And Hercules the Egyptian as Berosus saith coming thorow the Celtes into Italy begot on Galtea whom Nicaeus calleth Celtice with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis or as Nicaeus saith Celtus who was created King over the Celtes And from him they were called Galli Which as is imagined the Latines use for Galatae Howsoever here from it appeareth that the Celtes had not their beeing but their name from Hercules son And so reconciling Parthenius with Berosus we may call Hercules son Galatis-Celtes Whence from his name they were called Galatae or as the Romans say Galli and from his surname Celtae Indeed Bâ—rosus 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 Hercules came along them Which maketh us opinion at 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 inferiour 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 Galatis Hercules son should be born his successor and King after him Therfore following Berosus I conclude that the Celtes were so called from Celte grand-father to Galatis and Galli or Galatae from Galatis nephew to Celte and son to Hercules Yet Nicaeus positively and expressely calleth Celtice or Galtea her father Bretan From whom Hesychius 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 Although 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 Galatae 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 enpeopled by him for resigning the Kingdom of the Celtes to Hercules son his nephew it is more then apparent that being a King all his 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 Britain a glorious kingdom lying next to France either at that time scarcely en peopled 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 while as they came along into France I remit it to the Reader to judge as a thing arbitrary and indifferent 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 while as 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 Manetbo 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 two Kings we have spoken And we come nextly to speak of the power of those Kings who succeeded them untill the dayes of C. Caesar 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 Caesars 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 Regibus parebant To which he immediatly subjoineth Nunc per principes factionibus studiis trabuntur 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 ragibus usque ad priâ—cipes 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 shutteth his eyes at so clear a light as this It cannot be denied but Tacitus speaks of the government of England as it was in old and as
with GOD. Diogenes in lib. de Reg. writeth that the King is just so in respect of the Commonwealth as GOD is in respect of the Vniverse And so as GOD hath power over the whole world in like manner the King hath power on earth In like manner Ecphantas calleth it a thing proper to the King to govern himself and to be governed by none Lastly he stepeth-in to shew how that the Roman Kings of old were of a vast and arbitrary power Romulus saith Tacitus governed the Romans as he pleased Pomponius writeth that Kings at the begining of Rome had all poor Dio saith they are unsubject to any Law Plutarch and Justinian will have the Laws subjected to them Which maketh Severus and Attoninus to say Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Plinius in his Panegyricks saith to Trojanus that he subjecteth himself to the Laws And yet as Dio saith he had power to do every thing by himself to command both himself and the Laws to do every thing that he would and not do what he would not And Salust saith that to do every thing unpunishably that is to be a King Def. Reg. cap. 5. Answ I suppose there is not plena enumeratio partium here There were moe Kingdoms then what Salmasius hath reckoned-up Howsoever I shall do my endeavour to find him out And that I may take away the strength of all that he objecteth and leave not so much as the ground-stone thereof I lay down these following Conclusions Conclus 1. Because of extraordinary heroicisme and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law This we make good from the condition of some Kings both before and after the Flood Before the Flood the point is clear About the 500. year of Noah's age which was in the 1556. year of the world Policy began to have some footing for then men began to follow after their own inventions hearts desires and so men then a-dayes being of huge strength and undaunted courage given to pleasure and renown those amongst them who by strength of hand could carry the pre-eminence and precedency over others no less performed it then endeavoured it And Noah was five hundred years old Gen. 5. There were Giants in the earth in those dayes and also after that when the sons of God came-in unto the daughters of men and they bear children unto them the same became mighty men who were of old men of renown Gen. 6. Hence mark these two things 1. That in the 500. year of Noah's age there were men of a gigantine strength mighty men given to hard and warlike exploits minding their own honour and renown 2. That such men lived at random not subject to law nor under the command of any Their extraordinary valour and desire of renown led them on to rule and not to be ruled Therefore they took them wives of all which they chose Gen. 6. Their awless and lawles living maketh the Lord say My Spirit shal not alwayes strive with man Ibid. But the faithful Historian Berosus giveth us great clearness in this matter He saith that before the Flood there was a City called Oenon about Lâ—banus a receptacle of Giants who did reign over the whole world from the Occident to the Orient These saith he confiding in the vast strength and stature of their body having found Arms and Engins of war oppressed all and governed according to their pleasure Antiq lib. 1. After the Flood the first King we read of is Nimrod of whom it is said And Cush begat Nimrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the beginning or the head of his Kingdom was Babel and Erech Gen. 10. This Nimrod the holy Ghost calleth a mighy one in the earth or the mighty hunter before the Lord Gen. 10. i. e. a man matchless none like him in the earth for strength and gallantry Because of this he erected a kingdom despising the commaâ—dment of Noah Beros an t lib. 4. and disdaining to be in subjection whether to God or man Joseph an t Jud. lib. 1. cap. 5 his aspiring thoughts drew him on to build a Tower that thereby he might get himself a name to secure himself both before God and man Gen. 11. Phil. Jud. bibl an t lib. And Josephus in even-down termes telleth us that he incited his followers to pride and to the contemning of God telling them that their happinesse did not depend from GOD but from their own proper strength Whereupon at last he tyrannized and governed at randome Ant. Iud. lib. 1. cap. 5. To Nimrod succeeded Belus to Belus Ninus and to Ninus Semiramis in the Kingdome of Assyria Every one of which acted more then another for enlarging their Empire They subdued all and ruled over all libidine dominandi Ber. ant lib. 5. Mnes lib. 97. hist Archil lib. de temp Fab. Pict de aur sec c. lib. 1. Metast lib. de judic temp annal Persic Herod lib. 1. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 1 2 c. And as amongst the Assyrians we find these four grand and matchlesse Heroes who governed at random without any subjection to Law so we find amongst other Nations some also of that same stamp Amongst the Egyptians Osiris who succeeded to his Father Chemesenuus in the Kingdom of Egypt commanding the whole earth except these Nations and Kingdoms that were under the Authority of Zames King of Assyria In the eight year of whose reign Osiris returned into Egypt with triumph over all the Nations beside what were under the jurisdiction of the Assyrian Empire And as Osiris did reign as an universall Monarch so did his son Hercules who succeeded Osiris in the Kingdom under the reign of Baleus the eleventh King over the Assyrians Ber. ant lib. 5. We read also of Simandius and Sesostris two Egyptian Kings who subdued the whole world Herod lib 2. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. But it is very easie to prove from Berosus that Simandius is Osiris and Sesostris is Hercules Amongst the Libyans Dionysius was the great Heros Herodot and Diodore report that he subdued the world and conquered many Kingdoms by battell And Berosus saith that Dionysius gave to Osiris the Kingdom of Egypt Albeit Herodot and Diodore opinionate him to be a Grecian yet I rather incline to the judgment of Berosus who saith he was begotten of Rhea by Hammon and became Jupiter to the Libyans even as his mother was the pretended Goddess of the Egyptians Hesiodus Marcianus and other Grecian Writers hold him as a God and alledge him to have been begotten of Semele by Jupiter Howsoever for valour and strength he was a most extraordinary person and swayed many Kingdomes by his Scepter Amongst the Grecians we find namely two extraordinary Heroes Hercules and Alexander M. What great things were done by Hercules and how he vanquished many Kings and subdued many
lib. But Berosus cleareth it how the Italians had their arisal from Janus his son saying that having left his daughter Grana Helerna together with his son Cranus whose posterity to diffâ—r from the Aboriginists he called them Razenues after his son Cranus Razenuus Long before this time Italy was inhabited by the posterity of Comerus Gallus and his Colonies Myrsilus also telleth us that some do opinionate the Tyrrhenians to have their arisal from the Lydians saying that Aâ—ys King of Maonia begotten by Hercules upon the virgin Omphalis daughter to Jardana Queen of the Maeonians begot two twins to wit Lydus and Tyrrhenus But when as one Kingdom could not contain them both Atys commanding his son Tyrrhenus to go from him he forthwith went toward the Septentrional part of Tiber and there built Cities and Towns calling them after his own name But the Grecians mistake this very far Indeed Hercules the Egyptian came into Italy and built Cities there leaving his son Thuscus behind him to reign over them Ber. ant lib. 5. And as Myrsilus saith the Thuscits onely worshipped Jupiter and Juno So Osiris and Isis were called the parents of Hercules the Egyptian Ber. ant lib. 5. Diod. rer an t lib. 1. cap. 2. That the Italians had their arisal from the posterity of Noah see M. Burc Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Fab. Pict de an saec c. lib. 1. Sempron de divis Ita. c. In the twelfth year of Nimrod Jubal gathering a number of Colonies together erected a Satrape in Celtiber called Spain and afterward planted other Colonies called Samâ—tes In the fifteenth year of his reign Oceanus and Chemesenuus with their Colonies erected a Kingdom in Egypt In the eighteenth year Gogus with his Colonies inhabited Arabia felix Triton Libya Japet Atlaa-Africk Cur Aethiopia and Getulis Getulia In the twenty fifth Thuyscon with his Colonies erected a Kingdom at Sarmaria and Masa with the sons of Ister erected Colonies from the hill Adula unto Pontica Mesembria In the thirty eighth Saga with his Armenian Colonies possessed all the region of Caspia from Armenia unto Bactria and Janus translated the Janean Colonies unto Hyrcaria as also the Janilians unto Mesopotamia In the fourteeth some Colonies of the sons of Gomer erected a Kingdom in Bactria and Ganges in India In the third year of Belus Tyras erected a Kingdom in Thracia Arcadius in Arcadia and Aematnia or Macedonia Yea Phaëton whom Porcius calleth the first of all the Grecians erected a Kingdom in Italy by emplacing Colonies therein after he had abandone Attica Ber. ant lib. 5. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig fragm Janus erected Colonies in Arabia felix calling them â—anineans 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 Noelans and Noeglans Berosus 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 Tyrrâ—enus planted the Tyrrhenians to 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. In 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 Nimrod 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 Griphonians Dardanians Istenians the Colonies of Rhaëton 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 absoluteness 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 â—quiv 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 Thuscus to reign over them Yea the Tyrrhenians do not worship Tyrrhonus 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 Ethiopia 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 Anamaeon 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 aequiâ— 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 Herculeses 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 inhabiants 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
from setting over their Armies Captain-Generalls by succession and perswaded them to take from them the name of Kings Def. reg cap. 8. See how the man bewrayeth himself for Lysander was Captain-Generall of the Lacedemonian Army And yet he was not their King Therefore amongst the Lacedemonians it was one thing to be King and another thing to be Captain Generall of the Army I confesse their King had also the power of the Army But he had not onely other power beside but also he had power of the battell in a more intense way then any deputed and substituted Captain amongst the people Otherwise there had been no difference between Lysander and the King who was but onely Captain of the Army Yea which is more Lysander doth not speak of shaking-off regium nomen but regiam potestatem as is clear out of Probus But sure I am regia potestas is not nomen regis but res regis Salmasius shall have no need to deny that the Carthaginian annuall Kings were Kings properly so called But in the interim he shall give us leave to consider and take a light view of the nature of the word sufetes Which is taken in a twofold sense 1. Largely And so the word may be derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sapha Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophe speculator inspector episcopus or ephorus Thus sufetes may be referred to judges of any sort And in this sense Alexander ab Alexandro referreth it to the Graecian aesymnetae the Egyptian dioecetes the Persian megistanes the Oscian medix c. Geni di lib. 4. cap. 23. Him Julius Scaliger followeth whileas he saith Porro qui Hebraïce sciunt non ignorant Poenos Tyrorum colonos esse concedent mihi Sufes idem esse quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the man supplying Festus words saith Sufes dictus est Poenorum lingua summus magistratus ut Oscorum medix c. 2. Strictly and by limitation And so it is derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saphat Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophet Which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judge In this sense it is applyed to the Carthaginian yearly Kings and Roman Consuls Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. The word sufes by Festus and T. Livius is rendered consul So it is by Sabellicus Aen. 5. lib. 5. It cannot be denied but as sufetes is a Punick word so in it 's most strict and rigorous acceptation it is only relative to the Carthaginian annuall Kings Yet I must needs say that as it is taken strictly and by way of limitation with very good reason in may be referred to the Roman consuls for they had that same power which the Carthaginian Kings had and both of them were yearly Magistrates Having thus discussed the grammary of the word you may observe that in it's first acceptation it is not onely relative to those who in old were above Kings but also to those who were inferiour to them And in the second acceptation it is relative to such who amongst the Carthaginians were both re and nomine Kings and amongst the Romans to such who were Kings not nomine but re But if we take sufetes precisely for sophetim unlesse you take sophetim in a larger sense then it is taken in the book of the Judges you must needs say that it is onely relative to such who were Kings neither re nor nomine for afterward I shall make it appear that the Judges of Israel were so far from being of a Kingly power that contrariwise they were but of equall authority with any of the Sanhedrin At least it is easy to prove that they were not of a Kingly power or of such power as had the Roman consuls and the Carthaginian sufetes albeit we should say that they were the first of the Sanhedrin having greater power then any of the rest for the Athenian annuall Princes had more power then any member of the Athenian councel and yet they were not properly Kings We may say the like also concerning the decennal Princes and those Princes who amongst the Athenians did govern for their life-time I deny not but these may be yea and were called Kings who were not so indeed as the Judges of Israel Judg. 18. And we deny not as Salmasius will have it Def. reg cap. 8. but many both of old and new also were and are not called Kings who were and are of greater honour authority then they What then This will never conclude that the Carthaginian sufetes were not of a Kingly power Though the word sufetes may be taken for sophetim yet shall we never conclude therefrom that the Carthaginian sufetes had no more Power then the Judges of Israel At the most it concludeth that they had not a kingly power in a full and intense measure And therefore the word in its most native signification is all one with Consules who had a kingly power though not in the highest degree And for my-self I can find no essential difference between the Carthaginian Sufetes and the Lacedemonian Kings Whereupon I am made to conclude That as the one so the other also were of a kingly power This man looketh upon the off-cutting of Kings as a thing of another world even as if such a thing had never been practised before since the world began He telleth us of Agis how that amongst all the Lacedemonian Kings none was cut-off but he But in the interim he shall observe that though in the examples which we shall alledge to this purpose there be some of them which speak nothing of the off-cutting of Kings Yet all of them do speak of the punishment of Kings either one way or other And know likewise that in old Kingdoms in punishing of capital faults used diverse wayes of punishment Amongst the Indians the delinquent though guilty of the greatest crime got no more for his punishment but to be shaved at the King's command This was thought amongst them a capital punishment Nicol. Damasc de Mor. Gent. Ind. Some Nations who dwelt about Caucasus on capital transgressours did execute banishment as a capital punishment They executed it instead of death It is reported That the Tratlians thought it punishment enough to inflict upon a murderer if he did give a bushel or measure of Pulse to the friends of the defunct The Druids and Cercets for the greatest faults did no more but interdicted the delinquent from being accessory to the sacrifice The like punishment was also executed upon sacrilegious persons in Elephantine Ethiopia Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 5. Where if the Reader shall be pleased a little to trouble his eyes he shall see how that some Nations in old according to the Laws of the kingdom in their punishments were most severe though against the smallest faults and some were not so but were most remisse in their
punishment though against the greatest crimes Therefore Salmasius shall not think that those who did not punish their Kings with death were any more favourable to them then those who did bring them to the scaffold and cut-off their heads for he may see that amongst some Nations even a small punishment was thought capital We shall therfore think that the Egyptians of old in with holding stately and glorious burials from their delinquent Kings did esteem that as great if not a greater punishment then if they should have brought them forth and caused cut-off their head Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. In Meros they withdrew themselves from the society of their delinquent Kings till through want of company they consumed away in languish This they esteemed a greater punishment and indeed so it was then if they should have brought him to the scaffold Alex. ab Alex. lib. 3. cap. 5. And how the Egyptians plagued Amasis their King is storied already Prop. 1. Ans The Senate amongst the Cumaeans which they called Phylactus holding their Kings by the hand still detained them till they either rewarded them or punished them according to their deserts Alex. ab Alex. ib. The heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 5. Plut. in Thes Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his subjects Arist Po. lit lib. 5. cap. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just lib. 1. Diod. Sic. ant lib. 3. cap. 7. And as Herodotus lib. 1. storieth after Sardinapalus was put out of the way both the Assyrians and Medes for a long time were governed without Kings by Popular government The Athenians did cut-off Cylon together with his complices who intruded himself upon the Kingdom or at least endeavoured to do so So did they cut-off Hipparchus son to Pisistratus and also endeavoured the off-cutting of Thessalus another of his sons who succeeded to him in the Kingdom They did also cut-off Cleon together with 1500 with him who had destroyed the Commonwealth Herac. de Pol. Ath. They caused Miltiades to die in prison although he was King of Chersonesus Herod lib. 6. Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Miltiad Plut. in vit Cim And you will find Aristotle tell you in the general concerning Pisistratus and his posterity who were Kings in Athens how they were punished and shut from their Kingdom Pol. 5. cap. 10. Leonidas King of Lacedemonia was banished So was Cleombrotus And Agis was imprisoned and cut-off in prison though I must needs say unjustly Plut. in Ag. Cle. But Aristotle shutteth-up all this in a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Therefore the Lacedemonians have destroyed many kingly powers Pol. 5. cap. 10. The Syracusians under the conduct of Dion expelled Dionysius and banished him Arist Pol. 5. cap. 10. Aemil. Prob. Plut. in Dion The Carthaginians once banished and at last did cut-off Machaeus Just lib. 18. They also banished Hannibal and forfeited his estate And if he had not stolen away privily they had cut him off Plut. Prob. in Han. Tarquinius superbus C. Caesar and D. Nero were cut-off by the Romans Luc. An. lib. 1. cap. 7. lib. 4. cap. 2. Plut. in C. Caes Carol. M. Suet. in C. Caes Ner. Aurel. victor in Ner. Epit. vit Caes in C. Caes Ignat. Rom. prin in lib. 1. Inst 3. O but saith Salmasius Nero was cut-off not de jure but de facto And saith he there was as great a difference between Charls and Nero as was between the Roman Senators and the English Butchers Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans This poor man â—oweth not what he would be at His over-word is Did ever any as the Rebels in England cut-off their King Was ever any Nation saith he so monstruous so cruel and so barbarous as the English Rebels Cut-purses and bloody Butchers who dared to put hand in their dread Sovereign Read this man's Book all over and you wil find this to be over-word What Did not the Senat of Rome cut-off Nero And yet saith he never any before did cut-off their King but the English Enthusiasts and giddy-headed Traytours The man needeth not to look upon the off-cutting of Charls as a thing singular If he will not be wilfully deluded he may learn from what foregoeth many examples of punishing and cutting-off delinquent Kings The Question between us is not only whether or not Kings de jure may be cut-off but also whether or not de facto Kings were punished and cut-off by the People Concerning the fact Salmasius cannot get it denied albeit he strives to justle us out of it by changing the state of the question and starting aside from that which for the present is most in hand And I wonder much that the man calleth in question the lawfulness of the fact of the Roman Senat in causing Nero to be cut-off And as for the jus and lawfulness of the Roman Senat 's fact in cutting-off Nero I know not if any beside Salmasius can deny it but an incarnat Devil he was a murderer a paricide a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth And Royallists themselves have not a face to deny that it is lawful to cut-off Tyrants And whereas he saith That there was a difference between Nero and Charls and between the Senatours of Rome and the Representative of England So say I too Nero was an Ethnick but Charls a Christian But friend nomine Christian and re Antichristian In this he was worse then Nero more dangerous at least though not so grosse Nero was a paricide but not Charls Yet let me tell you as they differed in some things they agreed in other things As Nero was an enemy to Christ's reign so was he As Nero was a murderer so was he As Nero was a persecuter of the Saints so was he And as Nero was a destroyer of the Common-wealth so was he And as for the Representative of England they differ from the Roman Senatours in this that they professed friendship to Christ the Roman Senatours in Nero's time were not so And who but enemies to Christ will say That Ethnicks had more power to execute judgment on a Tyrant a persecuter of the Saints and a destroyer of the Commonwealth then such had in executing judgment on a man of that same stamp rather worse then better And to draw home to our own doors we will give you some examples out of the English and Scotish Chronicles how Kings were punished and brought upon the stage Amongst the English Kings we find these Gorboniannus Emeriannus Vortiger Edwine All these were dethroned and put from their Kingdom Edward 2. was imprisoned by the Barons with the help of the young Queen and Prince Edward 5. was dethroned and obscurely buried in the Tower of London Amongst the Scotish Kings we find not a few who were either banished imprisoned or cut-off
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 denie 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 extraordinaries to ordinaries 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 our 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 sive sic sive 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 king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am causa 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 propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat quod 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 he 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. sect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8. lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Angliae libera fuit omni 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 gratiam agnoscat Fuit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum humanarum 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-parasit 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 examine the 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 flattering 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 England 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 S al. 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 Diadema regale saith he quòd nullus antecessorum meorum gessit adeptus sum quod divina solummodo gratia non sus contulit haeriditarium Neminem Anglici regni constituo haeredem sed aeterno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim tantum decus haeriditario jure possedi sed diro inflictu multa effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haraldo abstuli interfectis vel fugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi Camd. Brit. chorogr descr which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his successors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtoniensis and other English historians who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and fidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can Salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by oath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasius conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore while as he saith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and inferiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum Mi Salmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatem tuâ—e gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Cokius words doth not speak of the absolutenesse of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa igitur leges hujus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q.
Hercules Ber. lib. 5. and Orestes Dict. de bel Tro. lib 6. Secondly by way of conquest So did the extraordinary Heroes as is shewed already concl 1. Ordinary Heroes who subdued Kingdoms be these Amongst the Assyrians Arius Baleus c. Beros an t lib. 5. Amongst the Grecians the Heraclids who subdued Mycenae and Alemeon who subdued the Kingdom of Thebes Diod. lib. 5. cap. 4. and 6. 3. Because of the benevolence and bountifulnesse of ancestours So Crana and Cranus were dignified with the swaying of the Scepter amongst the Razenues because of the singular benevolence and courtesie of Janus their father toward the Italians For the same reason also Thuscus son to Hercules the Egyptian was graciously admitted by the Arnites Libarnites Musarnites to reign over them Beros an t lib. 5. 4 By cunning and art This may be taken two wayes Firstly as it implieth a conferring of the Kingly power because of engine and invention Thus the Thebans advanced Oedipus to reign over them Sophocl in Oed. tyr Diod. lib. 5. cap. 6. Secondly as it implieth a cunning and subtil way of obtaining the Kingdom So Camesenuus obtained the Kingdom of Bactria Ber. lib. 5. and Neoptolemus acquired the Kingdom of Thessaly which belonged to his father Achilles Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 6. 5 By acquisition This is taken three wayes Firstly by way of emption Thus Agamemnon obtained the military power over all the Grecian Princes in the Trojan expedition by letting-out amongst the Souldiers a huge masse of money Dict. Cret lib. 1. Secondly by way of compensation So Antenor was created King of Dardany in compensation of his pains in betraying Troy to the Grecians Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 5. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. Thirdly by way of meer purchase and simple acquisition Thus did Aeneas acquire Melena with its Continent Dict. Cret loc cit Salust conjur Catel So did Iolaus purchase a Kingdom to himself in Sardinia Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. These things being thus illustrated by example I do nextly desire the Reader carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Heroes and between those of them who were in the precedent times and those who were in the subsequent times of Heroicism For my-self I cannot say but extraordinary Heroes at least and the founders of primary Colonies were invested with a vast and arbitrary power But as for the ordinary Heroes and the after-founders of Colonies I am contented with Aristotle to say That their power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law We find several examples amongst the after-heroes to this purpose Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did therein either firstly or lastly was according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours Dict Cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. 5. Dar. Phr. de excid Tro. lib. And though Dares Phrygius reporteth that Priamus determined and voiced otherwise then they who followed Antenor and Aeneas who appear to us to have been the major part of the Senat for we gather from both these Historians that not only the greatest part of the Senate but also the whole body of the People were for the concluding and drawing up peace with the Grecians I confesse Dares Phrygius in plain terms saith that Priamus voiced against peace and truce taking-up with the Grecians and what he voiced was established and holden as a thing concluded-on by all Indeed he carried it contrary to all who opposed him as Dares will have it Yet Dictys storieth the just contrary and saith that Priamus followed the advice and determination of the Senat. And indeed Q. Calaber lib. 12. and Tryphiâ—dor de Il. exc insinuate no lesse for they observe Dictys way which he hath in storying the Grecian stratagem which ensued upon terms of peace concluded-on between the Trojans and Grecians Howsoever albeit I think my-self rather oblidged to encline to Dares relation yet lose I nothing thereby if I do so I am not of that opinion to think that Priamus was so hemmed-in by Law as the Lacedemonian Kings Let it be so he had a negative voice in Senate as Dares insinuateth yet sure I am none will say that the Senate was a cypher having no authority at all You will learn from these fore-cited historians the contrary of that And in so far as Priamus did act according to the advice counsel of the Senat in as far he did act according to Law Thus he did not simply act according to pleasure and in an arbitrary way No verily In this his power was somewhat limited And this is all that both Aristotle and we do crave And so we must not think but Alcinous was some way or other regulated by his Princes and Rulers as you may read Hom. odys 8. And how much Agamemnon was subjected to Law is shewed already Of him is made good that which Aristotle speaketh of the tying of the King to the People by the elevation of the Scepter as by Oath and Covenant Hom. Il. 2. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10. We need not think it strange to say that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were somewhat subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no lesse subjected to Law as is shewed already then the Lacedemonian kings 'T is observable that Orestes son to Agamemnon and King of Mycenae was judged and absolved by the Councel of Areopagus Him Mnestheus son to Theseus and King of Athens could not get set free till firstly he was examined by the Areopagites whom Dictys calleth most strict Justiciaries de bel Tro. lib. 6. Mark that the Mycenan King was judged by the Athenian Judicatory Then tell me seing a King of another Kingdom in the dayes of the Heroes was subjected to the Law and Judicatory of Athens shall we not think that Kings in those dayes in some things at least were restricted and subjected to Law Verily this is an argument from the greater to the lesser But hear what Alexander ab Alexandro saith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubitarit lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisistratus doubted not to undergo judgment there And I would have Royallists to observe that in this matter I give them more of their will then Aristotle doth for according to this last sense and exposition his words insinuate That all Kings in the dayes of the Heroes in some things were rest icted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yea in the latter part of the fourth species he saith That Kings in ancient time had but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-governing power But we go further-on with the Malignant and say That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Yet precisely
Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 141 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free Vâ—NDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i. e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey
this way to prove it Firstly The people of Israel saith he did seek a King to reign over them after the manner of the Nations But all the Kings of the Nations in these times were absolute and not subject to Law Ergo. The Proposition he proveth from 1. Sam. 8. The Assumption he taketh for granted saying that the Assyrians whose Monarchy was at that time when the Israelites sought a King to reign over them did not restrict their Kings within the bounds of Law Therefore Artabanus Persa much commendeth that Law whereby the Persians enacted that the King should be honoured as the image of GOD. Plut. in vit Themist And Claudianus saith that they gave alike obedience to cruell and tyrannous Kings Yea Otades calleth Monarchy that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herodot lib. 3. Then seing the Persians succeeded to the Medes and the Medes to the Assyrians who reigned at that time when the Israelites did seek a King to reign over them it appeareth that as the Persian Monarchy so likewise the Assyrian and Median Monarchies were of an absolute and arbitrary power And Homer who lived as some imagine about that time when the Israelites sought a King from Samuel to reign over them saith that Kings are from Jupiter and those do reign who get authority from the son of Saturn Whom he also calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trained up by Jupiter Therefore Kings in Homer's time were not subject to Law Defens Reg. cap. 2. and 5. Ans Both the Propositions of this Gentlemans Argument seem very strange to us As for the first Proposition we do not deny it for the people of Israel said to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations 1. Sam. 8. But it do h not follow Ergo make us an absolute King as the Nations about us have 1. Because Moses Deut. 17. by the Spirit of prophecie foretelleth their seeking of a King after the manner of the Nations But it is evident that Moses there doth onely prophesie of their seeking a King after the manner of the Nations i. e. that as the Nations about had Kings over them so they might have a King over them in like manner for both Deut. 17. and 1. Sam. 8. the words are general In neither of these it is said Make us an absolute king after the maner of the Nations The words admit a two-fold sense and so they may either signifie As other Nations have Kings so make us a King This sense we allow or as other Nations have absolute Kings so make us an absolute King This sense we deny And so this is a fallacy either ab Homonymia or à figura dictionis 2. We may as well conclude from these words after the manner of the Nations that the people of Israel did seek a non-absolute and regulated King for at that time there were Kings of the Nations who were regulated according to Law We read that Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did in the matter of Helena's away-taking was according to the advice and counsell of Senators whom Paris with his Complices did over-awe Dict. Cret de bello Tro. lib. 1. And it is observable that Agamemnon and Palamedes though the Kings of Kings were subjected to Law So storie Dictys Cretensis Dares Phrygius Homer and Aristotle Which was at that time when the Jewes did seek a King to reign over them Yea then the Egyptian Kings were subjected to Law Diod. Sic. Rer. Ant. l. 2. c. 3. And it is also evident that at this time the Athenian Monarchy was not absolute So Heraclid de polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diod. Sic. lib. 5. c. 5. Moreover we do not imagine but there were many other Monarchies at that time which were not arbitrary and of an illimited power We might prove this at length if it were not both tedious and needlesse But Salmasius himself acknowledgeth that then all the Kingdoms of the Orient were of a limited power regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle pol. lib. 3. c. 10. and 11. 3. The people of Israel did seek a King under very fair pretences They not only alleaged that Samuel was unfit because of his years to govern them according to Law and reason but also they pleaded for a King from the tyrannie of Samuel's sons and their non-governing according to justice and equity Then tell me would they ever have sought a King that he might govern them according to his pleasure whether to tyrannize over them or not Thus they should not onely have palpably contradicted themselves but also they should have cut off from themselves these pretences whereby they urged their purpose in seeking a King 4. To say that the people of Israel did seek an absolute King is to militat directly against these ends which they propounded to Samuel and set before their eyes in seeking a King The ends are three 1. To judge them 2. To conduct them 3. To fight for them and defend them from their enemies These three particular ends do abundantly evidence that they did not seek a King to govern them after the manner of the Nations whether according to Law or contrary to it but that they sought a King to govern them only according to Law and reason I am sure the second and third end imply no lesse And if you say that the first end may take along with it a judging whether according or contrary to Law we do easily obviat this difficultie 1. Because you shall not finde in Scripture where judging is taken for an act of injustice and tyrannie And the Holy Ghost in Scripture expoundeth judgment calling it justice 2. Sam. 8. 2. Had the people of Israel sought a King to judge them whether according to justice or injustice then their arguments whereby they enforced their purpose in seeking a King had been altogether uselesse Samuel haply might have said to them I see now ye do praevaricate in this matter your profession is altogether vain in declaring your selves sensible of my weaknesse and inability for judging you according to justice and equity and of the corruption and iniquitie of my sons in perverting righteous judgment Away might Samuel have said this is nothing but words Whereas ye seek a King to judge you whether according to Law or not ye contradict your own profession and give your selves the lie to your face Yea Salmasius himself doth acknowledge that they did not seek a King to tyrannize over them and to rule contrary to Law and reason Def. Reg. c. 2. But mark how the man straight-wayes giveth himself the lie For saith he they did not deprecat nor abominat an unjust King wicked violent ravenous and such-like as use to be among the Nations though most wicked Ibid. We demand at this Gentleman whether or not they did positively seek such
may not be judged At this time the Inachides did reign whose kingdom began about the reign of Baleus the eight king of the Assyrians Herod lib. 1. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 6. cap. 14. compared with Beros an t lib. 5. ARAL VII BAL VIII MAM XVI SPAR XVII and Xenoph. de aequiv PHOR And as for Homer I do not doubt but the man idolized Kings But in the interim you will be pleased to give me leave to say that it follows not Homer calleth kings Divine and such who are educated and brought-up by Jupiter Ergo Homer opinionateth that they were absolute and subjected to none but to GOD. He telleth us that Agamemnon in a convention of the general Persons of the Army was greatly upbraided Iliad 9. And yet he calleth him a king begotten of Jupiter and trained-up by him And it is very well known that Agamemnon was not an absolute King over the Grecian Princes for both Dict. Cret lib. 1. and Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. report that Agamemnon was put from his Office and Palamedes chosen in his room See also Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. I stand not here to dispute at what time Homer lived but leave it arbitrary to the Reader either to follow Archil lib. de temp who saith that he lived in his time an D. after the destruction of Troy Or Herod de vit Hom. who saith that he lived CLXVIII after the Trojan battel Yet one thing I may determine on that Homer calleth those kings of the nations who lived about the time wherein the People of Israel did seek a king to reign over them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whatever be Homer's meaning in these words yet I am not of another opinion but do think that he was much if not all the way for absolute Monarchy The temper of his times did lead him that far on But though I subscribe to this yet wil it never therefrom follow that all the Kings of the Nations at that time when the People of Israel did seek a King to reign over them were absolute not subject to law This we have made good already Secondly While as Samuel taught the Jews of what temper kingly-government is lest afterward they should pretend ignorance of the power and right of the king he plainly declareth unto them That he might do any thing without fear of punishment not subject to any but to GOD. Salmas def reg cap. 5. Friend this is rather said then proved But afterward nolis velis we shall evidence That Samuel thought no such thing Thirdly If Kings had been subjected to the Sanhedrin and ought to have been arraigned before it either to have been accused or condemned then had there been no difference between the Judges and the Kings of the Jewes But the latter is false Ergo. This is Salmasius his great gun And for proof of the Major he saith The Judges of the people of Israel did judge led forth their Armies made Lawes executed judgement and did exercise all other such-like functions which are exercised by Kings Therefore unlesse the Kings of the Jewes had been unliable to the Sanhedrin there had been no difference between the Judges and the Kings of Israel The Assumption he maketh it good thus It had been altogether in vain saith he to have changed the government of the Judges into the government of Kings if they had been both one Thus the difference had onely been in name and not in reality Def. Reg. cap. 5. But the man cap. 2. proveth the Assumption more largely and most pertinently There saith he the Judges amongst the people of the Jews were subject to the Sanhedrin And so he saith the Judges amongst the Jews were like the Consuls among the Carthaginians and Romans They were called in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophetim Whence the Paenans derive the word Suferes Now the Judges in the Senat of Carthage were called Sufetes And Festus observeth that Sufetes in the Punick language signifieth and denotateth a Consul And out of Caelidus he citeth these words Senatus censuit referentibus Sufetis So the Roman Consuls referred to the Senat and the Senat judged of their refer Therefore seing the Judges of Israel were but like Consuls who were subject to the Senat as the case was amongst the Carthaginians and Romans they were not of a kingly power but subject to the Sanhedrin though they retained the government so long as they lived whereas the Roman Consuls and Carthaginian Sufetes were only but yearly Magistrates And this is further cleared from the Holy Ghost's contradistinguishing Judg. 9. the government of Abimelech who took upon him a kingly government from the government of the rest of the Judges Yea the Israelites Judg. 8. offered to Gideon that same power over them which his son Abimelech usurped This was a kingly government that they offered to him Which Gideon refused And yet neverthelesse he was a Judge And consequently if both Judges and Kings amongst the people of Israel had one and the same power not onely the people of Israel had offered to Gideon no new power but what he had before but also Gideon had refused to enjoy that power which actually he did enjoy Ans We heartily subscribe to the Minor and do much cry-up Salmasius in the probation thereof I wish the man were as solid and pertinent in all the rest as in that Yet I crave his leave to deny the Major And I think I have good reason to do so for he only differenceth absolute Kings from Judges imagining that none properly can be a King essenitally distinct from a judge but he who is absolute and unlyable to the Law He far mistaketh the point It is one thing to be an absolute King not subject to the Sanhedrin and Senat and another thing to be a non-absolute King and subject to Law And yet both are properly and univocally Kinge The non-absolute King is essentially differenced from the Sophet or Sufet the Judge because he is major singulis but minor universis in synedrio But the Judge is but of equal authority with the rest of his collegues in the Senat though because of his eminencie and personall endowments he may praeside and be as a leading man amongst the rest Such was the case of the kings and Judges amongst the Jewes as afterward shall be shewed There are some accidentall differences also between the Judges amongst the people of the Jewes and their kings as namely 1. The Judges were in a most speciall immediat and extraordinary manner designed and appointed by GOD himself to govern his people Kings were not so if we look to them in an ordinary way and for the most part 2. The Judges of Israel had no hereditary power and government over them Such had their kings 3. The kings of Israel both in their ordination and afterward were attended with prodigall sumptuous and Royall Dignities which were denied to their Judges And whereas Salmasius
purpose we argue thus Eâ—ther Athaliah had the right and authority of a King or not If she had the right and authority of a King ergo if the King be of an absolute power and not subject to Law then Athaliah was no more subject to Law then any other King for as Salmasius and all Royallists will have it the King is of an absolute power and not subject to Law And consequently Athaliah being invested with the right of a Kingly power and authority she was no more subject to Law then any other of the Kings of Judah Therefore if you say that Athaliah was invested with the right and authority of a King you must either commend the practice of Jehojadah and the people in killing her or else you must change your opinion and not imagine Kings to be absolute and not subject to Law If she had not the right and authority of a King then either because she usurped the Kingdom and intruded her-self upon it contrary to the consent of the People or because she did cut-off the righteous heirs of the Kingdom and set up her-self in the Kingdom or else because according to the Law women ought not to govern Not the first because according to the Doctrine of Royallists conquest is a lawfull title to the Crown But Athaliah conquered the Crown of Judah to her-self What more I pray you did she in intruding her-self upon the Kingdom of Judah then unjust Conquerers do in thrusting themselves in upon the kingdoms which they subdue As she intruded her-self without the free consent and election of the People so do they And yet Salmasius with the rest of his Brethren will have such Conquerers lawful heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms which they subdue Nor can you say the second because conquerers who subdue other men's kingdoms cut-off all those who by pretended blood-right claim a title to the Crown And yet Royallists will have such lawfull heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms to which they have no title but the sword Nor can you say the third because all Royallists admit Royal birth a just and absolute title to the Crown But women no less then men may be and are of the Royall Off-spring And consequently if the doctrine of Royallists be true and unless Salmasius will contradict himself women may as lawfully govern as men Therefore it doth not follow that because Athaliah was a woman she had not right to govern the People of the Jews and reign over them I confesse by Royall birth she had no title to the Crown But she conquered the Crown to her-self and did reign six years with the consent of the People But sure I am Salmasius and all the Royallâ—sts as they hold the consent of the People as a necessary ingredient to make-up the lawfulness of the title to the Crown so they maintain conquest without all exception to be a just and lawful title thereto But what need I thus to stand do not I know that Salmasius and the whole nation of Royalists will have the formall and essentiall being of the King to consist in an absolute and illimited power But any person whether man or woman usurper or non-usurper is capable of such a power and may be invested therewith And consequently though Athaâ—iah was but a woman and an usurper it doth not follow that because she was such therefore she was not of an absolute and arbitrary power The greatest of Tyrants and the worst of women is capable of such a power And the power is not changed because of the change of the person and of such and such qualifications in him Such things are meerly extrinsecal to the nature of the power it-self So then if the King be formally a King because he is of an illimited and arbitrary power I see no reason why Athaliah did not reign as a King for she was capable of such a power wherein according to the doctrine of Royallists the essentiall frame of a King doth consist And consequently seing she did reign in stead of the King of Judah and exercised his authority there is no reason why she was not absolute and unsubject to Law as well as he Therefore Salmasius must either leave-off his opinion and not imagine that the Kings of Judah were absolute and not subject to Law or else he must cry-down the laudable practice of Jehojadah and of the People in killing Athaliah For shame he will not do this Propos 2. Except the Lacoedemonian kingdom there was no kingdom in old wherein absolute and uncircumscribed Monarchy was not erected though in some more remiss and in others more intense For proof of this Salmasius sheweth what was the condition of Monarchy in the Assyrian Egyptian Jewish Median Persian Grecian and Roman kingdoms Of the Jewish kingdom we have spoken already and more of it afterward in a more convenient place As for the Assyrian kingdom together with the Median he proveth that kings in them were absolute and un-subject to Law because such was the condition of the kings of Persia This he maketh good from Ottanes the Persian who defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herod lib. 3. Yea Artabanus averreth That no Law amongst the Persians was more commendable then that whereby they enacted that the King should be honoured as the Image of God Plut. in vit Themist And Claudian saith That they gave a like obedience to cruel and tyrannous Kings Therefore saith Salmasius seeing the Medians succeeded to the Assyrians and the Persians to the Medians it appeareth that as the Kings of Persia so the Kings of Assyria and Media were absolute and not subject to Law And though the Egyptian Kings before they were subdued by the Persians were hemmed-in by the bonds of Law in every thing that they did yet notwithstanding we never reade that at any time they brought any of their Kings upon the stage and caused them to suffer for their Delinquencie They did bear the yoke of two cruel tyrants Busiris and Cambyses most patiently without reluctancie Which Cambyses because of his cruelty the Jews called Nebuchodonozor He desired in marriage his german sister and so calling a Councel he demanded at his Counsellors if there was any Law in Persia which did permit such a marriage They desirous to gratifie their King told him That they found a Law whereby the King of Persia was permitted to do any thing he pleased Herod lib. 3. As for the Grecian Empire it is known saith Salmasius that Agamemnon had an absolute power over that Army which be led on against the Trojans And therefore he is called Rex Regum And Aeschylus calleth the King of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncensurable Governour So Homer calleth the Grecian Kings Kings made by Jupiter reigning by and holding their Crown of him He calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings trained up by Jupiter Philip saith that the King hath equal power
Kingdomes is clear from many grave Writers Hesiod scut Herc. Pindar od 1. 7 Sophoc Trach. Diod. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 2. Of him Herodot Theocritus and others do write The extraordinary valour and courage of Alexander Justin Plutarch Q. Curtius and other grave Writers do abundantly testifie I need not to stand here in a particular and exact way to prove that these Kings had an absolute immunity from Law without all restriction and reservation But to satisfie the curious ear a little therein we shortly make it good thus 1. These Kings came not to their Crowns whether by election or succession At least all that they commanded fell not to them either of these wayes They held the right to their Crown by their sword And so over-ruling all by force and strength of hand they could be tied to no Law by any civill sanction but as they pleased voluntarily to subject their necks to the yoke of Law But as they delighted to over-rule men no question they have thought it their glory to be likewise above the Law it-self I confesse it is very gatherable both out of Berosus and Diodore that Osiris and Hercules the Egyptian did live according to the Lawes Yet I do not think that it was by command but according to their own free and voluntary resignation That held true in them which the Roman Emperours speak of themselves Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Indeed there is great difference between a Kingly power had by succession and election and a Kingly power obtained by conquest and sword-right In an elective and heriditary Crown people have at least a Physicall power to binde the King to them by Oath and Covenant But the case is far otherwise between a conquered people and the Conquerour They have no power to tie him to them by Law He may put them all to the edge of the sword if he will And it is in his own goodness whether to spare them or square himself according to their Laws Experience teacheth to-day what boundless power the Turk and the King of Spain have over those Kingdomes to which they have no title but sword-right Therefore it is no wonder though these grand and matchlesse Heroes had an arbitrary and boundlesse power over the Kingdomes which they conquered by strength of hand 2. The men themselves were esteemed and honoured as Gods And so by proportion a GOD-like power was given unto them Nimrod was called the Babylonian Saturn and Dionysius the Libyan Jupiter The Assyrians hold Belus and Ninus as Gods The Egyptians worshipped Osiris and Hercules as Gods So did the Grecians honour Dionysius and Hercules as Gods And Alexander thought no shame to be called the son of Jupiter and honoured as a God And as Ninus was holden as Jupiter amongst the Assyrians so Semiramis was holden by them as Juno and worshipped as a Goddesse And what God-like titles Semiramis caused put on and engrave upon the Pillar she set upon Ninus you may read it Xenoph. de aequiv You may read also some specious and stately titles on some of these Heroes Herod lib. Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. All which serve to point-out the boundlesnesse of their power And withall in terminis we have shewed already that Nimrod's power was most vaste and absolute And so it followeth that Belus Ninus and Semiramis who succeeded him were rather more then lesse absolute then he for as every one of them enlarged their power beyond another so all of them extended their power beyond what Nimrod's power did reach to And of Belus Berosus saith in expresse terms Coepit libidine dominandi torqueri of Ninus Omnibus bellum intulit nulli parcens quod esset in omnium desiderio omnâ—â—diâ— ad intenâ—â—tum quaeritabat Hic omnium primus ex nostris regibuâ— Babylonicum regnum propagavit And of Semiramis haec anteâ—â—ssit militia trâ—umphis diviâ—iis victoriis imperio omnes mortales Nâ—mo unquam huic foeminae comparandus est virorum tanta in ejus vitadicuntur scribuntur tum ad vituperationem tum maxime ad collandationem magnificam Ant. lib. 5. It is both needlesse and infinite labour for me to summe up the absolute and arbitrary actings of these grand Heroes I passe them over in silence and do remit the Reader to spend his brain a-little if he be curious upon these Histories above cited Where he shall find all made good that we speak of this purpose 3. These Kings were not onely extraordinary men and Kings but also they were extraordinary Heroes They were even extraordinary amongst extraordinary men being the chiefest of all the Heroes And so seing other Kings and Heroes were of an absolute and arbitrary power as afterward is shewed much more they 4. It cannot be denied but Alexander M. was of vaste and boundlesse power 1. Because he commanded Darius to write to him not only as to a King but also as to his King 2. He gloried to be called the son of Jupiter and to be holden more then a man 3. He despised Parmenio's counsell and Darius his offer disdaining that any should govern but he alone Whereupon Menstree saith notably No I will reign and I will reign alone Disdaining to admit of moe Commanders For as the heaven can hold no Sun but one The earth cannot contain two Alexanders 4. Whileas a seditious tumult was raised in his Army upon his march toward the Occident whereas no words would asswadge them after a Speech had to his Army he did leap as a Lion from the Bench amongst the midst of them and with his own hands none daring to withstand him took thirteen of his prime Incendiaries and delivered them up to his Guard All which demonstrate the absoluteness of Alexander's power By undoubted consequence it followeth that the rest of the foresaid Hereos were rather more then lesse absolute then he 1. Because they were men if not of gâ—â—â—er courage at least of greater strength then he They lived in the flower of time when strength and courage were most in vigour Indeed in this they had the start far before Alexander 2. Because Alexander himself esteemeth it honour and power enough to imitate the wayes and carriages of Heroes who went before him Ad Herculis imitationem me contuli ad aemulandum Perseum me comparavi Volo Liberi patris mei progenitoris generisque mei proauctoris vestigia persequi Plut. de fortu Alex. Conclus 2. Without all controversie those who firstly erected Kingdoms and planted Colonies were of an absolute power and altogether unsubject to Law For clearing the point we shortly glance at some of these In the tenth year of Nimrod Comerus Gallus erected a Kingdom in Italy gathering a number of people together over whom he ruled as King Ber. ant lib. 5. Hence Myrsilus saith that the Tyrrhenians do affirm themselves to have their arisal from Razenuâ— Janus Vadymona's son De Orig. It. Tyr.
disobedient but not rebels to Noah They acted against his will but not in despight of his will They took not liberty from him to do his will though they took liberty to do their own will also We can not think that the light of Nature was so far extinguished in them that they did not honour him as their father A debording son as Esau can entertain Isaac with Venison though he walk not in his wayes And I do not think if they had not honoured him as their common father unlesse they had been extraordinarily restrained they had destroyed him and all his followers Sure I am they wanted not power to do so The godly party was but an handful in respect of them What then I pray you could be the ordinary mean of their restraint but their natural respect and affection toward him Nay they honoured him so much that they esteemed him their Coelum their Sol their Chaos the semen mundi yea and the father both of the greater and lesser gods Ber. ant lib. 3. And what we have spoken of Noah the like also may be said of Adam Before the Flood there was also a golden age 1556 years Wherein men lived as under one common father each of them knowing the intimate relations one to another until Monarchy was erected till the close of the 500 year of Noah's age as is shewed already Before which time Adam had died 626 years and Seth 514 years But so long as Adam lived what superiority Noah had over his posterity in the golden age after the Flood Adam had it rather in a more then lesse measure then he Adam was not onely their common father but also he was their first and primary father As we have evinced the truth of this point from examples in Scripture so we may evidence it from examples in humane Histories V. G. The Mitylenians gave to Pittacus an absolute power of governing because of his personal endowments Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. de Pit Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. The like power did the Athenians confer upon Solon upon the same accompt Diog. La. de Sol. Plut. in Sol. So it is alledged that James 6. because of his pretended personal endowments obtained an absolute power and a negative voice in Parliament In the interim observe That those who allow absolute Monarchy because of personal endowments do not imagine that Kings have an absolute power because they are Kings but as they are such Kings i. e. Kings not only in respect of station but also in respect of qualification exceeding all others And so they conclude that a King so qualified may very conveniently be entrusted with an absolute power for they apprehend that though such a man have power above Law yet will he not act against Law And likewise they imagine that such a man being in all respects above all men both in respect of station and qualification can no wayes be inferiour to any man Thus Aristotle inclineth to absolute Monarchy of this moulding Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11 12. Conclus 4. Kings in old were of an absolute power without the bounds of all restriction by vertue of purchase and conquest So were the grand Heroes as is shewed already Hence was it that Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of the Persians had an absolute power over the People of the Jews Conclus 5. Kings in old by meer usurpation and tyranny had an absolute power without any circumscription So Pharaoh had an absolute power over the children of Israel and the wicked Kings of Judah at least of Israel over their people Thus Nebuchadnezzar had an absolute power not only over the people of the Jews but also over all his subjects Of whom it is said Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set-up and whom he would he put-down Dan. 5. After this manner Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes had an absolute power over the people of the Jews though we deny not but what either of them did act or intend against the Jewes was by the mediation of evil Counsellours So had Herod an absolute power Matth. 2. Jos Ant. lib. 15. Yet we deny not but it was through other men's means more then his own that he had a power to tyrannize and govern at random The ten persecuting Kings Dan. 7. Rev. 13. had an absolute power over the People of God But moe examples of Tyrants you may read Judg. 1. and 9. 2 Sam. 21. Mat. 27. Luke 23. Act. 12. In the books of Apocrypha as Tob. 1. Jude 2. 3. 1 Macc. 10. 2 Mac. 4.14 c. See also Beros Ant. lib. 1. Diog. La. lib. 6. Plut. de Dionys Brus lib. 6. cap. 21. Arist Pol. lib. 5. cap. 10. What needeth us so to accumulate quotations and examples when as it is evident both from divine and prophane writ that there have been almost tot Tyranni quot Reges Conclus 6. Vnlesse it had been for some of these causes above-written there was never at any time any King so absolute but one way or other according to Law his power was restricted In establishing this Conclusion we observe this order Firstly we prove the point from example And in doing so you will do well to observe that examples to this purpose are of a twofold kind 1. There are some which point-out to us That Kings in old were no lesse subject to Law then any of the People 2. Some of them shew to us That though the King's power for the most part hath been absolute yet notwithstanding in some case or other it hath been hemmed-in by Law Of the first kind we have examples both in the dayes of the Heroes and in after-times That in the dayes of the Heroes some Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then the People may be examplified both from the Commonwealth of the Jews as also from the condition of some Kingdoms amongst the Gentiles But we forbear till afterward to speak any thing of the Jewish Commonwealth And amongst the Heathen you have to begin with the ancient and stately Kingdom of Egypt It cannot be denied but the Kings of Egypt in old were most precisely hedged-in by Law Whatsoever they did was according to Law They walked they washed they lay with their wives they did eat and drink according to Law They wrote Letters and dispatched Messages according to Law It was not permitted to them to treasure-up silver to judge or punish any at random and according to their pleasure but as privat men they were subjected to the Laws the yoke of which they did bear patiently willingly submitting themselves thereto and esteemed themselves happy to be subject to them Diod Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. This Diodore as he confesseth himself hath from the writings of the Egyptian Priests which he diligently searched as he saith Out of whose writings he giveth us three reasons why the Kings of Egypt were for the most part good and kept
themselves within bounds 1. Because the sons of the chiefest Priests who were the greatest and the most learned of al the rest beyond the age of twenty years were ordained to attend the King day and night By whose on-looking and presence the King was taught reservedness 2. Because the Laws were most exactly and precisely exercised on the King's Person 3. Because the Priests as both before death and after death did celebrate the praises of the good Kings honouring them with hyperbolick encomies so they spake both before and after death to the discommendation and disparagement of the bad and wicked Kings depriving them of stately Exequies at their interring Now the desire of the one and the fear of the other kept them back from extravagency and debording and caused them cheerfully to take with the yoke Ibid. And which is more to be wondered at Sesostris one of the grand and primary Heroes ordained Praetors as Judges to govern in the Land of Egypt Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. The care of every thing was cast over upon them Yea Berosus telleth us That Sesostris whom he calleth Hercules delivered Italy from tyranny and slavery Ant. lib. 5. This insinuateth that this Noble Conquerour delighted much to live according to Law when-as he could not endure tyranny to be exercised in a strange Kingdom which he conquered Far lesse I think would he have suffered tyranny to be in his own Kingdom The like also did his father Osiris whom Diodore calleth Simandius in Italy Ber. ant lib. 5. Him Berosus calleth Jupiter the just I conceive he could not have been so called unless he had been a man that walked strictly according to Law And if these two glorious Heroes and noble Conquerours did subject themselves to Law how much more the rest of the Kings of Egypt in old who were far inferiour to them Let it be so these two lived according to the Law ex voluntate but not ex lege yet will it conclude if we compare arightly the highness of them with the lowness of the rest that the rest ex lege were subject to Law So saith Diod. Ant. lib. 2. cap. 3. Where he also saith out of the Egyptian Writers That the Egyptians choosed-out the best men of their chiefest Cities of whom they made-up a Judicatory not inferiour either to the Councel of Athens or the Senat of Lacedemon judging all impartially without respect of persons Aristotle observeth That it is a sign of a well governed Common-wealth where neither tyranny nor sedition is Pol. 2. cap. 9. But we read not but very seldom that in old either of these was in Egypt See Beros an t lib. Maneth de Reg. Egypt lib. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Moreover Aristotle prescribeth it as a rule for preventing sedition and keeping the Common-wealth in its integrity to govern according to Law and to abstain from tyranny Pol. 5. cap. 8. 10. The like do all Politicians together with the consent of Machjavel and Salmasius But it is known that the Kingdom of Egypt as in old there was seldom sedition in it so likewise it endured a long time inviolable Which makes us conclude that the Egyptian Kings kept themselves within bounds refrained from tyranny and walked according to the Law But they could not ordinarily and for a long time have done so unless they had been subordinate and subjected to their Counsellours 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 saith 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 saith the like But saith 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 sacrificed to satisfie 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 exoi 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 Palamedes 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 say 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 saith Aristotle Pol. 2. cap. 8. The like also saith 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 saith That what he commanded the People to do he did it himself also And which is more he alledgeth That the Lacedaemonians 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 Lacedaemonian 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 speaketh who saith That he commanded not to do one thing and did another himself The man is reckoned up amongst the chiefest Law-givers and as Hesiod Homer and Plato 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 saith That in old Kingly Government was amongst the Cretians but afterward the Cretian Cosmi like to the Lacedaemonian 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 saith 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 Lacedemonians 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 fit 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. ant 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
libido Regum pro legibus habebatur And aftervvard he speaketh how they vvere reformed by Solon and hovv Pisistratus and others vvho succeeded him did tyrannize over them Lib. 2. Solon looked upon the Athenians under Pisistratus reign albeit he governed according to Solon's Lavvs as under the yoke of bondage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. And it is reported that Cleon and those who followed him destroyed the Commonwealth Great tyranny there indeed and arbitrariness of power Her de Pol. Ath. Thus we see clearly how that not onely Kings in after-times were regulated and in all things subjected to Law but also as some of the Athenian Princes were inferiour so some of them were superiour to the Athenian Kings In Corinth the Kingly Government was also regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herac. de Pol. Corinth i. e. Periander first changed the Commonwealth taking to himself a guard and at last appointing to himself a Senate Now you must not think that this Senate had not power over Periander 1. Because that Senate cannot properly be called a Senat wherein the King hath a negative voice It is but at the most a cypher far from the nature of Senates that were in old amongst the Athenians Carthaginians c. 2. Because Periander in his Epistle to Solon advised at him what he should do in securing himself from those who went about to kill him And Solon in his Epistle to him advised him to lay-down his lording power It is very easie to know what hath been the cause why his own subjects endeavoured to cut him off for it is reported of him that he was the first King who went conveyed with a guard of Souldiers Whereupon he suffered none to live in the City This could not but irritate his subjects against him and make them conspire against his life See Herod lib. 5. Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Periand Herac. de Pol. Corin. Thra. sibulus counsel was just contrary to Solon's He desired him to spare none whether friend or foe but cut all off Which he did indeed as Herodot reporteth But we must think that he advised with Solon after he had put in execution Thrasibulus counsel for Solon in his Epistle to him telleth him That the way to secure himself in his Kingdom was not to cut-off any but to lay-down his lording power over them This insinuateth that he had followed Thrasibulus counsel and had cut-off his subjects before either Solon wrote to him or he had advised with Solon And Heraclid saith in even-down terms That he was neither unjust nor violent hating all gross and scandalous vices and commanding all those to be drowned in the sea who were prostitute to such manner of wickedness This could not be in the time of his tyranny when he made havock of his people and of which Heraclid speaketh before he entereth a-talking any thing of his justice and reservedness Which is more then apparent to us that he became a just and moderat man leaving-off his tyranny and oppression upon Solon's counsel and advice And so we fear not to say that he did put power in the peoples hand adding a Councel to him for keeping him within the bounds of Law This we may learn from Heraclid who having spoken of his moderation and justice telleth us That he did constitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Councel or Senate Verily we cannot think but it was Periander's wisdome and choice to follow Solon's counsel in giving liberty to the people and in priviledging them with a power over him to hedge-in his wayes by the rules of Law Aristotle saith that his lording over the people made them lay their heads together against him Pol. 5. cap. 10. And Solon counselled him to leave-off his lording power as the chief and only vvay of securing himself and conciliating the favour of the people Who can think that such a vvise man as he who is reckoned-up amongst the seven Sages vvould have despised the counsel of such a vvise man another of the Sages also Yea Chilo in his Epistle to Periander though in a satyrick way is little or nothing different from that vvhich Solon counselled him to And that Periander practised according to Solon's advice and counsel is clear by comparing it vvith vvhat Heraclid speaketh concerning Periander He had the vvise men his fellows in vvisdom in greater respect then to postpone any of their advices as is evident from his Epistle vvhich he vvrote to them Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Per. 3. Because it vvas Periander's express judgment that Popular Government was better then Monarchy Dio. La. ibid. Now this could not be while-as Periander delighted to lord and tyrannize over his people And so 't is more then probable that as he changed his judgment he likewise changed his practice These two go alwayes hand in hand together Wherefore to me it is more then evident that Periander gave his people power over him and willingly subjected himself to Law Regal Government amongst the Carthaginians in after-times was regulated and in all things subjected to Law But you will do well to consider with me these things 1. As Carthage was in its beginnings 2. As it was in after-ages In the first respect it cannot be denied but Regal Government in it was absolute Firstly Because Dido the first founder of Carthage was worshipped by the Carthaginians as a Goddess Secondly Because Dido by her own proper industry builded Carthage and made the Carthaginians a People Just lib. 18. Thirdly Because in the beginning Kingly Government was most in request And therefore Kingdoms in the beginning were governed by Kings So say Aristotle Justin and Salust Then men were little acquainted with the rules of Policy Which makes Aristotle say that Kingly Government in the beginning was established because it was then difficult and hard to find-out many men of wit and judgment to govern the Commonwealth Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. We shall therefore not judge it strange that Kings in the beginning of any Kingdom were absolute and of an arbitrary power People then had not policy and knew not how to exercise Law aright and to keep their Kings within the bounds thereof But according to the second respect we must think that there was a change in Court Then the Carthaginian Kings became subjected to Law It is therefore reported that Machaeus or as Orosius saith Mezeus vvas banished by the Carthaginians And finding that after he vvas by strength of hand released from his banishment he endeavoured to lord over them they accused him and executed judgment on him as on a malefactor and paracide both as a Rebel against his Country and as a murderer of his son Just lib. 18. Tell me not that Machaeus was not their King but the general Captain of their Army 1 Because his son Cartalo was by the Carthaginians trimmed-up in a Kingly attire instead of
Thereus by his Nobles was constrained to flee for fear of them Durstius was killed in battel by his People Gillus his People and Nobles arising against him diffiding his own fled into Ireland and at last was discomfited taken and killed Evennus 3. was taken in battel by his Nobles condemned into perpetual bonds Dardanus was taken in battel and being beheaded his head was hanged-up for a spectacle and his body cast into a Sinck Lugthacus once was censured by a Parliament for slighting the counsel of the States in appointing base men to Publick Offices and at last he was killed by the Noblemen and People The like hapned to Mogaldus Conarus degraded and imprisoned where he died till he resigning the Kingdom they substituted another Athirco being pursued by his Nobles killed himself Donaldus 3. usurper was killed by Crathilinthus idonea manu collecta Romachus was censured by the Parliament and being beheaded by his Nobles his head was put upon a pole Constantinus 1. was punished by his States Ferchardus 1. Renuentem arce expugnata in jus pertrahunt in prison killed himself Ferchardus 2. was also censured by the Parliament Egenus 8. was put to death by the Parliament all consenting thereto Donaldus 5. being censured by the Parliament was put in prison where he killed himself So Ethus being dethroned in prison died of grief Constantine 4. was killed in battel Grimus being taken in battel his eyes were put out and he died of wounds and grief Macbethus being vanquished fled into the Castle of Dunse where he was killed Donald 7. was made to flee by Duncanus for whom the Nobles sent in Aebudas Duncanus was made to flee and afterward put in prison where he died This was done by Edgar sent for by the Noblemen to that purpose Edward Baliol was expelled and shut-out of his kingdom James 3. was killed in the pursuit by his Nobles Q. Mary was arraigned in Parliament and by a great part condemned to death by many to perpetual imprisonment What will Salmasius say to these practises Or rather what will the Scots speak of them O marvelous and unspeakable Providence Never enough admired never enough praised Behold and see in this matter the stately steps of Providence It is known this day to the world that no Nation is so malignant as Scotland so much idolizeth a King and doteth upon him as it doth It is not ashamed to postpone Christ's Interest to Caesar's No Nation pleadeth so much for absolute power to the King as it doth It pleadeth for an absolute immunity to the King 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 forrain 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 afterwards in a more convenient place in a word not sparing 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 in the dayes of the Heroes Kings had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe by the way that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 draweth nigh to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet is there some difference between them But how they differ as also how Aristotle in this place is to be understood you have at length expressed afterward Now Aristotle for his saying assigneth many causes amongst which these be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either by gathering people together or by purchasing a Kingdom Polit. 3. cap. 10. Now Brutus as 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 succeeded him 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 absolutenesse 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 time to whose conduct and valour the Englishes were much engaged in 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 lord 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 then there was little time left for exercising Policy and putting Lawes in execution This Polydorus Virgilius 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 Def. Reg. cap. 8. to have troubled himself to have cited any Authors for proof thereof Very reason it-self teacheth the point 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 otherwayes 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 fidem Gulielmo quam à principio de hereditate regni non satis considerate dedisset vel nullum quod 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 enkiâ—ging 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 notwithstanding 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 Mathildis 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 left Arthure son to Gaufredus who was elder then John heir to the Crown I might speak more for clearing this purpose 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 Heâ—r 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 causa est nobilior suo effectu 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 af convocating and dissolving the Parliament belongeth to the King of England The power of the Parliament is extraordinary and pro tunc 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 be 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 Every thing wherein the good of the Commonwealth is interested is referred to it Secondly Whatsoever is done at the command whether of King or People is of none effect unless it be authorized by the Parliament Thirdly It establisheth and taketh away Laws as it judgeth fit Fourthly Every Member of it hath a-like power and freedom in voicing And what is decreed and enacted by Parliament he calleth it the proper and municipal Law of the Kingdom Seing then the Parliament is the most sovereign and supream power in the Kingdom of England according as it was in old how can it be said That the King of England hath power over it If it be so then you admit two Supream powers and a power above a Supream power which is contradicent The Lacedemonian Ephori were no otherwise above their Kings but because they were invested with the highest and supream power All things were referred to the Parliament even as the Roman Consuls as Festus out of Coelidus saith did refer every thing to the Senate Now because of this the Senate had the highest power and was above the Consuls Ergo seing all matters of the Commonwealth in old in the Kingdom of England were referred to the Parliament no question it had power above the King The Roman Senate is therefore said to have been of the supreamest power Fenest de Magistrat Rom. cap. 1. because neither Kings nor Consuls nor Dictators nor any other Magistrate could do any thing without their advice and counsel Ergo seing whatsoever the King of England or any other of that Kingdom did in old was to no purpose without the authority and approbation of Parliament without all controversie the King of England was subjected to the Parliament Salmasius concludeth the King to be above the Parliament because he alledgeth the Parliament can do nothing without the King Why may not I then conclude the Parliament to be above the King because re ipsa and according to the Law of the Kingdom the King can do nothing without the authority and consent of the Parliament Where then I pray you is the King 's negative voice There is not a Member in Parliament cui aequa loquendi potestas non competit So saith Polyd. Angl. hist lib. 11. What Do you imagine that ever the Parliament could by their authority have drawen-up the foresaid agreement between Steven and Henry 2. unlesse they had had power above the King What they did therein was a direct acting both over Steven their present King and Henry 2. their future King But will you tell me whileas the States of England did seek of K. John to be governed by the ancient Lawes made by Edward the Confessour whether or not were these Lawes Acts of meer pleasure giving the King a liberty to do as he would either to tyrannize over the people or not You can not hold the affirmative because what they demanded of the King was to be restored to liberty to be freed of tyranny Polyd. Vir. Angl. hist lib. 15. And if you hold the negative part then do the ancient Laws of England pull absolutenesse out of the king's hands and subject him to Law Magna charta saith The King can do nothing but by Lawes and no obedience is due to him but by Law And the States of England were so far from permitting John to rule at randome and not according to the ancient Lawes of the kingdom that contrarywise they combined against him entering in oath together to pursue him still on till he should govern according to Law and establish the ancient Lawes of the kingdom Yea albeit that Pope Innocent commanded them to lay-down arms and though upon their deniall thereof they were declared enemies by the Pope they notwithstanding followed on their purpose and cryed-out that they would be avenged by fire and sword on such a wicked tyrant who did so much slight the people Aye which is more they sent into France and from thence brought Ludovick the French king's son and created him king notwithstanding any thing either John or the Pope could do in the contrary Thus they never rested till in sorrow they brought John's head into the grave Where I pray you is the absolutenesse of the king of England whenas the States would not suffer him to govern but according to Law and in denying to do so pursued him in arms unkinging him enkinging another in his room
and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the Parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Laet. 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 praelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praef 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 ita praeceptum 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 Eodem 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 consensatotius 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 wisely 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 lest 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 saith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derogated 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 notwithstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conflicts 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. Vnder Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgmet-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Vnder 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 notwithstanding 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 erect 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 Causes 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 saith 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 saith 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 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 be approved 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 forensick 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 essentially 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 successours to 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 Scotland 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 Ecclesiastick 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 foresaid 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 defend 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 Lord 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 consent or it 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 confer 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
Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec uuquam ad unius libidinem sed ad legum prescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parl. at Sterl 1567. and 1578. concerning Q. Mary This was practised by Mogaldus who did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Whence the kings of Scotland had no power to do any thing without the advice and counsel of the Estates They had no power to establish or abrogate laws according to their pleasure This my dear Country-man proveth at length in the place above-cited In the interim take-alongst with you that decree made in Finnanus Rex 10 his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernment but by the authority of Parliament and that they should not administer the Republick by private and domestick councell nor the businesses of the king and publick should be managed without advice of the fathers and that kings by themselves without the ordors of the fathers shires and governours should not make or break war peace or leagues 2. As the Lacedemonian king did bind himself by oath to govern according to the Lawes of the kingdom Xenoph. de Repub. Laced N. Damasc de mor. gent. Laced so the king of Scots by Oath and Covenant is tied to do the like The plat-form of the king's coronation-oath is set-down K. James 6. Parl. 1. Whereby he is obliged to maintain the true Kirk of GOD and Religion now presently professed in purity and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the Realm causing justice and equity to be ministred without partiality This did both James 6. and Charles swear And that this is no new custome amongst the kings of Scotland you will find it more then abundantly proved by our learned Country-man in the place above-quoted 3. The Lacedemonian kings were subjected to the stroke of justice Which maketh Pausanias so to write of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Concerning the Lacedemonian King judgment was so ordered Twenty eight in number who were called Senatours were appointed to judge And with them did sit the Ephorick magistracy together with the King of the other family So the king of Scots was censured by the Parliament made up of three Estates His neck was brought under their yoke as my learned Country-man maketh good in the place fore-quoted And so as the Lacedemonians did cut-off and turn-out many kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 5. cap. 10. so the Scots in old did the like as is made good already See Lex Rex loc cit 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 Ahasuerus 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
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 lie 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 sakc 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 saith 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 while as 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 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 left 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 descr 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 Xiphil 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 saith 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 left 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 Aquitania and Celtae And if we beleeve them in old ever unto the dayes of C. Câ—esar 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 Liscus were invested Which was a yearly Magistracy having power both of life and death as Caesar saith de bel Gal. lib. 1. What the Vergobret did amongst the Hedui was done convocatis eorum principibus Those who were clothed with it as they were annual and but for a time so they did nothing absolutely and by themselves but according to the counsel and advice of the Princes This is far from the arbitrary power that Salmasius speaketh-of Yet we will not say that the power of the Celtick Kings was alwayes so hemmed-in by Law I do not think but their primary founders not only amongst the Celtes but also amongst the Aquitans and Belgists had a vast and arbitrary power Yea and their after Kings so long as the flower of Heroicism lasted had such power as Aristotle speaketh-of and which by us is already expressed in the fourth species or in the former part of the fourth species of Monarchy Polit. 3 cap. 10 11. And so the flower of Heroicism fading and Kingly Government wearing out of request no question there hath been no more power left to their Kings then what Caesar speaketh-of in the place above-cited Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith 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 now 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 Nicaeus 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Britains 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 while as 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 which 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
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 epithet 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 Roman Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradistinguisheth 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 Principesque undique convenire se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt 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 Summa imperii bellique administrandi communi consilio 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. chorogr de prim 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 Mela Fert 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 Lacedemonian 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 Dio Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet i. e. Amongst them viz. the Britains 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 populi was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jussu 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 singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the Aebuaan 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 manifest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth 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 principes que ibi sunt plures pacem invÃcem servantes Rer. ant lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salmasius 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 Bretan 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 cutting-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 conferred 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 Concl. 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 shewed 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 resign their 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 Nimrod 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 setled 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 setled 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 Heroicism And that rather in the flower and beginnings then in the fadings 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 Aristotle 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 tyrannizing 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 with them 'T is repugnant to their innate liberty and the natural desire thereof Yea 't is repugnant to the natural antipathy which all bear in hand against tyranny This being done we hasten now to give a direct and particular answer to that which Salmasius alleadgeth for proof of the second Proposition We confesse that some Kings of Assyria had an absolute and arbitrary power But we deny that such power was competent to all the Assyrian Kings as is proved already It will never follow that because the first Kings of Assyria who were extraordinary Heroes in whose time the condition of the Kingdom was unsetled had an arbitrary power therefore all the Assyrian Kings had the same power also while as the Kingdom became established The one way the case is extraordinary and the other way it is ordinary But there is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries And Salmasius concludeth very unjustly the Assyrian Kings to have been absolute because the Persian Kings were so I confesse the Persian Kings had a power to do any thing they pleased but this was by the means of the great Persian Monarchs Cyrus and Darius We read in Daniel 6. ch that in their dayes the Persian Laws were unalterable And so we conceive that Law which gave the King of Persia a power to do every thing according to his pleasure was made under their reign Otherwise they could not have decreed unalterably Neither could Darius have decreed that none for fouâ—â—y dayes should pray to any but to him unless he had had an absolute god-like power conferred upon him by the Law of the Kingdom Of this Law Herodot speaketh lib. 3. in the history of Cambyses marriage with his german sister And it is known that Cambyses did shortly after succeed to Cyrus And it is already said by us more then once that conquering Kings may and did reign at random And so it was no wonder though the Persian Kings had an absolute power 1. Because it was established amongst the first and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdom It was enacted by the power and means of the first Founders of the Persian Monarchy who subdued the Assyrians and brought them under But you can never shew me a Law amongst the Assyrians establishing the arbitrary power of their Kings 2. I do not deny but arbitrary power may be retained in succession being once acquired by some of the predecessours for some short time So arbitrary power acquired by Nimrod continued till in and about the reign of Zames And if you say that it lasted longer sure I am it did not exceed the dayes of Heroicism After which time Monarchy in Asia became despotick and heril Neither can you shew me as is proved already that in the dayes of the Heroes regal power was arbitrary unlesse it had been in some extraordinary case Well I stand not to grant that arbitrary power once acquired may endure some few hundred years But I cannot be brought to say that such a power can be retained into many ages This you may learn from what foregoeth Now the Assyrian Monarchy continued about 1547 whereas the Persian Monarchy lasted but 230 years And though Ottanes defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably yet he doth so by way of taxing the greatnesse thereof And positively he taxeth the greatnesse of the Persian Kings objecting to the people the licentious arbitrarinesse of Cambyses and Magus Thus he endeavoureth to disswade the People from establishing Monarchy telling them that it was neither good nor pleasant And he giveth this reason for it because saith he it hath a priviledge to do every thing unpunishably Herod lib. 3. So then he defineth Monarchy after that manner not because he esteemeth it to be its due priviledge but because he holdeth it as that which is competent to it against the pleasure and profit of the people Therefore is it that he useth it as a disswading motive for provoking the people no longer to set-up Monarchy amongst them We stand not here to glosse Artabanus mind who commendeth that Law amongst the Persians whereby was enacted That the King should be honoured as the Image of GOD. He was a great Courtier with the King of Persia And it is the least thing Courtiers can do to flatter Although we do verily think that Artabanus did allow vast and arbitrary power in the Persian King yet that can be hardly drawn from his words In Scripture Kings are
called Gods and we are commanded to honour them as GOD's Vicegerents yet doth it not follow that according to Scripture-stile they are absolute and have an arbitrary power And we admit that of Claudian who saith that the Persians gave alike obedience to cruel and tyranous Kings Therefore was it that by the very Law of the kingdom arbitrary power was conferred upon their Kings and continued so long as the Persian Monarchy endured And though the Persian King had an absolute power in making yet not in breaking Laws as is said already It is already shewed by us That in some things the power of the Persian King was restricted Salmasius needeth not to tell us that the Egyptians did not bring their Kings to the Stage This is blocked-up already from his fingers And though they did bear much with Cambyses it was no wonder for he subdued them And what can a subdued people do but suffer And 't is known that Cambyses himself was a vile tyrant Therefore the story of Judeth calleth him Nabuchodonosor So saith Josephus also And Ottanes addeth to that Herod lib. 3. And what can Tyrants do but tyrannize Such are very ready to usurp an arbitrary power concl 5. As for Busiris I cannot think that ever the Egyptians had any such King though Isocrates saith so I confesse I read of such a man in Diodore Rer. ant lib. 2. cap. 1. But I can read little or nothing of him either in Berosus or in Manetho 'T is true Berosus Ant. lib. 5. saith That Busiris was King of Phoenicia So saith Diodore Ant. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Herodot reporteth That Sennacherib invading Egypt the Egyptians went about to help him against their own King Sethon because he abused them and did not his duty to them Lib. 2. Thus we see that the Aegyptians did hardly bear with tyrannous kings This at length is shewed already And what power Agamemnon had over the Grecian Army as also what power the Grecian Kings had how they were absolute and how not is shewed abundantly already It is no matter that Philip saith That the king hath equal power with God So did Caligula arrogat an arbitrary and God-like power to himself Suet in Cal. cap. 29. 'T is the least thing that tyrannous kings can do to plead for more interest then either GOD or Nature hath conferred on them And Ecphantas calleth the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because he should be governed by none but because he is above every one seorsim In which notion he is above all and subject to none Yet this doth not conclude but he is subject to the people or their Representative But knowing that there are many Court-parasites I regard not though you reckon-up Ecphantas amongst them Yea it is already shewed by us That the Roman Kings were regulated And albeit we should grant that Romulus was an absolute Prince yet would Salmasius gain just nothing for by his conduct and industry he made the Romans a People And we have said already that such kings from whose conduct the people's welfare doth intimatly depend have been absolute But the case of such is extraordinary And as for that which Pomponius saith it needeth a distinction It cannot be denied but Romulus had a pambasilick power before the Senat was erected by him But after it was established we deny that he had any such power as is shewed already This distinction you almost find in terminis Digest lib. 1. tit 2. l 2. where Pomponius words are cited This way also Tacitus is to be understood We confesse the Roman Emperours have immunity from Law and that according to the very Law of the kingdom Princeps legibus solutus est Dig. lib. 1. tit 3. l. 31. And upon this ground say Severus and Antoninus Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. And it cannot be denied but Dio approveth that same Law So do all king-flatterers Yet Dion lib. 51. saith That this Law was enacted firstly in favour of Octavius And no wonder for he subdued and overcame all that stood by the liberties and priviledges of the people But the Conquerour may rule at random as is often said already So Darius and Cyrus having subdued the Assyrians obtained the like priviledge not only to themselves but also to their successours In such a case we deny not but kings have had an absolute and arbitrary power But though Augustus obtained this priviledge yet sure I am the Dictatours had it not as is shewed already I confesse Diotogenes doth compare the King with GOD in some respects i. e. As GOD is first by Nature and in Himself and hath power over all the creatures so the King by way of imitation and resemblance is first and hath power on earth But I read not a word in him of his comparing the King with GOD in the matter of absoluteness And sure I am he could not make a comparison in order to GOD under the notion of arbitrary power for GOD's essence knoweth not what it is to act against Law and to tyrannize Yet I do verily think that the man is of Salmasius judgment for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The King hath an unsubjected power And we do not deny but Justinian Novel constit 105. saith That the King is above Law He calleth himself also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nov. constit 1. tit 1. Yet sure I am Plutarch doth not say so though Salmasius doth father it falsly upon his name And truly for my self I think it a great wonder that Plutarch being a great Courtier with Trajan the Emperour did not swear what Justinian spoke 'T is the least things Kings can do to say They are absolute and Courtiers to seal it with an Oath A flattering Tacitus can say Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt And Virgil before him deluding Augustus with flattery blusheth not to say Divisum imperium cum Jove Caesar habet But this may be admired That Plutarch a most eminent Courtier in plain terms saith Lex omnium regina Com. in Princ. But more of this afterward And though Emperour Justinian claimed an arbitrary power yet neither Theopompus nor Lycurgus do so But you shall hear more of this afterward Well I think it just nothing for Salmasius to tell me that Kings and Courtiers do plead for an arbitrary power to the King They both hold that as their interest and what the one saith the other sweareth But he must think it very material and take it to his second thoughts that both Kings and Courtiers do decline and abominate arbitrary and illimited power Friend there is not self-interest here But the other way you cannot say so much And what is it that interest will not make a man do who regardeth nothing but self-ends As the one way partiality so the other way impartiality taketh room And as for Salust truly Salmasius wrongeth him very much It is not his opinion
seasonable Yet I remit it to any indifferent reader to judge whether or not the people could have desired Rehoboam to lessen the yoke of his father and the old men could have counselled him to serve the people and satisfie their desire without the note of highest treason if he had been their absolute lord And if you deny that de jure they had any such power then do I gain the point Inst Salmasius hath no more to say against this But 1 they did not accuse condemn and bring Rehoboam to death as the English rebels dealt with K. Charles 2. There is none who will not condemn Jeroboam as an apostate and rebell and impute rebellion to all his successours Def. reg cap. 4. Ans This is a meer shifting of the question What is it to the purpose that the people of Israel did not accuse condemn and cut-off Rehoboam Will it therefore follow that he had an arbitrary and lording power or that they went not about to eclipse his power and to keep it within bounds The contrary of that is shewed already And I think Salmasius will say that they had not reason to cut-off Rehoboam He did no more but threatned them with heavy pressures and grievous impositions and that through the suggestion of wicked and evill counsell We read not that he had tyrannized over them and had put any thing in action which he threatened them with And yet they say What portion have we in David neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse Every man to your tents O Israel and now David see to thine own house 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. My friend were they any thing behinde with Rehoboam in this And I am sure they did as much against Rehoboam in revolting from him and in setting another King over them upon his threatning them with tyranny as if they should have cut him off if at any time he had actually exercised tyranny upon them Consideratis considerandis the case is just one They declined him upon his profession of tyranny And I pray imagine you but they would have dealt far more roughly with him if he had put it in action Did they not stone Adoram to death who was sent out by the King to them And was not the King constrained to flee to Jerusalem for fear of his life after they had revolted from him Yea were they not alwaies in a posture to have withstood the King if he had come against them in arms 1 King 12. 13. 2 Chron. 10. 11. I cannot stand here to dispute whether or not they did lawfully revolt from him But sure I am I may very justly determine upon either of these two 1. That Jeroboam was a vile idolater and was not worthy to be a King 2. That the people justly desired Rehoboam to dimit of the power which his father had and that the old men did arightly counsel Rehoboam to do so Neither of these doth Salmasius deny And so I gain the point as is already proved Fourthly from the People of the Jews processing their Kings So did they against Athaliah 2 King 11. 2 Chron. 23. and Amaziah 2 King 14. 2 Chron. 25. See subsect 2. prop. 1. And as they processed their Kings so did they resist them as afterward is shewed But I pray you could they have done such things lawfully if their Kings had had an arbitrary power over them And that they did such things according to Law and Reason is proved by us Fifthly If Ahab had had an absolute power I see no reason how he could have been refused of Naboth's Vineyard 1 King 21 Sure I am if he had had a prerogative above Law and a power to dispose according to his pleasure either upon the goods or the person of the subject he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard at his own hand without so much as demanding it with Naboth's leave And yet the text saith That Naboth having refused to give it him he went home much dismaid and refused to eat bread because Naboth had denied it to him And which is more he could not get it till a false processe was led against Naboth by the craft of Jezebel But is it imaginable that ever such things would have been done if Ahab's power had been arbitrary and uncircumscribed No verily No question if his power had been boundlesse by vertue of a Royal Act he might have taken Naboth's Vineyard either without grieving himself or without leading a false processe against Naboth And therefore Mr. Withers al. Tom Plain-man saith notably Why I pray Did Ahab grieve that Naboth said him nay Why made he not this answer thereunto If what the Prophet said some Kings would do Were justly to be done Thy Vineyard's mine And at my pleasure Naboth all that 's thine Assume I may Why like a Turkey-chick Did he so foolishly grow sullen sick And get possession by a wicked fact Of what might have been his by Royal Act If such Divinity as this were true The Queen should not have needed to pursue Poor Naboth as she did or so contrive His death since by the King's Prerogative She might have got his Vineyard nor would God Have scourg'd that murder with so keen a rod On Ahab had he asked but his due For he did neither plot nor yet pursue The murder nor for ought that we can tell Had knowledge of the deed of Jezebel Till God reveal'd it by the Prophet to him Nor is it said that Naboth wrong did do him Or disrespect in that he did not yeeld To sell or give or to exchange his field Brit. Remembr Cant. 8. Now hereby is made to appear That the Kings of the Jews were not absolute whether according to the Law of God or the Law of the Kingdom And why then do Royallists plead so much for the King 's arbitrary power seing the Jewish Kings de jure had it not Which maketh me think other Kings far lesse should have it for the ordination of the Jewish Kings did depend from God in a most special way and God therein was most intimatly concerned We must not think that the Kings of Judah after the captivity de jure had any priviledge above Law more then those who preceded them According to the Law of God they had no such priviledge as is shewed already And that according to the Law of the Nation they had it not is also evident 1. Because after the captivity the state of the Government was changed And they had not so much as Kingly Government much lesse absolute Monarchy till Aristobulus firstly usurped the Crown Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 19. 2. Because the people did withstand the tyrant Alexander And while as he was dying he was necessitate to exhort his wife who succeeded to him to dimit of his power and to promise to govern according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours and Pharisees Ant. Jud. lib. 13. cap. 22 23. Which she did accordingly
cap. 24. And at her death she desired the Sanhedrin to dispose upon the Kingdom as they pleased even while her son Aristobulus was in arms for bringing the Kingdom to himself Yea the Sanhedrin not onely accused Antipater but also arraigned Herod before them who for fear of them was constrained to flee Ant. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 17. And what arbitrary power Herod had was by Antonius concession whom Herod blinded and deluded with gifts Ant. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 4. I confesse while as Herod was cited before the Sanhedrin he was not King but Governour of Galilee But what then I hope Salmasius will not deny which indeed he confesses that his father Antipater did reign as King And yet the Elders of the People did accuse him before Hyrcanus But neither Hyrcanus who indeed was King of the Jews nor Antipater who was Procurator and managed the matters of the Kingdom because of his weakness were able to absolve Herod notwithstanding Caesar the President of Syria wrote some Letters to Hyrcanus threatning him if he did not absolve him The Sanhedrin went-on so precisely against Herod that they went about to condemn him to death So that Hyrcanus was necessitate in satisfying Caesar's desire to cause Herod flee quietly away Now I would fain know of Salmasius if either Hyrcanus or Antipater had had an absolute and arbitrary power might they not have absolved Herod at their pleasure the Sanhedrin nilling or willing and not basely for fear of the Sanhedrin have dismissed Herod secretly Therefore Salmasius must give me leave to say though he imagineth the contrary that Sichardus very pertinently urgeth this example to prove that the power of the Sanhedrin was above the King And Salmasius himself denieth not Def. Reg. cap 2. 5. but the strain and current of Rabbinick Writers doth run this way Inst Nay but saith he in the Jewish Talmud it is spoken otherwise And therefore it is said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non dicit testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur in Cod. San. cap. 11. Def. Reg. cap. 2. Answ Verily this Gentleman needeth not brag much of this for the Jewish Writers pull this out of his hands by a distinction Some of them understand it concerning the Kings of Israel and some of them refer it to the Samaritan Kings But they deny it to have place in the Kings of Judah and those who came of David I admire much that he should cite the authority of Jewish writ for him He doth not deny but the Jewish Writers are no friends to Kingly Government And they positively say which he denieth not himself that the King of the Jews was subjected to Law And which is more they particularily condescend upon three cases wherin the King was judged and punished by the Sanhedrin viz. Idolatry Murder and Adultery Let Salmasius impugn their sayings and consequences as much as he will no question they speak many things from the purpose I regard not All that I seek of them is to shew that they are far from his opinion though he leaneth much to humane authority Yea that which in their sayings seemeth most for him he himself is not fully satisfied therewith He is constrained to put a fair face upon that Rex neque judicat saying That it only hath place in the Kings of the Jews after the Captivity But if his construction stand then we shall expound the words thus Rex neque judicat i. e. The King of the Jews after the Captivity did not judge neque judicatur i. e. The King of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity was not judged And so you must after the same manner expound the words which are added to these And for my self I take this exposition of his to be meer non-sense And sure I am there is no Humanist who according to the rules of true Rhetorick can admit such an exposition I see he will have Rex taken in an ambiguous sense But I know not if ever he read that one and the same word in a continuate Oration is taken under divers senses Such cryptick expressions become not Humanists but Sophists Amphibologick Prophets Well we have given the sense of these words already in this same Section Concl. 2. And we mind no more to stand here but only put Salmasius in mind of this That the Kings of the Jews whether according to the Law of God or the Law of man had no prerogative royal above Law Ergo far lesse any other Kings are so priviledged Fourthly Absolute power in actu primo is a tyrannick power Ergo it is not a lawful power and a power from God The Antecedent cannot be denied because absolute and arbitrary power putteth the King or any invested therewith in a disposition for and capacity of acting either according or contrary to Law of tyrannizing and non-tyrannizing over the People Now this aptitude of arbitrary power is the very actus primus thereof The consequence is also undeniable for God cannot be the author of any evil and tyrannous power Power in so far as it is tyrannous in as far it is sinful and unlawful either in lesse or more The Scripture of God crieth-down tyranny and so doth the very Law of Nature But who will say That God hath hand in any thing that is evil and unjust unlesse he will not be ashamed to say That God is the author of sin And if it be so that absolute and arbitrary power is not of God I admire how Malignants are not ashamed to plead so much for it The point being thus established from Scripture and reason grounded thereupon the next thing we have to do in this businesse is to shew that it is not onely my judgement but even that also which the very light of Nature taught Ethnicks to embrace Herodot approveth Pindarus because he called Law the King and Lord of every thing lib. 3. And lib. 7. he saith that amongst the Lacedemonians Law was King In like manner Plutarch approveth Pindarus for that same comment in Princ. Plato doth much cry-up Lycurgus because he prevented tyranny in choosing some to govern with him in the Kingdom and made Law King So that saith he Law became the King of men and not men the Kings of Law In epist ad famil Dion And in the politicks he saith We should not call the civill and kingly power absolute Aristotle reproveth arbitrary power in the Lacedemonian Ephorie and in plain terms saith that it had done better to judge according to Law then according to it 's own will Polit. 2. cap. 7. And Polit. 4. cap 4. he saith in even-down termes that Law ought to rule all Which maketh him say that where Law doth not lord there is not a Republick Yea cap. 5. he calleth absolute optimacy tyranny calling it all one with the tyranny of kingly government Pol. 5. cap. 10. he differenceth the tyrant from the King in this viz. that the object of the King is honestum
as the name of a King much lesse the power So it was amongst the Cretians Athenians Cyrenians Romans and other Republicks Yet observe this distinction there is a threefold kind of people 1. Haughty and malignant 2. Ignorant and servil 3. Witty and politick The first sort can endure no Government but kingly And that not only because they would be great Courtiers themselves and promoted to dignity but also because they cannot endure to be governed by their equals The second sort Stoically are incapable of the sence of slavery and apprehend some deified lustre in the King They are silly base common spirits And because of their sillinesse they are contented to live in slavery And as they are base so they are ignorant And because of their ignorance they apprehend all their slavishnesse abundantly to be made-up with a glimpse of the King's countenance for in their delusion they look upon it as some deified species apprehending him to be much more then a man And the third sort upon no terms can away with kingly Government And that because they delight in freedom and the enriching of the Commonwealth We see that the most witty and politick Kingdoms we read of did either extreamly lessen the power of their Kings or else did shake-off their yoke altogether and that both in former and after-times So the Egyptian Ethiopian Indian Athenian Lacedemonian Cretian Cyrentan Carthaginian and Roman Kingdoms And to day know we not that the most witty and politick Kingdoms of the world which delight in the liberty of the Subject and wealth of the Republick cannot away with kingly Government So Venice Florence Holland and England What I pray you can be the reason that England cannot away with kingly Government and Scotland so much thirsteth after it Speaking naturally there can be no reason given but because England is a witty and politick Nation and Scotland is not What doth not Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 11. Pol. 4 cap. 13. impute it to the ignorance and unpolitickness of people that in old they did set-up Kings to reign over them And in the same places he saith That Policy abounding and Commonwealth's-men encreasing Kings were suffered no longer to govern But although this be true That people in after-times do not so much prize Monarchy as in former times and though even to day some kingdoms be lesse disposed for it then other kingdoms having shaken it off altogether yet notwithstanding I am constrained to say That in respect of the general and common disposition of the people nothing doth relish so much to them as kingly government No wonder forsooth for there are moe who are malignant and haughty desiring to set their feet upon the necks of others then are politick and witty And besides this the general and common sort of people are meerly ignorant and insensible of slavery There are far more indeed of the first and second sort then the third Assert 4. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments This we make good Firstly from example It cannot be denied but the good Kings who in old did reign over the Jews did set-up most glorious and eminent Reformations amongst the people They most nobly reformed both Church and State 2 Sam. 6 and 7. 1 King 8 1 Chron. 13.15.16.17.22 28. Psa 101. So much of David Of Solomon 1 Kin. 1.2.5.6 7. 8. 1 Chr. 5.6.7.24.28 29. 2 Chr. 2.3 4. 8. Of Asa 1 Kin. 15. 2 Chr. 14. 15. Of Jehoshaphat 2. Chron. 17. 19. Of Hezekiah 2 King 18. 2 Chr. 29.30 31. There is much also spoken of Josiah in acting for Reformation 2 King 23. 2 Chron. 34 35. See also Joseph Ant. lib. 7.8 9. concerning the actings of these Kings They were so instrumental in setting-up the Work of God amongst the people that therein they did far exceed the Judges Hence is it we do not read the people of the Jews at any time so cheerfully so fully so speedily and with such a plenary consent to have gone about duty as under the reign of these Kings Under the conduct of the best Judges we read of great grudgings altercations and slips amongst the people notwithstanding the non-consent of the Rulers thereto Exod. 32. Numb 11.12.13.14.16.20 25. Josh 7. Jud. 2. But we read not of any such slips amongst the people under these reforming Kings Secondly Monarchy is attended with many noble proprieties wherein it exceedeth any other kind of Government By vertue of which now and then here and there it produceth more noble and eminent effects then any other Government In reckoning-up these proprieties we observe Bellarmin's method 1. Order 2. Intense Authority Whereby it preventeth division and speedily attaineth its purpose In this sense the Poet saith well componitur Orbis Regis ad exemplum From the second propriety Darius disputing for Monarchy against Ottanes concludeth it to be the choicest of Governments Herod lib. 3. It made Ulysses to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Il. 2. In English That many rule it is not a good thing One Prince let be and let there be one King And therefore he sharply rebuked the dividing and murmuring Grecians saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. ibid. In English We shall not Grecians in this place All reign indeed in any case From this Isocrates concludeth Monarchy of all Governments simply to be the best ad Nic. So do Seneca lib. 2. cap. 20. Athanasius Orat. adv Idol Hieronymus par 3. tract 9. epist 39. and Plutarch in Num. Sol. But they are far mistaken for this only concludeth Monarchy secundum quid to be the choicest of Governments Yea Plato in Polit. Aristotle Eth. 8. cap. 10. Justine in Or. exhort Cyprian tract de idol van in this respect call Monarchy the chiefest of Governments Yet not simply and absolutely as do Isocrates Darius and others 3. Power and strength For in so far as Monarchick Government is lesse obnoxious to division and more attended with union then any of the rest in as far it secureth and strengtheneth the Commonwealth more then any of them The strength of the Kingdom dependeth from union consent and harmony The contrary of this is the ruin of it Mat. 12. Whence after Kingly Government had perished amongst the Romans many intestine divisions did ensue as D. Halicarnassius Val. maximus T. Livius Fenestella Plutarch L. Annaeus c. do report 4. Stability and diuturnity Now it is attended with this propriety for these reasons Firstly because it is most authoritative and farthest from the subjects reach Secondly because it is lesse liable to division and confusion then any of the rest of Governments Because of these things it is more free then any other Government whether from forrain or intestine jars Hence is it that amongst all Governments it hath endured longest as is agreed on by all Historians I confesse
Judges then under Kings The Judges for the most part were holy They alwaies dehorted the people from prophanity alwaies delivered them from slavery at no time brought evil upon them But the Kings for the most part were wicked the contrary effects were produced by them This as a speaking commentary intimateth to us That the condition of the people is most desperat and hazardous under Kings We cannot passe-by the condition of the Jews after the captivity as it was under Captains or Judges and as as it was under Kings All the while they lived under Captains their condition was most happy and blessed Albeit at that time now and then they were crossed with the bondage of strangers yet were they free from intestine jars Their Captains did not rise against them and bring them under slavery as did their Kings Their zeal and forwardnesse in acting for the weal both of Church and Commonwealth are fully regestred in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah Macc. 1. and 2 Jos an t Jud. lib. 12. and 13. And how much the Jews under the reign of Kings after the captivity suffered is storied at length by Josephus ant Jud. lib. 13.14 15. In a word the case of the Jews under Kings being most desperat far unlike the sweetnesse of their condition under Judges it speaketh to us That Kingly Governmâ—nt of all Governments is the most hazardous What better fruits I pray you needeth any kingdom to expect at the hands of Kings then the people of the Jews were served with at their hands Verily I suppose we may expect rather worse then better fruits then the people of the Jews were made to tast of under the reign of Kings Secondly from the Lord's unwillingnesse to set-up Kingly Government amongst the people of the Jews in remonstrating to them the extream hazard and tyranny they should lie under if they subjected their necks thereto This is seen 1 Sam. 8. And for making good our purpose therefrom we move the question Whether or not doth Samuel in it describe the office or rather the tyranny of the King Royallists do proudly aver That in it is understood the Office and Law of the King And none herein is more forward then Salmasius Def. Reg cap. 2. 5. But that we may dispatch the businesse between us we shall firstly try the sense of v. 11. what may be imported in the original text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he said This shall be the manner of that King who shall reign over you But Salmasius starteth very much at this translation And for manner he placeth law or right So the man will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Yea but he is far mistaken Firstly because in many places of Scripture we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for manner consuetude or custom Gen. 40. Exod. 21. Numb 29. Josh 6. â— Sam. 2. 1 Sam. 27. 1 King 18. But a place or two we expresse for further clearing this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they are doing into this very day after their former manners 2 Kin. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And their customs keep not Ezek. 20. Secondly bâ—cause it is the ordinary and common translation So the Chaldee Paraphrast translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one and the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is to be rendered manner Josephus ant Jud. lib. 6. cap. 40. is close of our judgment And Cl. Alexandrinus in plain termes saith That the Lord doth not promise them a King but threatneth them with a Tyrant And Salmasius though he leaneth to humane authority yet he standeth not to say That Clement and all who expound the words contrary to his mind do erre Def. Reg. cap. 5. I suppose the man is for nothing but what is for him Ex ungue Leonem But we have many moe Interpreters and Writers of our judgment Beda lib. 2. in expos Sam. Glos interl Hug. Card. Lyr. Cajet Serar Corn. a lap Mend. in loc Tust Abul in 1 Reg. cap. 3. quest 17. Rebuf tract de incong Calv. in loc P. Mart. in loc Jun. Trem. Riv. Diod. Pisc Brent in loc So saith Buchanan de jur reg ap Scot. I confesse the Septuagints render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this Salmasius runneth-to as to a strong tower withall further alleadging that sometime they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he buildeth upon a sandy foundation We make not reckoning how the Septuagints elsewhere translate it They do also in some places render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word in it-self hath diverse significations But to our purpose we contend that here it signifieth nothing but manner or custome And though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath it's arisal properly signifieth jus justitia and fas yet improperly it is called ritus mos and consuetudo It is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odys And likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist de mun According to this latter sense we understand the meaning of the Seventy Thirdly we clear it evidently from the text it-self And that according to these reasons 1. Because the LORD commanded Samuel to describe to them the State and condition of the King to use it as a motive for disswading them from following-out such a desire Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the King that shall reign over them i. e. before thou shalt set a King over them thou shalt protest solemnly against it And in so doing thou shalt draw arguments and motives of disswading them from their purpose from the very condition and nature of the King that shall reign over them And R. Judas speaking on the place saith that what the LORD commanded Samuel to speak did serve to strike a terrour in the hearts of the people Salmasius vainly shifteth this as subtilly he expoundeth that of R. Jose Quicquid dicitur in capite de Rege eum Regum jus habere to relate to 1 Sam. 8. and not to Deut. 17 Def reg cap. 2. Howsoever see what Josephus saith Now I command thee to make them a King whom I shall design But before thou shalt do so forewarn them of the great evils that shall ensue thereupon and protest that in so doing they cast themselves loose of a good estate into a worse Ant. Jud. lib. 6 cap. 4. To this same purpose Brent speaketh more plainly and largely Hom. 26. in 1 Sam. cap. 8. Now tell me if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be understood concerning the office and right of the King how could Samuel have objected it as a disswading argument to alienate the people's minde from seeking after Kingly government Either he here speaketh of lawfull or unlawfull power If of lawfull power either he describeth to the people the good or the bad of it If the good ergo
never used under any other signification then King Precisely and ordinarily it is onely attributed to one of a kingly power You will finde it so in innumerable places of Scripture 3. From Jotham's application of the parable to Abimelech In it is used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence is derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And both of them ordinarily are onely applied to persons of kingly authority See Judg. 9. This is according as it is written in Chron Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. this is Abimelech who made himself King in the Kingdom or who tyrannously made himself King I pray you why doth the Holy Ghost call the Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and Abimelech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King if he had not been of a Kingly and different power from them I confesse Judg. 17 18 19 and 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spoken concerning the Judge Yet not properly but metaphorically It is spoken so moeroris gratia to expresse the dolefulnesse of the want of Authority or of persons in Authority And I must needs say that authoritativenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is competent whether to the Kingly person or to the Kingly power Therefore the Holy Ghost in these places expresseth his purpose by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this he doth not apply to one particular Judge as to Abimelech but to the whole incorporation of Judges Then hear Either Abimelech had different power from the Judges or not If different ergo the Judges were not Kings and had not Kingly power The greatest power Abimelech had was Kingly And therein he was differenced from the Judges You cannot say that his power was not different from theirs as is shewed already And consequently his power at the most being kingly and notwithstanding different from the authority of the Judges it necessarily followeth that the Judges had not kingly power Thirdly If the Judges had had kingly power then there had been no change in the Government after Saul was ordained King Thus there had been change nomine but not re And so the people in vain had sought a King and Samuel in vain had denied them a King Thus they sought nothing and he denied nothing but what they had before Bellarmine de Rom. pont lib. 1. cap. 2. though to no purpose laboureth to elude this distinguishing between Rex Prorex Indeed we cannot but much commend him because he saith That God in the time of the Judges was the proper and peculiar King of the Jews This is shewed already And so implieth Gideon's answer Judg. 8. And this cutteth the back of what Bellarmine saith for so they being but Viceroys and God the only King then had they not properly kingly power This is what I crave Yet in the interim I demand whether or not they could extend their power as the Kings And that they could not is manifest Because they had no more power then any of the Seventy and higher Sanhedrin The Seventy were chosen to bear equal burden with Moses and the Judge in all the weightiest and most publick matters Num. 11. Now either conjunctively or disjunctively they had equal power with Moses and the Judge If but conjunctively these two absurdities will follow Firstly that the Judge was not subject to the Sanhedrin for the equal is not subject to the equal And if not subject to the Sanhedrin I see no reason why he was not also unpunishable and absolute And so the Judge had greater power then the King Which I am sure none will admit Secondly before the institution of the Sanhedrin all the greater and hard matters were referred to Moses Ex. 18. And in this Moses power was greater then the power of those Judges which he appointed at the advice and counsel of Jethro But Moses finding that he alone was not able to manage all the weightiest matters therefore in greatest earnestnesse he besought the Lord to adde some to him who might help him therein and exonerate him of his burden Mark a little Either Moses as yet remained the only Judge of greatest matters or else every one of the higher Sanhedrin had equal power with him The reason is because Moses power was according to the object of it The greater matters the greater power Ex. 18. So proportion of Nature requireth If you say that notwitstanding the institution of the Sanhedrin and its intermedling with great and weighty businesses the greatest of matters were reserved for Moses and the Judge's managing I understand not that That is against Moses desire The thing which he prayeth for is That the Lord would ordain some to bear burden with him in discharging the weightiest matters We find no such distinction in his desire as that some might be appointed to oversee some weighty matters and himself notwithstanding to reserve in his own hand the managing of the greatest affairs Friend this had been but a little easing of Moses burden under which he did grievously groan Yea in this case there had been great by-respect and self-interest in Moses desire No lesse forsooth then he should be eased of his burden and notwithstanding reserve a lording power over his brethren There is no little carnality in this desire and as great absurdity to bind it upon Moses Yea were this true he had been in power above the Seventy for so his power did reach further then theirs and might do what they could not Tell not me that his desire was to be eased of his burden and notwithstanding to remain chief man in the Commonwealth There is great carnality and self-interest there also Moses desire is positive without distinction And if he or any of the Judges was major singulis I see no reason why they were not as essentially Kings as Saul David c. The Kings had no more power None of them according to Law was major universis So is demonstrated already And so in the ordination of Kings there was no essential and substantial change in the Common-wealth The people sought a King from Samuel Was it not a foolish desire to seek what they had already Samuel denied a King to them Was it not foolishnesse in him to deny them that which already they had and debate so much against it Verily there was nothing between them if this be true but pugna de lana caprina And verily Bellarmine wrongeth the people of the Jews very much in alleadging they sought a despotick heril and hereditary King There is no such thing in their desire as is shewed already They sought no more but a King According to the Law he was regulated And it is known that they did not give the kingdom to Saul's posterity Well let it be so the Judge had greater power then any one member of the Sanhedrin yet doth it follow that he only had such power as the annual Magistrate v. g. in the Athenian Commonwealth He had greater power then any one of the Councel And yet he had not a
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 Isocrates 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. Athenian 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 restoreth us nearest thereto without all controversie is simply best In making good the Assumption we lay-down these two Conclusions Conclus 1. No man by nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government Firstly If Nature tied man formally and in an antecedent way to Politick-subjection we demand Whether or not in such respect it layeth bonds of subjection upon all men If it doth then Kings no lesse then subjects are tied by Nature to jurisdiction 1. Because that which agreeth to a thing formally and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also competent to it universally and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. If Kings were not also subjected to Authority by nature it would inevitably follow all men and not all men were subjected to it Which is implicatory If not then it followeth That some men by nature formally are born subject to Authority and some not Both which are repugnant for if Nature as Nature subjecteth man to Authority it giveth exemption to none more then to another Otherwise you shall either admit a simple contradiction or else you shall deny all men to be natural Therefore of necessity the Royallist must either admit all men according to Nature to be born free or else both King and People by Nature to be born subject to Government He must either admit the one or deny the other also Which he proudly affirmeth See what Philosophy this is Man by nature is formally born subject to Government So will the Royallists have it This will be the Conclusion Ergo man by nature is not formally born subject to Government A plain contradiction indeed The reason is If nature subject man formally to Government then it subjecteth all men thereto And if all men I demand Whether or not doth nature subject one to another If it doth ergo either committitur circulus or else one by nature is not subjected to another Otherwise all according to nature are not subjected thereto as is shewed to be If not ergo none by Nature are borne subjects for so by Nature there is none to whom they are subjected Non entis nulla sunt accidentia Therefore it inevitably followeth either all to be born free or else all to be born subjected to Government and not to be born subjected thereto Secondly If Nature laid formal bonds of subjection upon Man to Politick Authority we judge it very strange how there have been and may be many families and societies of men void and free of such subjection We can scarcely think that the interveening of any accidental cause could obstruct the current of such a formal stream of Nature from issuing and streaming forth its formal effect We can hardly digest it how Nature formally bending its strength to produce Politick subjection doth not also erect Government amongst Beasts and subject one of them to another See we not by experience how natural predominants do alwaies produce effects suitable to their temper Why may we not then with as good reason alleadge that Nature producing Government and subjection to Policy would have also through its natural sourse drawn all natural creatures to the erecting of Government and Policy amongst them How cometh it to passe I pray you there is not King-Lion King-Eagle King-Elephant c Thirdly If Nature formally tied some men to subjection and formally derived power of governing and reigning to others then the constitution of Judges and Governours would be a formal and natural act Physically and formally flowing from Nature's principles not contingently but necessarily Which taketh away the freedom of God Deut. 17.1 Sam. 12. Ps 75. and Dan. 4. in setting-up Governours and Rulers according to his
the Seat of the Beast Rev. 16.10 i. e. his power and authority which shall be smitten with great darkness his kingdom being full thereof Rev. 16.10 compared with chap. 13.2 A smoke rising out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace by which the Sun and Air are darkened at the sounding of the fifth Angel while-as a star falleth from Heaven on the Earth Rev. 9.1 2. whence Babylon is overthrown by violence and darkness the day of the Lord upon it being a day of wastness and desolation a day of darkness and gloominess a day of clouds and thick darkness Zeph. 1.15 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light even very dark and no brightness in it Amos 5.20 And thus with a whirlwind of violence and a cloud of darkness the Lord cometh up from the North Ezek. 1.4 to lay Babylon with all her glory in the dust for as by violence the powers of Babylon are overthrown so by darkness they are hardened in heart contemning the truth blaspheming God and not repenting of their deeds Rev. 16.9 10 11. So that the greater violence is executed against them the more obstinate in wickedness they become blaspheming God his People and Interest Rev. 16.21 Pharaoh-like the more plagued the more hardened As appeareth in some measure at this very hour among the enemies of Zion's Interest The more to day the Egyptians are plagued the more blasphemously do they reproach and are hardened in heart The sixth party plagued is the River Euphrates Rev. 16.12 Concerning which there be these things considerable 1 The up-drying of it Which cannot be understood mystically seeing in no place of Scripture the word Euphrates is taken in a mystical sense It is read twenty times only in the Scriptures and no where is it taken mystically but literally as is more then evident to any that shall enquire after it We must needs therefore say that the River Euphrates shall be dried up the Lord with his mighty wind shaking his hand over it smiting it in the seven streams and making men to go over it dry-shod Isa 11.15 2 The end for which it is dried-up Which is to prepare a way for those Kings that come up from the East or the rising of the Sun Rev. 16.12 And thus there shall be an high way for the remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up from the Land of Egypt Isa 11.16 Whence the Lord setting his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people Israel from Assyria and from Egypt Isa 11.11 shall miraculously deliver them as he did while-as he set his hand the first time in bringing them up from Egypt by the conduct of Moses for as at the first time he dried-up the Red-sea before them so at the second time of their recovery he will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian-sea and dry up the River Euphrates before them smiting it in its seven streams that they may go over it dry-shod Now upon what accompt the people of the Jews are called the Kings of the East you may reade for this The Saints Kingdom sect 7. 3 The engagement the people of the Jews come to as they come up from the East Then do the unclean spirits like Frogs draw forth the Kings of the Earth with their Armies to a day of engagement against the Kings of the East The Paganish Mabumetan and Antichristian spirits Frog-like indeed shall engage all the Heathenish and Mahumetan powers against the four Angels which are bound in the great River Euphrates prepared for a day a month and a year for to slay the third part of men the number of the Army of the Horse-men being two hundred thousand thousand Rev. 9.14 15 16. And thus at this day of engagement Babylon the powers of the Nations with all their Potentates and glory shal be overthrown for in that time when the Lord shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem gathering all Nations bringing them into the valley of Jehoshaphat to plead with them there causing his Mighty-Ones the Kings of the East the hundred thousand thousand to come down upon them putting in his sicle the harvest being now ripe Joel 3.1 2 12 13. The Winepresse shall be troden without the City till blood come out even to the Horse-bridles by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs Rev. 14.20 Thus Gog and Magog the Beast the false-Prophet the Kings of the Earth and their Armies shall be destroyed in engaging against him who sitteth on the white horse attended with the Armies in Heaven Ezek. 39 8 9. c. Rev. 19.11 12 c. 4 the time of this up-drying and engagement Which is secret and unknown It is a time and season which the Father hath put in his own power Acts 1.7 'T is not for us to know the time when the Kingdom shall be restored again to Israel It cometh as a thief in the night Rev. 16.15 and therefore both secretly and suddenly Let us therefore watch and keep our garments lest we walk naked and they see our shame The seventh party plagued is the Air Rev. 16.17 Which in Scripture is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.26 2 as it signifieth that which is done in vain and to no purpose 1 Cor. 9.26 chap. 14.9 3 for the power of Satan Eph. 2.2 whose power is airy indeed because of its subtilty and vanity And thus as the Lord poureth-out the vials of his wrath upon the power of the Beast so doth he likewise upon the power of the Dragon for as in the day of vengeance in the reign of the Ancient of dayes while-as Christ reigneth in power the seat and power of the Beast is overthrown by the up-coming of the Kings of the East so in the time of Christ's Personal presence and reign Satan is chained and bound a thousand years that he may deceive the Nations no more till the thousand years be finished Rev. 20.2 3. And this is while-as a great voice cometh-out of Heaven from the Throne saying it is done Rev. 16.17 the Mysterie of God being finished and time being no longer in the dayes of the voice of the seventh Angel Rev. 10.6 7. at whose sounding there be great voices in Heaven saying The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and be shall reign for ever and ever Rev. 11.15 In the third and last part of the Chapter of which I shall speak but a little the holy Ghost recapitulateth and summeth-up in few words all that he hath spoken at length in the second part of the Chapter in order to the fall and ruin of Babylon from vers 18. to the close In vers 18. is spoken as to the shaking of Babylon by wars and rumors of wars Nation rising against Nation and Kingdom against Kingdom there being tumults and earth-quakes in divers places In vers 19. is spoken of the dividing of Babylon after its shaking into three parts Of the fall of the Nations and of Babylon's utter overthrow and desolation as it is designed in laying the Nations desolate In vers 20. is foretold the overthrow of the Forces Power and Glory of the Nations in bringing into contempt all the Honourable of the Earth In vers 21. is spoken as to the grievousnes of the plagues by which Babylon shal be shaken divided and overturned the Nations their Forces and their mighty Ones shall be destroyed together with men's blaspheming God his Truth and his People thereupon the more plagued being the more hardened as at this time in some measure doth appear FINIS