Therefore Euripides saith that the Athenians under Theseus did not come under the yoke of one man but the people as free-men governed like a King by course In Thes Yet we must not imagine that then there was a perfect and entire Commonwealth erected No verily for Theseus remained notwithstanding as their Prince and as one having greater authority then any Patriot and Commonwealth's-man I will not say that Theseus retained a power in his hand equall to the power of the People and their Representative That is expresly against what Euripides and others above-cited do report But this much I may say that he retained as much power in his own hand as made him superior and of greater authority then any one at-least whether of the Councel or of the People And that he was the first man in dignity and authority in the Commonwealth is clear 1. Because as both Aristotle and Plutarch report he remained notwithstanding the Prince of the Commonwealth Therefore even unto this day he is reckoned-up in the Catalogue of the Athenian Kings 2. Because he differenced between the Patricians whom we call gentle-men tillers of the ground and Crafts-men giving to them power according to their ranks and stations investing some of them with greater and some of them with lesser power and consequently seing he differenced one kinde of persons from another in the Commonwealth making some of them in authority Superiour to others much more hath he retained a power in his own hand whereby he was differenced from any amongst all the rest 3. Because the Codrids and those who succeeded him were properly called Kings and therein they are contra-distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Princes and diametrally opposed to them But I conceive that there was greater reason why Theseus was a King then they were He was heroick and not so were they Yea Heraclid in plain terms saith that Kings were not abrogated from amongst the Athenians till the posterity of Codrus became effeminate and lecherous At which time saith he they were taken-away and Princes put in their room Observe therefore that from Theseus untill the last of the Corids the Athenian Monarchy was regulated We establish the point thus 1. Because Theseus himself as is proved already was regulated Ergo far more Codrus and his posterity were regulated Theseus was of an heroick temper such as were not the Codrids And so by nature he was more disposed for an absolute way of governing then they He lived in an heroick time wherein Monarchy was most in request But their time was of another stamp wherein Monarchy was wearing-out of request 2. Because whileas the Grecians carried-on an Engagement against Troy at that time the Athenian Monarchy remained regulated also Justin saith that Demophoon son to Theseus was Captain of the Athenian navy which went out with Agamemnon against the Trojans lib. 2. But we believe other more antient Writers rather then him who say that the Captain of the Athenian navy then was Mnestheus Theseus son Dict. cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. and Homer Iliad 2. Howsoever Plutarch gathereth from the way of Homer's speaking of the Navy which came from Athens under the conduct of Mnestheus that Theseus government was regulated and much impaired for saith he Homer doth call these ships as belonging to the People in Thes Just so say Dictys Cretensis Dares Phrygius And so Plutarch's way of reasoning holding good the Athenian Monarchy whether under Mnestheus as some say or under Demophoon as Justin saith was not absolute but limited for the ships which were rigged-out of Athens against Troy were not called Mnestheus or Demophoon's ships but ships belonging to the people of Athens Well I reverence this consequence not for it-self for Homer speaketh that same way of the out rigging of ships in other Grecian Kingdoms where I do not think but there was absolute Monarchy though in some things peradventure circumscribed but for Plutarch's authority And so in this matter resting upon it I conclude that seing the Athenian Monarchy was kept within the bounds of Law in the dayes of Mnestheus and Demophoon two brave Heroes much more was it of a circumscribed power in the dayes of Codrus and his posterity who were but of an ordinary and non-heroick temper And as for Codrus himself I do not think that such a man would have endeavoured the away-taking of those liberties wherewith Theseus priviledged the Athenians whereas in maintainance of their liberties he exposed himself to the undergoing of death it-self Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 6. Just lib. 2. Plut. in Codr Aye and which is more whileas the Codrids became lecherous soft and effeminate the Athenians did abrogate Kings from amongst them and changed their Kings into Princes Which beareth us this much in hand that the Athenians did retain a power in themselves whereby they might either keep-in or shut-out their Kings And it is remarkable that it is not said they did abrogate their Kings because of the tyranny of the Codrids Heracl de Pol. Ath. Which insinuateth that notwithanding their personall escapes and out-breakings they acted nothing for diminishing the peoples Power Thirdly after the Codrids had become effeminate and had abused their power the people took-away Kings from amongst them and in their room set up Princes Now the question may be moved whether or not had these Princes as great power as had Theseus and Codrus For removing of this difficulty observe that there were some who did govern onely as Princes and some did rule as Kings Those who governed as Princes are of a threefold kind 1. Some of them were appointed to govern for their whole lifetime Who were thirteen in number each of them reigning after another 2. Some of them were decennal Princes seven in number who governed every one of them for the space of ten years The last of the decennall Princes was Erixias whose government left-off an mun 3282 before the reign of Pisistratus about 128. years 3. Some of them were annuall and yearly Magistrates Some would think it strange to say that these three kinds of Princes had that same power and authority which Theseus and Codrus or any other of the Athenian Kings had But if you take along with you this distinction you shall find the matter clear There is a twofold non-absolute and circumscribed power 1. Intensive and substantiall 2. Extensive and circumstantiall It cannot be denied but these Princes in all the three kindes had one and the same power intensively and essentially which Theseus and the Codrids had The reason of this is because the power of the Athenian Kings in itself and at the utmost was but a regulated power subjected to the Law of the people as is proved already Therefore saith Euripides bringing-in Theseus speaking of the power of the Athenians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English Athens A
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
to be attended with these qualifications 1 They are meerly heroick and ambitious So were the Giants before the Flood Gen. 6. Beros Antiq. l. 1. Nimrod after the Flood Gen. 10. Bern. Antiq. l. 4. and all the rest of the great Heroes Arist pol. 3. c. 10. 2 They are meerly tyrannous and cruel So we find that Pharaoh had an arbitrary power over the People of Israel Exod. 1 and 5. Nebuchad-nezzar had the like power over his Kingdoms Dan. 2. and 3. By vertue of Ahasuerus absolute power Haman was licenced to exercise tyranny on the People of the Jews Est 3. We might alledge many examples to this purpose But the point is most clear in it self for those who are of a tyrannous disposition can endure no Law but their will Otherwise they could never get their tyranny exercised 3 Those whom we find chief pleaders for absolute Monarchy are either concerned therein themselves as Alexander M. and M. Aurelius and such like or else Flatterers and Court-Parasites as Lyricus Rom. Virgil and such like And of this sort we find none more violent in this matter than Dr. Fern Hugo Grotius Arnisaeus Spalato c. whose foot-steps with his ful-speed Salmasius doth trace But although men by way of flattery and by-respect may act and plead for arbitrary Monarchy yet let me tell you I do not imagin but they may act and plead for it through simple error and delusion And so I conclude that Aristotle Xiphilin Salust and the foresaid Lawyers do much run this way though they be more moderate in the matter then the rest And as afterward is shewed we find the Talmudick and Rabbinick Writers this way somewhat inclining to the lawless and arbitrary power of absolute Monarchy Assert 2. The King hath not a power above Law and a Prerogative Royal to dispose upon things according to his pleasure whether with or against Law and Reason Firstly Such an arbitrary and vast power is repugnant to the first Institution and Scripture-mould of Kings According to the Holy Ghost's way of moulding the King he is thus qualified 1 He is an Elective King chosen by the People in subordination to God Thou shalt in any wayes set him King over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose Deut. 17. 2 A Brother-King and not a stranger-King One from amongst thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee thou mayest not set a stranger over thee who is not thy Brother Ibid. 3 He must not tyrannize over the People by Leavying Forces and by strength of hand drawing them into Egyptian slavery He shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the People to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you Ye shall henceforth return no more that way Ibid. These words properly and in their emphatick sense can import nothing else but a discharging of the King by Forces and Armies to tyrannize over his People that bringing them into bondage and upon their ruines he may not strengthen himself and multiply his Forces So the King of Egypt did with the People of Israel whileas they were in Egypt under his tyrannons yoke 4 Not a Leacherous King given to women for drawing him on into temptation Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away Ibid. 5 Nor Covetous given to enrich himself and to build-up his own estate upon the ruins of his People Nether shall he greatly multiply to himself Silver and Gold Ibid. 6 But he must be a King acquiring the Scriptures of GOD meditating on them his whole life-time thereby learning to fear the LORD to observe his Commandments and to practise them that he may be humble and lowly not turning aside either to the right-hand or to the left And it shall be when he sitteth upon the Throne of his Kingdom that he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levits And it shall be with him and he shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD his God to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them That his heart be not lifted up above his Brethren and that he turn not aside from the Commandment to the right-hand or to the left Ibid. Here from we draw this Argument The power of him is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law whose power according to the Law and Word of GOD is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law But the power of the King according to the Law and Word of God is Regulated and kept within the bounds of Law Ergo the Power of the King is not Arbitrary and beyond the bounds of Law The Major cannot be denyed unlesse men will be so bold as to deny a Regulating and squaring of their Acts and Institutions according to the Word and Law of God Sure I am none will deny it but such as will contradict Scripture it self and decline it as the rule and pattern of their Actions The Minor is manifest from the Text above Cited Barclay the Royallist distinguisheth between the Office and power of the King and so the man endeavoureth to elude our Argument thus The Office of the King quoth he is set down Deut. 17. and the King's power is spoken of 1 Sam. 8 where saith he an Arbitrary power is conferred upon the King and laid upon his shoulders But this distinction serveth not for his purpose For either the power of the King is according to the Word and Law of God or not If it be then as the Office of the King is regulated in like manner his power also is kept within the compasse of Law For his Office spoken of Deut. 17. admitteth bounds and is kept within marches That which is spoken concerning the King Deut. 17. in terminis doth subject the King to Law and taketh-away Arbitrarines in his Government So then that which is spoken of the King 1 Sam. 8. doth either contradict that which is spoken Deut. 17. or else it giveth him no power and liberty of governing above Law at random If it be not then it is not a Divine but a diabolick power Moreover what the King doth according to his power either he doth it by vertue of his Office or contrary to it If by vertue of his Office Ergo the Kingly power cannot be absolute unlesse his Office be also absolute for so the exercise of his power dependeth from his Office In such a case he can do nothing according to his power but what he hath Authority for from his Office But his Office Deut. 17 is not absolute but Regulated according to Law If contrary to it Ergo it is not the Kings Office to exercise an absolute power and consequently the Kings Authority is not absolute Furthermore either the King as King is absolute or not If he be absolute as King Ergo the Royall
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.
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
city free is not govern'd by one As King by course the people reign alone Whence it is more then evident that Theseus was no lesse subjected to Law then any of the people Thence it is that Diodore reporteth that the Athenians taking it in an evill part that Helen by lot had fallen to be wife to Theseus he feared them and therfore transported her into Amphidria Rer. ant lib. 5. cap. 5. And how they keeped both him and the Codrids in subjection to Law is already proved at length Which maketh us say that formally and according to the essentiall frame of non-absolute and limited power they had no more power then any of these Princes above-said who did govern onely as Princes for both of them were subjected to Law and neither of them had a prerogative over it and an exemption from it We have shewed already that the Athenian Kings had no such priviledge Ergo far lesse had the Athenian Princes any such priviledge 1. Because Princes as Princes are ever one way or other inferiour to Kings 2. Because the Athenians changed their Kings into Princes because their Kings became lecherous soft and effeminate And consequently unlesse they had changed their power as well as their name they had wrought to no purpose for reforming the abuses and enormities of their Kings 3. The annuall and yearly Princes whereof nine did govern together six of them being Thesmothites were solemnly sworn to the people that they should govern according to Law And he who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King amongst these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes had no more power but to provide for the sacrifices and to order and govern the battell Heracl de Pol. Ath. This commeth just to that which Aristotle saith concerning the detracting of the power of Kings in after-ages Then saith he the people detracted so much from their Kings that they entrusted them with no more power but to govern the battell and to over-see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacrifices Polit. 3. cap. 10. This is reckoned-up by him as the lowest degree of Monarchy which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most according to Law and of the Laconick kind Pol. 3. cap. 10. and 11. But if you shall alledge that the yearly Princes amongst the Athenians had not such power as the decennal Princes and those Princes who keeped the government for their life-time I shall not stand much to yeeld that for I suppose that as in some accidental and circumstantial way in the matter of power the Athenian Kings were differenced from the Athenian Princes so it is most probable that after such a manner these three foresaid kindes of Athenian Princes were differenced each-one from another and therefore it is alledged that a Commonwealth was not erected amongst the Athenians till annuall Princes were set over them Which maketh the Princes of the first and second kinde though not of the third to be reckoned up as Kings Yet they must give me leave to say that though the Athenian Common-wealth was not fully and compleatly established till the up-setting of annuall and yearly Princes notwithstanding in some degree or other there was ever a Commonwealth amongst them from the dayes of Theseus untill some of their annuall Princes began to usurp and brought them under bondage for not onely as is said already their Princes of the third kinde but also their Kings and Princes of the first and second sort were subjected to Law and the people had a ruling power over them And so all of them had the like power according to the essentiall frame of a regulated and non-absolute power though the Kings had a more vaste authority and might extend their power further according to Law then the Princes and those of the first kinde then the Princes of the second or at least of the third kinde Even-as Majors v. g. have greater power then Alder-men and Alder-men then Counsellours Howsoever we find that the Princes of the third kinde are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the rest They are said to have had the power of the battell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sacrifices He who had this power is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King Thus we finde that he had that same power which the Lacedemonian Kings had But it is afterward shewed that such were proper though not absolute Kings Well I regard not though you esteem not such as Kings properly so called I lose nothing by this If we argue from examples of former and ancient Commonwealths then have we the Athenian and Lacedemonian Republicks as presidents of a popular government and Common-wealth Friend this is the mark we drive most at in the matter in hand Those Princes who governed as Kings did usurp a greater power then what according to the fundamentall government of the Kingdome and the institution of Theseus did belong to them So Cylon endeavoured but his attempt was choked in the bud Herod lib. 5. Thucid. lib. 1. Herac. de Pol. Ath. Cic. de leg Phutar de Sol. But what he intended Pisistratus acted as is storied by the same authors together with Diogenes Laertius Valerius maximus and Diodore And that usurpation continued untill Thrasybilus and Rhinon's dayes These did vindicate the liberty of the Athenians against those tyrants who did keep them under bondage Herac. de Pol. Ath. Val. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. Aemil. Prob. de Thras And so their government turned meerly popular and became an even-down Commonwealth Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 23. And as for these Princes we deny not nor can we say otherwise but they had not onely as great but also greater power then any of the Athenian Kings whether Theseus or any King that succeeded him And that they were of equall power at-least is evident for they did reign not as Princes but as Kings Her de Polit. Ath. And Pisistratus one of these usurping Kings in his Epistle to Solon saith plainly that he walked according to Solon's Lawes differing in nothing from the people but in honour and dignity But he addeth that he took upon him that power which the Athenians conferred upon Codrus and his posterity And in this he acknowledgeth that he failed and had such a power not by the Law of the Kingdom but by a Law of his own making Whence it is evident that Pisistratus by usurpation took upon him as great power as did Codrus or any of his race Yea and that they had greater power is also clear for Justine storieth That after Codrus while-as the Administration of the Republick vvas given over into the hands of yearly Magistrates the King's lust became the People's law Thus he telleth us that in the times of defection and vvhile-as corruption entered the State of Athens Kings became absolute and vvere of an arbitrary povver Post Codrum administratio Reipublicae annus Magistratibus permissa est Sed Civitati nullae Leges tunc erant quia
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
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
and of the tyrant quod placet Thus he maketh Salmasius his cui quod libet licet the propriety of a Tyrant not of a King And therefore shutting-up the whole matter in a word he calleth all powers above Law meer tyrannies But you shall not need to imagine that Aristotle in this contradicteth himself while as Pol. 3. cap. 11. 12. he alloweth pambasilick monarchy 1. Because as is above said there is great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And already we have shewed that Aristotle doth not absolutely but comparatively oppose government laid upon one governing ex voluntate to government mannaged and carried-on secundum legem 2. It is far from Aristotle's mind to dispute simply and absolutely for such a power But his main purpose is to dispute against these who deny pambasilick and all-governing monarcny to be according to Nature And it cannot be denied but both mixed and unmixed monarchy are naturall albeit arbitrary and unlimited regall power be against the very Law of Nature it self It is no wonder though Aristotle speak something for Royall power Had he not Alexander to deal-with who could endure none to govern but himself Church-Prophets or rather prating parasites such as are the lying spirits and King-flatterers now a-dayes were they as great Courtiers as Aristotle was I trow they should not be ashamed in plain language and positive terms to prefer the King to CHRIST The Ethnicks called Jupiter primus But they could find in their heart to change that and say Caesar primus Tell not me that Aristotle is for absolute and uncircumscribed monarchy Compare place with place and you will finde the contrary Yea Polit. 3. cap. 12. he layeth down this as a ground That Monarchy transgressing the right model is against Nature it self But sure I am a power to tyrannize and act against Law is against the right model for both in actu primo and actu secundo it is a tyrannick power Howsoever Aristotle in that same place explaineth what the right model is as is shewed by us already And it is far from taking-in arbitrary power And which is more Aristotle is so far from allowing arbitrary Monarchy that as afterward is shewed no Government taketh so much room in his heart as Democracy And what need we stand here do not all Law-givers disclaim arbitrary and uncircumscribed power viz. Zaleucus Charondas Onomacritus Thales Lycurgus Philolaus Plato Dracon Pittacus and Androdamas of whom Aristotle speaketh Pol. 2. cap. 10. These could not have precisely prescribed Laws for hedging-in the wayes of people unlesse they had been positive and even-down enemies to absolute and arbitrary power Howsoever it is without controversy That the chiefest Law-givers we read of amongst the Ethnicks could not away with arbitrary and uncircumscribed Government Solon was altogether against it Arist ibid. Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Sol. Val. Max. lib. 5. cap. 3. lib. 7. cap. 2. lib. 8. cap. 7. Trog lib. 2. See also Isocr Areop Panath. De permut Pittacus was so much against it that having reigned a-while over the Mityleneans at last he resigned the Kingdom Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac See also Simonid carm Val. Max. lib. 4. cap. 1. lib. 6. cap. 5. Who will deny Lycurgus to have despised arbitrary power So Xenoph. de Repub. Laced and many others do report as Herodot Plato Aristotle c. Neither can it be denied that Plato was an enemy thereto as is shewed already He could not endure the tyrant Dionysius as Laertius Plutarch and others do report And that Minos did abhor arbitrary power is shewed already Concl. 6. Because he was a most noble Law-giver therefore he is feigned by Homer Odyss 11. to be Justiciar over the souls departed In a word that of Pindarus Lex omnium est Regina mortalium atque immortalium passeth current amongst the chief Law-givers and Philosophers To which Plato the great Philosopher and Law-giver in terminis doth subscribe lib. 24. de Rhetor. What shall we over-leap the most noble Lacedemonian King Theopompus indeed not unlike the signification of his name No verily While as it was said by his friends to him having superadded the Ephorick power That he should leave lesse power to his successors then he had of his predecessors he forthwith answered saying Nay but I leave them a far greater power Arist Pol. 5. cap. 11. See also Valer. max. lib. 4. cap. 1. Plut. de doctr princ lib. Of the heroick Theseus we have spoken enough already to this purpose And which is to be admired the very King-flattering Isocrates doth story much of his disclaiming arbitrary power And this he reporteth not to his discredit but to his praise Helen laud. Panath. What needeeth us thus to multiply the actings and judgments of men against arbitrary Monarchy Have we not already at large shewed it to be repugnant to the ordinary course and strain of all Commonwealths We will stand no longer here but hasten toward another Question SECT II. Whether or not is Royal Government the choicest of Governments AS in the former Question we have offered our judgment very freely so shall we do the like here And that we may do so to some purpose and distinctly we offer our judgment to you in these Assertions Assert 1. Royal power ectypically is the choicest of Governments This is to be taken two wayes 1. In order to the Creatour It cannot be denied but Monarchy ectypically and by way of assimilation commeth nearest to the Government of God and doth liveliest represent it for the Divine Essence is simply one admitting no diversity Now a thing is no otherwise good and pure but as it is squared according to the perfect pattern of the Divine Essence And consequently Monarchy having a more intimat assimilation to the Divine Essence then any other Government ectypically and by way of assimilation it cannot but be the chiefest of Governments This breaketh the neck of all that is objected from the resemblance that is between Regal Government and the Government of God to prove Monarchy to be the choicest of Governments So do some object expresly Isoc Nic. Aquin. de Pr. reg lib. 1. cap. 2. Clicht de reg off cap. 1. 3. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 1. cap. 4. Salmas def reg cap. 5. and some insinuatively Cypr. de Idol van tract 4. 2. In order to the Creature We find that both amongst inanimate and animate creatures a natural kind of Monarchy is observed Is there not in the complex body of the Universe one above all the rest We see the Heaven is above all the four Elements And in the Heaven all the stars in height vertue and excellency are inferiour to the Sun Therefore Dionysius calleth the Sun imaginem Coeli terraeque regem Lib. de Divin nom Amongst living though brutish creatures have not Bees their own King and flocks of Sheep their own leader Apol.
him Num. 11. Deut. 1. Neither will I say that Moses out of meer simplicity and ignorance before Jethro's counsel did forbear to set any Rulers over the people beside himself The very light of Nature taught him that help was good and that he alone was not able to discharge all the businesses of the people But I conceive he did it upon other grounds He knew that the people of Israel were the Lord 's peculiar people whom he had brought out of Egypt extraordinarily and over whom he had set him in an extraordinary way Yea he waited for judgment to the people at the very mouth of the Lord. What Laws and Ordinances he delivered to the people and what judgment he executed amongst them were done according to extraordinary and immediat revelation from the Lord. Which maketh me think that Moses in all matters of importance taking the word from God's mouth and depending from his immediate revelation wholly waited upon God's Oracle where and when one way or other should be revealed to him how and what Judges should be appointed to rule with him And so he perceiving Jethro's counsel to be wholesome and from the Lord and that God had employed him as an instrument of accomplishing his expectation therefore he thought good not to despise it but speedily to embrace it So we see he wholly casteth the election of the Seventy over upon God and therein only taketh the word at his mouth Num. 11. Deut. 1. Albeit Moses all this while did reign as King yet doth it make nothing for Kingly Government 1. Because he was the Lord's extraordinary Lieutenant He was extraordinarily and immediatly designed by God to the charge And to speak properly and precisely in a politick notion not Moses but God himself was their King What Moses did was by an immediate dependency from the Lord. He took the word at God's mouth He enquired of God judgment and was for the people to God-ward Ex. 18. He was as God's mouth to the people God employed him to deliver his Laws and Ordinances to the people because they were afraid the Lord should speak to them They could not without fear behold his glory and terrour Exod. 20. And Moses finding that his charge immediatly and extraordinarily depended from the Lord therfore he waited upon God till he manifested one way or other where when and how other Governours should be designed to rule with him over the people And thus all the while he did govern alone not he but God properly and in a politick notion was their King for he did nothing to the people but by a special extraordinary and immediat dependency from the Lord. 2. Till in and about the time of Jethro's counsel there was no fit time to create Rulers over the people All the while before they were in a chased most unsetled condition In which time Moses did reign through meer necessity and exigency of the times He did rule alone because the case of the times so required Thus Moses was King per accidens and not per se 3. Although Moses had had an absolute and arbitrary power over the people of Israel yet would it plead no whit for Kingly Government By manifold and most eminent obligations they were tied to him For their sake he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter preferring affliction with them to all the pleasures and pomp of Pharaoh's Court. He conducted them thorow the Red Sea he was as the mouth of God to them and by his favour with the Lord he furnished them with all necessaries in the wildernesse And it is known that the man was most eminently endowed matchlesse in his time Thus what Kingly power Moses had was not only accidentall but extraordinary Therefore it can be no ground to Royallists to build upon Conclus 2. After the institution of the seventy elders and the accomplishment of Jethro 's counsell neither Moses nor any other of the Judges had a Kingly power Firstly The people desired Gideon to reign over them and offered to devolve the Kingdom over into the hands of his posterity And Gideon refused to do so and embraced not their offer Judg. 8. And he addeth this as the reason of his deniall The LORD shall rule over you As it he had said Neither I nor any of my posterity can take upon us to reign over you as your Kings Ye are the LORD' 's peculiar people Of whom the LORD hath a most special care Any that rule over you must be deputed by God in an extraordinary way They must take the word at his mouth ruling over you by an immediat dependency from him Now tell me whether or not was Gideon King at this time If he was King ergo he refused to embrace the power which he had And that is ridiculous If he was not King I obtain the point Again either they offered to Gideon a Kingly power or not If a Kingly power ergo either Gideon was not King or else by way of gratification they offered him the power which he had already And that had been in them greater impertinency then courtesie Yea they had dealt altogether ridiculously And sure I am Gideon had never answered them so as he did if he had had such power He had positively denied to enjoy that which really he did enjoy And that they did offer him a Kingly power is manifest 1 Because the word in the Originall text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to lorde and govern in a Kingly way Gen. 4.37 Dan. 11. Mic. 5. and in many other places It hath affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Graecians changing מ in say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which signifieth to reign in a kingly way 2 It could be no other then kingly power because Gideon wanted no power but that He judged them led-forth their Armies and commanded in chief And consequently either he was not King or else the people offered no other power to him then what formerly he had And I cannot imagine that ever they would have been so impertinent to gratifie his labours with the offer of just nothing If they had done so they had forthwith befooled themselves And if Gideon had not kingly power neither had any other of the Judges He had that same power and no lesse which they had They were all Judges alike Secondly Abimelech had different power from the Judges What power he had was kingly This is evident 1. From the question he putteth-up unto his mother's brethren whereby he pleadeth to reign over the people of Israel He useth there the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the people used in offering to Gideon and his posterity power to reign over them And as is said already it implieth a kingly-ruling power 2. From Jotham's parable wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used And this under a parabolick notion he alludeth to Abimelech And it cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is seldome or
Answ About the place Rom. 13. Royallists amongst themselves do not agree Some are so impudent that they blush not to say by higher powers are only understood Kings But the contrary of this is true 1. Because the kingly power is not the higher power as if there were no power above it It is not absolute but limited as is already demonstrated 2. The King is not above all the people One of the best Kings we read of is but worth some thousands of the people David a matchlesse King at the most is called worth ten thousand 2 Sam. 18. So then though the kingly power secundum quid may be called the higher power yet simpliciter it is not The power of the people simply and absolutely is the higher power The authour of the Exercitation Conc. usurp pow by higher power understandeth no other then lawful and unusurped Magistracy And this man bringeth some Arguments but to no purpose to prove this ch 5 Which we take-up shortly into these two particulars 1. Usurped powers are not powers ordained of God The powers the Apostle speaketh of have their ordination from God 2. The powers the Apostle speaketh of may not be resisted under the pain of damnation and are appointed for the good of people Usurped powers are not so This man mistaketh the matter very far He will do well carefully to distinguish between the usurped power as it is usurped and as it is a power In the first notion it is not of God but of the Devil But sure I am in the second notion it is of God As it is a power it is a real beeing But who will deny that every thing effectively dependeth from God and is ordained by him A thing as it is in it self is good And so it cannot but be ordained by God approved of him Thus it carrieth along with it God's Image and species And sure I am God never hated his own Image in any of his creatures This is more deep then half-wit can draw It is handled by us at length curs Philosophico-theol disp 8. sect 29. I wonder if this Gentle-man will deny but Nebuchad nezzar's power which he had over the Nations was usurped The best title he had to them was his sword And yet the Lord owneth him in his undertakings commissionateth him to undertake and setteth-up his throne Jer. 43. What had he any right over the Jews but the lawlesse right of usurpation Yet Jeremiah many times exhorted them to subject their necks to him upon losse to themselves and disobedience to God And Ezekiel ch 17. threatneth them with destruction because of their denying obedience to him And I pray you what better right had Cyrus to the Kingdoms of the Nations then Nebuchad-nezzar And yet the Lord calleth him his shepherd and his anointed He promiseth to concur with him and help him in subduing the Nations Isa 44. and 45. Thus it is most evident that not only usurped powers as powers are ordained of God but also all lawful obedience is due to them Sure I am whileas the Apostle wrote this to the Romans they did live under the greatest of Tyrants Did not Nero reign then And yet the Apostle commandeth to give obedience to such and calleth their power an ordinance of God This man imagineth that C. Caesar and all his successours even unto Nero had lawful and sufficient calls to govern I shall not examine this by history sensibly perceiving the man's weaknesse in not adverting to the usurpation of Julius and Augustus I passe this and shortly tell him such vile Ethnicks as they had never right to govern as may be learned from what foregoeth But to make shorter work he shall do well to observe all usurped powers to be either Kingly Aristocratick or Popular I demand Whether or not usurped powers taken under such notions be Ordinances of God This he cannot deny Will he say that the Kingly or any other lawful power in abstracto is not of divine institution 'T is bad reasoning the Kingly power in it-self to be unlawful because it is in an usurper's hands Usurpation is accidental whether to the thing as King or to the Kingly power as it is in it self Tell me I pray you what Philosoph will admit a consequence a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per accidens ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per se Will any conclude a thing to be evil in it-self because it is abused No verily It is foolishnesse to say the skin is not good because it is itchy I go forward And for the other particular I would have this Gentleman observing with me 1. Paul prescribeth the duty of the inferiour towards the superiour This he presseth by several arguments 2. He prescribeth the duty of the Magistrate and superiour towards the inferiour I confesse more expresly and largely he speaketh of the first then of the second for as he presseth the duty of the inferiour toward the superiour tacitly and by the way he interlaceth the duty of the superiour toward the inferiour Now albeit the Apostle presseth obedience upon the inferiour both toward good and bad tyrannous and non-tyrannous powers and Rulers yet hath he very great reason for him to exhort all Rulers and powers to exercise and administer justice Albeit it be the duty of the inferiour to give obedience to the usurped and tyrannous power yet it becomerh the Magistrate not to usurp nor tyrannize And so the one being incumbent to the inferiour and the other to the superiour the Apostle presseth upon both of them their duty No question both of them may and doe fail in their duty yet it doth become the Apostle to presse their duty upon both And in this that the Apostle saith the Magistrate is God's minister appointed by him for the good of the people in exercising judgment and righteousnesse it doth not follow that he only speaketh of lawful and un-usurped powers No verily But he tacitly herein disclaimeth such powers and prescribeth what should be the nature and power of Magistrats de jure and not what it is de facto And as it is the superiour's jus to rule in righteousnesse so it is the jus of the inferiour to give all lawful and due obedience whether to the usurped or non-usurped power So is proved already The reason that maketh this man so far misconstrue the Apostle's meaning is to cut-off allegeance from the usurped power and as he saith from the Commonwealth of England which he is not ashamed to call an usurped power But he beateth the aire To make short work of this we demand Whether or not the people of the Jews did lawfully give-up allegeance to the King of Babylon If they did lawfully ergo it is lawful to give-up allegeance to usurped power Sure I am Nebuchad-nezzar's power over the Jews was meer usurpation And therefore the Lord threatneth to punish the King of Assyria and destroy his Kingdom Is 10. If unlawfully ergo it was lawful for them to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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