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
in Rufus Henry 1. Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though saith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derogated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am notwithstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conflicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Vnder Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgmet-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Vnder Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But notwithstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to erect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first saith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17. 1532. But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim
but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he be approved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or forensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i. e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self essentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successours to act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotland had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the foresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain power to defend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Lord of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King with the consent or it the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go confer them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the
Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denie not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of Scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear our purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be sive sic sive non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am causa est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat quod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power he ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24. sect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8. lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Angliae libera fuit omni tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratiam agnoscat Fuit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum humanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parasit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for Salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examine the strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood-relation therefore flattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater
Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 141 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free Vâ—NDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i. e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey
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
this way to prove it Firstly The people of Israel saith he did seek a King to reign over them after the manner of the Nations But all the Kings of the Nations in these times were absolute and not subject to Law Ergo. The Proposition he proveth from 1. Sam. 8. The Assumption he taketh for granted saying that the Assyrians whose Monarchy was at that time when the Israelites sought a King to reign over them did not restrict their Kings within the bounds of Law Therefore Artabanus Persa much commendeth that Law whereby the Persians enacted that the King should be honoured as the image of GOD. Plut. in vit Themist And Claudianus saith that they gave alike obedience to cruell and tyrannous Kings Yea Otades calleth Monarchy that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herodot lib. 3. Then seing the Persians succeeded to the Medes and the Medes to the Assyrians who reigned at that time when the Israelites did seek a King to reign over them it appeareth that as the Persian Monarchy so likewise the Assyrian and Median Monarchies were of an absolute and arbitrary power And Homer who lived as some imagine about that time when the Israelites sought a King from Samuel to reign over them saith that Kings are from Jupiter and those do reign who get authority from the son of Saturn Whom he also calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trained up by Jupiter Therefore Kings in Homer's time were not subject to Law Defens Reg. cap. 2. and 5. Ans Both the Propositions of this Gentlemans Argument seem very strange to us As for the first Proposition we do not deny it for the people of Israel said to Samuel Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations 1. Sam. 8. But it do h not follow Ergo make us an absolute King as the Nations about us have 1. Because Moses Deut. 17. by the Spirit of prophecie foretelleth their seeking of a King after the manner of the Nations But it is evident that Moses there doth onely prophesie of their seeking a King after the manner of the Nations i. e. that as the Nations about had Kings over them so they might have a King over them in like manner for both Deut. 17. and 1. Sam. 8. the words are general In neither of these it is said Make us an absolute king after the maner of the Nations The words admit a two-fold sense and so they may either signifie As other Nations have Kings so make us a King This sense we allow or as other Nations have absolute Kings so make us an absolute King This sense we deny And so this is a fallacy either ab Homonymia or à figura dictionis 2. We may as well conclude from these words after the manner of the Nations that the people of Israel did seek a non-absolute and regulated King for at that time there were Kings of the Nations who were regulated according to Law We read that Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did in the matter of Helena's away-taking was according to the advice and counsell of Senators whom Paris with his Complices did over-awe Dict. Cret de bello Tro. lib. 1. And it is observable that Agamemnon and Palamedes though the Kings of Kings were subjected to Law So storie Dictys Cretensis Dares Phrygius Homer and Aristotle Which was at that time when the Jewes did seek a King to reign over them Yea then the Egyptian Kings were subjected to Law Diod. Sic. Rer. Ant. l. 2. c. 3. And it is also evident that at this time the Athenian Monarchy was not absolute So Heraclid de polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diod. Sic. lib. 5. c. 5. Moreover we do not imagine but there were many other Monarchies at that time which were not arbitrary and of an illimited power We might prove this at length if it were not both tedious and needlesse But Salmasius himself acknowledgeth that then all the Kingdoms of the Orient were of a limited power regulated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle pol. lib. 3. c. 10. and 11. 3. The people of Israel did seek a King under very fair pretences They not only alleaged that Samuel was unfit because of his years to govern them according to Law and reason but also they pleaded for a King from the tyrannie of Samuel's sons and their non-governing according to justice and equity Then tell me would they ever have sought a King that he might govern them according to his pleasure whether to tyrannize over them or not Thus they should not onely have palpably contradicted themselves but also they should have cut off from themselves these pretences whereby they urged their purpose in seeking a King 4. To say that the people of Israel did seek an absolute King is to militat directly against these ends which they propounded to Samuel and set before their eyes in seeking a King The ends are three 1. To judge them 2. To conduct them 3. To fight for them and defend them from their enemies These three particular ends do abundantly evidence that they did not seek a King to govern them after the manner of the Nations whether according to Law or contrary to it but that they sought a King to govern them only according to Law and reason I am sure the second and third end imply no lesse And if you say that the first end may take along with it a judging whether according or contrary to Law we do easily obviat this difficultie 1. Because you shall not finde in Scripture where judging is taken for an act of injustice and tyrannie And the Holy Ghost in Scripture expoundeth judgment calling it justice 2. Sam. 8. 2. Had the people of Israel sought a King to judge them whether according to justice or injustice then their arguments whereby they enforced their purpose in seeking a King had been altogether uselesse Samuel haply might have said to them I see now ye do praevaricate in this matter your profession is altogether vain in declaring your selves sensible of my weaknesse and inability for judging you according to justice and equity and of the corruption and iniquitie of my sons in perverting righteous judgment Away might Samuel have said this is nothing but words Whereas ye seek a King to judge you whether according to Law or not ye contradict your own profession and give your selves the lie to your face Yea Salmasius himself doth acknowledge that they did not seek a King to tyrannize over them and to rule contrary to Law and reason Def. Reg. c. 2. But mark how the man straight-wayes giveth himself the lie For saith he they did not deprecat nor abominat an unjust King wicked violent ravenous and such-like as use to be among the Nations though most wicked Ibid. We demand at this Gentleman whether or not they did positively seek such
a King as that to reign over them If he affirm it then they sought a tyrannous King to reign over them And so he belieth himself If he deny it then it followeth that in even-down terms they sought no King but one who would judge them in righteousnesse But this Royallist will have them positively to seek an absolute King to reign over them Then tell me how can this agree with these pretences whereupon they sought a King to wit to reform their Commonwealth and to banish corruption out of Judgment-seats and because Samuel was not able to perform this as they alledged therefore they sought a King But Samuel might have said to them in seeking an absolute King ye seek a remedy worse then the disease Such a King whom ye seek having power to govern at randome according to his pleasure will not be a fit man to redresse the enormities of your Estate He may well aggravat the burdens under which ye now groan but he will not lessen them and ease you of your burden Be sure ye will get few or no good Kings but ye will have many bad who having a vast power will make you groan under their yoke So then might Samuel have said ye can no wayes pretend a sense in you of the want of the exercise of righteous judgment and of corruption and enormity in the Judges Ye scorn your selves to enforce your purpose therefrom in seeking a King whenas in seeking an absolute King ye forthwith give your selves the lie and undermine your own grounds Again if positively as is manifest from these ends above-written they sought no King to reign over them but such who would govern them according to Law and reason then is it more then apparent that positively they sought a regulated and non-absolute King to reign over them for as governing according to judgment and righteousnesse is done according to Law and reason so it can never absolutely be performed unlesse the governing power be absolutely hemmed in by Law and regulated thereby Now the absolute ends which the Israelites did set before their eyes in seeking a King do resolve upon governing according to judgment and righteousnesse And I would fain know of this man how he can conclude this consequence The people of Israel did seek a King to govern them according to judgment and righteousnesse Ergo they did seek an absolute King and did not deprecat the greatest of tyrants Verily the consequence at least virtually is repugnant to the Antecedent for in so far as they seek a just and righteous King fit to govern them according to Law and reason in as far they abominat an absolute King one in a capacity of tyrannizing over them Thus you see that the people of Israel do neither positively nor negatively seek an unjust and tyrannous King to reign over them We hasten now to the Assumption And we observe that the man contradicteth himself in it for he saith not onely cap. 5. but also cap. 2. that there were many Kings of the Nations at that time subject to Law And for proof of this he citeth Aristotle Pol. l. 3. c. 10. and 11. Diod. Sic. l. 2. But as a man awaking out of his wine he recalleth to his memory what hath escaped him and laboureth to correct it And so he addeth that though Diodore storieth that the Kings of Egypt were subjected to Law yet do we never read saith he that ever any of them was cut-off and beheaded by the inferiour judges And though Aristotle quoth he saith that all the Oriental Kings did govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet notwithstanding they did rule with an absolute power though more remisly then did other Kings Def. reg c. 5. 8. Albeit this man doth not admit a plenary and full subjection of Kings to Law yet nevertheless he is constrained by force of example to acknowledge that Kings were some way or other kept under the power and reverence of Law And he cannot deny but Diodore storieth of a most wonderful subjection of the ancient Aegyptian Kings to Law He telleth us that they were subjected to Law in their eating and drinking lying and rising yea in preserving their health they were restricted to Law And which saith he is more admirable they had not power to judge to gather Money together nor to punish any through pride or anger or any other unjust cause And yet saith Diodore they took not this in an evil part but thought themselves happy to be subjected to Law I trow this is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet He will have the King above Law not subject to any Law But the Egyptians will have their Kings under the Law and subject to it And though this immodest man doth say That the Egyptians notwithstanding did not cut-off any of their Kings yet catcheth he nothing thereby 1 Because the Egyptian Kings as Diodore telleth us were most observant of the Laws Therefore he saith Plurimi regum the greatest part of their ancient Kings lived blamelesly and died honourably Rer ant l. 2. c. 3. But I beleeve that Law cannot strike against the innocent 'T is iniquity to kill a man who deserveth not death Diodore telleth us of three things which made the ancient Egyptian Kings to walk closely and keep themselves within bounds Firstly their wayes were narrowly hedged-in by Law Secondly they were alwaies attended with the Sons of the Noble and Chief-Priests whose eyes were alwayes fixed on them Thirdly Kings that walked not straightly as nothing was proclaimed in their life-time to their praise but to their discredit so in their death they wanted the honor of solemn and sumptuous burials which were given to good Kings after their death The fear of this hedged-in their wayes and made them stand in awe 2 We deny not but Diadore in that same place insinuates there were many evil ancient Egyptian Kings Yet we say not tyrannous as Salmasius would have it for we do not think that though many of their Kings were wicked in themselves they got liberty to tyrann ze over the People The Egyptian Laws were more strict then that they would dispence such a liberty to any of their Kings Diodore saith they were tied to the Law no less then private men And withal he saith their Judges were most impartial and could not be bought-by either by favour or gain Which maketh us imagine that they hemmed-in the wayes of the most dissolute King amongst them and did not give him liberty to tyrannize over the People Therefore it is very observable that Amasis getting power in his hands did tyrannize over the Egyptians Whose tyranny the Egyptians did tolerate so long as Diodore saith as they wanted the opportunity of punishing him till Actisanes King of Ethiopia came down into Egypt And then saith the story the Egyptians called to mind old quarrels against Amasis and falling from him to Actisanes they unkinged him and set-up Actisanes in his room who
governed them most gently and amicably Rer. ant l. 2. c. 1. 3 Let it be so many of the Egyptian Kings in old did tyrannize over them and they notwithstanding were not punished and cut-off by the People and inferiour Judges What then That will never conclude their unwillingness and unreadiness to execute judgment on their tyrannous Kings but that they wanted opportunity and power to do such a thing So it went as is said already with the People and inferiour Judges under Amasis tyrannous yoke But so soon as they got the opportunity they verified the old Maxim Quod differiur non aufertur Yea Diadore telleth us That the People did withstand the Priests and those who with-held honourable and solemn burials from the bad Egyptian Kings in old Which affordeth us matter to aver That if the inferiour Judges in Egypt did not execute judgment on their wicked and tyrannous Kings it was not because they were unready to do so but because the People were refractory thereto No question they would much more have withstood the off-cutting of their Kings then the want of solemnities at their death for what is it I pray you that draweth People on to act and engage for their Princes but because they take them up in the notion of half-gods and far above the teach of ordinary men Whereupon they conclude that both their Persons and Authority are altogether inviolable They dote so much upon them that they think they should in no terms be resisted far less cut-off and punished according to their deserts This daily experience teacheth Therefore the People of Egypt would far more have withstood the inferiour Judges in cutting-off their Kings then in denying them sumptuous and stately burials for their offences 4 It is easie to be learned from Diadore that the Egyptians esteemed the want of honourable burials to their Kings more then any punishment could have been inflicted upon them Know this they were a most superstitious People tainted with a world of blind zeal And withall as Diadore storâ—eth the fear of the want of honourable and solemn burials provoked their Kings to live circumspectly and keep themselves within bounds Whereupon we conclude That both King and People thought no punishment more capitall and more hurtfull to the King then the want of an honourable buriall And so the inferiour Judges imagined that in with-holding from tyrannous Kings sumptuous and stately burials they executed more judgment upon them then if they should have brought them to the Scaffold and cause strike the heads from them Therefore if Salmasius shall not admit the third Reason which though it be true in general yet not in this particular case as is most probable though not demonstrative he must needs confess that the Praetors of Egypt not only in their apprehension but also in the up taking both of the King and People acted more against some tyrannous King or other in depriving him of an honourable and sumptuous buriall after his death then the Representative of England did in bringing King Charles to the Scaffold and causing his head to be cut-off As for that which Salmasius saith alledging that Aristotle saith that the Oriental Kings in old did not simply govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Well let it be so If they were any wayes subjected to Law as Aristotle in even-down terms confesseth they were it is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet Qui legibus solutus est Yea and which is more Aristotle saith That the very government of the Heroes was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law and in some things their power was determinat and not absolute This is far from Salmasius his mind who will have the King to be of an infinit and illimited power The man would have a care that he do not speak blasphemy and knoweth not of it I take infinacy in power to be only proper to GOD. And 't is not good to abuse it in applying it to the creature Howsoever I heartily subscribe to what Aristotle saith concerning the Orientall Kings I do not think but in old as namely in and about the dayes of the Heroës Kings as Gods were adored by men But Salmasius must give me leave to say that even then Kings were punished by the People We read how the heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t l. 5. c. 5. Plut. in Thes I do not deny but as these Historiographers report as likewise Heraclid de Pol. Ath. Theseus before that time had restored liberty to the Subject and had put Power in the People's hand It is also reported that Agamemnon the King of Kings was thrust from his Charge because he would not suffer his eldest Daughter to be sacrificed to satisfie the fury of Diana for the Roe which he killed feeding about her grove Dict. Cret l. 1. That of Theseus and of Agamemnon were done about the time the Children of Israel did seek a king to reign over them We might also here alledge examples of other ancient kings who were brought into subjection to the sentence of inferiour judges But we pass them as not beseeming the purpose in hand for they are relative to after-ages of latter years then what Aristotle speaketh of Yet we find one example or two more then what we have alledged already answering to this purpose It is reported that Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his Subjects Arist Pol. l. 5. c. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just l. 1. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 7. Miltiades was incarcerated by the Athenians and died in prison Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Milt Plut. in vit Cim Albeit he was not the Athenian king yet was he their great Generall and crowned king of Chersonesus Herod l. 6. Aem. Prob. in vit Mil. It is needless to examplifie this any more for afterward it shall be shewed by multiplied examples how that kings in all ages have been brought to the Stage and punished by the People Therefore Salmasius shall do well not to imagine that in old times all Kings were absolute and the inferiour Judge did not sit upon the Bench against any of them And for my self I do not deny but in old Kings were of a vast and absolute power though I cannot be moved to think that either all of them were absolute or any of them so absolute as Salmasius dreameth of But more of this afterward And I do also think that the Assyrian Monarchy caeteris paribus was in it-self rather more then lesse absolute then either the Median or the Persian though by some accidental occurrents as afterward shall appear it was not Indeed it had the first start of them and was in the time wherein Royal Power was more in request then either before or after This makes Aeschylus to call the king of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a governour that
essentially distinguisheth Melech a king from Sophet a Judge because the one is of an absolute power and the other is not he shal do well to advert that he lose not more this way then he gaineth for so he putteth the essentiall frame of the king in an absolute and uncircumscribed power But in our first argument against this we have shewed the incongruity and absurdity thereof Which afterward shall more appear from what is spoken as followeth Fourthly There can be no example alledged in the Book of God whereby is pointed-out the subjection of Kings to Law We read not that ever the Sanhedrin or the people of the Jews did punish Kings for their faults And yet many of their Kings were most guilty of many great and criminall faults as namely David and Solomon Def. Reg. cap. 5. Ans This argument is like the first Both of them speak much de facto but nothing de jure This is a very bad consequence The people of Israel sought an absolute King to reign over them and did set-up such a King over them Ergo the power of an absolute King is lawfull and Kings de jure are not subject to Law Friend you break-off too soon Though I should grant you the Antecedent yet before I can approve the validity of the consequence you must prove the validity of their practice You count your reckoning too soon whileas you thus conclude There is no practice in Scripture holding-out to us that the Jewish Sanhedrin did ever execute judgement on any of their Kings who transgressed the Law and did violate it Ergo Kings are not subject to Law What if I should grant the Antecedent You have notwithstanding to prove the lawfulnesse of their non-executing judgement on their kings who transgressed before I can at any time subscribe to the consequence Philosophs know though many Humanists do not that à facto ad jus non statim valet consequentia Aye they can tell you that argumentum negativum nihil concludit Well as I deny your consequence so I do not admit your Antecedent I illustrate the vanity of it from examples in Scripture both ordinary and extraordinary Ordinary Jehojadah in the face of the Assembly commanded to fall upon Athaliah and kill her 2 Kings 11. 2 Chron. 23. And though you shall deny this practice as concluding any thing against your purpose yet I pray you what can you say of that practice in killing Amasiah We have shewed elsewhere that such a thing was done in a Publick and legall way Extraordinary The Prophets rebuked the Kings of Israel and Judah for their faults and transgressions And what is rebuke but a degree of punishment And so Kings not having immunity from the lesser degree of punishment why are they not also lyable to the greater according to their delinquency Magis minus non variant speciem Yea Jehu executing the purpose of the Lord on the house of Ahab slew both the King of Israel and the King of Judah 2 King 9. and withall he caused cut-off all the sons of Ahab 2 King 10. O but you will say These practises of the Prophets and of Jehu were extraordinary And then It is a very bad Argument The Apostles preached by the extraordinary instinct of the Spirit Ergo Ministers who have nothing but an ordinary spirit should not preach So it doth not follow The Prophets and Jehu acted against delinquent kings through an extraordinary call thereto Ergo those who have nothing but an ordinary call thereto should not do so It may be you will say The People can have no ordinary call to act against their kings Be not mistaken 1 Extraordinary things supply the room of ordinary things whileas they are wanting So Samuel killed Agag because Saul the ordinary Judge was wanting in his duty 1 Sam. 15. 2 At least it followeth that the same thing which is done extraordinarily may also be done lawfully in an ordinary way Otherwise many absurdities and blasphemies should follow 3 Dato uno oppositorum datur alterum And consequently seing there is an extraordinary call for punishing Kings there is also an ordinary call for doing it The reason of this is because esse extraordinariae vocationis is so called and is so in it-self because it standeth in opposition to esse ordinariae vocationis as we have shewed at length curs Philosophico-theolog disp 4. Sect. 6. And therefore there can be no extraordinary call for punishing Delinquent Kings unlesse there be also an ordinary call for doing so 4 Punishing of delinquent Kings either in it-self is sinfull and unlawfull or not If sinfull and unlawfull then neither ordinarily nor extraordinarily may Kings lawfully be punished for no sin can be committed by an extraordinary Divine providence Otherwise God should extraordinarily sin But we have shewed already that Kings may be punished by vertue of an extraordinary call And consequently it is not a sin in it-self to punish delinquent Kings If lawfull and unsinfull I see no reason why a thing which is in it-self lawfull and honest may not lawfully be done by ordinary as well as by extraordinary midses for either the exercise of ordinary midses is in it self lawfull or not None I am sure will say that the exercise of ordinary midses is unlawfull Otherwise every thing that is done ordinarily is done sinfully Which to say is absurd And if you say that the exercise of them in it self is lawfull then it is lawfull in it self by vertue of an ordinary call to punish delinquent Kings But if there be any fault and escape in the way and manner of imploying that cal that no whit hindereth but the call in it self is lawfull and commendable for such things are meerly extrinsecall to the nature of the call it-self And ab extrinseco ad intrinsecum non est sequela 5 Jehu and the Prophets had no other reasons for them in speaking and acting by vertue of an extraordinary call against delinquent Kings but what those may have in proceeding against them by vertue of an ordinary call They no otherwise proceeded against them by vertue of their extraordinary call but as it was for the good of the LORD's People and for executing Justice on their delinquency that others might learn not to offend But sure we are such grounds are competent to an ordinary call for proceeding against delinquent Kings And 't is an undoubted maxim Idem est jus ubi eadem est ratio juris Inst That example concerning Athaliah saith Salmasius deserveth not an answer for saith he she usurped the kingdom and killed the whole Royall Family And so there was lesse executed against her then she deserved And withall according to the Jewish Lawes it was not permitted to women to sway the Scepter and sit on the Throne for it is not said Deut. 17. Thou shalt set a Queen over thee but a King over thee Def. Reg. cap. 4. Ans That the example concerning Athaliah very much concludeth our
purpose we argue thus Eâ—ther Athaliah had the right and authority of a King or not If she had the right and authority of a King ergo if the King be of an absolute power and not subject to Law then Athaliah was no more subject to Law then any other King for as Salmasius and all Royallists will have it the King is of an absolute power and not subject to Law And consequently Athaliah being invested with the right of a Kingly power and authority she was no more subject to Law then any other of the Kings of Judah Therefore if you say that Athaliah was invested with the right and authority of a King you must either commend the practice of Jehojadah and the people in killing her or else you must change your opinion and not imagine Kings to be absolute and not subject to Law If she had not the right and authority of a King then either because she usurped the Kingdom and intruded her-self upon it contrary to the consent of the People or because she did cut-off the righteous heirs of the Kingdom and set up her-self in the Kingdom or else because according to the Law women ought not to govern Not the first because according to the Doctrine of Royallists conquest is a lawfull title to the Crown But Athaliah conquered the Crown of Judah to her-self What more I pray you did she in intruding her-self upon the Kingdom of Judah then unjust Conquerers do in thrusting themselves in upon the kingdoms which they subdue As she intruded her-self without the free consent and election of the People so do they And yet Salmasius with the rest of his Brethren will have such Conquerers lawful heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms which they subdue Nor can you say the second because conquerers who subdue other men's kingdoms cut-off all those who by pretended blood-right claim a title to the Crown And yet Royallists will have such lawfull heirs and absolute kings over these kingdoms to which they have no title but the sword Nor can you say the third because all Royallists admit Royal birth a just and absolute title to the Crown But women no less then men may be and are of the Royall Off-spring And consequently if the doctrine of Royallists be true and unless Salmasius will contradict himself women may as lawfully govern as men Therefore it doth not follow that because Athaliah was a woman she had not right to govern the People of the Jews and reign over them I confesse by Royall birth she had no title to the Crown But she conquered the Crown to her-self and did reign six years with the consent of the People But sure I am Salmasius and all the Royallâ—sts as they hold the consent of the People as a necessary ingredient to make-up the lawfulness of the title to the Crown so they maintain conquest without all exception to be a just and lawful title thereto But what need I thus to stand do not I know that Salmasius and the whole nation of Royalists will have the formall and essentiall being of the King to consist in an absolute and illimited power But any person whether man or woman usurper or non-usurper is capable of such a power and may be invested therewith And consequently though Athaâ—iah was but a woman and an usurper it doth not follow that because she was such therefore she was not of an absolute and arbitrary power The greatest of Tyrants and the worst of women is capable of such a power And the power is not changed because of the change of the person and of such and such qualifications in him Such things are meerly extrinsecal to the nature of the power it-self So then if the King be formally a King because he is of an illimited and arbitrary power I see no reason why Athaliah did not reign as a King for she was capable of such a power wherein according to the doctrine of Royallists the essentiall frame of a King doth consist And consequently seing she did reign in stead of the King of Judah and exercised his authority there is no reason why she was not absolute and unsubject to Law as well as he Therefore Salmasius must either leave-off his opinion and not imagine that the Kings of Judah were absolute and not subject to Law or else he must cry-down the laudable practice of Jehojadah and of the People in killing Athaliah For shame he will not do this Propos 2. Except the Lacoedemonian kingdom there was no kingdom in old wherein absolute and uncircumscribed Monarchy was not erected though in some more remiss and in others more intense For proof of this Salmasius sheweth what was the condition of Monarchy in the Assyrian Egyptian Jewish Median Persian Grecian and Roman kingdoms Of the Jewish kingdom we have spoken already and more of it afterward in a more convenient place As for the Assyrian kingdom together with the Median he proveth that kings in them were absolute and un-subject to Law because such was the condition of the kings of Persia This he maketh good from Ottanes the Persian who defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably Herod lib. 3. Yea Artabanus averreth That no Law amongst the Persians was more commendable then that whereby they enacted that the King should be honoured as the Image of God Plut. in vit Themist And Claudian saith That they gave a like obedience to cruel and tyrannous Kings Therefore saith Salmasius seeing the Medians succeeded to the Assyrians and the Persians to the Medians it appeareth that as the Kings of Persia so the Kings of Assyria and Media were absolute and not subject to Law And though the Egyptian Kings before they were subdued by the Persians were hemmed-in by the bonds of Law in every thing that they did yet notwithstanding we never reade that at any time they brought any of their Kings upon the stage and caused them to suffer for their Delinquencie They did bear the yoke of two cruel tyrants Busiris and Cambyses most patiently without reluctancie Which Cambyses because of his cruelty the Jews called Nebuchodonozor He desired in marriage his german sister and so calling a Councel he demanded at his Counsellors if there was any Law in Persia which did permit such a marriage They desirous to gratifie their King told him That they found a Law whereby the King of Persia was permitted to do any thing he pleased Herod lib. 3. As for the Grecian Empire it is known saith Salmasius that Agamemnon had an absolute power over that Army which be led on against the Trojans And therefore he is called Rex Regum And Aeschylus calleth the King of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncensurable Governour So Homer calleth the Grecian Kings Kings made by Jupiter reigning by and holding their Crown of him He calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Kings trained up by Jupiter Philip saith that the King hath equal power
Kingdomes is clear from many grave Writers Hesiod scut Herc. Pindar od 1. 7 Sophoc Trach. Diod. rer an t lib. 5. cap. 2. Of him Herodot Theocritus and others do write The extraordinary valour and courage of Alexander Justin Plutarch Q. Curtius and other grave Writers do abundantly testifie I need not to stand here in a particular and exact way to prove that these Kings had an absolute immunity from Law without all restriction and reservation But to satisfie the curious ear a little therein we shortly make it good thus 1. These Kings came not to their Crowns whether by election or succession At least all that they commanded fell not to them either of these wayes They held the right to their Crown by their sword And so over-ruling all by force and strength of hand they could be tied to no Law by any civill sanction but as they pleased voluntarily to subject their necks to the yoke of Law But as they delighted to over-rule men no question they have thought it their glory to be likewise above the Law it-self I confesse it is very gatherable both out of Berosus and Diodore that Osiris and Hercules the Egyptian did live according to the Lawes Yet I do not think that it was by command but according to their own free and voluntary resignation That held true in them which the Roman Emperours speak of themselves Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. Indeed there is great difference between a Kingly power had by succession and election and a Kingly power obtained by conquest and sword-right In an elective and heriditary Crown people have at least a Physicall power to binde the King to them by Oath and Covenant But the case is far otherwise between a conquered people and the Conquerour They have no power to tie him to them by Law He may put them all to the edge of the sword if he will And it is in his own goodness whether to spare them or square himself according to their Laws Experience teacheth to-day what boundless power the Turk and the King of Spain have over those Kingdomes to which they have no title but sword-right Therefore it is no wonder though these grand and matchlesse Heroes had an arbitrary and boundlesse power over the Kingdomes which they conquered by strength of hand 2. The men themselves were esteemed and honoured as Gods And so by proportion a GOD-like power was given unto them Nimrod was called the Babylonian Saturn and Dionysius the Libyan Jupiter The Assyrians hold Belus and Ninus as Gods The Egyptians worshipped Osiris and Hercules as Gods So did the Grecians honour Dionysius and Hercules as Gods And Alexander thought no shame to be called the son of Jupiter and honoured as a God And as Ninus was holden as Jupiter amongst the Assyrians so Semiramis was holden by them as Juno and worshipped as a Goddesse And what God-like titles Semiramis caused put on and engrave upon the Pillar she set upon Ninus you may read it Xenoph. de aequiv You may read also some specious and stately titles on some of these Heroes Herod lib. Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. All which serve to point-out the boundlesnesse of their power And withall in terminis we have shewed already that Nimrod's power was most vaste and absolute And so it followeth that Belus Ninus and Semiramis who succeeded him were rather more then lesse absolute then he for as every one of them enlarged their power beyond another so all of them extended their power beyond what Nimrod's power did reach to And of Belus Berosus saith in expresse terms Coepit libidine dominandi torqueri of Ninus Omnibus bellum intulit nulli parcens quod esset in omnium desiderio omnâ—â—diâ— ad intenâ—â—tum quaeritabat Hic omnium primus ex nostris regibuâ— Babylonicum regnum propagavit And of Semiramis haec anteâ—â—ssit militia trâ—umphis diviâ—iis victoriis imperio omnes mortales Nâ—mo unquam huic foeminae comparandus est virorum tanta in ejus vitadicuntur scribuntur tum ad vituperationem tum maxime ad collandationem magnificam Ant. lib. 5. It is both needlesse and infinite labour for me to summe up the absolute and arbitrary actings of these grand Heroes I passe them over in silence and do remit the Reader to spend his brain a-little if he be curious upon these Histories above cited Where he shall find all made good that we speak of this purpose 3. These Kings were not onely extraordinary men and Kings but also they were extraordinary Heroes They were even extraordinary amongst extraordinary men being the chiefest of all the Heroes And so seing other Kings and Heroes were of an absolute and arbitrary power as afterward is shewed much more they 4. It cannot be denied but Alexander M. was of vaste and boundlesse power 1. Because he commanded Darius to write to him not only as to a King but also as to his King 2. He gloried to be called the son of Jupiter and to be holden more then a man 3. He despised Parmenio's counsell and Darius his offer disdaining that any should govern but he alone Whereupon Menstree saith notably No I will reign and I will reign alone Disdaining to admit of moe Commanders For as the heaven can hold no Sun but one The earth cannot contain two Alexanders 4. Whileas a seditious tumult was raised in his Army upon his march toward the Occident whereas no words would asswadge them after a Speech had to his Army he did leap as a Lion from the Bench amongst the midst of them and with his own hands none daring to withstand him took thirteen of his prime Incendiaries and delivered them up to his Guard All which demonstrate the absoluteness of Alexander's power By undoubted consequence it followeth that the rest of the foresaid Hereos were rather more then lesse absolute then he 1. Because they were men if not of gâ—â—â—er courage at least of greater strength then he They lived in the flower of time when strength and courage were most in vigour Indeed in this they had the start far before Alexander 2. Because Alexander himself esteemeth it honour and power enough to imitate the wayes and carriages of Heroes who went before him Ad Herculis imitationem me contuli ad aemulandum Perseum me comparavi Volo Liberi patris mei progenitoris generisque mei proauctoris vestigia persequi Plut. de fortu Alex. Conclus 2. Without all controversie those who firstly erected Kingdoms and planted Colonies were of an absolute power and altogether unsubject to Law For clearing the point we shortly glance at some of these In the tenth year of Nimrod Comerus Gallus erected a Kingdom in Italy gathering a number of people together over whom he ruled as King Ber. ant lib. 5. Hence Myrsilus saith that the Tyrrhenians do affirm themselves to have their arisal from Razenuâ— Janus Vadymona's son De Orig. It. Tyr.
free donation of others and by lot or land for the up-taking Thus the colonies were the more oblidged to the conduct and industry of their Leaders Whereas in the plantation of Colonies according to this last sort they are extremely engaged to the endeavour and conduct of their heads and overseers This maketh me think the fondnesse of the people in ascribing too much to their industry hath made them devolve their whole power over upon their Kings who by their conquest and purchase made them a people and possessed them in land Conclus 3. Personall endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on people to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men We may make this good from the example of Noah The Scripture acquainteth us with his compleatnesse how that there was none like him in his time Gen. 5 6 7 8 and 9. Yea Berosus talketh much to his praise and commendation ant lib. 1 2 3 4. 5. He holdeth him as a God yea as the first and chiefest of all Gods So did the Italians Myrs de orig Ital. M. Porc. Cat. ex lib. orig frag Fab. Pict de aur saec c. lib. 1. Sempr. de divis It. c. So do Archilochus lib. de Temp. Xenophon de aequiv Metasthenes de judic temp annal Pers lib. But for the clear up-taking of this matter you shall observe with me that in Noah's time about the 131. or 150. year after the flood the whole earth was divided But before this time they were all of one minde without all sedition and division Then men conveniently lived without any Civill and Politick Government for so they lived under Noah as under a common father receiving the Law from his mouth and withall every one of his posterity did know how that nature had laid most strict and neer bonds of relation upon each one to other Whence peace and piety were preserved amongst them Gen. 8.9 and 10. Ber. ant lib. 3. Ios an t Iud. lib. 2. cap. 4. and 5. Men then were given more to Piety then Policy They were little or rather nothing acquainted with the rules of complex Policy They studied more to entertain simple ingenuity and the ties of pure nature then to rule one of them over another Hence saith Archilochus that 250. years after the flood there was a golden age in which Nature it self lived within the bounds of Law without all politick sanction ever and while Ninus and Semiramus by force of Armes began to corrupt the way of Man's living Lib. de temp So saith Mues Phoex Damasc 97. histor and likewise Ovid. Metam lib. 1. But Fabius Pictor nobly storieth to this purpose saying That in the golden age there was no Kingly Government because then the desire of governing had not entered any man's breast De aur saec c. lib. 1. In the interim observe concerning the duration of this golden age there are different opinions Some who alledge Ninus to have been the first that usurped authority and government do reckon it to have lasted 250. years So Mnes hist lib. 97. Xenoph. de aequiv Por. Cat. ex lib. orig frag Pict de aur saec lib. 1. These again who alledge Nimrod to have been the first King and erecter of government after the flood alledge it to have endured 131. years Beros an t lib. 4. Whom both Manetho and Metasthenes do follow But Archilochus halteth between these two opinions Yet we incline to the judgement of Berosus and the Caldean Writers Therefore seing immediatly after the Flood 131. years Noah was honoured by all as a common father no question all power was devolved over upon him And that not onely because of his paternall priviledge which he had over them all but also because of his personall endowments wherein he exceeded all his posterity at that time Therefore nobly saith Fabius Pictor that because those who commanded them were just men and devouted to Religion they were called and esteemed as Gods for then saith he they did not depart from the Law whether the governours or the governed All then of their own accord did hold that which is good either without fear or constraint Shamefastnesse governed the people and Law the Princes De aur sec lib. 1. But by the Princes he doth not understand Kings or politick Governours As you may find it above written he saith in terminis that at that time there were none such Therefore by Princes he understandeth the chief Fathers and the heads of the chiefest Families As Noah his sons and his sons sons Whom indeed these Ethnick Writers which before we have often already cited call and hold as Gods Philo-Judaus giveth us a very large and expresse Catalogue of these Princes and chief heads of Families at that time Bibl. ant lib. what can we say of Noah who was the father of al but that he was also the chief and head of all Whereupon we need not fear to conclude but Noah then had a vast and absolute power And this may be considered two wayes in respect of the obiect of his power 1. In respect of good And so I do not think but he had a power without al limitation to order and govern every thing in an orderly and beseeming way Firstly because he was the common father of all and by nature it-self had the precedency over them Secondly the case then was extraordinary for at that time he was the only man who best knew how to order and govern affairs Men at that time were little or nothing acquainted with Lawes and constitutions Knowledge and Learning were but in their beginnings then Therefore the ignorance of these times necessarily called them to take the word at Noah's mouth who was extraordinarily endowed with grace and knowledge from above None like him in his time All the rest weak and ignorant in respect of him Therefore seing he had the precedency before all not onely in respect of nature but also in respect of gifts and graces and not onely so but likewise all stood in need at that time of information from him no question all the reason in the world maketh for an absolute power in Noah in respect of every good thing Thence it is storied of him that he went abroad from Country to Country planting Colonies and ordering things wherein GOD's honour and the peoples weal were concerned 2. In respect of evill Indeed I will not say that such a Saint of GOD as he did take on him a power to rule at randome and according to his heart's lust I conceive indeed he took upon him an absolute power to govern according to Law but not against Law Neither did he take on him such a power because he delighted to govern and to be above others No verily But because he was necessarily called to govern so Both the precedency in respect of nature and likewise in respect of gifts as also the weakness and ignorance of the times called him
disobedient but not rebels to Noah They acted against his will but not in despight of his will They took not liberty from him to do his will though they took liberty to do their own will also We can not think that the light of Nature was so far extinguished in them that they did not honour him as their father A debording son as Esau can entertain Isaac with Venison though he walk not in his wayes And I do not think if they had not honoured him as their common father unlesse they had been extraordinarily restrained they had destroyed him and all his followers Sure I am they wanted not power to do so The godly party was but an handful in respect of them What then I pray you could be the ordinary mean of their restraint but their natural respect and affection toward him Nay they honoured him so much that they esteemed him their Coelum their Sol their Chaos the semen mundi yea and the father both of the greater and lesser gods Ber. ant lib. 3. And what we have spoken of Noah the like also may be said of Adam Before the Flood there was also a golden age 1556 years Wherein men lived as under one common father each of them knowing the intimate relations one to another until Monarchy was erected till the close of the 500 year of Noah's age as is shewed already Before which time Adam had died 626 years and Seth 514 years But so long as Adam lived what superiority Noah had over his posterity in the golden age after the Flood Adam had it rather in a more then lesse measure then he Adam was not onely their common father but also he was their first and primary father As we have evinced the truth of this point from examples in Scripture so we may evidence it from examples in humane Histories V. G. The Mitylenians gave to Pittacus an absolute power of governing because of his personal endowments Diog. La. de vit Phil. lib. 1. de Pit Arist Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. The like power did the Athenians confer upon Solon upon the same accompt Diog. La. de Sol. Plut. in Sol. So it is alledged that James 6. because of his pretended personal endowments obtained an absolute power and a negative voice in Parliament In the interim observe That those who allow absolute Monarchy because of personal endowments do not imagine that Kings have an absolute power because they are Kings but as they are such Kings i. e. Kings not only in respect of station but also in respect of qualification exceeding all others And so they conclude that a King so qualified may very conveniently be entrusted with an absolute power for they apprehend that though such a man have power above Law yet will he not act against Law And likewise they imagine that such a man being in all respects above all men both in respect of station and qualification can no wayes be inferiour to any man Thus Aristotle inclineth to absolute Monarchy of this moulding Pol. lib. 3. cap. 11 12. Conclus 4. Kings in old were of an absolute power without the bounds of all restriction by vertue of purchase and conquest So were the grand Heroes as is shewed already Hence was it that Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings of the Persians had an absolute power over the People of the Jews Conclus 5. Kings in old by meer usurpation and tyranny had an absolute power without any circumscription So Pharaoh had an absolute power over the children of Israel and the wicked Kings of Judah at least of Israel over their people Thus Nebuchadnezzar had an absolute power not only over the people of the Jews but also over all his subjects Of whom it is said Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would he set-up and whom he would he put-down Dan. 5. After this manner Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes had an absolute power over the people of the Jews though we deny not but what either of them did act or intend against the Jewes was by the mediation of evil Counsellours So had Herod an absolute power Matth. 2. Jos Ant. lib. 15. Yet we deny not but it was through other men's means more then his own that he had a power to tyrannize and govern at random The ten persecuting Kings Dan. 7. Rev. 13. had an absolute power over the People of God But moe examples of Tyrants you may read Judg. 1. and 9. 2 Sam. 21. Mat. 27. Luke 23. Act. 12. In the books of Apocrypha as Tob. 1. Jude 2. 3. 1 Macc. 10. 2 Mac. 4.14 c. See also Beros Ant. lib. 1. Diog. La. lib. 6. Plut. de Dionys Brus lib. 6. cap. 21. Arist Pol. lib. 5. cap. 10. What needeth us so to accumulate quotations and examples when as it is evident both from divine and prophane writ that there have been almost tot Tyranni quot Reges Conclus 6. Vnlesse it had been for some of these causes above-written there was never at any time any King so absolute but one way or other according to Law his power was restricted In establishing this Conclusion we observe this order Firstly we prove the point from example And in doing so you will do well to observe that examples to this purpose are of a twofold kind 1. There are some which point-out to us That Kings in old were no lesse subject to Law then any of the People 2. Some of them shew to us That though the King's power for the most part hath been absolute yet notwithstanding in some case or other it hath been hemmed-in by Law Of the first kind we have examples both in the dayes of the Heroes and in after-times That in the dayes of the Heroes some Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then the People may be examplified both from the Commonwealth of the Jews as also from the condition of some Kingdoms amongst the Gentiles But we forbear till afterward to speak any thing of the Jewish Commonwealth And amongst the Heathen you have to begin with the ancient and stately Kingdom of Egypt It cannot be denied but the Kings of Egypt in old were most precisely hedged-in by Law Whatsoever they did was according to Law They walked they washed they lay with their wives they did eat and drink according to Law They wrote Letters and dispatched Messages according to Law It was not permitted to them to treasure-up silver to judge or punish any at random and according to their pleasure but as privat men they were subjected to the Laws the yoke of which they did bear patiently willingly submitting themselves thereto and esteemed themselves happy to be subject to them Diod Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 3. This Diodore as he confesseth himself hath from the writings of the Egyptian Priests which he diligently searched as he saith Out of whose writings he giveth us three reasons why the Kings of Egypt were for the most part good and kept
themselves within bounds 1. Because the sons of the chiefest Priests who were the greatest and the most learned of al the rest beyond the age of twenty years were ordained to attend the King day and night By whose on-looking and presence the King was taught reservedness 2. Because the Laws were most exactly and precisely exercised on the King's Person 3. Because the Priests as both before death and after death did celebrate the praises of the good Kings honouring them with hyperbolick encomies so they spake both before and after death to the discommendation and disparagement of the bad and wicked Kings depriving them of stately Exequies at their interring Now the desire of the one and the fear of the other kept them back from extravagency and debording and caused them cheerfully to take with the yoke Ibid. And which is more to be wondered at Sesostris one of the grand and primary Heroes ordained Praetors as Judges to govern in the Land of Egypt Diod. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1. The care of every thing was cast over upon them Yea Berosus telleth us That Sesostris whom he calleth Hercules delivered Italy from tyranny and slavery Ant. lib. 5. This insinuateth that this Noble Conquerour delighted much to live according to Law when-as he could not endure tyranny to be exercised in a strange Kingdom which he conquered Far lesse I think would he have suffered tyranny to be in his own Kingdom The like also did his father Osiris whom Diodore calleth Simandius in Italy Ber. ant lib. 5. Him Berosus calleth Jupiter the just I conceive he could not have been so called unless he had been a man that walked strictly according to Law And if these two glorious Heroes and noble Conquerours did subject themselves to Law how much more the rest of the Kings of Egypt in old who were far inferiour to them Let it be so these two lived according to the Law ex voluntate but not ex lege yet will it conclude if we compare arightly the highness of them with the lowness of the rest that the rest ex lege were subject to Law So saith Diod. Ant. lib. 2. cap. 3. Where he also saith out of the Egyptian Writers That the Egyptians choosed-out the best men of their chiefest Cities of whom they made-up a Judicatory not inferiour either to the Councel of Athens or the Senat of Lacedemon judging all impartially without respect of persons Aristotle observeth That it is a sign of a well governed Common-wealth where neither tyranny nor sedition is Pol. 2. cap. 9. But we read not but very seldom that in old either of these was in Egypt See Beros an t lib. Maneth de Reg. Egypt lib. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Moreover Aristotle prescribeth it as a rule for preventing sedition and keeping the Common-wealth in its integrity to govern according to Law and to abstain from tyranny Pol. 5. cap. 8. 10. The like do all Politicians together with the consent of Machjavel and Salmasius But it is known that the Kingdom of Egypt as in old there was seldom sedition in it so likewise it endured a long time inviolable Which makes us conclude that the Egyptian Kings kept themselves within bounds refrained from tyranny and walked according to the Law But they could not ordinarily and for a long time have done so unless they had been subordinate and subjected to their Counsellours and Parliament The proverb is Who get Liberty do take Liberty And for the most part it alwayes holdeth good We must not imagine that the Kings of Egypt in the days of the Heroes were singular in this matter The Athenians under Theseus had a Kingly government rather like a Commonwealth then Monarchy Therefore saith Heraclid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Pol. Ath. i. e. Theseus having gathered the Athenians together reconciled them making them all of an equall and like authority And Plutarch saith the like But saith he he keeped back the popular government of Athens from confusion differencing between persons and persons De Thes And so Theseus being subject to Law was at last banished by the People Val. max. lib. 5. cap. 3. Diod. ant lib. 5. cap. 5. Plut. in Thes So insinuateth Heraclid in the place above-cited Verily Theseus was both their King and in valour and Heroicisme a second to Hercules the Grecian Yea Agamemnon whom Paterculus and others do call Rex regum was subject to Law albeit Salmasius def reg cap. 5. alledgeth the contrary 1. Because it is reported that he was thrust from his charge because he would not suffer his eldest daughter to be sacrificed to satisfie the fury of Diana for the Roe which he killed feeding about her grove Dict. Cret lib. 1. 2 Because he was put from his Office by common consent of the Officers of the Army and Palamedes put in his room Dict. Cret lib. 1. and Dar. Phr. de exoi Tro. 3 In a Convocation of the general Persons of the Army Agamemnon was greatly upbraided Homer Iliad 9. 4 Because Aristotle likeneth the Laconick Government to Agamemnon's power And for this he citeth that of Homer by us already alledged And the Laconick Government he callech it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most according to Law Pol. lib. 3. cap. 10. I confess with Salmasius that Agamemnon had the potestas belli But what then ergo he had a power in battel whether to destroy the Army or not either to deliver it up to the Enemy or not It no waies followeth I confesse he had an absolute Power in battel to govern according to Law but not both according to it and against it Questionless the Army never gave him such a power as that over them whereby in the time of command he might have disposed upon them as he pleased They still kept a power in their own hands of deposing him and acting against him according to his deserts They deposed him and acted against him upon meer prejudices and groundless apprehensions Ergo far more would they have acted against him if in the time of battel he should have gone about to have sold them unto the Enemy 'T is ridiculous to say that the General of an Army hath power to sell the whole Army to the Enemy and the Army may not resist him in so doing in the time of battel though the Army may withstand him at any other time Sure I am they have more reason to withstand him at that time then at any other for as then they are most in hazard so then they have most reason to stand by their own security and self-preservation It is reported of Achilles That he disdained to be commanded by Palamedes And yet Palamedes was invested with that same power which Agamemnon had Moreover Minos was not only King but also the Law-giver of Crete Heracl de Pol. Cret Nic. Damasc de mor. gent. Cret Val. max. lib. 1. cap. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t lib. 3. cap.
5. lib. 5. cap. 5. alib Plut. de Thes But as afterward is also shewed the Cretian Monarchy was not absolute but regulated And though you say that it was so in after-times but not in the dayes of Minos yet do we gain the point for it cannot be denied but the Cretians did use these same Lawes in after-times which Minos first established amongst them So saith Aristotle Pol. 2. cap. 8. The like also saith Plato in the alledged Dialogue between Minos and Socrates Socrates moving the question Whether or not did the Cretians use the ancient Lawes of Minos and Rhadamanthus Minos answered they did Lib. 7. Min. vel de Leg. And Plato extolleth Minos above the very Heavens And for this he citeth Homer and Hesiodus He is holden by Homer to have been such a strict justiciar that he faineth him to be the Judge of the departed souls To which Lucian alludeth Dial. Min. Sost Withall he alledgeth him to have gotten his Laws from Jupiter And Hesiod in even-down terms calleth him the best of all mortal Kings Yea Plato saith That what he commanded the People to do he did it himself also And which is more he alledgeth That the Lacedaemonians had their Laws from the Cretians Therefore we may conclude that in Minos time the Cretian Monarchy was regulated for what he commanded the People to do that same he did himself likewise And it was like to the Lacedaemonian Monarchy which was not absolute but precisely regulated according to Law What Can I think that such a strict Justiciar and eminent Law-giver as Minos would have assumed any arbitrary and loose power to himself and denied it to others executing on them the full rigour of the Law That verily is against this practice of which Plato speaketh who saith That he commanded not to do one thing and did another himself The man is reckoned up amongst the chiefest Law-givers and as Hesiod Homer and Plato would have it he is the chiefest of them all But afterward it shall be shewed that all such were against a vast and arbitrary power And to close up this whole matter in a word Aristotle saith That in old Kingly Government was amongst the Cretians but afterward the Cretian Cosmi like to the Lacedaemonian Ephori did take it away Pol. 2. cap. 8. This insinuateth that in old amongst the Cretians these Cosmi were whose power was all one with the Lacedaemonian Ephori who indeed had power over their Kings And we read not of any beside Minos who did institute these Cosmi amongst the Cretians He was the first Law-giver amongst them whose Laws they retained until after-ages as is said already As amongst the Egyptians and Grecians we find Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes in like manner we find it to have been regulated also in other Kingdoms The Ethiopian Kings were so much restricted to Law that it can hardly be determined whether they or the Egyptian Kings were most subjected thereto As Diodore telleth us of the subjection of the one to Law so doth he story of the subjection of the other thereto In expresse termes he saith That the Ethiopian King according to statute and ordination leadeth his life according to the Laws doing every thing according to the Country-fashion neither rewarding nor punishing any but according to the Law of his Ancestors And which is more to be wondered at the Priests have such power over the King that at their command and pleasure he suffereth death And for this they alledge it to have been an old custom amongst all their Kings from the beginning to undergo death at the desire of the Priests Rer. ant lib. 4. cap. 1. I shall not stand here to dispute whether or not Monarchy amongst the Indians in the dayes of the Heroes was regulated and subjected to Law Albeit there be some probability for the non-absoluteness thereof yet we think it good to leap it over because the matter is not clear enough And we shall begin with the Indian Kingdom to shew that in after-times in it Kings were of a non-arbitrary and regulated power It is reported that the Indians established those Laws which they received from their ancient Philosophers the Gymnosophists Who taught that all were free and none were servants This they established by Law And so the Indians like the Lacedemonians had their Ephori and overseers chosen-out from amongst the common people and beside them there were some few chosen who in nobility and prudence exceeded all the rest who were interested in governing and ordering all the great affairs both of King and Kingdom Diod. rer an t lib. 3. cap. 10. In like manner the Egyptians as in the heroick times so in after-times they most precisely subjected their Kings to Law Diod. ant lib. 2. cap. 3. For as in old both the King and the Kingdom were governed and regulated by Pretors so afterward out of their chiefest Cities Heliopolis Memphis and Thebes the best men were chosen to fit in Judgment and to over-rule all not inferiour to the Athenian Areopagites nor to the Lacedemonian Senatours Amongst the Grecians there were severall Kingdoms wherein the Regall power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law in after-times after the dayes of the Heroes Which maketh Aristotle say that in after-times the power of Kings was weakned and subjected to the People partly by the peopl's detracting from their power and partly by the King 's own voluntary dimission Polit. 3. cap. 10. We have examples of these not only amongst the Grecians but also among other nations The Athenians diminished the power of their Kings after the Codrids had become lecherous soft and effeminate At that time they changed their Kings into Princes whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heracl de Pol. Ath. But it seemeth very probable that then they rather changed the name then the power of their Kings for long before the race of Codrus was extirpated Theseus had restored liberty to the Athenians and as is said already had erected a Commonwealth amongst them Which appeareth to have lasted during both the time of the Kings and likewise of the Princes And consequently seeing there was a Common-wealth in both their times there could be no difference in their power But that we may give an exact and punctuall answer to this pre-occupation you shall take notice of the different condition of the Athenian Commonwealth and of the changes thereof First before Theseus reign we do not imagine otherwise but that the Athenians were governed not onely by a Kingly government Ber. ant lib. 5. Maneth de reg Egypt lib. Heracl de Pol. Ath. but also their Kings then were of a vaste and absolute power according as the power of the Kings used to be in the dayes of the Heroes Arist Pol. 3. cap. 10. and 11. Secondly under Theseus reign the power of the Kingly government was much impaired Then the people were restored to liberty and got power in their hand as is said already
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
Machaeus his father they clothed him in Purple and put a Crown of Gold upon his head This signifieth that Machaeus was of a Kingly Power though not boundless and arbitrary Just ibid. 2 Because the Lacedemonian Kings had no power but of the battel And yet they were properly Kings But Machaeus had such a power as that 3 Because it cannot be denied but Machaeus had as great power as Hannibal Mago succeeded to Machaeus Asdrubal to Mago and Hannibal to Asdrubal Just ibid. But it is known that Hannibal was of a Kingly Power for he was one of the two Carthaginian Kings Aemyl prob in Han. 'T is remarkable that Hannibal for fear of the Carthaginian Senate fled into Syria Wherefore the Senate forfeited his estate did cast down his house and declared him a banished man Prob. ib. Plut. in Han. Howsoever Aristotle in even-down terms telleth us That the Carthaginian Kings were subjected to Law For comparing the Carthaginian and Lacedemonian Commonwealths together he saith that the Carthaginian Kings and Senat vvere just so as the Lacedemonian Kings and Senatours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 2. cap. 9. And so he subjoyneth that the People both amongst the Carthaginians and Lacedemonians did command both King and Senate having a povver of judging them and of contradicting their Ordinance That same also he saith of the Cretian Commonwealth And cap 7. he saâ—th That Cosmi amongst the Cretians had the same povver vvhich Ephori had amongst the Lacedemonians I confesse in that chap. he saith That in the beginning the Cretians were governed by Kings who were at last taken away and the power of the battel devolved upon the Cosmi This maketh nothing against us for so he insinuateth that the Cretian Kings had but the power of the battel seing in putting-out their Kings he speaketh of no more power that was added to the Cosmi but that they were entrusted with the managing of the war And cap. 9. in plain terms he saith comparing the Cretian and Lacedemonian Commonwealths together That the Cretian Kings and Senate were of the same stamp and condition of which were the Lacedemonian Kings and Senatours And saith he in the Carthaginian Lacedemonian and Cretian Commonwealths the people had power both over King and Senate to judge and withstand them As for the Lacedemonian Kings it is beyond all controversie that in after-ages they were subjected to Law no lesse then the people Therefore saith Xenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Repub. Laced lib. i. e. Lycurgus did not suffer a lording and tyrannick power to be given to the King nor did he put such power in the people's hand as to beget jealousie and envie against the kingly power And Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. i. e. The Kingly Power in the Laconick Commonwealth is most restricted to Law for it hath not a vaste and arbitrary power This maketh him say Pol. 2. cap. 7 9. That the Kingly Power was subjected to the People and the Ephori had the greatest power in the Commonwealth Which commeth just to that which Heraclid saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Pol. Laced i. e. The Lacedemonian Ephori had the greatest power in the Commonwealth Xenophon likewise saith That the King did swear monethly to the People to govern according to Law De Rep. Lac. lib. And Nicolaus Damascenus That he did swear to govern according to Law before he got the Crown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Mor. Gent. Laced And how great the power of the Ephori the Representative of the People was over all the rest of the Magistrates in the Commonwealth you may learn it from Plat. de Leg. lib. 4. Isoc Pan. Plut. de Civil Instit Whereupon saith Xenophon they had power of deposing imprisoning and judging even to the sentence of death the rest of the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De rep Laced lib. And because of the vastness of their power over the rest of the Magistrates they did at their own hand imprison and condemn Agis their King Plut. in Ag. In this they went against the Law of the Nation because according to it they had only power to judge and sentence their King while-as the King of the other family did sit upon the Bench with them Pausan Lacon But they without the concurrence of any at their own hand did imprison and sentence Agis The power of the Lacedemonian King is taken-up in these notions 1. At home he had charge of the sacrifices Arist Pol. 3. cap. 10. Herod lib. 6. Xenoph. de rep Lac. lib. of ordaining Magistrates and Priests and of dismissing Messages whether friendly or hostile See Herod Xenoph. ibid. But Xenophon saith That at home he had but the honour of a private man 2. From home and in the battel he was first and had the chief hand in managing the matters of the war So say the forecited Authours Inst 1. The Lacedemonian Monarchy saith Salmasius was peculiar All other Monarchies beside were absolute and of an uncircumscribed power though some were more intense and some more remisse And saith he the Lacedemonian Kings were rather General Captains then Kings Therefore Aristotle defineth their power to be a power of commanding the battel from a perpetual title of birth-right Pol. 3. cap. 10.14 Yea and though the Lacedemonian Ephori did cut-off Agis yet notwithstanding the people did abominate and detest that fact Def. Reg. cap. 8. Wherefore the man doth esteem the annual Carthaginian Kings properly not to have been Kings Otherwise saith he the Judges of Israel may also properly be called Kings for they had that same power which the Carthaginian Kings had The one were called Sophetim and the other Sufetes Both which come to one purpose And yet saith he the Scripture calleth the Judges of Israel Kings Judg. 18. But this must be taken in an improper sense And so he concludeth that Probus doth call the Carthaginian Sufetes Kings improperly Def. Reg. cap. 7. Ans We do much wonder at the man who is not ashamed to say that all Monarchies besides the Lacedemonian were absolute and unsubjected to Law We have evinced the contrary of that already having shewed from the examples of many Commonwealths that Kings were no lesse subjected to Law then any of the people And in this the manner of Royall Power amongst the Romans is not wanting The power of the King was subjected to the Senate Rex ad Senatum referebat Pomp. Laet. de mag Rom. i. e. The King had his referres to the Senate Penes hoc quidem senatores adeo semper totius Reipublicae summa innixa est ut ne Reges quidem Consules aut Dictatores aut alius quispiam magistratus inconsulto Senatu quippiam moliretur Fenest de mag Rom. i. e. The sum and head of the whole Commonwealth did ever so depend from these senatours that even Kings Consuls or Dictators or any other Magistrate did not enterprise any thing without
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
and bringing himself in sorrow to the grave This is far from the arbitrary and infinite power of kings Salmasius speaketh of And whereas he saith the Parliament is but extraordinary and pro tunc this is either because Kings were long before Parliaments or because the Parliament hath not power to intermeddle in every businesse of the Common-wealth but is conveened pro re nata for ordering the weightiest Affairs of the kingdom If you say the former we do not deny it We heartily confesse that of all Governments Monarchy was first established And Aristotle giveth the reason of it because saith he in the beginning it was hard to find-out many men fit and able to govern And therefore necessity moved them to lay the government on one for though in the beginning it was hard to finde-out many yet was it easie to finde-out one endowed with qualities and gifts for governing Polit. 3. cap. 11. lib. 4. cap. 13. But though this be granted yet doth it not follow but Senats or Parliaments being established they have even according to the custome of the Nations more power then kings as is shewed already And therefore Aristotle saith in the places fore-cited that by processe of time the number of Common-wealth's-men increasing kings at last went close out of request and were denuded of all power And Pol. 3. cap. 10. he saith that in after-times the power of kings was extremely lessened partly because of their own voluntary demitting and partly because of the people's detracting from their greatnesse Nay any king Aristotle alloweth he alloweth no more power and greatnesse to him but to be greater and more powerful then every one separatim and many conjunctim but to be of lesse power and greatnesse then the peoople Pol. 3. cap. 11. But I pray you what is the Parliament but the Representative of the people If you say the other we deny it as is shewed already And it seemeth very strange to me that the Parliament hath not power in small matters and yet hath power to manage and go about matters of highest concernment If Salmasius will ask Philosophs they can tell him Qui potest majus potest minus He imagineth that he gaineth the point because the King of England had power to conveen and dissolve the Parliament as he judged fit This is but a singing of the triumph before the victory for the Roman Consuls had the same power over the Senat. Alex. ab Alex. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. But who will say that they had an absolute power over the Senat though they had power of convocating and dissolving it It is not unknown that their power notwithstanding was a non-absolute and limited power Alex. ab Al. ibid. Pompon Laet. de mag Rom. cap. 15. Fenest de mag Rom. cap. 7. So say Festus and Coelidus 2. What honour is given to the King And if Salmasius will consider this aright he will find that there is a vast disproportion between his honour and his power and that there is more given to him in word then in deed The King of Scotland cannot be called by Salmasius or any other an absolute Prince This afterward shall most evidently appear And yet in many Acts of Parliament he is called the Parliament's Sovereign Lord and King and what is enacted in Parliament ordinarily it is expressed under the King's name Salmasius imagineth that this maketh much for his purpose whileas it is said Dominus noster Rex ad petitionem suorum praelatorum comitum baronum congregatorum in Parlamento constituit certos articulos In praef stat voc Art sup chart temp Ed. 1. i. e. Our Lord the King at the desire of his Prelats Earles and Barons assembled in Parliament constituted certain Articles In Parlamento supremi domini Regis illius concilium convenit ita praeceptum est ab ipsomet In stat Escheat fact 29. an Edv. 1. i. e. In the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King his Councell conveened and so it was commanded by himself The like we have in the Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Eodem die Rex per modum statuti ordinavit Jam. 1. Parl. 6. act 83. i. e. The same day the King by way of Statute ordained Rex ex consensatotius Parlamenti statuit ordinavit act 84. i. e. The King with consent of the whole Parliament did statute and ordain But Parl. 5. act 81. the King withall getteth a very lordly stile Item the said day our sovereigne Lord the King with consent of the whole Parliament ordained The Scotish parliamentary acts are full to this purpose But can any therefore conclude that the King of Scotland is an absolute Prince No verily Kings get such honour and every thing for the most part is enacted and emitted in their name not because they have power and dignity above the Parliament but because they are the highest and chiefest Members of Parliament And let me tell you people are so much deluded with the greatnesse of the King that they cannot give him onely that which is his due but they ascribe that which is due both to him and Parliament to him alone People know better how to idolize Kings then how to honour them Yea people are more ready to obey the King then the Parliament And therefore I think Parliaments that will have Kings for effectuating their purposes do wisely to emit Acts in the King's name and set him a-work to execute them Therefore Salmasius shall not need to boast with this that the King of England is called the Parliament's Sovereigne Lord and the Parliament the Councell of the King The like he will find more then once amongst the Prefaces and Acts of the Scotish Parliaments Yet he or any for him can never prove that the King of Scotland is an absolute King He shall therefore do well lest he confound things which should be divided to distinguish carefully between that which the king hath re tenus and what is given to him but nomine tenus And so he will find that though the king of England hath as much nomine tenus as if he were an absolute Prince yet re tenus he is subjected to Law And whereas he alledgeth kings may governe by advice and counsell of Parliament and yet may be absolute and have a negative voice the like say I too But he shall give me leave to say that such have not such a vast power as he talketh-of as afterward is shewed I confesse the examples of Ahasuerus and Cambyses are to the purpose though the man fail a little concerning the jus of the kings of the Jewes as afterward is shewed Howsoever though I grant this yet shall he never prove that the king of England according to the Law of the kingdom is an absolute Prince and hath a negative voice in Parliament He can never shew me that the king of England had the same power which the king of Persia had Inst After the Conquerour saith Salmasius
authority then what Malignants have now a-dayes And tell me do not Malignants at this day make use of the King 's pretended greatnes and hereditary right to the Crown of Britain for cloaking their knavery and effectuating their malignant purposes Do not you imagine but Papists and Malignants in England had that same reason for them to make use of K. Jame's power What I pray you is the over-word of Papists and Malignants in Britain to-day The King say they is the undoubted heir of the kingdom and absolute in power Who then should rise against him This is even the most they have to cloak their knavery and to cast a lustre upon their Antichristian and malignant endeavours Do you imagine that the devill was sleeping in K. James time No verily And there hath nothing been done these twelve or thirteen years by-gone whether against State or Church but what was moulded then The very plat-form of all was cast in his dayes By the Scotish Parliament his power was declared absolute And by the English Parliament his right to the Crown of England was declared undoubted and hereditary They stood not to swear obedience to him and his posterity into all ages And how far on he drew the power of Episcopacy and how much he acted for intruding the Masse Book upon the Kingdom of Scotland is more then known Many wits and many Pens in his dayes were imployed for carrying-on and effectuating malignant antichristian designments S al. is a child to object from the practice of the English Parliament in K. James time He may as well object for evincing his purpose from the practice of the Parliament holden at Oxford by Charles And if he doth either of them he doth nothing but beggeth the question He telleth us that the Parliament of England K. James an 1. declared and enacted his right to the Kingdom of England to be undoubted hereditary Well I can tell him that William the Conquerour the Normane-Lawgiver doth denie to the King of England any such title or claim to the Crown Diadema regale saith he quòd nullus antecessorum meorum gessit adeptus sum quod divina solummodo gratia non sus contulit haeriditarium Neminem Anglici regni constituo haeredem sed aeterno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim tantum decus haeriditario jure possedi sed diro inflictu multa effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haraldo abstuli interfectis vel fugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi Camd. Brit. chorogr descr which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his successors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtoniensis and other English historians who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and fidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can Salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by oath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasius conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore while as he saith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and inferiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum Mi Salmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatem tuâ—e gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Cokius words doth not speak of the absolutenesse of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa igitur leges hujus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q.
Hercules Ber. lib. 5. and Orestes Dict. de bel Tro. lib 6. Secondly by way of conquest So did the extraordinary Heroes as is shewed already concl 1. Ordinary Heroes who subdued Kingdoms be these Amongst the Assyrians Arius Baleus c. Beros an t lib. 5. Amongst the Grecians the Heraclids who subdued Mycenae and Alemeon who subdued the Kingdom of Thebes Diod. lib. 5. cap. 4. and 6. 3. Because of the benevolence and bountifulnesse of ancestours So Crana and Cranus were dignified with the swaying of the Scepter amongst the Razenues because of the singular benevolence and courtesie of Janus their father toward the Italians For the same reason also Thuscus son to Hercules the Egyptian was graciously admitted by the Arnites Libarnites Musarnites to reign over them Beros an t lib. 5. 4 By cunning and art This may be taken two wayes Firstly as it implieth a conferring of the Kingly power because of engine and invention Thus the Thebans advanced Oedipus to reign over them Sophocl in Oed. tyr Diod. lib. 5. cap. 6. Secondly as it implieth a cunning and subtil way of obtaining the Kingdom So Camesenuus obtained the Kingdom of Bactria Ber. lib. 5. and Neoptolemus acquired the Kingdom of Thessaly which belonged to his father Achilles Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 6. 5 By acquisition This is taken three wayes Firstly by way of emption Thus Agamemnon obtained the military power over all the Grecian Princes in the Trojan expedition by letting-out amongst the Souldiers a huge masse of money Dict. Cret lib. 1. Secondly by way of compensation So Antenor was created King of Dardany in compensation of his pains in betraying Troy to the Grecians Dict. Cret de bel Tro. lib. 5. Dar. Phr. de exc Tro. lib. Thirdly by way of meer purchase and simple acquisition Thus did Aeneas acquire Melena with its Continent Dict. Cret loc cit Salust conjur Catel So did Iolaus purchase a Kingdom to himself in Sardinia Diod. lib. 5. cap. 2. These things being thus illustrated by example I do nextly desire the Reader carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Heroes and between those of them who were in the precedent times and those who were in the subsequent times of Heroicism For my-self I cannot say but extraordinary Heroes at least and the founders of primary Colonies were invested with a vast and arbitrary power But as for the ordinary Heroes and the after-founders of Colonies I am contented with Aristotle to say That their power was hemmed-in by the hedges of Law We find several examples amongst the after-heroes to this purpose Priamus was not only withstood by his own subjects who did steal Helena but also what he did therein either firstly or lastly was according to the advice and counsel of the Senatours Dict Cret de bel Tro. lib. 1. 5. Dar. Phr. de excid Tro. lib. And though Dares Phrygius reporteth that Priamus determined and voiced otherwise then they who followed Antenor and Aeneas who appear to us to have been the major part of the Senat for we gather from both these Historians that not only the greatest part of the Senate but also the whole body of the People were for the concluding and drawing up peace with the Grecians I confesse Dares Phrygius in plain terms saith that Priamus voiced against peace and truce taking-up with the Grecians and what he voiced was established and holden as a thing concluded-on by all Indeed he carried it contrary to all who opposed him as Dares will have it Yet Dictys storieth the just contrary and saith that Priamus followed the advice and determination of the Senat. And indeed Q. Calaber lib. 12. and Tryphiâ—dor de Il. exc insinuate no lesse for they observe Dictys way which he hath in storying the Grecian stratagem which ensued upon terms of peace concluded-on between the Trojans and Grecians Howsoever albeit I think my-self rather oblidged to encline to Dares relation yet lose I nothing thereby if I do so I am not of that opinion to think that Priamus was so hemmed-in by Law as the Lacedemonian Kings Let it be so he had a negative voice in Senate as Dares insinuateth yet sure I am none will say that the Senate was a cypher having no authority at all You will learn from these fore-cited historians the contrary of that And in so far as Priamus did act according to the advice counsel of the Senat in as far he did act according to Law Thus he did not simply act according to pleasure and in an arbitrary way No verily In this his power was somewhat limited And this is all that both Aristotle and we do crave And so we must not think but Alcinous was some way or other regulated by his Princes and Rulers as you may read Hom. odys 8. And how much Agamemnon was subjected to Law is shewed already Of him is made good that which Aristotle speaketh of the tying of the King to the People by the elevation of the Scepter as by Oath and Covenant Hom. Il. 2. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10. We need not think it strange to say that in the dayes of the Heroes Kings were somewhat subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no lesse subjected to Law as is shewed already then the Lacedemonian kings 'T is observable that Orestes son to Agamemnon and King of Mycenae was judged and absolved by the Councel of Areopagus Him Mnestheus son to Theseus and King of Athens could not get set free till firstly he was examined by the Areopagites whom Dictys calleth most strict Justiciaries de bel Tro. lib. 6. Mark that the Mycenan King was judged by the Athenian Judicatory Then tell me seing a King of another Kingdom in the dayes of the Heroes was subjected to the Law and Judicatory of Athens shall we not think that Kings in those dayes in some things at least were restricted and subjected to Law Verily this is an argument from the greater to the lesser But hear what Alexander ab Alexandro saith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubitarit lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisistratus doubted not to undergo judgment there And I would have Royallists to observe that in this matter I give them more of their will then Aristotle doth for according to this last sense and exposition his words insinuate That all Kings in the dayes of the Heroes in some things were rest icted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yea in the latter part of the fourth species he saith That Kings in ancient time had but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-governing power But we go further-on with the Malignant and say That they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power Yet precisely
it was in and about his time 1. Because it is very unlike that ever he would have called the Roman Caesars Princes 'T is an epithet of lesse honour and power then Kings And so I imagine that he would rather have called the Kings of England Princes then them Sure I am the Roman Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradistinguisheth in positive termes the Government of England as it was in old from what it was of late saying That in old Britain obeyed Kings but now saith he it is governed by many and divided into factions And Salmasius himself cannot get this denied Of which Princes Caesar speaks himself Principesque undique convenire se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt De bel Gal. lib. 4. Thus the kingdom was delivered-up into Caesar's hands not by one man the King but by many the Princes And lib. 5. he saith Summa imperii bellique administrandi communi consilio permissa est Cassivelauno On which words Camden noteth That Britain then was not governed by one but by many taking that same course by common consent in choosing Cassivelaunus General and chief leader to them as the Frenches did in choosing Divitiacus to repel Caesar Brit. chorogr de prim incol But what needeth us to stand here We shall make it more appear in proving the second particular The first is also confirmed by the testimony of Mela Fert Britannia saith he populos regesque populorum De sit Orb. lib. 3 cap. 6. And what power those Kings had I mind not to say precisely that it was so restricted as the power of the Lacedemonian Kings Neither will I say that it was so narrow as the power of the English Kings after the Conquerour Yet I may justly say That it was not boundless and arbitrary as Salmasius dreameth-of So saith Dio Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet i. e. Amongst them viz. the Britains the People in a great part do govern This telleth that in old even in the time of Kings in Britain there was Popular Government Kings then in Britain were not sole Lords but the People did govern also Hence it is that Cordilla jussu populi was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jussu Rex dicitur Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 1. Because of the People's swaying power of old in Britain Kingly Government somewhat before the dayes of C. Caesar was altogether abrogated as in part is shewed already But Salmasius shall not think that of old England was singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the Aebuaan Isles Solinus thus speaketh Rex unus est universis Rex nihil suum habet omnia universorum ad aequitatem certis legibus stringitur Ac ne avaritia divertat a vero discit paupertate justitiam utpote cui nihil sit rei familiaris cap. 25. i. e. all of them have one King The King hath nothing proper all things belong to the people he is compelled to equity by certain Laws And lest avarice should withdraw him from the truth he is taught justice by poverty to wit as one that hath nothing belonging to himself The second particular is manifest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Princes or Rulers Thus they were governed toward his time by many and not by one And Salmasius from this is made so to say albeit he endeavoureth to elude what Tacitus saith hist lib. 1. The words are already cited and vindicated But Diodore is most clear to this purpose speaking of Britain Reges principes que ibi sunt plures pacem invÃcem servantes Rer. ant lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salmasius will not say that such had an absolute power over the people Their Kings had not such power Ergo far lesse they Yea the Heduan Vergobret who did reign over moe then any of them had not an absolute and arbitrary power Which maketh me think far lesse had they any such power And 't is observable what they did was communi concilio Caesar de bel Gal. lib. 5. So much touching the State of England in the second notion i. e. as it was from the dayes of Bretan Brito or Brutus 3. We come now to speak of England as it was under the Romans Saxons and Danes As it was under the Roman yoke speaking precisely England had no Kings but the Roman Emperours And what power they had is spoken already concerning the Roman Dictators And as for the power of the Danish and Saxonick Kings in England no question they had greater power then any of the Kings of England in old or since the dayes of the Conquerour if we except K. James But to say that their power was boundless and arbitrary is more then I dare affirm I will not deny but the first whether of the Danish or the Saxonick Kings had that same power which the Conquerour had over England As he subdued England so did they And it is the Conquerours priviledge to rule at random Such do ordinarily conquer against Law And I pray you why do they not also rule without Law But that all who succeeded these had the like power also I cannot be moved to affirm It cannot be denied but even under their reign there were Parliaments and Councels And I trow they were not cyphers I might enlarge this but I judge it needless for I care not which of the parts be affirmed Under these Kings England was not its own but a subdued and unsetled Nation Which maketh me say that it was no wonder albeit then there was no time for it to exercise the Laws against its Kings Thus at length I have offered my judgment freely concerning the power of the Kings of England both of old and of late And that we may shut up this whole purpose in a word for cutting-off all that Salmasius can object you shall be pleased carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Monarchy As for an extraordinary Regal power which was conferred on Kings whether for extraordinary heroicism personal endowments or such like we shall not stand to say that such had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power See Concl. 1 2 3 4. Yet we cannot say so much of ordinary Monarchy if we look to the precise and ordinary way of the power of Kings This by example is at length shewed already And so we come Secondly to prove it by reason Can any in reason imagine that people unlesse it be for some extraordinary cause or other will subject their necks to the pleasure and arbitrement of any Nay it is a combing against the hair for
Impune quae libet facere id est Regem esse But Memmius thereby endeavoureth to disswade the Romans to keep themselves by all means possible from the yoke of King Jugurtha hereby insinuating the dangerousnesse and inconveniency of Monarchy just so as Oâ—tanes did to the Persians But neither of them did allow this but taxed it as an unjust and hurtful power in Kings I must needs say Salmasius quoteth Memmius and Ottanes their words as the Devil quoted in tempting Christ Matth. 4. David's words Psa 91. v. 11. That which directly made against the Devil's temptation he held-out and only expressed that which he thought made for his purpose So doth Salmasius straight-forth in quoting the words of Ottanes and Memmius The thing that maketh against him he suppresseth and that which in shew maketh for him he expresseth SUBSECT 2. The rest of the Arguments for enforcing the second Assertion propounded and followed-forth HAving at length discussed all that Salmasius doth or can reply against our second Argument we make ready now to propound the rest of our Arguments whereby the King 's arbitrary power is dismissed And what further may be objected against our second Argument as indeed Royallists do we shall take it off by the way in prosecuting the rest of our Arguments And so by the way we shall meet with these Royallists who with Salmasius do directly militar against our second Argument Now Thirdly we make good our purpose from the power that the Kings of Israel and Judah had And for clearing this you shall be pleased to take notice of these Conclusions Conclus 1. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. For proof of this see 1 Sam. 13.14 15.22.23 c. 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 12.14.15.16.20.22 2 King 3.8.10.13.14.15.16.17.21.24 2 Chr. 10.11.12.18.21.22.24.25.26.27.28.33.36 Conclus 2. The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick There is reason for this for such did reign against Law And why did they not also rule against Law And what can tyrannous Kings do but reduce the people to slavery Now it is known that the Kings of Israel for the most part were of this temper Many of them were cruel tyrants and vile usurpers Therefore is it said Rex neque judicat neque judicatur non dicit testimonium nec in ipsum dicitur In cod Sanh 11. This Maimonides expoundeth concerning the kings of Israel in Gemar tract de synedr cap. 11. And this I take to be very true concerning the usurping and tyrannous kings of Israel They did not judge because tyrannous and usurping kings delight in cruelty They seek nothing but their own case and if they act any thing according to Law it is only for the fashion as the tyrant Cambyses did in seeking his german sister in marriage What Such hold will for Law They know nothing but Hoc volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione voluntas Juv. Satyr 6. Such Kings do not judge according to the Law of the Kingdom Neither is there power according to the Law of the Kindom laid upon such What they do is done by themselves unanswerable to any They act will-way and not Law-way They were not judged because they did take power to themselves above all Law It cannot be denied but Salmastus concludeth well from 1 Sam. 8. and 2 Sam. 8. that the King of Israel judged Def. Reg. cap. 2. But he will do well to advert that though this be true Rex judicat concerning the King of Israel according to God's institution the Law of the Nation and the practice of some of their Kings yet this is as true Rex non judicat concerning the ordinary practice of their Kings And it is very observable that Jannaeus whom they called Alexander all the while he did reign over the people of the Jews acted nothing according to Law but tyrannized over them Jos an t Jud. lib. 13. cap. 21.22 But in Gem. tract de Syned cap. 11. it is said that because of Jannaeus it was enacted that the king should neither judge nor be judged And if it be true that it was enacted then then do I not think that it was upon that fabalous ground which doth not so much as relish to Salmasius of which the Rabbinick writers speak but because of the tyranny and cruelty of the man who did not govern law-way but will-way And as Alexander so the tyrant Herod had an arbitrary power though we suppose it did depend much from the concession of Antonius Jos Ant. lib. 15. cap. 4. Conclus 3. The good Kings of the Jews because of personall endowments had exemption and immunity from Law This is manifest in the examples of David and Solomon There were two things chiefly in David which were against the Law 1. Multiplication of wives Whereof David had very many 1 Chr. 3. and 14.2 Murder upon the back of adultery 2 Sam. 11. And Solomon did many things contrary to the Law 1. He multiplied gold and silver 2. Horses and Charets 1 Kin. 10. 2 Chron. 9. 3. Wives And 4 he fell into adultery 1. Kin. 11. And yet we read not that either David or Solomon were judged therefore by the Sanhedrin And what I pray you could be the reason of this Not because the king de jure hath immunity from Law Nor because they over-awed the Sanhedrin by force of armes We read nothing of that And you shall not make me believe that the Sanhedrin durst not attempt the executing of justice upon them 1. You thereby put a great note of reproach upon David and Solomon You do no lesse then insinuate a disposition in them for rebellion if you alleadge that the Sanhedrin which de jure as both already and afterward doth appear had power over them durst not for fear of their resistance execute judgment on them That had been a disposition to resist the higer powers which the Holy Ghost condemneth Rom. 13. And I will not think that such men had the Spirit of rebellion to repine against the execution of justice 2. We find that the Sanhedrin did execute justice on Amaziah And the people did so against Athaliah 2 Kin. 11.2 Chr. 23. Which maketh me think that it was not for want of power that David and Solomon were spared Other Kings of Judah were punished for their faults The Sanhedrin and people had power to execute justice on them And why not also on David and Solomon They were all Kings alike And it is very remarkable that after Solomon's death ten tribes declined the house of David because of Solomon's heavy exactions and tributes he laid upon the people 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. I believe they were as powerfull to revolt from Solomon as from Rehoboam And seing the people took so heavily with Solomon's yoke that therefore they did revolt from his son it maketh me think that the Sanhedrin did not spare him for fear
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
is more then apparent to us it revolted from a principle of Religion And these who comment upon the text say Libnah revolted because Jehoram pressed the people of the Land to Idolatry I suppose upon good reason Libnah's revolt is far more justifiable then the defection of the ten Tribes from Rehoboam The one revolted upon a natural and the other upon a spiritual accompt And yet as is shewed already the ten Tribes revolted allowably 5. Uzziah was withstood by Azariah accompanied with fourscore valiant Priests of the Lord. And in this contrary to the doctrine of Royallists we shall make good these three things 1. That they resisted him violently 2. allowably 3. that they dethroned him The first is evident from the text Firstly because it is said they withstood him They withstood Uzziah the Kiâ—â— 2 Chron. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are words of violent resistance signifying to stand against And for this cause the fourscore Priests are called men of valour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of strength So the Seventy and Arius Montanus translate them It maketh us imagine they were purposely selected from amongst the rest of the Priests because of their valour and strength to withstand Uzziah in sacrificing Secondly because they did thrust Uzziah violently out of the Temple Azariah the chief Priest and all the Priests thrust him out from thence Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to thrust out with violence They hurried him out of the Temple as the word importeth The second is also manifest because the Lord attended the undertaking of the Priests with miraculous and extraordinary succesfulnesse They no sooner laid hands on the King but beyond all expectation the Lord did put hand in him also He did back them notably They no sooner did resist the King but assoon the Lord from Heaven did strike him with Leprosie And is it imaginable but the Lord one way or other had plagued them also if they had failed in their duty to the King I can see no reason why he should have spared them in failing in their duty more then he did not spare Uzziah in failing in his duty And which is more the Priests do not groundlesly withstand him They argue from the King's duty and from their duty They tell him in plain terms It did not become the King to sacrifice Num. 18. but the Priests Ex. 30. Upon these grounds they set-to to withstand him and keep him back from burning incense Which insinuat that their act of resisting him was in no part of his duty and that which was proper to his kingly charge but only in maintaining their own liberties and what according to God's Law was due to them Would they say We will withstand thee O King and have reason to do so because as thou dost that which is not incumbent to thee so thou encroachest upon the peculiar liberties of our charge The third is beyond controversie though Royallists start much at it 1. Because he was cut-off from the house of the Lord. This was because of his Leprosy for according to the Law the Leper was cut-off from the Congregation Thus the Priests spare not to execute the Law upon the King though Royallists esteem him to have exemption and immunity therefrom And Uzziah the King was a leper unto the day of his death and dwelt in a several house being a leper for he was cut-off from the house of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a solitary house far from resort and society Thus Uzziah was separated so long as he lived from the society of men Which is the Law concerning the Leper Levit. 13. 2. Because his son was enkinged so soon as Uzziah was separated from the Congregation And Jotham his son was over the King's house judging the people of the Land Ibid. and 2 King 15. Tell me is it likely or can it stand with reason they would have enkinged the son the father as yet remaining King And I pray you had it not been great madnesse in them to retain the kingly power in Uzziah's hand after he was cut-off from the house of the Lord because of his leprosie Firstly because he was as an excommunicate man And those who had not interest in the Church had not interest in the State the Jewish Church being national What David doth in reforming the State is in relation and subordination to the good of the Church Psa 101. Secondly the man being thus cut-off was as unfit to govern as either stock or stone I beleeve God appointed not idiots and unfit men to reign We shall speak nothing here of these examples whereby is holden-out not only the lawfulnesse of resisting but also of off-cutting of Kings this not being the proper place thereof We do only here speak of the simple act of Resistance We adde to these examples a few reasons Firstly These who have power to resist the tyranny of the King and will not offering both their bodies goods to his fury may very justly be called negative murderers and robbers of themselves Thus they expose them needlesly to the Kings mercilesse cruelty Not unlike the man who being able to preserve both his life and his goods from the robbers committeth all unto their mercilesse hands Who will not say and that justly but such an one is a self-murderer and self-robber Secondly It is against very Nature it-self men having power in their hands to defend themselves against the unjust violence and rage of the King and yet to be wanting therein Either Nature hath conferred upon them such power in vain or not You cannot say in vain unlesse you reflect upon the Authour of Nature who worketh every thing to good purpose And Nature as it is in it-self is good and perfect So it is repugnant for it considered as it is in it-self to work unsquarely and produce bad effects 'T is against the proportion that is between the cause and the effect Which maketh Aristotle say God and Nature adoe nothing in vain De Coel. lib. 1. cap. 5. Thirdly It is a negative betraying of God and his interest 'T is a denying to act for God contrary to the King's will Sure I am Christ cannot away with negatives He putteth them up in the score of enemies Mat. 12. 'T is against the practice of the Apostles not to act for God against the will of the Ruler They determine to act for him whether man will or not Man without exception They make no reservation of the King They resolve to do God's will though contrary to man's Acts 4. and 5. And I beleeve the King be but a man Inst It is altogether against that which Paul saith Rom. 13. say Royallists to resist the King This is much urged by Salmasius He concludeth the Apostles of Christ altogether to have been against the doctrine of Resistance This he gathereth not only from the place above cited but also from Tit. 3. 1 Pet. 2. Def. Reg. cap. 3.
defence of the last King's Person Let God judge this O my soul come not thou into his secret Unto the Assembly of such mine honour be not thou united COROLLARY HAving through the Lord 's more then ordinary assistance discussed these five Questions above-written it now remaineth to try what strength is in them to conclude the Commonwealth of England to be a lawful Government and not usurped power And we make it good thus If the Cōmonwealth of England be an unlawful usurped power then either because the power of the King of England not only according to the Law of the Kingdom but also of God is absolute And so without usurpation he can neither be judged nor his Kingdom taken from him by any but by God Or because Monarchy is of all Governments the choicest And so cannot be altered nor exchanged with any other Government unlesse we go from the better to the worse And it is rash madnesse or sinful rashnesse to exchange the best with the worst Or because Popular Government is least to be desired Or because it is unlawful to resist the Royal Person and decline the Royal Authority Or lastly because we are tied not only by the Oath of Alleageance but also by solemn League and Covenant to maintain and preserve Monarchy inviolably But none of all these you can alleadge to bind usurpation upon the Commonwealth of England as is shewed already Ergo it is a lawful and not usurped power FINIS Errors to be corrected thus REad Page 6. line 8. Beros P. 9. l. ult carrying-on P. 10 l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 12. l. 10. tanes P. 20. l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 30 l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 35. l. 4. Satrapie P. 60. l 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P 64. l. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 65. l. ult hos P. 67. l. 25. naught P. 74. l. 17. Gorbomannus l. ult censured P. 75. l. 2. excommunicated and to be punished l. 3. Eugenius l 10 for Duncanus read Again usurping he P. 76. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 79. l. 20. after Steven r. King P 85. l ult after Inst r. 5. P. 95. l. 17. Imperator P. 96. l 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 123. l. 30. exclusive P. 125. l. 32. sect 1. P 129. l. 32. subsect 1. P. 132. l. 20. subsection P. 134 l. 21. before Concl. 6. r. subsect 1. P. 136. l 21. subsect 1. P. 144. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 148. l 22. hath P. 163. l. 40. P. 171. l. 35. subsect 1. P. 174 l. 19. hurled P. 175. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 175. l. 37. doe APPENDIX In which the seven Angels sounding are compared with the seven Angels plaguing in overturning all Powers and Potentates READER I Have thought it expedient to annex to the fore-going Treatise concerning the Commonwealth of England a small addition concerning the sounding and plaguing by seven Angels And that because they do relate to the overthrowing of all Kings and Kingly Powers whatsoever Whence my purpose in the fore-going Treatise is abundantly enforced and established That I may the more conveniently give thee my thoughts in order to these Angels I would have thee in the first place with me to remark that the Angels sounding are all one with the Angels plaguing And that not only because they are alike in number but also one and the same effects are produced by them though some things are enlarged in speaking of them the one way which are abbreviated the other I do therfore conceive these Angels are not distinguished but only in order to different relations and employments And thus one and the same Angels both proclaim and execute the wrath of God upon all the enemies of Christ's Interest and his People And as for their proclaiming by sounding with trumpets see Joel 3. v. 9 10 11 12. Of their executing the vials of God's wrath on the enemy and the avenger see v. 13 14 c. of that same chapter I shall a little glance at that which the holy Ghost intendeth Rev. 16. And to this end I divide the chapter in these three parts The first is a preface v. 1. The second is a narration from v. 2. to v. 18. The third is a peroration from v. 18. to the close of the Chapter The first I pass in naming of it In the second there be these two things considerable 1 a party plaguing to wit Angels the Ministers and executors of God's wrath And they be in number Seven Secondly a party plagued in number Seven also The first of which is the Earth v. 2. Which in Scripture in general is taken two wayes 1 Relatively i. e. as it is joyned with some other words to make up the sense of it I have nothing to do with it as it is thus taken 2 Absolutely Thus it is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.1 2 As it is contradistinguished from Zion standing in opposition thereto Isa 60.2 compared with ver 1. and chap. 58. v. 14. And thus it can be no other but Babylon or a People walking in a Babylonish state for upon a Scripture accompt Babylon directly immediately and diametrally opposeth Zion as from many and sundry places is evident 3 For the assistants of the Church Rev. 12.16 In this Rev. 16.2 the Earth cannot be understood to be one of the four Elements Sense and Reason will teach us so much that this noisom and grievous sore Rev. 16.2 expounded to be hail and fire mingled with blood Rev. 8.7 cannot properly be called the punishment or plague of the Earth one of the four Elements It is then to be taken mystically for the assistants of the Church not only because they will rather be preserved then plagued in contributing their help to the Saints the Kenite escapeth when Amalek perisheth because of his kindness to Israel in his coming up from Egypt but also they have rather upon them the mark of the Woman then of the Beast Now the Earth spoken of in the foresaid place is expounded to be men who worship the image of the Beast having his mark upon them who cannot be the opposers but the worshippers thereof and therefore must needs be such as be in and of Babylon which must fall the vials of the wrath of God being powred forth upon her Isa 21.9 Rev. 11. v. 13. chap. 14.8 chap. 18 v. 3. The second party plagued is the Sea which is taken in general two wayes 1 comparatively Isa 57.20 2 absolutely And that these five or six wayes 1 For the navigable and salt water Exod. 14.2 2 For the brasen and molten sea in which the Priest did wash 2 Chron. 4.6 3 For traffique Jer. 51.36 4 For the powers of the Nations Isa 60.5 Jer. 51.42 5 For the glassie-Sea in the new Jerusalem Rev. 4.6 No man will understand the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3
to over-rule all according to Law with a vast and full power His government was extraordinary and by necessity And therefore we can conclude no ordinary government from it absolutely to govern according to Law devolved-over upon the shoulders of one man or of some few Much lesse can there be concluded therefrom a power of governing contrary to Law without all bounds of limitation Albeit I make it no question whether Noah took upon him an absolute power of governing whether against or according to Law yet do I think it very probable that none at this time would have taken it upon them to have judged him accused him or condemned him 1. No question drunkenness is punishable by Law But we hear of none that did so much as rebuke him for it but wicked Cham who therefore derided him and was therefore accursed 2. He was the common father of all at that time 3. Of all at that time he was the most reverend wise and eminent 4. They knew little what it was to hold Assizes and call Consistories All which move us to apprehend that none at that time would have dared to judge him even albeit he should have desired them David far inferiour to him wanting many priviledges over his People which Noah had over his in the golden age notwithstanding both his adultery and murder was spared and over-leaped by the Sanhedrin So Solomon was not judged by it notwithstanding his idolatry and multiplication of wives horses which were punishable and inhibited by Law And yet Solomon had no such priviledges over his people as Noah had over his posterity And I do verily beleeve that the emency of David and Solomon and because they were extraordinary persons moved the Sanhedrin to spare them Yea it is to be considered that such eminent men do not fal through a preposterous and malignant humour but through an extraordinary desertion of God for noble and high ends best known to God himself No question this hath been taken to heart by the Sanhedrin And this being conferred with the eminency and singularity of the men hath carried the Sanhedrin by from inflicting punishment upon them I shall not stand to dispute whether they did this de jure or not But sure I am as they did it de facto so they have been much moved thereto from pregnant considerations of the men's personal endowments And for my self though I think a David subject to Law yet would I think it a great temptation to me though as Judge to sentence such a man with death The eminency of the man and the way of his falling would put me to my second thoughts albeit I should endeavour nothing therein but justice Well call it injustice in the Sanhedrin to have spared David and Solomon yet would I not have you to wonder too much thereat There is great difference between a David and an Ahab a Solomon and a Jeroboam Such are not all dayes men And therefore I must needs say that as the Sanhedrin spared David and Solomon from thoughts of the singularity and eminency of the men far more would Noah's posterity in the golden age have spared Noah though in many things delinquent for as the man was most eminent and singular and could not have fallen but by an extraordinary desertion and for most good and noble ends so he had a priviledge from Nature above all in his time Yea in David and Solomon's time people were well seen in Laws and politick Constitutions The Sanhedrin needed not to have spared David and Solomon through ignorance and want of skill But it was far otherwise in the golden age in Noah's time Then men were but Apprentises and spelling the first side of the Catechisme of Policy Every thing was but in its beginnings in its first rudiments Let it be so that de facto and not de jure in the golden age Noah's posterity denied not to him an absolute and uncircumscribed power I seek no more but that And I may say that though at that time de facto Noah should have had immunity from the exercise of Law against him though much delinquent yet shall I not think that ever Noah claimed such a priviledge to himself as competent to him de jure and according to the Law As for Noah's authority and power after his posterity was divided into factions before we can determin upon it you shall mark with me immediatly after the golden age that there were three divided and distinct parties 1. The godly party 2. The heroick party 3. The politick party The godly party was of the posterity of Shem. These followed Noah and walked in his wayes The heroick and politick party were of the posterity of Ham and Japhet And as the heroick party followed Nimrod so the politick party followed Ham whom the Chaldeans call Chemesenuus No question Noah immediatly after the golden age had a vast and absolute power over the godly and those who walked in his wayes You may learn the reasons of this from what is above-written And as for the heroick and politick party it would seem probable that they contemned Noah and slighted his Authority for they walked contrary to his wayes Gen. 10.11 It is known how that Ham the head of the politick yea and of the magical party did mock Noah Gen. 9. Beros an t lib. 3. Yea Nimrod the head of the heroick party contrary to the mind and purpose of Noah caused Babel to be built Gen. 10.11 Ber. ant lib. 4. But notwithstanding this we may say that at the most it concludeth that such were disobedient to Noah and walked contrary to his will But it will not conclude that such denied to Noah immunity from the Law V. g. A prodigal and riotous son may work and act contrary to his father's will But it doth not follow ergo sach a child doth strike and punish his father Nay a debording child may act contrary to his father's wil and be so far from eclipsing his power over him that he may in patience endure his correction over him So we read that Ham did not repine against his father's reproving and cursing him Gen. 10. Yea Berosus storieth that Noah did shut him out from his presence and he did so accordingly ant lib. 3. And beside that he telleth us that Noah Nin. an 19. gave him liberty to stay beside him three years in Italy But finding how he did corrupt the Colonies there he commanded him to be gone and he did so And yet at this time he was the Saturn of Egypt a mighty King and of great power both in Egypt and in Italy Ant. lib. 5. I think there is very good reason for it to say that Noah in so far had an absolute power over them as that none of them in a direct and positive way would have acted against his commandment despising him as an enemy and as one on whom they would and did execute their fury The most we can call them is
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
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
all men what I please Sueton. in Calig cap. 29. Thus he putteth a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power And beside this even ordinary Heroes namely the founders of primary Colonies had an absolute power without al restriction Con. 2. Where also is shewed that Heroes in after-times as founders of after-Colonies had an absolute power though not so intense and uncircumscribed as founders of primary Colonies Such indeed had power to do all things though not to undo all things And so according to the rules of proportion as the after-Heroes were of lesse power then the former so the last of them had lesser power then any of them Aristotle saith That at last the power of Kings became exceedingly lessened This was after the flower of heroicism was quite faded This could not be at the first but hath come on by degrees After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the erectors of primary Colonies had in-stepped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Aristotle saith was in ancient times i. e. in the times of the after-Heroes in and about the dayes of the founders of the secondary Colonies And then toward the close or in and about the middle time of Heroicism the Kingly power in some things became restricted as Aristotle saith And so he subjoyneth that at last it became exceedingly lessened Now you see that in reason no better construction can be put upon this fourth species of Monarchy assigned by Aristotle And for reverence of the man's memory I suppose that the third species of Royal power is taken by him both in an ordinary and extraordinary acceptation And he only illustrateth it as it is taken in an extraordinary sense because that way it is more material then the other way He passeth the illustration thereof as it is taken in an ordinary notion because so it is not only lesse material but also that way it is more clear then the other way Or I may say that Aristotle confoundeth these two notions together because comparitively aesymnetick Monarchy taken in an extraordinary notion may be called ordinary The reason of this is because men at least may be because of personal endowments more frequently called to govern in an absolute and ordinary way then for extraordinary Heroicism and such like Howsoever this I know that Aristotle reckoned-up no other kinds of Monarchy but such as have power to and do govern according to Law But these who are advanced to an illimited power because of personal endowments are not precisely called thereto to govern whether according to or against Law That doth militate against the ground and motive of their call They are no otherwise called to govern according to their pleasure but as people expect their will shal bring forth the choicest Laws Whence precisely and formally their power both according to the subject and object thereof is restricted and kept within the bounds of Law But we cannot say so of absolute Monarchy acquired and conferred by extraordinary heroicism and such like And consequently we may very justly say that Aristotle referreth absolute Monarchy obtained because of personal endowments to the third species of Regal government and doth not refer absolute Monarchy because of extraordinary heroicism and such like to any species or kind of Monarchy he speaketh of The reason we say is this because any kind of Monarchy he speaketh of doth not exceed the bounds of Law But illimited Royal power conferred beeause of extraordinary qualifications precisely and formally doth not exceed the bounds of Law Whereas being conferred upon grounds of extraordinary heroicism purchase and such like precisely and formally the power thereof out-reacheth all Laws Thus we judge Aristotle's mind to be cleared concerning all the specics and sorts of Monarchy summed-up by him I confesse Salmasius imagineth that Aristotle by Pambasilick or all-governing Monarchy doth mean arbitrary Monarchy having power to govern at random either according to or against Law But the Gentleman in this is a little mistaken for otherwise in the moulding of the King he had not required such conditions and limitations as he doth Which be these 1. That he should descend of such a race which in vertue and goodnesse should exceed all others Pol. 3. cap. 12. Whence is it that both there and Polit. 1. cap 3. he saith that the best according to nature over-ruleth that which is worse and lesse good 2. That the King himself should exceed the rest in vertue and goodnesse Yea but for a King to govern according to his own hearts lust even against Law and Reason there is no necessity of vertue and goodnesse seing illegality and injustice flow from a vicious and corrupt principle Therefore Aristotle in opposing Monarchy or Government laid upon one to Government carried-on and managed according to Law doth not insinuate an arbitrary power in the King having immunity and freedom from Law but in so doing he only opposeth the power of Government laid upon one to its power being laid upon many implying that as in this respect the Governour is subject to the rest and cannot act any thing of Law without their consent and assistance so in the other respect the Governour in carrying on things according to Law hath immunity from subjection to any other beside and in doing things legally may perform them without the interposition of any other man's authority Whence we see that Aristotle alloweth an absolute power in the king to act according to Law but not to act either according to Law or against it And therefore in so far he taketh these by the hand who deny Monarchy to be according to nature in as far as they contend that to be against Nature which is against Law Which maketh him conclude Tyranny to be against Nature it being against Law and Reason And consequently he doth not allow arbitrary power in the king to do either good or bad according to his pleasure He only pleadeth for power to the King which is according to Nature Justice and Utility He will have him a man excelling others in vertue and governing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 12. Moreover it is contrary to the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Aristotle expresseth cap. 11. to render it an arbitrary power There is a very great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Howsoover he expoundeth it himself cap. 10. and defineth it to be a power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to govern the City and all the Publick matters whether at home or abroad Thus the man speaketh of a governing power But arbitrary power is a misgoverning-power He speaketh of a power ordering and doing all things But arbitrary power is a power of misordering and undoing all things It doth not follow that because kings of old had power over all things Ergo they had power to dispose on them according to their pleasure
and notion for the Frenches are called Cimbri as Valerius maximus Cicero and Appianus say and Gomeri as Josephus and Zonaras teach So the Britains are called Kimbri changing C into K. and Cumeri changing Go into Cu. They are so both called from Gomer or Comer the name of Gallus And consequently seing they both have one common epithet from his forename why may they not also passe under one notion and be called Galli from Gallus his surname I wil not much contend whether the Frenches or Britains had Kings after the dayes of Comerus and his nephews or not And if they had any sure I am they were governed by moe then one No question the Land in both was divided into divers Satrapees So we find the Kingdom of Italy in old to have been so divided Yet we do not think but amongst those Satrapees there hath been one greater then any of the rest As no question in Italy the Comars were more powerful then any of the rest of the Colonies and inhabitants of the Kingdom as you may learn from Beros an t lib. 5. So amongst the Frenches the chiefest Kingdom was the Satrapee of the Celtes Thence it is that Berosus ant lib. 5. doth reckon-up in a catalogue the Kings of the Celtes as he doth the Assyrian Kings and Manetho beginning where Berosus left summeth-up one by one the Kings of the Celtes as he doth reckon-up the Egyptian Kings Thus there is no repugnancie between the divisions of Berosus and of Caesar and Mela for he speaketh of a general and large division and they keep themselves within more restricted and narrow bounds They only speak of the division of France separating it into three parts Belgia Aquitania and Celtae And if we beleeve them in old ever unto the dayes of C. Câ—esar these were three distinct Satrapees governed by different Magistrates and distinct Laws The chief people in Aquitania were called Ausci in Belgia Treveri and in Celtae Hedui Mel. de sit Orb. cap. 2. And the chief Magistracy amongst the Hedui was called Vergobretus With which in Caesar's dayes Divitiacus and Liscus were invested Which was a yearly Magistracy having power both of life and death as Caesar saith de bel Gal. lib. 1. What the Vergobret did amongst the Hedui was done convocatis eorum principibus Those who were clothed with it as they were annual and but for a time so they did nothing absolutely and by themselves but according to the counsel and advice of the Princes This is far from the arbitrary power that Salmasius speaketh-of Yet we will not say that the power of the Celtick Kings was alwayes so hemmed-in by Law I do not think but their primary founders not only amongst the Celtes but also amongst the Aquitans and Belgists had a vast and arbitrary power Yea and their after Kings so long as the flower of Heroicism lasted had such power as Aristotle speaketh-of and which by us is already expressed in the fourth species or in the former part of the fourth species of Monarchy Polit. 3 cap. 10 11. And so the flower of Heroicism fading and Kingly Government wearing out of request no question there hath been no more power left to their Kings then what Caesar speaketh-of in the place above-cited Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith concerning the detracting from and dimitting of the power of Kings in after-times Polit. 3. cap. 10. Although we may very justly say That the Kingdom of France was divided into distinct Satrapees ever until the dayes of C. Caesar yet we dare not adventure positively to say so much of Britain if we take it by restriction for the Kingdom of England And that this may be cleared We 2. Must diligently observe the cause and reason why England and Scotland are called Britain Thus we come to consider England in a second notion as it was in the dayes of Brutus untill in and about the days of C. Caesar By the way I must needs confesse that this is a hard businesse on which I now enter more difficult to be found-out then any thing we have spoken to this purpose The originall of France and Britain is very easily learned from Beros an t lib. 5. M. Porc. Cat. Orig. lib. Solinus and others But now Britain was secondly inhabited is much controverted amongst the Writers Some imagine that it was secondly planted by Brutus son to Ascanius Of this opinion is Galfredus But this cannot be for we read of no such man whether in Maneth de Reg. Aegypt Sempr. de div Ital. Solin cap. 1. Marl. lib. 1. cap. 2. or in any other Writer beside who speak of Aeneas and his posterity Others again imagin this Brutus to have been a Roman Consul Of this opinion is Gildas But for this he can produce no Author But others think that he was either Brito Centaurus of whom Hyginus speaketh or els Bretan whose daughter as Parthenius Nicaeus saith was Celtice on whom Hercules begot Celtus the father of the Celtes From him Hesychius draweth the denomination of Britain For my self I subscribe to this albeit I suppose this Brito Centaurus to be all one with Bretan Howsoever if we may give credit to these Writers Britain was secondly inhabited by one named Brutus or Bretan or Brito according to the Greek And why may we not I pray you as it were a posteriori conclude Britain to have been secondly planted and governed by one called Brutus or Brito Kingdoms ordinarily use to derive their denominations from such To this very pertinently agreeth that of Sibylla a most ancient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Britains And I think the derivation of it very pertinent to deduce it from Brutus as Media from Medus and Gallia from Gallus And it is observable that she addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The point being thus established I make no reckoning whether this Brutus be called a Trojan or a Grecian And if he was a Trojan then I may justly say if it be true which Ammian lib 15. saith That while as the Trojans came into France they did also come into Britain And that such came into France is confirmed by Manetho who saith that Francus about the 9. year of the Egyptian dynastie was created and ordained the Celtick King Him he calleth one of Hector's sons De Reg. Egypt Now this could not have been unlesse as Ammianus reporteth many fugitive Trojans had come along into France And so in all probability as the dispersed Trojans took-up their residence and erected a Kingdom in France they have done the like also in Britain the one lying contiguous with the other But for further clearing the point we must not lightly over-leap that which Parthenius saith The man imagineth that Celtus son to Hercules begotten on Celtice daughter to Bretan was the begetter and founder of the Celtes Here is need of a distinction Surely Samotes as is said already firstly erected the Kingdom of the Celtes
people to resign their liberty into the hands of any man giving him a full power to dispose upon them at random It is very observable That once Kings in Asia had not only an all-commanding but also an all-willing power So Nimrod Belus Ninus and Semiramis as is shewed already Concl. 1. And yet at last this pambasilick and arbitrary power turned over into a despotick power governing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Polit. 3. cap. 10. Under these four Kings the condition of Regal power was very extraordinary And so it was no wonder though they did reign in an extraordinary way having more will then other Kings But the kingdom becoming setled the power of their successours was hemmed-in Their wings were a little clipped And may we not judge so of all other Nations Verily I think it holdeth a majori for the Assyrian Kings were universal Monarchs and no kingdom could ever match with the Assyrian empire Which makes me imagin that as the Kings of the Assyrian empire in an ordinary and setled case were reduced to Law far more in that respect hath the case of other kings been such And withall observe there was a time when Regal Government was much in request It was much cried-up in the dayes of Heroicism And that rather in the flower and beginnings then in the fadings and after-times thereof And so it was no wonder though at that time kings were invested with a vast power But by process of time Monarchy became lesse esteemed The power of it became much lessened partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings themselves dimitting and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people detracting from their greatnesse So saith Aristotle Polit. 3. cap. 10. So then we must not imagine that though kings sometimes had a vast and arbitrary power they alwaies had such a power and their wings were never clipped Nay the disposition of every age is not for Royal power it-self much lesse for the arbitrariness thereof Let me never dream that the ordinary way of people is to bring their necks under such a yoke What is more consonant to nature then libertie and what is more dissonant to it then tyranny Can any deny but arbitrary power in actu primo is tyranny It is still in a capacity either of tyrannizing or non-tyrannizing It hath still a disposition for acting either according to or against Law Can people then have an ordinary temper for taking with such a yoke No verily that is against the haire with them 'T is repugnant to their innate liberty and the natural desire thereof Yea 't is repugnant to the natural antipathy which all bear in hand against tyranny This being done we hasten now to give a direct and particular answer to that which Salmasius alleadgeth for proof of the second Proposition We confesse that some Kings of Assyria had an absolute and arbitrary power But we deny that such power was competent to all the Assyrian Kings as is proved already It will never follow that because the first Kings of Assyria who were extraordinary Heroes in whose time the condition of the Kingdom was unsetled had an arbitrary power therefore all the Assyrian Kings had the same power also while as the Kingdom became established The one way the case is extraordinary and the other way it is ordinary But there is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries And Salmasius concludeth very unjustly the Assyrian Kings to have been absolute because the Persian Kings were so I confesse the Persian Kings had a power to do any thing they pleased but this was by the means of the great Persian Monarchs Cyrus and Darius We read in Daniel 6. ch that in their dayes the Persian Laws were unalterable And so we conceive that Law which gave the King of Persia a power to do every thing according to his pleasure was made under their reign Otherwise they could not have decreed unalterably Neither could Darius have decreed that none for fouâ—â—y dayes should pray to any but to him unless he had had an absolute god-like power conferred upon him by the Law of the Kingdom Of this Law Herodot speaketh lib. 3. in the history of Cambyses marriage with his german sister And it is known that Cambyses did shortly after succeed to Cyrus And it is already said by us more then once that conquering Kings may and did reign at random And so it was no wonder though the Persian Kings had an absolute power 1. Because it was established amongst the first and fundamentall Laws of the Kingdom It was enacted by the power and means of the first Founders of the Persian Monarchy who subdued the Assyrians and brought them under But you can never shew me a Law amongst the Assyrians establishing the arbitrary power of their Kings 2. I do not deny but arbitrary power may be retained in succession being once acquired by some of the predecessours for some short time So arbitrary power acquired by Nimrod continued till in and about the reign of Zames And if you say that it lasted longer sure I am it did not exceed the dayes of Heroicism After which time Monarchy in Asia became despotick and heril Neither can you shew me as is proved already that in the dayes of the Heroes regal power was arbitrary unlesse it had been in some extraordinary case Well I stand not to grant that arbitrary power once acquired may endure some few hundred years But I cannot be brought to say that such a power can be retained into many ages This you may learn from what foregoeth Now the Assyrian Monarchy continued about 1547 whereas the Persian Monarchy lasted but 230 years And though Ottanes defineth Monarchy to be that to which every thing is lawful unpunishably yet he doth so by way of taxing the greatnesse thereof And positively he taxeth the greatnesse of the Persian Kings objecting to the people the licentious arbitrarinesse of Cambyses and Magus Thus he endeavoureth to disswade the People from establishing Monarchy telling them that it was neither good nor pleasant And he giveth this reason for it because saith he it hath a priviledge to do every thing unpunishably Herod lib. 3. So then he defineth Monarchy after that manner not because he esteemeth it to be its due priviledge but because he holdeth it as that which is competent to it against the pleasure and profit of the people Therefore is it that he useth it as a disswading motive for provoking the people no longer to set-up Monarchy amongst them We stand not here to glosse Artabanus mind who commendeth that Law amongst the Persians whereby was enacted That the King should be honoured as the Image of GOD. He was a great Courtier with the King of Persia And it is the least thing Courtiers can do to flatter Although we do verily think that Artabanus did allow vast and arbitrary power in the Persian King yet that can be hardly drawn from his words In Scripture Kings are
called Gods and we are commanded to honour them as GOD's Vicegerents yet doth it not follow that according to Scripture-stile they are absolute and have an arbitrary power And we admit that of Claudian who saith that the Persians gave alike obedience to cruel and tyranous Kings Therefore was it that by the very Law of the kingdom arbitrary power was conferred upon their Kings and continued so long as the Persian Monarchy endured And though the Persian King had an absolute power in making yet not in breaking Laws as is said already It is already shewed by us That in some things the power of the Persian King was restricted Salmasius needeth not to tell us that the Egyptians did not bring their Kings to the Stage This is blocked-up already from his fingers And though they did bear much with Cambyses it was no wonder for he subdued them And what can a subdued people do but suffer And 't is known that Cambyses himself was a vile tyrant Therefore the story of Judeth calleth him Nabuchodonosor So saith Josephus also And Ottanes addeth to that Herod lib. 3. And what can Tyrants do but tyrannize Such are very ready to usurp an arbitrary power concl 5. As for Busiris I cannot think that ever the Egyptians had any such King though Isocrates saith so I confesse I read of such a man in Diodore Rer. ant lib. 2. cap. 1. But I can read little or nothing of him either in Berosus or in Manetho 'T is true Berosus Ant. lib. 5. saith That Busiris was King of Phoenicia So saith Diodore Ant. lib. 1. cap. 2. And Herodot reporteth That Sennacherib invading Egypt the Egyptians went about to help him against their own King Sethon because he abused them and did not his duty to them Lib. 2. Thus we see that the Aegyptians did hardly bear with tyrannous kings This at length is shewed already And what power Agamemnon had over the Grecian Army as also what power the Grecian Kings had how they were absolute and how not is shewed abundantly already It is no matter that Philip saith That the king hath equal power with God So did Caligula arrogat an arbitrary and God-like power to himself Suet in Cal. cap. 29. 'T is the least thing that tyrannous kings can do to plead for more interest then either GOD or Nature hath conferred on them And Ecphantas calleth the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because he should be governed by none but because he is above every one seorsim In which notion he is above all and subject to none Yet this doth not conclude but he is subject to the people or their Representative But knowing that there are many Court-parasites I regard not though you reckon-up Ecphantas amongst them Yea it is already shewed by us That the Roman Kings were regulated And albeit we should grant that Romulus was an absolute Prince yet would Salmasius gain just nothing for by his conduct and industry he made the Romans a People And we have said already that such kings from whose conduct the people's welfare doth intimatly depend have been absolute But the case of such is extraordinary And as for that which Pomponius saith it needeth a distinction It cannot be denied but Romulus had a pambasilick power before the Senat was erected by him But after it was established we deny that he had any such power as is shewed already This distinction you almost find in terminis Digest lib. 1. tit 2. l 2. where Pomponius words are cited This way also Tacitus is to be understood We confesse the Roman Emperours have immunity from Law and that according to the very Law of the kingdom Princeps legibus solutus est Dig. lib. 1. tit 3. l. 31. And upon this ground say Severus and Antoninus Licet legibus soluti simus attamen legibus vivimus Instit lib. 2. tit 17. And it cannot be denied but Dio approveth that same Law So do all king-flatterers Yet Dion lib. 51. saith That this Law was enacted firstly in favour of Octavius And no wonder for he subdued and overcame all that stood by the liberties and priviledges of the people But the Conquerour may rule at random as is often said already So Darius and Cyrus having subdued the Assyrians obtained the like priviledge not only to themselves but also to their successours In such a case we deny not but kings have had an absolute and arbitrary power But though Augustus obtained this priviledge yet sure I am the Dictatours had it not as is shewed already I confesse Diotogenes doth compare the King with GOD in some respects i. e. As GOD is first by Nature and in Himself and hath power over all the creatures so the King by way of imitation and resemblance is first and hath power on earth But I read not a word in him of his comparing the King with GOD in the matter of absoluteness And sure I am he could not make a comparison in order to GOD under the notion of arbitrary power for GOD's essence knoweth not what it is to act against Law and to tyrannize Yet I do verily think that the man is of Salmasius judgment for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The King hath an unsubjected power And we do not deny but Justinian Novel constit 105. saith That the King is above Law He calleth himself also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nov. constit 1. tit 1. Yet sure I am Plutarch doth not say so though Salmasius doth father it falsly upon his name And truly for my self I think it a great wonder that Plutarch being a great Courtier with Trajan the Emperour did not swear what Justinian spoke 'T is the least things Kings can do to say They are absolute and Courtiers to seal it with an Oath A flattering Tacitus can say Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt And Virgil before him deluding Augustus with flattery blusheth not to say Divisum imperium cum Jove Caesar habet But this may be admired That Plutarch a most eminent Courtier in plain terms saith Lex omnium regina Com. in Princ. But more of this afterward And though Emperour Justinian claimed an arbitrary power yet neither Theopompus nor Lycurgus do so But you shall hear more of this afterward Well I think it just nothing for Salmasius to tell me that Kings and Courtiers do plead for an arbitrary power to the King They both hold that as their interest and what the one saith the other sweareth But he must think it very material and take it to his second thoughts that both Kings and Courtiers do decline and abominate arbitrary and illimited power Friend there is not self-interest here But the other way you cannot say so much And what is it that interest will not make a man do who regardeth nothing but self-ends As the one way partiality so the other way impartiality taketh room And as for Salust truly Salmasius wrongeth him very much It is not his opinion
cod San. cap. 11. he saith That it is true in respect of the Kings of Israel but not in respect of the Kings of Judah And in what sense it is true concerning the Kings of Israel is already explicated by us The Gemarick Writers from these words Oh house of David execute judgment in the morning and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressour Jerem. 21. move this Question Nisi in jus vocari possent quomodo judicarent i. e. How could the house of David judge unlesse they were judged This they prove because in Scripture we are commanded to search and try our wayes i. e. as they say Corrige te ipsum deinde alios corrige Salmasius rageth at this and he denieth what they infer I shall not take it upon me to make good their consequences Let Salmasius impugn them as much as he will My purpose is only to shew That they are not of his opinion They are contented not only to say That the king of the Jews at-least of Judah as Salmasius himself out of Sichardus R. Lakises hath was subjected to Law but also they dispute for that and endeavour to enforce it by Arguments Secondly from their acting with the concurrence of their Princes And David consulted with the Captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader And David said unto all the Congregation of Israel If it seem good unto you let us send abroad unto our brethren that they may gather themselves unto us 1 Chron. 13. There is much in this If it seem good unto you This insinuateth that as David would not act without the advice and counsel of his people so his acting depended from their determination For the King had taken counsel and his Priests and all the Congregation in Jerusalem to keep the Pass-over in the second moneth He doth it not of his own head without advice And the thing pleased the King and all the Congregation It is a thing done by common consent So they established a decree Mark it is not said So the King established a decree But the Authority both of King and Princes is interposed The decree floweth from the joynt-authority of both Therefore it is added So the posts went with Letters from the King and the Princes 2 Chron. 30. They go not forth as commissioned only from the King but also from the Princes And it is most remarkable that which Zedekiah said unto the Princes The King is not he that can do any thing against you Jerem. 38. Ergo if the King could do nothing against the will of the Princes he had not an arbitrary power to dispose upon matters as he pleased Inst The King delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes saith Salmasius not because he was inferiour to them but by way of courtesie and gratification and perhaps for fear of sedition Def. reg cap. 4. Ans I confesse Josephus ant lib. 10. cap. 10. doth insinuate as much But by your leave I must needs say that Zedekiah might have delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes whether through gratification or through jealousie and yet he needed not to say that he could do nothing against them And sure I am if he had had an arbitrary power over them he would never have said so 1. Because it had been a known and manifest lie Which he would have been ashamed to have spoken in the presence of the Princes 2. He should have done altogether against gallantry and wisdom Against gallantry because if he should have denied his power by way of gratification then should he have been simple And if through jealousie then he had been base and cowardly Against wisedome because the high way of fomenting sedition is to dash upon suspition thereof The seditious party is encouraged upon the fainting and relenting of the other Well I do not dispute upon what grounds Zedekiah delivered Jeremiah into the hands of the Princes Whether it be the one way or the other it is not materiall Yet you must give me leave to add that you can assign no reason whether from gratification or from jealousie why he should have said that he could do nothing against the will of the Princes if he had had an arbitrary and boundlesse power Nay but the words are so clear that they need no commentary Thirdly from the councell of the old men given to Rehoboam who said to him If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day and wilt serve them and speak good words to them then they will be thy servants for ever 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. They perswade the king to keep himself within bounds and not to rule at randome They would have the King to carry himself as a servant toward the people This is far from an arbitrary and lording power It came to this that either Rehoboam behoved to govern according to Law and dimit of the power which his father had although it was not boundlesse and arbitrary in the full vastnesse of arbitrary power or else the people would leave him and revolt from him Thus it was not in Rehoboam's option to lessen or not to lessen the yoke of his father which he held upon the peoples neck No verily Neither did the old men counsell him to dimit any thing of his father's power as meerly depending from his own arbitriment but in relation to the people's desire And that not onely because of necessity but also because of conveniency Verily the old men had been far in the wrong to Rehoboam to have counselled him to dimit any thing of his power if he might have retained it justly No necessity lawfully could have moved the old men to perswade Rehoboam to dimit his power if he had had such a power of GOD and if the desire of the people had been unhonest and unjust No evill should be done that good may come of it Rom. 3. Verily the young mens counsell had been more just and reasonable then the counsell of the old men if Rehoboam lawfully might have kept the people under his fathers yoke and if the peoples desire had been unlawfull But it is known as Salmasius himself confesseth that Solomon unjustly keeped the people under heavy pressures 1 Kin. 11. and the counsell of the old men was just and reasonable yea and the desire of the people was honest and equitable 1 Kin. 12. 2 Chr. 10. Ios an t Jud. lib 8. cap. 3. Now tell me whether or not the Kings of the Jewes de jure had an arbitrary and lording power over the people If they had such a power de jure then did the people contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to dimit his father's power which of the most can be called nothing but absolute and uncircumscribed and the old men did also contra jus in desiring Rehoboam to satisfie the people's desire Salmasius himself will not say so But he acknowledgeth that the peopl's desire was just and the old mens counsell
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
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.
he did not protest against the power but whereas he should have disswaded the the people from seeking after it he tacitely perswadeth them thereto for how much more the excellency and goodnesse of a thing is pointed-out so much more it is desired-after And to say that Samuel did not disswade them therefrom but perswaded them thereto is to avouch that either he did argue against himself and militate against his own purpose or else that he acted contrary to his Commission from GOD. The LORD commanded him solemnly to protest and disswade them from their purpose He would have him to lay-out before their eyes the dangerousnesse of Kingly power to strike terrour in their hearts that they might forbear longer to desire it If you come to my hand and say that the Prophet in this place onely speaketh of unlawfull power or of the bad of a lawful power I obtain my desire I seek no more then that you say he speaketh here of the abuse and not the use of Kingly power And I trow the abuse of Kingly power is not the right but the wrong of it 2. Because the Prophet in describing the manner of the King setteth down acts of tyranny not of lawfull authority We take up the description it-self under a general and particular notion The generall Ye shall be his servants He shall beslave you and make you serve him according to his pleasure Which made Josephus say And that I may speak it in a word ye together with all yours shall serve the King no otherwaies then his own domestick servants Ant. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 4. See plain language in Brent to this purpose hom 27. in 1 Sam. 8. The particular notion hath several parts in it Firstly in order to the King 's tyrannizing over the sons of the people He will take your sons c. As if he had said your King shall make you sonlesse He shall beslave them to his service imploying some in one office and some in another And in all these employments whether base or not neither ye nor your sons shall be holden as free-men but all the fruits of your labours shall turn-over into the King's privat advantage Whereupon Josephus himself bringeth-in Samuel speaking that he would declare to them who should be their king but adding that he would first shew them what things they would suffer under a king and with how great disadvantages they would live under him Therefore ye shall firstly know that he will take from you your children and he shall make some of them drivers of Chariots c. So that there shall be nothing which he shall not constrain them to do after the manner of bought slaves Ant. Jud. lib. 6. cap. 4. In this Josephus much agreeth with these words in the original text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which in their proper rigorous signification are rendered he will quite take-away your sons But we judge it not to be an Act of Regal power but of meer tyranny to denude the parent altogether of his child and the King to dispose of him at his pleasure For this Brent gallantly speaketh loc cit Secondly In order to the King 's away-taking of the daughters of the people He will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be cooks and to be bakers As if he had said He shall not only make you sonlesse but daughterlesse also And as he will make slaves of the one so likewise of the other Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also in the original of this text And it proporteth a ravenous and cruel away-taking But hear Josephus Kings will make confectionaries of your daughters for their own use kitchen-women dressers of cloath and they shall compel them to do any other service which damsels for fear of strokes do perform Loc. cit Nay but Brent loc cit is more full and plain Thirdly in order to the King 's away-taking of their possessions And he will take your fields c. It may be you think that your sons and your daughters will be well taken-off your hands and though he should wrong them he will not wrong your selves Peradventure you imagine his tyranny will take a stand there Nay but I 'll tell you if he take-away your sons and daughters he will also take-away your substance And well know I if you get any courtesie at his hand ye'll have little reason to boast of it He will take the tenth from you Sure I am he will have so little respect to you to your children that serve him and to your pains in gathering riches together that what ye gain through the sweat of your brows he wil let it out to any base fellow in his Court and ye dare not say it is evil done If this be not an act of tyranny saith Piscator then had not God punished Ahab for taking-away Naboth's vineyard Ahab according to Law should have possessed it Schol. in 1 Sam. 8. See Josephus Brent loc cit Fourthly In order to his away-taking of the people's servants And he will take your men-servants and your maid-servants and your goodliest young-men and put them to his work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also in the original of this text His tyranny shall not end at your sons and daughters and at your possessions but he shall violently rob you of your servants And if he take not all of them be sure he will take the chiefest of them See plain Brent ibid. Fifthly In relation to his away-taking of their sheep He will take away the tenth of your sheep He will not leave you so much as a sheep's tail At least he will take the tenth of them 3. The consequent and event both of the general and particular part of the description is the effect of tyranny not of lawful authority Ye shall cry-out in that day because of your King whom ye shall have chosen you We are sure that the people would never cry-out for exercising the just and lawful Acts of Regal Authority Thereby justice is promoted and vice is punished Which is a blessing and not a bondage for people to make them cry-out in bitternesse of spirit Thus it is abundantly made good that Samuel here doth not describe the power but the tyranny of the King Now in-starteth another question Whether or not doth the Prophet in this place disswade the Jews from seeking a King as a King To which we answer affirmatively and prove it thus If the Prophet doth not disswade the people from seeking a King under the notion of a King then either because he only taxeth carnal confidence in them or arogancy and pride or precipitation only or else because they sought a King after the manner of the Nations But none of these Reasons whether conjunctly or severally are the adaequat object of the Prophet's disswasion Firstly Because it is said That Samuel was displeased because they sought a King The text is not But the thing displeased Samuel when they
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
kingly power Here from we draw this Argument That Government is simply and absolutely best and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth which the Lord not only did firstly institute amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof But the Lord not only did firstly institute Democracy amongst the people of the Jews but also was unwilling to change it and set-up another Government in place thereof Ergo Democracy simply and absolutely is the best Government and most for the advantage both of Church and Commonwealth The Proposition I suppose cannot be denied for whatsoever is most for the good of Church and Commonwealth is most also for the glory and honour of God And shall not I imagine that the Lord most endeavoureth that which is most for his honour As there is nothing which is so precious in the eyes of God as his own honour so he endeavoureth most to erect preserve and maintain that which most contributeth thereto None will say that the Lord slighteth his own honour and postponeth it to any created interest The Assumption is made good from what foregoeth not only in this but also in the preceding Subsection Secondly from the judgment of the gravest and wisest Philosophs So Solon of whom it is storied 1. That he not only refused himself to reign over the Athenians as King but also he much endeavoured that Pisistratus should not attain thereto This he did for preserving the liberties of the Athenians and popular government amongst them inviolable 2. He wrote severall verses against the Athenians because they had set Pisistratus over them sharply rebuking them that they had gone from the better to the worse 3. Because the Athenians had set-up Monarchy amongst them therefore he left Athens and went into Egypt 4. Not desiring to live under Kingly government he left Egypt Cyprus and Lydia and came into Cilicia where he built a City and called the name of it Solos And it is very observable that Craesus having desired him to come and live beside him he thanked him for his benevolent courtesie But withall he added that if he desired not to live in a free Common-wealth which he had set-up in Cilicia he would choose rather to live with him then in Athens 5. Being desired by Pisistratus to return to Athens he told him he would not lest he should appear an approver of his deed in taking upon him to reign as King 6. He wrote an Epistle to Epimenides wherein he exceedingly regrateth the foolishnesse of the Athenians in translating Democracy into Monarchy 7. He wrote to Periander King of Corinth desiring him to lay-down his Kingly power 8. It is reported that he did institute popular government amongst the Athenians But the simple truth is it was long before instituted by Theseus And by processe of time the Commonwealth and the Laws thereof being corrupted Solon reformed both And as Solon so likewaies all the rest of the Sages did prefer Democracy to any other government Thales wrote to Solon in exile desiring him to come and dwell beside him at Miletum And if he did abominate the Milesian Monarchy there was no-where he could be free of the trouble of Kings And therefore he thought it best he should live with him and his own friends Putting him in mind how that Bias one of the Wisemen had desired him to come to Priene And if he did so he told him they meaning himself the rest of the Sages would flock about him I suppose their sympathizing in affection with Solon doth also insinuat their sympathizing with him in the matter of judgement 'T is storied that the Wiseman Chilo was the first who instituted the Lacedemonian ephori the representative of the people This is controverted Sosicrates saith Chilo did firstly institute the Ephorick Magistracy To this enclineth Laertius de vit Phil. lib. 1 in Chil. Herodot Xenophon and Satyrus say it was instituted by Lycurgus Aristotle and Val. Maximus by Theopompus Howsoever I may determine on either of these two 1. That Chilo was one of that Magistracy himself Which made his brother envie him 2. That not onely Lycurgus and Theopompus but also Chilo acted much for the maintenance and preservation of that Magistracy And in an epistle to Periander he spareth not to say that nothing is secure to a King nor is he happy though he should die in his bed without blood Pittacus one of the Sages after he had reigned about ten years over the Mityleneans willingly resigned the Kingdom Tell me if that man desired not people's liberty who though able to do so would not so much as keep them under an easie yoke for he did govern them according to most wholesome laws and constitutions And in his answer to Craesus he avoucheth that Law is the greatest commander Compare this speech with his practice and you will find he was a great friend to Democracy and people's liberty Cleobulus greatly sympathized with Solon in his exile And in his Epistle to him he desireth him to come and dwell beside him in Lind which he calleth a free City not subjected to Kings and Princes And there saith he you shall be free of all fear at Pisistratus hands Periander one of the Wise-men also though at the first both a King and Tyrant yet at last he appointed a Councell to govern at Corinth Which I must needs think was popular because in even-down terms he saith that popular government is better then Royall And how much he was taken with high and noble thoughts of the Sages and Wise-men doth more then appear from his Epistle directed to them Epimenides in his epistle to Solon saith that the Athenians before Pisistratus reigne being free and governed by most notable laws would not still lye under slavery and bondage Observe he calleth Kingly government servitude and bondage And in the interim he intreateth him to come and dwell beside him in Crete where there was no King to trouble him Anaximenes in his Epistle to Pythagoras commendeth him much for departing from Samos into Croton for avoiding the yoke of Monarchy And withall he regrateth his own condition for being not onely subjected to the Milesian Kings but also threatned by the Median King with bondage albeit the Ionians did contend for the liberty of all This made him dolefully cry out Oh how can I Anaximenes search out Heaven 's secrets being exposed to the hazard of death and bondage And it cannot be denied but Pythagoras was all the way for Democracy 1. Because Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras speaketh of liberty But sure I am Aristocracy doth as much if not more take-away liberty as Monarchy What it is the government of many Kings And the tyranny of many is worse then the tyranny of one 2. Because he went into Crete and Lacedemonia And being fully instructed in their Laws he returned from thence into Croton where he set-up a Councell