flyings out of the Nobility and People during the Minority of Lewis the 13th and the omni-regency of his Mother for I think there be not many other instances of it being no sufficient argument to prove the contrary And this you could not chuse but see though it seems you will not when you tell us within few lines after that the Government of France for want of Gratifying the Nobility and People with such Lawes and Liberties as were sit for them did become Tyrannical and if it be Tyrannical it must needs be absolute 7. You instance secondly in the rise and progress of the Norman liâ—e within this Kingdom concerning which you first suppose that their Monarchy here was founded on a Nobility or a Nobility and the People that is to say for so I am to understand you upon the love and good affections of the Nobility and people of England And secondly that being so founded they were to gratifie the Nobility or the Nobility and the people with such Laws and Liberties as are fit for them or else there Government in this Land had become Tyrannical But first the Monarchy of Normans was not founded here on the Nobility and the people conjunct or separate The greatest part of the Nobility were either lost or forfeited at the battel of Hastins And most of those that were not engaged in Battel were either outed of their Estates which were immediately distributed amongst the Normans according to their several Ranks qualities or forcedly to take them back on such terms and tenures as the Conquerors was pleased to give them And that he might make sure work with them he compelled some of them to fly the Land and wasted others in his Wars against the French so that the poor Remainders of them were both few in number and inconsiderable in power And then as for the common people they were so bridled by his Souldiers Garisoned up and down in several Castles some old and others of his own erection that they could never stir against him but the Souldiers were presently on their backs and though disperst in several places were ready to unite together upon all occasions Nor staid he here but to prevent all practises and contrivances which might be hammered in the night which the eye of no humane providence could be able to see into or discover he commanded that no light or fire should be seen in any of their Houses after the ringing of a Bell at eight of the clock called thence the Cover few or the Cur few Bell as it is called to this very day Which rigorous courses were held also by the Kings succeeding till there was no male Prince surviving of the Saxon race and that King Henryâ— had married a daughter of that line by means whereof the people seeing no hopes of bettering their condition in the change of time became obedient to that yoke which was laid upon them and looked upon their Kings of the House of Normandy as their natural Princes 8. Nor is your inference better grounded then your suposition the Norman Kings not gratifying the Nobility and people wiâ—h such Laws and Liberties as were fit for them for fear least otherwise the Government which you say we have known by experience and no doubt was seen by Eurypon might be thought tyrannical What you intend by these words we have known by experience as I am loth to understand so I am not willing to enquire What had been seen by Eurypon though you make no doubt of it I believe you know as little as I but what was practised by the Normans I may perhaps know as much as you and if I know any thing of them and of their affairs I must needs know this that the first Norman Kings did never Court the Nobility or the people of England by gratifying them with such Laws and Liberties as you speak of here but governed them for the most part by the Grand Customeiur of the Normans or in an arbitrary way as to them seemed best For though sometimes for quietness sake they promised the abolishing of Dane gelt and the restoring the Laws of King Edward the Confessor yet neither was the one abolished till the Raign of King Steven who came in upon a broken Title nor the other restored though often promised till the time of King John and then extorted from him by force of Arms so that by this account the Government of the first sinking of the Norman Race must become Tyrannical because they gratified not the people with such Laws and Liberties as in your judgment were fit for them For having gained the Magna Charta with the other Charta de Foresta in the time of King John and being frequently called to Parliaments by the Kings which followed they had as much as they had reason to expect in those early days Where by the way that I may lay all things together which relate to England I would fain know what ground you have for the position which you give us afterwards that is to say That King Henry 3. instituted his Parliament to be assistant to him in his Government Our ancient Writers tell us that Parliaments or Common Councils consisting of the Prelates Peers and other great men of the Realm were frequently held in the time of the Saxon Kings and that the Commons were first called to these great Assemblies at the Coronation of King Henry 1. to the end that his succession to the Crown being approved by the Nobility and People he might have the better colour to exclude his Brother And as the Parliament was not instituted by King Henry 3. so I would fain know of whom you learnt that it was instituted by him to be assistant to him in his Government unless it were from some of the Declaration of the Commons in the late long Parliament in which it is frequently affirmed That the fundamental Government of this Realm was by King Lords and Commons For then what did become of the Government of this Kingdom under Henry 3. when he had no such Assistants joyned with him or what became of the foundation in the intervals of following Parliaments when there was neither Lords nor Commons on which the Government could be laid And therefore it must be apparantly necessary either that the Parliaments were not instituted by King Henry 3. to be his Assistants in the Government and that the Lords and Commons were not a part of the foundation on which the Government is built or else that for the greatest space of time since King H. 3. the Kingdom hath bin under no Government at all for want of such Assistants and such a Principal part of the fundamentals as you speak of there The Government of such times must be in obeysance at the least as our Lawyers phrase it But because you make your Proposition in Geneneral terms and use the rise and progress of the Norman line for an instance onely I would fain learn who
bear part of the publick Government but whether chosen out of the Jethronian Judges or not we shall see anon Moses being dead and Josuah who succeeded in the supream Authority being also gathered by his Fathers the authority of the Sanhedrim dying also with them as your self confesseth the Ordinary Government returned again to the heads of the several Families as before in Aegypt the extraordinary being vested in those several Judges whom God raised up from time to time to free them from the power of those cruel Enemies from whose Tyranny they were not able otherwise to have freed themselves And in this state they stood till the time of Samuel when being vexed by the Philistines with conâ—inual Wars the Ark of God was taken not long before and their condition no less miserable under the times of Samuel then it was at the worst they desire to have a King to fight their Battails and to go in and out before them like to other Nations And that their future King might settle on the surer foundation he had not only the approbation of the Lord 1 Sam. 8. 22. and the acclamations of the people chap 10. v. 24. but the Heads and Chiefâ— of the several Families devolved their whole power upon him the motion being made to Samuel by the Elders of the people aswell in their own names as in the names of all the rest of the Tribes as appears 1 Sam. 8. 4. 19. Before this time that is to say after the deaths of Moses and Joshua who were Kings in fact though not in title the Israelites had no King to Raign over them but the Lord himself from whom they first received their Laws from whose mouth they received direction in all cases of difficulty and from whose hands they received protection in all times of danger And when they had any visible Judge or supream Governour God did not only raign in their persons in regard of that immediate vocation which they had from him but also of the gifts of the Spirit and the co-operation of his Grace and Power In which respect the Government of the Israelites during that interval of time is called by many learned Writers by the name of Theocratie or the immediate Government of the Lord himself And this the Lord himself not obscurely intimates when he said to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me ne regnem super eos that I should not raign over them I know the general stream of Writers do understand these words as words of dislike and indignation in that the people seemed to be weary of his Government in their desire of having a King like to other Nations but I conceive with all due reverence unto those who opine the contrary that God spake these words rather to comfort Samuel whom he found much displeased and troubled at the Proposition of the Elders as if a greater injury had been offered to himself then was done to the Prophet then out of any dislike which he had of the matter For if he had disliked the matter that is that they should have a King like other Nations he neither would have fore signified it as a blessing on the seed of Abraham Gen. 17. or as prerogative of Judah Gen. 49. nor have foretold the people that when they should desire a King they should set him to be King over them whom the Lord their God shall chuse Deut. 17. nor would he have commanded Samuel to give them a King as they desired nor have directed him particularly to that very man whom he had designed for the Kingdom But on the contrary say you we find it otherwise in the Prophet Hosea where the Lord said unto the people That he had given them a King in his anger that is as you affirm in Saul and that he took him away in his wrath that is say you in the Captivity Hos. 13. 11. And to this purpose you alledge another passage in the same Prophet ch 8. v. 4. where it is said They have set up Kings and not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not But for all this your explication of the one Text and your application of the other are alike erroneous The Prophet Hosea lived in the time of Jerohoam son of Joah King of Israel and directed the words of his Prophesy to the people chiefly as they were separated and abstracted from the Realm of Israel And first beginning with the last it appears plainly by the verse foregoing that the words by you cited are addressed particularly to the house of Israel and it had been hard dealing in the Prophet to charge the ten Tribes with setting up of Kings but not by him had it been so understood of Saul as you say it was when it was the fault if it were a fault of all the twelve and therefore saith S. Hierome Potest hoc quod dicit ipsi regnaverunt non c. Etiam de Jeroboham accâ—pi filio Nabath de ceteris principibus qui ei in imperio successerint More positively some learned Writers in the Church of Rome by whom it is affirmed Hunâ— locum pertinere ad Reges Israel quorum primus erat Jeroboham qui tempore Reaboham filii Salamonis Regnum decem Tribuum invasit And to the same effect saith Deodati amongst the Protestants viz. The people of their own proper motion without enquiring after Gods will or staying for his command or permission have chosen and made Kings of their own heads separating themselves from the lawful Rule of David ' s posterity 1 King 11. 31. And then the meaning of the other Text will be plainly this I gave thee or I gave thee leave to have a King in mine anger that is to say in Jeroboham the Son of Nebat who by with-drawing the people from the worship of God to worship the golden Calves of Dan and Bethel is said to have made Israel sin and thereby plagued them irremediously without repentance into the heavy anger and displeasure of the Lord their God And I took him away in my wrath that is to say in the person of Hosheah the last King of Israel carried away captive together with the greatest part of his people into the land of Assyria the people being dispersed in the several Provinces of that Empire never returning since that time to their native Country nor having any King of their own to raign over them as afore they had Not to say any thing of many of the Kings of Israel treacherously slain by their own subjects out of an ambitious desire to obtain the Kingdom of whom it may be justly said That God took them away in his wrath before they had lived out their full time in the course of nature Nothing in these two Texts which relates to Saul and the captivity that is to say the Captivity of Babylon as you understand it Such is your play with holy Scripture when you speak as you
they were the Peers and most powerful men of the Realm of Judah out of whose Families the Kings did use to chuse their wives Who being incensed against the Prophet and knowing that the King was not able to dispute the point with them as the case then stood preferred the executing of their malice against the one before their duty to the other But granting that by Princes here we must mean the Sanhedrim and that the Sanhedrim taking the advantage of those broken and unsetled times carried some things with an high hand against that King yet this is no sufficient proof that either by the rules of their institution or their Restitution they were co-ordinate with their Kings or superiour to them Great Councils commonly are intent upon all advantages by which they may improve their power as in the minority of Kings or the unsetledness of the times or when they meet with such weak Princes who either for want of natural courage or a right understanding of their own affairs suffer them by little and little to get ground upon them But then I hope you will not argue a facto adjus that because they did it therefore they might lawfully do it that maxime of the Civil Lawyers id possumus quod jure possumus being as undeniably true in the case of the Sanhedrim or any other publick Council as in that of any private person 35. Your second example is that of Herod and Hircanus which you found also in the Book against Calvin by which name you call it but press it quite beyond my purpose Baronius had affirmed of the Sanhedrim as you also do Eorum summam esse potestatem qui de lege cognoscerent Prophetis simul de regibus judicarent that they had power of judicature over the Law the Prophets and the Kings themselves which false position he confirms by as false an instance affirming in the very next words horum judicio Herodem regem postulatum esse That Herod being then actually King of Jurie was convented by them for which he cites Josephus with the like integrity so that I had no other business with Baronius then to prove that Herod was not King when he was summoned to appear before the Sanhedrim and having proved that point I had done my business without any shufflings and Evasions as you put upon me But since Hircanus must be brought in also to act his part in a controversie of which I was not bound to take any notice I must let you know that if Hircanus could not by power save Herod from the hands of the Sanhedrim and therefore shifted him away as you say by art it was not for want of power in the King but for want of spirit in the man For first Hircanus at that time was no more King of the Jews then Herod was though he be sometimes called so by my self and others because he succeeded in the Kingdom and was actually in possession of it upon the death of Alexandra But having afterwards relinquished the Kingdom to Aristobulus and not restored again by Pompey when the differences betwixt them came to be decided he was forced to content himself with the Dignity and Title of High Priest and was no other at such time as this business hapned But granting that he was then King yet living in a broken and distracted time and being a Prince of little judgement and less courage every one had their ends upon him and made him yield to any thing which was offered to him So that this Argument comes into as little purpose as that before of Zedekias and therefore for a further answer to it I refer you thither without giving any more trouble to my self or you But when you add and add it out of Grotius that this Court continued till Herod the G. who caused them all to be put to death except Sameas only it must needs follow hereupon that Herod did not onely destroy the Members of that Court but the Court it selfe For when you say that this Court continued till Herod the Great you tell us in effect that it contiued no longer and by so doing you must either contradict the four Evangelists who make frequent mention of this Councel as Mat. 5. 22. Joh. 11. 47. c. or the general current of Interpreters which have written on them Nor am I much moved with that which you say from Grotius supposing that he hath the Talmudists or his Auâ—hors in it that is to say that God punished the Sanhedrim for neglect of their duty in not supressing by their power as they ought to have done â— he insolencies of Herod in exalting himself against the Laws For I believe that neither Grotius nor the Talmudists or any who depends upon them were of Gods councel in the business or can tell us any more of it then another man And therefore if the three Estates in a Gothish Moddel have no better legs to stand upon then the authority of the Talmudists and the power of the Sanhedrim they can pretend to no such power after the persons or actions of soveraign Princes as Calvin hath ascribed unto them 36. But you draw towards a conclusion and so do I you tell me upon confidence of your former Arguments and take it as a matter proved that there never lay an appeal from the Sanhedrim unto Moses nor to any other Magistrate excepting onely when they lived under the Provincial Government of some forrain Princes as also that they had power upon their Kings You tell me that I must confess that the three Estates concerned in Parliament or any other Popular Magistrate Calvin doth dream of are to be left in that condition in which Calvin finds them And so perhaps I may when I see this proved which as yet I do not though there be no necessity on my part to make such confession and much less to acknowledge that the whose book is answered by your endeavour to make answer to some passages in it Had it been proved unanswerably that the Ephori of Sparta by the first Rules of their institution had a jurisdiction over their Kings and the Sanhedrim also over theirs which are the only two points to which you have endeavoured to return an answer you have no more reason to expect that I should acknowledge the whole Book to be fully answered then that you or any man may be said to have confuted all the Works of Cardinal Bellarmine because he hath confuted two or three of his chief Objections And thus in order to your expectation of hearing further from me which you seem to hope for rather then out of any desires engaging my self either with fresh Adversaries or new disputes I must needs say that I look upon you as a generous and ingenious Adversary as before I did Of whose society and friendship I should count it no crime to be ambitious had not my great decay of â—ight beside other infirmities growing on me rendered me
it that after the Schism made by Pope PIVS V. little or nothing for many years together comparatively with those of the other party was writ against it that being newly translated into the Latine tongue about the year 1618. it gave great content to the more moderate sort of Papists amongst the French as Bishop Hall informeth us in his Quo Vadis and being translated into Spanish at such times as his late Majesty was in Spain it gave no less contentment to the learned and more sober sort amongst the Spaniards who marvelled much to see such a regular order and form of Divine Worship amongst the English of whom they had been frequently informed by our English Fugitives that there was neither form nor order to be found amongst us But on the other side the Genevians beginning to take up the cry called Puritans upon that account in the 6. or 8. year of Q. ELIZABETH animated by Billingham and Benson conntenanced by Cartwright and headed by the Earl of Leicester followed it with such a violent impetuosity that nothing could repress or allay that fury neither the patience and authority of Arch-Bishop Whitgift the great pains and learning of Bishop Bilson the modesty of M. Hooker nor the exactness of D. Coâ—ens all which did write against them in Q. ELIZABETHS time was able to stop their current till the severity of the Laws gave a check unto them Nor was King JAMES sooner received into this Kingdom but they again revived the quarrel as may appeare by their Petitions Admonitions and other Printed Books and Tractates to which the learned labours of Bishop Buckridge Bishop Morton and D. Burges who had been once of that party but regained by K. James unto the Church were not by them thought to give such ample satisfaction that they must be at it once again during the life of K. James in their Alâ—are Damuscenam in which the whole body of the English Liturgie the Hierarchy of Bishops the Discipline and Equâ—nomy of the Church of England was publickly viâ—â—ified and decried How egerly this game was followed by them after the first ten years of his late Majesty K. Charles till they had abolished the Liturgie destroyed the discipline and pluckt up Episcopacy both root and branch is a thing known so well unto you that it needs no telling And this I hope hath satisfied you in your first enquiry viz. why and in what respects it was said in the Preface to my Ecclesia Vindicata That the Papist was the more moderate adversary and for the other words which follow viz. That the Puritan faction hurried on with greater violence c. which you find in the 17. Sect. of it they relate only to the violent prosecution against the Episcopal Government in which how far they out went the Papists is made so manifest in that and the former Section that it is no small wonder to me that you should seek for any further satisfaction in it read but those Sections once again and tell me in your second and more serious thoughts if any thing could be spoken more plainly or proved more fully then that the Puritan â—action with greater violence and impetuosity were hurried on towards their design that is to say the destruction of Episcopal Government then the Papists were Secondly You seem much unsatisfied that I maintained against M. Burton That the Religion of the Papists is not rebellion nor their faith faction But this when I maintained against M. Burton I did it not in the way of laying down my own reasons why it neither was nor could be so but in the way of answering such silly Arguments as he here brought to prove it was but now that I may satisfie you and do right both to the Church and State you shall have one Argument for it now and another I shall give you when I shall come in order to answer yours The Argument which I shall give you now is briefly this shall be founded on a passage of the Speech made in the Star Chamber by the late Arch Bishop at the sentencing of D. Bastwick M. Burton c. in which he telleth us That if we make their Religion to be Rebellion then we make their Religion and Rebellion to be all one and that is against the ground both of State and the Law for when divers Romish Priests and Jesuites have deservedly suffered death for Treason is it not the constant and just profession of the State that they never put any man to death for Religion but for Rebellion and Treason only Doth not the State truly affirm that there was never any Law made against the life of a Papist quatenus a Papist only And is not all this stark false if their very Religion be Rebellion For if their Religion be Rebellion it is not only false but impossible that the same man in the same act should suffer for his Rebellion and not for his Religion And this â—aith he K. James of ever Blessed Memory understood passing well when in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs he saith I do constantly maintain that no Papist either in my time or in the time of the late Queen ever dyed for his conscience therefore he did not think their very Religion was Rebellion thus he And if for all this you shall thus persist and say that the Popish Religion is Rebellion you first acquit Papists from suffering death banishment or imprisonment under the Raign of the three last Princes for their several Treasons and Rebellions and lay the guilt thereof upon the blood-thirstiness of the Laws and of the several Kings and Parliaments by which they were made And secondly you add hereby more Martyrs to the Roman Kalender then all the Protestants in the world ever did besides 36. But this you do not only say but you prove it too at the least you think so Your argument is this 1. That Religion which defineth the deposition of Princes and absolving their subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. is rebellion doctrinal But such is the Popish Religion that is to say the Popish Religion defineth the Deposition of Kings and absolveth their Subjects from their fidelity by the Pope because they deny Transubstantiation c. The Minor you say is evident but I am willing to believe that you mean the Major that this only is an escape of the pen because you do not go about to prove the Major but the Minor only To the whole Sylogisme I answer first that it is of a very strange complection both Propositions being false and therefore that it is impossible by the Rules of Logick that the conclusion should insue that the Proposition or the Major as they generally call it is altogether false may be proved by this that the thing which teacheth cannot be the thing which is taught no more then a Preacher can be said to be the word by him preached or the Dog which
who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae â— 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are nâ—â— of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which â—e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the manâ—old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that
ever made this Recantation or that this Recantation was the same in all particulars with that which he was required to publish depends upon the credit of a scattered Paper those which have most insisted on it appealing rather to private Authors for the proof thereof then to the authentick Records of that Vniversity So that when it is said so positively by M. Prinne that this Recantation was made by M Barret on the 10th of May 1595. in the University Church of S. Marys in Cambridge out of him repeated by Mr. Hickman with as great a confidence they do both wrong the dead and abuse the living For it appeareth by a Letter sent from the heads of Cambridge to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh then being Chancellor of that University that Barret had not made that Recantation on the 8 of March which was full ten months after the said 10 of May in which the publishing of this Recantation is affirmed of him About a year past say they amongst divers others who here attempted publickly to teach new and strange opinions in Religion one M. Barret more boldly then the rest did preach divers Popish Errors in St. Marys to the just offence of many which he was joyned to retract but hath refused so to do in such sort as hath been prescribed him Out of which Letter bearing date the 8th of March 1595. exemplified by M. Prynn in the Anti-Arminianism 254 and therefore seen by M. Hickman in the course of that Book I conclude three things 1. That M. Prinne and M. Hickman have â—aid a Defamation upon Barret which they cannot justifie as being contrary to their own knowledge in that particular 2. That besides Barret there were diuers others who preacht the sad new and strange opinions in Religion as the Letter calls them though not so confidently and boldly as Barret did and 3. That it is not said in the Letter that Barrets Doctrines gave offence to all or the greatest part but that they gave offence to many and if they gave offence but to many onely there must be many others and possibly the greatest part in that University to whom they gave no offence at all I find also in the Title to this Recantation as it stands in the Anti-Arminianism p. 56. that M. Harsenet of Pembrook-Hall is there affirmed to have maintained the supposed Errors for which Barret was condemned to a Recantation And 't is strange that Harsnet should stand charged in the Tiltle of another mans sentence for holding and maintaining any such points as had been raked out of the Dunghil of Popery and Pelagianism as was there affirmed for which he either was to have been questioned in his own person or not to have been condemned in the title to the Sentences passed on another man Which circumstance as it discredits the Title so the title doth as much discredit the reality of the recantation Adeo mendaciorum natura est ut coherere non possint said Lactantius truly Besides it is to be observed that Harsnet did not only maintain the said Opinions in the Vniversity but preacht them also at S. Paul's Cross Anno 1584. not sparing any of those dious aggravations with which the Calvinian Doctrines in those points hath been charged by others and yet we cannot find that any offence was taken at it or any recantation enjoyned upon it either by the High Commission or the Bishop of London or any other having Authority in the Church of England as certainly there would have been if the matter of that Sermon had been contrary to the rules of the Church and the appointments of the same And thereupon we may conclude were there no proof else that where Doctor Baroe had for 14. or 15. years as is said in that Letter maintained those Opinions in the Schooles which M. Hickman noveliseth by the name of Arminians and such an able man as Harsnet had preached them without any control and the greatest Audience of the Kingdome did stand to him in it There must be many more Barrets who concurred in the same opinions with them in that Vniversity though their names through the envy of those times are not come unto us And this appears more fully by that which followed on the death of D. Whitacres who died within few days after his return from Lambeth which the nine Articles so much talkt of Two Candidates appeared for the Professorship after his decease Wotton of Kings Colledge a professed Calvinian and one of those who wrote against Mountague's Appeal Anno 1626. Competitor with Overal of Trinity Colledg as far from the Calvinian Doctrine in the main plat-form of Predestination as Baroe Harsnet or Barret are conceived to be But when it came unto the vote of the Vniversity the place was carried for Overal by the major part which plainly shows that though the Doctrines of Calvin were so hotly stickled for by most of the heads yet the most part of the members of that learned body entertained them not And thereby we may guess at another passage which I finde in yoâ— Adversary where he declares that Peter Baroe's Arminianism câ—â— him the loss of his place and which was worse lest him the affect ons of the University Where first it may seem very strange thâ— Baroe should loose his place for Arminianism An. 1595. when as tâ—â— name of Arminianism was not known in England til the year 16â—â— Secondly that he should loose the affection of the University â—â— maintaining those Doctrines in which there was such a good compliance betwixt him and Overal And therefore thirdly it is verâ— improbable that Baroe should be put out of his place by those whâ— haâ— brought Overal in after no less then twenty years experience â—â— his pains and studies In which respect it is more likely that he relinquished the place of his own accord in which he found his Doctine crossed by the Lambeth Articles his peace disturbed by severâ— Informations preferred against him by some of the Calvinians anâ— thereupon a Letter of complaint presented to the L. Treasurer Burleigh of whose affections towards him he seemed more diffident then there was good cause for so that the most that can be said is no more then this that he was willing to depart from that place in peace in which â—e saw he could not live without disturbance and therefore that he rather left the place then the place left him though possibly he might see that he could not keep it without loosing himself I began this Post-script with Bishop Ridley and shall end it with a note relating to Bishop Laud Reproached by your Antagonist for justifying the picturing of God the Father in the form of an old man out of that place of Daniel where he is called the Ancient of Days and this saith he I have from a Gentleman of good repute though that Gentleman must not be named for fear of being taken notice of for his best Benefactor the story you may find
moderate the licentiousness of Kings such as were the Ephori set up of old against the Kings of Sparta The Tribunes of the people against the Roman Consuls and the Demarches against the Athenian State of which perhaps aâ— the world now goes they three estates are seized in each several Kingdom when solemnly assembled so far am I from hindering them to put restraints upon the exorbitant power of Kings as their office binds them that I conceive them rather to be guilty of perfidious dissimulation if they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the people in that so doing they betray the Liberty of the Subject of which they know themselves to be made Guardians by Gods own Ordinance What Calvin says of the Athenian Demarches they having been Magistrates of another nature is a mistake but such an one as destroys no other part of his assertion the rest of the Parenthesis or that which he saith of the Ephori and the Tribunes being confirmed as hath been already shown by Plato and Aristotle by Cicero and Plutarch Wherefore of the Ephori and the Tribunes enough Now why the Estates in a Gothick Moddel should be of less power no Politician in the world shall ever shew a reason the Estates are such by vertue of their Estate that is of their over-ballance in Dominion You are then either speculatively to shew how the over-ballance of Dominion should not amount unto Empire or practically that the over-ballance of Dominion hath not amounted unto Empire and that in a quiet Government or can it be no otherwise in a quiet Government then that the over-ballance of Dominion must amount unto Empire This principle being now sufficiently known is the cause it may be why you chuse in this place to speak rather like a Divine as you suppose then a Polititian for you would fain learn you say of Calvin in what part of the world we shall find any such Authority given to such popular Magistrates as he tells us of To which by the way I answer that God founded the Israelitish Government upon a popular ballance that we find the people of Israel judging the tribe of Benjamin and by the Oracle of God levying War against them which are acts of soveraign power therefore a popular ballance even by the Ordinance of God himself expressed in scripture amounted unto Empire But you when you have asked in what part of the word of God we shall find any such Authority given to popular Magistrates Answer Not in the Old Testament you are sure For when Moses first ordained the seventy Elders it was not to diminish any part of that power which was invested in him but to ease himselfe of some part of the burden lying upon him as you will have to appear plainly by the 18th of Exodus where Moses upon the advice of Jethro chose able men out of all Israel made them Rulers of thousands Rulers of Hundreds Rulers of fifties Rulers of tens Now I am sure that about this time the number of these men of Israel was above 6 hundred thousand and so any man may be sure that the Elders thus chosen should we count but the Rulers of the thousands only must have come at the least to six hundred wherefore you cannot be sure that this makes any thing to the election of the 70. Elders Well But out of these say you God afterwards in the 11th of Numb willed Moses to chuse the seventy Elders You may do me a greater favour then you can suddenly imagine to tell me really for what cause or upon what Authority your speech is so positive that God willed Moses to chuse the seventy Elders out of those that were chosen in the 18. of Exodus for whereas Moses is willed to chuse them out of such as he knew to be Elders such there were in Honour among the people though not in power before the Election of those advised by Jethro as appears Exod. 3. 16 and 4. 29. But had this been as you would have it what is the necessity that because there lay an appeal unto Moses from those in Exodus that is from the Jethronian Elders or Courts which sat afterwards in the Gates of the Temple and of every City therefore there must needs lye an appeal from the seventy Elders or the Sanhedrim unto Moses Especially while the whole stream of Jewish Writers or Talmudists who should have had some knowledg in their own Commonwealth unanimously affirm that there was no such thing whereupon to the Election of the former Elders saith Grotius In the place of these came the Judges in the Gates and in the place of Moses the Sanhedrim Nor need we go further then the Scripture for the certainty of the Assertion where the seventy are chosen not to stand under Moses but with him not to diminish his burthen or bear it under him with an appeal in difficult cases to him as is expressed in the Election of the Jethronian Elders but to bear the burden with him and without any mention of such appeal Moses before the Election of the Jethronian Judges had the whole burthen of Judicature lying upon him after their Election the burthen of the Appeals onely Wherefore if the seventy Elders were indeed instituted to bear the burthen with Moses there thenceforth lay noappeal unto Moses which is yet clearer in this precept If there arise a matter of Controversie within thy Gates which is plainly addrest unto the Jethronian Courts too hard for thee in Judgement then shalt thou come unto the Priest and the Levite by which in the sense of all Authors Jewish and Christian is understood the Sanhedrim or to the Judge that shall be in those days the Suffes or Dictator and they shall shew thee the sentence of Judgement whence by the clear sense of Scripture all matter of appeal in Israel lay unto the Sanhedrim Your next Argument that there must be nothing in all this but easing the supream Magistrate of some part of the burthen which was before two heavy for him without any diminution in the least respect of his power is that when God had taken of the spirit which was upon Moses and put it upon the seventy Elders the spirit yet rested upon Moses in as full a measure as it did at first I grant in a fuller for I believe his wisdom was the greater for this diminution of his power it being through the nature of the ballance apparently impossible that he could be any more then a Prince in a Commonwealth but your Argument can be of no force at all unless you will have him to have been less wise for not assuming soveraign power where without confusion it was altogether impossible he should have held it A Prince in a Commonwealth subsisteth by making himself or being made use of unto the free course of Popurall Orders but a soveraign Lord can have no other substance or security then by
did not withal keep up his Army to secure the conquest and that this Army or some other was not kept on foot till the time of Euripon who being either of weaker parts or more apt to be wrought on or else unwilling to be at the continual charge of paying an Army might suppose it an high point of Husbandry to disband his Forces and cast himself entirely on the love of the people And secondly Admitting that of the two former Kings what reason can you give me why that Army should be planted in Colonies the territory of Sparta as you say your selfe being very narrow and consequently not much room nor any necessity at all for many such Colonies to be planted in it A standing Army answerable to the extent of the Country and the number of the old inhabitants disposed of in their Summer Camp and their Winter-Quarters would have done the work and done it with less charge and greater readiness then dispersed in Colonies And therefore when you say in such general terms That the Monarchy that is or can be absolute must be founded upon an Army planted by military Colonies upon the over balance of Land being in the Dominion of the Prince I must profess my self to differ in opinion from you For then how could a Prince possessed of his Kingdom from a long descent of Royal Ancestors and exercising absolute power upon his people be said to be an an absolute Monarch because his standing forces cannot be setled or disposed of in any such Colonies upon the over balance of Land within his Dominion In Countrys newly conquered or farre remote fom the chief residence of the Prince or the seat of the Empire such Colonies have been thought necessary in the former Ages the wisdome of the Romans not finding out any better or more present way to serve their Conquest But then such Colonies wanted not their inconveniencies and may in time produce the different Effect from that which was expected of them For being possessed of City and indowed with Lands and challenging a property in those Lands and Cities they came in tract of time by intermariages and alliances to be all one with the old Natives of the Country and stood as much upon their terms against the incroachments of those Princes under whom they served and by whose Ancestors they were planted A better Evidence whereof we can hardly find then in those English Colonies which were planted in Ireland at the first conquest of that Kingdom many of which by mutuall correspondency and alliances became so imbodied with the Irish that they degenerated at the last from the manner and civility of the English Nation and passing by the name of the English-Irish proved as rebellious if not more then the Irish themselves What therefore hath been found defective in Colonies in reference to the first intent of their plantation the wisdome and experience of these last ages have supplyed in Garisons Which consisting for the most part of single persons or otherwise living on their pay and suddenly removed from one place to another as the nature of the service leads them are never suffered to stay long enough in any one Town by which they may have opportunity to unite themselves with those of the Neighbourhood or Corporation in design and interess 6. But for a further proof of your position that is to say that there can be no absolute Monarch who hath a Nobility and People to gratifie you first instance in the Kings of France which I as well as others and others then as well as I do account for Absolute But it is known say you That in the whole world there is not a Nobility nor a People so frequently flying out or taking Arms against their Princes as the Nobility and People of France This I acknowledge to be true but affirm withall that the frequent flyings out of that Nobility and People against their Kings proceed not from any infirmity in the Monarchy but from the stirring and busie nature of the French in general who if they make not Wars abroad will find work at home so that we may affirm of them as the Historian doth of the Ancient Spaniaras Si foras hostem non habent domi quaerunt And this the wise Cardinal of Richelieu understood well enough when having dismantled Tachel reduced such Peers as remained in the hands of the Hugonets and crusht the Faction of the Monsieur now Duke of Orleans he presently engaged that King in a War with Spain that so the hot and fiery spirits of the French might be evaporated and consumed in a forrain War which otherwise had they stayed at home would ever and anon have inflamed the Kingdom For otherwise that the Kings of France were Absolute Monarchs there be many reasons to evince For first his arbitrary Edicts over-rule the Laws and dispose soveraignty of the chiefe concernments of the State which by the Parliament of Paris the supream Judicatory of that Kingdom and looked on as the chief supporter of the Rights and Liberties of the subject seldom or never are controled though disputed often And if the Observation be true which we find in Justine that in the Monarchies of the first ages Abitria principum pro legibus erant be of any truth or if the Maxime which we find in Justinians Institutes viz. Quod principi placuerit legis habet vigorem be any badge or cognisance of an absolute Monarch the Kings of France may as well portend to such an absoluteness as any of the Roman Emperours or preceding Monarchs ar tell est nostre plaisir with which formal words he concludeth all his Royal Edicts are as significant as that Maxime in Justinians Institutes or the said observation which we find in Justine Nor is his absolute power less visible in the raising of Moneys then in the passing of his Edicts it being in his power without asking the consent of his people in Parliament to levy such sums upon the subjects besides his Gabells Aides and accustomed Taxes as his Treasurers under-Treasurers or other Officers of his Revenue shall impose upon them From the patient bearing of which burthens the King of France is commonly called Rex Asinâ—rum or the King of Asses Nor doth he want such standing Forces as are sufficient to preserve his power and make good his actions it being conceived by some and affirmed by others that he is able to bring into the field for a sudden service no less then sixty Companies of Men of Arms twenty Cornets of light Horse and five Companies of Harque Bushiers on Horse-Back which amount to 10000 in the total together with 20 Ensigns of French Horse and 40 of Swisses and yet leave his Garisons well manned and his Forts and Frontiers well and sufficiently defended By all which laid together it is clear and manifest that the French Kings are absolute Monarchs and that their Government is as sufficiently Dispotical as a man could wish the frequent
any Article for casting dust into mens eyes the better to perswade them to give credit to any thing which may serve my turn when I have said nothing in all this business about the Ephori but what is justified by the Authority of the most famous States-men and renowned Writers who have committed to our knowledge the true condition of Affairs in that Common-wealth so that you might have spared the story of Hipitadeus the selling of his lot or his portion of Lands contrary to the Laws of Lycurgus the following of that bad example by other men and the reducing of all the Free-holders in that Common-wealth to the number of 100. only unless you had found any thing in that Book of mine which had sounded contrary unto it But whereas you infer in that which followeth That the ingrossing the Lands of that Common wealth into such few hands altered the Government into an Oligarchy that by this it was no Oligarchy that Agis was murthered and that in reference to this Oligarchy Plato and Aristotle called the Government of Sparta by the name of Tyranny in all these things you may be said to cast dust into the eyes of the Readers that they may not see the light of truth For certainly the Government of the State of Sparta consisting in the Kings and Senate remained only as it was before by the Laws of Lycurgus the superinduction of the Ephori being added to it not altered any thing at all by the ingrossing of the Lands of that Common-wealth into those few hands Nor was it by the Authority of those ingrossers whom you call the Oligarchy though possible enough at their instigation that Agis was murthered by the Ephori nor was it finally in relation to these Ingrossers that the Government of Sparta was called a tyranny there was no reason why it should both by Plato and Aristotle but only in reference to the unparaleld cruelties and abominable insolencies of the Ephori committed on and against their Kings it being said by Aristotle in as plain tearms as may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Ephorate and not the Oligarchy of Ingrossers was an absolute Tyranny Thus have you fetcht Arguments against an Oligarchy in the State of Sparta which you find not in it And for the close of all you say That whereas Agis and Cleomenes by the restitution of the Lots of Licurgus were assertors of popular power they are insinuated by me to have been assertors of Monarchy But first the restitution of the Lots of Licurgus by the industry and endeavours of those two Kings improved not at all the power of the people who were still kept under as before but only reduced them unto that equality in respect of Riches which might secure them from being trampled on and insulted over by their fellow Commoners And secondly it appears by Plutarch that the designe of those two Kings in that restitution was to get glory to the one and preservation to the other which could not be effected but by gaining the good will of the common people and make them sure unto their side whensoever they should be ready for that great design of destroying the Ephori And so much in Answer to that part of your Letter which concerns the rise insolencies and destruction of those popular Villains which Calvin makes his first example for opposing Kings 14. Such being my play no foul play I am sure with humane Authors or as a Polititian you will next show me whither I have dealt better with the Scripture or been more carefull as a Divine But first you must look backwards upon somwhat which was said before And having laid down the words of Calvin which occasioned this discourse between us you cannot but confess that what he saith of Demarchy of Athens is a plain mistake they being officers as you truly say of another nature and then why he may not be as much mistaken in the Spartan Ephori and the Roman Tribunes as in the Athenian Demarchy you can show no reason For if he be of a fallible spirit in one point he can be infallible in none Which mistake notwithstanding it betrayes his ignorance in the Greek Antiquities you tell us not to be such an one as destroyes no other part of his Assertion First The supereminent Authority of the Ephori over the Kings of the Tribunes over their Consuls standing good however The contrary whereof to use your own words hath been already proved by Plato Aristotle and Plutarch though you would willingly perswade the Reader that they speak for you Which said you put me to it once again as a Polititian and tell me that no Polititian in the world can show a reâ—son Why the Estates in a Gothick Moddel should be of less power then either the Spartan Ephori or the Roman Tribunes So much I shall be willing to grant that the Estates in a Gothick Moddel have as much power in the publick Government and over the persons of their Kings as the Ephori had over their Kings and the Tribunes over their Consuls at their first institution But that they had the like power in either case as the Ephori and the Tribunes exercised by violence and usurpation in their severall Cities no Polititian in the world can be able to show me And this we may the better see by looking on their power in matters which concern the publique in the Realm of Spaine the Kings and people whereof those of Portugal excepted onely are of Gothick race and therefore likely to retain most of the Gothick Moddels And looking on it we shall find first that their Curias or General conventions consist there as in other places of the three Estates Prelate Peer and People And secondly that though the Government of that King be not so Arbitrary Despotical as it is in France yet he both rules and manageth those Conventions to his own contentment For neither can they meet together but by his appointment nor are their acts and consultations of any effect further then as they are confirmed by the Kings consent nor finally can they sit any longer or depart any sooner then as it may stand most with the Kings conveniency But Bodin goes a little further And having showed us with what Reverence and Devotion the the three Estates of France addressed themselves to Charles the 8th in a convention held at Tours at what time the Authority of the Assemblies was greater and more eminent then it hath been since affirms expresly Majorem etiam Obedientiam majus obsequium Hispanorum regi Exhiberi The King of Spain hath more obedience and observance from his three Estates then that which was afforded to the King of France The General conventions of both Kingdoms being much alike may seem to have been cast in the same mould for the French neighbouring the Goths who then possest those Provinces in the Realm of France which lie on the west side of the Loire could not
but know the manner of those Assemblies which Charles Martel thought good to introduce and settle in the Realm of France that giving them some influence in the publick Government and binding them unto him by so great a favour he might make use of their Authority to preserve his own as his Son Pepin after did to obtain the Crown But that the. Assembly of Estates in either Kingdom did take upon them to fine imprison or to depose or murder any of their Kings as the Tribunes sometimes did the Consuls and the Ephori did the Kings of Sparta you cannot easily prove out of all their stories 15. But you go on and tell me first that the estates in a Gothish Moddel are such by virtue of their estates that is of their over ballance in dominion and then you put it upon me to show both why the over ballance in dominion should not amount to Empire and practically that it amounteth not to Empire in quiet and well governed times But this by your leave is a strange way of Disputation by cutting out what â—work you please and sending it to me to make it up as well as I can But being sent to me I am bound to dispatch it out of hand for your satisfaction I say then first that the Estates in a Gothish Moddel are not such by virtue of their Estates that is to say by being above the rest of the people in titles of Honour and Revenue which you call an over ballance in Dominion For were it so they were of power to exercise the same Authority as you suppose the Tribunes and the Ephori to have done before them in all times alike and not when they are called together by the Kings command For being Masters of their Estates as well out of as in those Generall Assemblies and Conventions and consequently in all times alike what reason can you show me that they should make no use of that Power which belongs to them in right of their Estates but in those General Assemblies and Conventions onely Secondly If they have that power by virtue of their Estates and yet cannot exercise but in such Conventions how doth it come to pass that such Conventions are not of their own appointment but onely at the pleasure and command of their several Kings And Thirdly If they hold and enjoy that Power by virtue of their said Estates you may do well to show some reason why all that are above the rest of the people in Titles of Honour and Revenue should not be called to those assembly of Estates but onely some few out of every Order as in France and Spain to represent the rest of their several Orders For being equal or somewhat near to an equality with one another in Estates and Honours those which were pretermitted have the greater wrong in not being suffered to make use of that natural power which their over balance in dominion hath conferred upon them And then I would be glad to right whether this over ballance in Dominion be ascribed unto them in reference to the King or the common people If in relation to the King you put the King into no better condition then any one of his subjects by making him accomptable to so many Masters who may say to him whensoever they shall meet together Redde rationem villicationis tuae and tell him plainly That he must give up an account of his stewardship for he shall be no longer steward And then have Kings done very ill in raising so many of their subjects to so great a Power and calling them together to make use of that power which they may make use of if they please to his destruction And if they have this over-ballance of Dominion in reference onely to the common people above whom they are raised in Estates and Honours what then becomes of that natural liberty of Mankind that underived Majesty of the common people which our great Masters in the School of Politie have so much cryed up The people must needs take it as ill as the King to be deprived of their natural Liberty without giving their consent unto it or to be deposed from that Majesty which is inherent in themselves without deriving it from any but their first Creator But on the other side if the three Estates in a Gothick Moddel receive that power which they enjoy in those Conventions either from the hands of the King as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal which make up two of the three Estates did here in England or from the hands of the People as the 3d. Estate have done in all Kingdoms else which is the generall opinion and practise of all Nations too you must stand single by your self in telling me that they have that power by virtue of those Estates which they are possest of And this may also serve to show you that an over ballance in Dominion or the greatness of Estate which some subjects have above the rest amounteth not to such an Empire as may give them any power over Prince or people unless it can be showed as I think it cannot that the King doth not over ballance them in the point of Dominion as they do the rest of their fellow subjects or that the whole body of the people cannot as well pretend to Dominion over themselves as any of their fellow-subjects can pretend to have over them And then if this Dominion do amount to an Empire also we shall have three Empires in one Kingdom that is to say the King the three Estates and the Common people I must confess I have not weigh'd all Orders and degrees of men in so even a scale as to resolve which of them ballanceth counter-ballanceth or over-ballanceth the other which must be various and uncertain according to the Lawes of severall Countrys and the different constitutions of their several Governments And I conceive it altogether as impossible to make a new Garment for the Moon which may as well fit her in the full as in her wainings and increasings as to accommodate these Metaphisical speculations to the rules of Government which varying in all places must have different forms And having different forms must have different ballances according to the Lawes and constitutions of each several Country And yet I am not altogether so dimme sighted as not to see what these new Notions which otherwise indeed would prove new Nothings do most chiefly aim at the chief design of many of the late Discourses being apparently no other then to put the supream Government into the hands of the common people or at least into the hands of those whom they shall chuse for their Trustees and Representors which if it could be once effected the underived Majesty of the common people would not appear so visibly in any one person whatsoever as in those Trustees and Representors and then the King or supream Magistrate being thus out shined would seem no other then a Star of the lesser Magnitude which
the common sort of people in those Common-wealths The like may be observed also in some Common-wealths of a later standing in which the greater part of the people have no voice at all as to the making of their Laws or chusing such as are to make them for the use of the publique and therefore are so far from having any part in the publique Government that for the most part they are Governed against their wills Such an imaginary speculation such an empty nothing is the supposed liberty of the people in a popular Government 25. We must next see notwithstanding all that hath been said how much you vilifie and contemn the Regal Government in respect of that popular which you chiefly drive at For having told us That the Government of the Senate and the people is that only which is or can be the Government of Laws and not of men and that the Government of the Laws and not of men is the Government of God and not of men You tell us out of Aristotles Politiques That he that is for the Governmens of Laws is for the Government of God and he that is for the Government of a man is for the Government of a Beast But Aristotle's words must be understood according to Aristotle's time Cum arbitria Principum pro legibus erant when the Subjects were Governed by no other Law then the will of the Prince and cannot be aplied to any King or Monarch in the Christian world which have not only the Law of God for a rule in Government but many positive Laws of their own establishing for the well ordering of the people in their several Kingdoms You tell us secondly That when the ballance is popular as in Israel in the Grecian in the Scicilian Tyrannies Kings are the direst curse that can befall a Nation But first to pretermit the extream harshness of the expression so far were Kings from being a curse to the people of Israel that admitting the former Government to have been setled on Popular Agrarian as it never was they proved the greatest temporal blessing to them as before was said that ever the Nation did enjoy And Secondly you fall from such Kings as exercise no other then a lawful power to the Grecian and Scicilian Tyrannies as if the case in setting up a King over the people of Israel not onely by Gods approbation but their own consent were to be paralelled with those Tyrannies which were erected in some Cities of Greece and Sicily by Dyâ—nisius and other Monsters of those ages infamous for their lusts and most barbarous cruelties For had the change been made by persons of sobriety moderation as that in Rome from a Democraty to a Monarchy by Augustus Caesar the alteration might have been for the benefit of the common people by bringing them from that which Aristotle calls the worst kind of Government to that which comes nearest to the Government of Almighty God and is therefore called the most Divine Nor had the people lost any thing by such change in the point of liberty which never is enjoyed more peacefully and securely nunquam libertas gratior extat quam sub Rege pio as it is in Claudian then under the Government of a just and merciful Prince witness the difference in the Government of the state of Florence between the tranquillity which all sorts of People do now enjoy under the protection of the Princes of the House of Mâ—dices and those confusions and disorders to which they were continually subject in the popular States In the Third place you tell us that a King or soveraign Prince can have no other subsistence or security then by cutting off or tearing up all roots that do naturally sheat or spring up into such branches that is to say to the free course of Popular Orders which may perhaps be true in some of the Scicilian and Gretian Tyrannies where every obstacle was removed which was conceived to stand in the Tyrants way yet cannot this possibly be made good in any Christian Kings and Princes in these parts of the World in which we find not any example of cutting off or tearing up such popular Orders or any roots which branch unto them as have been settled and confirmed in the times fore-going Nor are you satisfied with that distinction of the Rabbins whose Authority when it serveâ— your turn you do much insist on viz. that the people of Israel making a King displeased God not in the matter but the forms onely that is to say in desiring to have a King like other Nations which is no more then what generally is affirmed by such Christian Writers as have discoursed on this subject Take this of Peter Martyr among the rest who telleth us that the people 's sinned in this request by desiring of a King after the manner of all other Nations and not according to the rule of Gods word Deut. 17. and in that they desired a King without consulting with the Lord or having direction or order from him in that business All which may be and yet the ballance of a Government may not be onely form but matter the main matter of their request which is the root of the tree you speak of being to change the Government and to have a King the form of their Request or the formall words in which they made it being to have a King like other Nations 26. Finally you conceive so poorly of the Kings of the Hebrews and in them of all other Kings for ought I can see that they were but regulated Monarchs when they were at the best And in case of Mal-administration obnoxious unto corporall punishment from the hands of the Sanhedrim To prove the first you tell us they were so tyed up to the Rules of Government prescribed in Deut. 17. that they could neither multiply Horses nor Chariots nor Silver nor Gold nay could of right enact no law as in those by David but for the reduction of the Ark for the regulation of the Priests for the Election of Solomon which were made by the suffrage of the people To answer first unto the last David might gratifie the People in some popular actions as in the Reduction of the Ark and gratifie himself by the power of the people as in setling the succession in the person of Solomon and yet not be obliged to it by that place in Deut. or any other fundamental law which required it of him And so the first place is answered that the Kings of Israel were by that rule prohibited from multiplying Gold and Silver and Chariots and Horsemen in a greater measure then what was necessary for the support of their Estate and the protection of their people against forrain invasions And to this very well agrees the Gloss or Exposition of Diodati in which we find that the end thereof was that the King of Gods People should not exalt himself in pride and Tyranny nor put his confidence in humane means