms At that time heroick spirits one way or other came to Crowns Of this is spoken already by us at large We shall not now need to repeat any thing we spoke whether concerning the extraordinary or ordinary Heroes That time had such a disposition for Regal Government that it carried the People of Israel to seek a King whether God would or not 1 Sam. 8. We find very reason for it why then the disposition of people did most intensively carry them toward that kind of Government 1. Because men then were ignorant They were then more prodigal then politick There could be found at that time few or no Commonwealth's-men And to this very pertinently agreeth that which Aristotle speaketh Polit. 3. cap 11 Pol. 4 cap 13 saying That Kingly Government was in the beginning because then men were ignorant and few Common 〈◊〉 men could be found I consess his meaning is mainly concerning the golden age And in respect of it he also