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
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
but not conjunctim as conveened in parliament Which cometh just to that which Aristotle saith alledging that the King hath power over all seorsim but not conjunctim Polit. 3. cap. 11. And he is said to have a full power not because his power is absolute and boundlesse Verily it must not be taken in a simple and absolute notion but in relative and comparative sense It doth not imply the exemption and immunity of the King from Civill and Politick subjection to Law But at the most it pleadeth for exemption to him from forraine power and subjection to forrain laws This is evident by comparing this sanction under Henry 7. with stat 18. Rich. 2. ch 5. Where it is declared that the Crown of England is free without subjection to any other Crown but is onely subject immediatly to GOD in every thing which relateth to the managing of it's Affairs The like is spoken Henry 8. Par. 24. So we find the like fulnesse of power pleaded-for to the King of Scotland ITEM It is thought expedient that since our Soveraign Lord hath full jurisdiction and free empire within his Realm that his Highnesse may make Notares and in time to-come that no Notare made nor to be made by the Emperour's authority have faith in Contracts Civill unlesse he be approved by the King's highnesse Jam. 3. parl ch 38. This exemption is pleaded for to the King of Scots from subjection to the Imperiall Lawes But who I pray you for this will conclude the King of Scots to be an absolute Prince having immunity and freedome from all Lawes whether muncipall and Country-Lawes or forensick and forrain And as for the third sanction the words whereof be these Omnem authoritatem spiritualem temporalem derivari a Rege you shall be pleased concerning it to observe this distinction There be two termes in the act it-self one concerning temporall and another concerning spirituall power We begin at temporall power The King may be called the originall of it two wayes 1. Formally i. e. as if all temporall power were therefore authoritative and juridicall because of the Kingly power it being only in it-self essentially authoritative and commanding This we deny to be the sense of the sanction in respect of temporall power It is not onely repugnant to Magnacharta the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom the nature of Parliaments appointed and ordained in Henry 1. his time to the oaths and promises of Rufus Henry 1. their successours to act and govern according to Law but also to the ordinary practices of the Estates who in maintenance of their Liberties and the ancient Laws of the Kingdom did rise in armes against their Kings and caused them nilled they willed they to subject their necks to the yokes of Law Amongst other of their practices this is very remarkable that albeit they had saluted Ludovick as their King and put him in the room of John yet notwithstanding in the end they declined him and in his stead crowned Henry 3. John's son This speaketh much of the States power above the King 2. Virtually It cannot be denied but in this notion all temporall power dependeth from the King And that two wayes effectively and vindicatively Effectively because the King of England had not onely power of conveening dissolving the Parliament of ordaining inferior Judicatories but also by him the Parliament of England was firstly instituted and ordained Vindicatively because it was his part to patronize and execute the acts of Parliament at least as the main and prime man of maintaining and defending them The like power the Kings of Scotland had also as is clear from their Acts of Parliament But as for the spirituall power of the King of England I stand not much to confesse that he had a formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters and that what power the Church so called had was derived from him It cannot be denied but before the conquest there were Ecclesiasticall Laws made by many Kings of England as Inas Alfred Edward the elder Gythrum Ethelstane Edmund Edgar Aetheldred Canutus and others In the interim this Gentleman shall do well to observe that the King of England had not alwayes this power It cannot be denied but Lanfrancus Anselmus and Berket going to complain on their Kings and Governours firstly brought the Pope's judiciall authority from Rome into England both over King and people Which supremacy of the Pope over the Church of England untill in and about Henry 8. his dayes who did shake-off the Pope's yoke did continue And so Edward 6. succeeding to him to me it is more then probable that by the foresaid sanction made in his time the ancient power of the Kings of England in Church-matters was taken out of the Pope's hands and put upon the King And it cannot be denied but according to Edward the Confessour's Lawes the King of England had a primary formall and Ecclesiastick power in Church-matters I stand not to grant that But what though I should say that according to this statute made in Edward 6. his time the King of England had a primary and originall power and that formally both in respect of spirituall and temporall jurisdiction yet will it onely conclude an absolutenesse of the King according to Law but not against it It no wayes denudeth the people of a fountain power to defend themselves against the unjust decrees and actings of the King The Roman dictatour had an absolute power in judging and yet it was lawfull for the people to repeal his acts in their own just defence Many times have the People of England defended themselves from their King and stood by their own liberties notwithstanding the King 's acting against them What I pray you is it for me to say that the King of England by this act is called the originall both of spirituall and temporall power under a formall notion Is he not called also the King and Sovereign Lord of the Parliament Is not the Parliament called his Parliament Is not every thing ordinarily acted and emitted under his name Is it not ordinarily said It is ordained by the King with the consent or it the desire of the three Estates It is very seldome said It is ordained by the King and Parliament But I pray you what be these but Court-complements They are words and nothing but words Go confer them with the practice of the Parliament and you shall finde the one just contrary to the other No wonder forsooth because the King getteth more honour then he hath power Trie this and you will find it an ordinary practice Aye which is more cannot a corrupt Parliament through the defection of the times give the King more then what is due to him either by the Law of GOD or by the law of the Nation Know we not that Parl. 18. K. Jam. 6. through the backsliding of the times did advance him to greater priviledges then the King of Scotland by the Law of the
Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nec uuquam ad unius libidinem sed ad legum prescriptum nobilitatis consensum regi solitum So it is declared Parl. at Sterl 1567. and 1578. concerning Q. Mary This was practised by Mogaldus who did all by the Parliament as the ancient custome was Whence the kings of Scotland had no power to do any thing without the advice and counsel of the Estates They had no power to establish or abrogate laws according to their pleasure This my dear Country-man proveth at length in the place above-cited In the interim take-alongst with you that decree made in Finnanus Rex 10 his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernment but by the authority of Parliament and that they should not administer the Republick by private and domestick councell nor the businesses of the king and publick should be managed without advice of the fathers and that kings by themselves without the ordors of the fathers shires and governours should not make or break war peace or leagues 2. As the Lacedemonian king did bind himself by oath to govern according to the Lawes of the kingdom Xenoph. de Repub. Laced N. Damasc de mor. gent. Laced so the king of Scots by Oath and Covenant is tied to do the like The plat-form of the king's coronation-oath is set-down K. James 6. Parl. 1. Whereby he is obliged to maintain the true Kirk of GOD and Religion now presently professed in purity and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the Realm causing justice and equity to be ministred without partiality This did both James 6. and Charles swear And that this is no new custome amongst the kings of Scotland you will find it more then abundantly proved by our learned Country-man in the place above-quoted 3. The Lacedemonian kings were subjected to the stroke of justice Which maketh Pausanias so to write of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Concerning the Lacedemonian King judgment was so ordered Twenty eight in number who were called Senatours were appointed to judge And with them did sit the Ephorick magistracy together with the King of the other family So the king of Scots was censured by the Parliament made up of three Estates His neck was brought under their yoke as my learned Country-man maketh good in the place fore-quoted And so as the Lacedemonians did cut-off and turn-out many kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. 5. cap. 10. so the Scots in old did the like as is made good already See Lex Rex loc cit I have read much of the non-absolutenesse of the Athenian Cretian Lacedemonian kings c. But I may justly say that no kingdom in the world as I can learn from history hath exercised Law more or so much on their kings as the Scots have done There is indeed a strange change in Court amongst the Scots if we compare the latter times with the former For my self I observe GOD's speciall providence in it who wil have the practices of the ancient Scots much to condemn and plead against the endeavours and practices of the latter Scots to day Yea the ancient Scots even in this do go beyond the Lacedemonians viz. the Lacedemonian king was hereditary But till Kenneth 3. the Scotish king was elective though for favour of the Fergusian race those who came of Fergus were created kings See Lex Rex ibid. It remaineth now that we make good the conclusion it-self from the examples of kings in the second notion i. e. of those kings whose power was one way or other limited though for the most part absolute In this we will observe Aristotle's method He brancheth-forth Monarchy into four species The first he calleth Laconick and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10. which cap. 11. he reckoneth-up as the fourth branch of Royall Government Of this we have spoken already at very great length The second kind he calleth herill and despotick Such kind of Monarchy saith he was in Asia And albeit he saith that under such kind of Royall power the people lived as slaves and servants yet withall he telleth us that the government was carried-on and administred according to the Laws of the kingdom We stand here a-litle to illustrate this by example v. g. The Median King had an absolute power over the Medes Any thing the Kings of the Medes decreed and enacted was unalterable Because of the vastness of their power the wicked Presidents obtained a Decree from Darius That none should make prayer to any save to the King for fourty dayes Dan. 6. And yet notwithstanding Darius had not power to recall his Decree after it was made albeit he laboured till the going-down of the Sun to revoke it Ibid. The King of Persia was an absolute Prince Esth 1. Dan. 6. Herod lib. 3. And yet notwithstanding Ahasuerus not only in divorcing Vasthi did call a Councel of wise-men experienced in the Laws but also he submitted himself to their determination Esth 1. And albeit he desired through the abundance of love he did bear to Vasthi to be recnociled to her yet could he not recall the Divorcement because the Law made against it Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 11. cap. 6. I deny not but the Persian Kings had an arbitrary power in making Laws Yet being made they had not power at their own pleasure to recall them Their Laws were irrevocable Esth 1. Dan. 6. And consequently though their power was absolute in making Laws yet was it limited in abrogating them They had power to make them though not to break them 'T is observable that Cambyses a most wicked and tyrannous King desiring in marriage his german-sister called a Councel to consult thereabout Albeit he had an arbitrary power to do what he listed yet went he not about that matter brevi manu but sought and followed the advice of his Counsellours therein And at this day there be many Kingdoms wherein Monarchy and Regal Government is of this same stamp and tenour as namely amongst the Turks The third is elective and aesymnetick This kind of Monarchy also Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he illustrateth by the example of the Mityleneans who elected Pittacus to reign over them Truly for my-self I do imagine that they did give Pittacus an uncircumscribed power because of his personall endowments to govern as he pleased Therefore they did not restrict him to govern according to the Law of the Kingdom but voluntarily submitted themselves to Laws of his making They did not tie him by Law to them and in this his power was illimited and without bounds Yet in so far as they conferred absolute power upon him but as because of his personall endowments he would undoubtedly govern according to Law in so far his power was limited and circumscribed See Gyraldus de vit Pittac And Diog. Laer. de vit Phil. lib. 1. in Pittac The like power did the Athenians
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
And Hercules the Egyptian as Berosus saith coming thorow the Celtes into Italy begot on Galtea whom Nicaeus calleth Celtice with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis or as Nicaeus saith Celtus who was created King over the Celtes And from him they were called Galli Which as is imagined the Latines use for Galatae Howsoever here from it appeareth that the Celtes had not their beeing but their name from Hercules son And so reconciling Parthenius with Berosus we may call Hercules son Galatis-Celtes Whence from his name they were called Galatae or as the Romans say Galli and from his surname Celtae Indeed Bâ—rosus doth not expresse the name of Galtea or Celtice her father unlesse we take Celte who did reign over the Celtes at that time when Hercules came along them Which maketh us opinion at that Galtea or Celtice was daughter to Celte for as Berosus saith with the consent and permission of her parents Galatis was born of her King to the Celtes And who I pray you had power to put such a disposition and right upon Galatis but the King and Queen of the Celtes I warrant you such a thing standing upon consent and renunciation without being obtained by strength of Arms the consent and permission given to Hercules son to reigne over the Celtes was not sought from any inferiour but from him whose interest it was to reign as King I trow it stood not upon the consent and permission of any subject that Hercules son should be born King to the Celtes And consequently Celte at this time being King over the Celtes was Galtea's father by whom it was given that Galatis Hercules son should be born his successor and King after him Therfore following Berosus I conclude that the Celtes were so called from Celte grand-father to Galatis and Galli or Galatae from Galatis nephew to Celte and son to Hercules Yet Nicaeus positively and expressely calleth Celtice or Galtea her father Bretan From whom Hesychius as is said already deduceth the originall of the Britains And this being true it followeth that Britain's Brutus is more ancient then they ordinarily talk-of Although I do fully imagine that Britain hath it's denomination from this Bretan yet I will never think but Britain was inhabited ere ever this Bretan was The Celtes are so called from Celte and Galli or Galatae from Galatis And yet they were a people long before their dayes Verily I think it most likely that Britain hath it's denomination from Bretan and was secondly enpeopled by him for resigning the Kingdom of the Celtes to Hercules son his nephew it is more then apparent that being a King all his life-time before for his own honour and advantage he hath gathered a number of people together out of his own Kingdom and translated them into Britain and there erected a Kingdom This was more honorable and advantageable to him then to live a privat life in subjection to his nephew What can it be imagined but desire of wealth and honour both to himself and his posterity would have drawen him on to such an under-taking No question he being a powerfull King and father-in-father-in-law to the great Monarch Hercules on whose son he had conferred a singular courtesie in renouncing the kingdom to him did want nothing that conduced not only for undertaking but also for effectuating such a purpose Wanting his own kingdom Britain a glorious kingdom lying next to France either at that time scarcely en peopled or at least filled with men of rude breeding it cannot come in my mind to think otherwise but this Bretan became Brutus to Britain And this I take to be him about whom they controvert so much Which agreeth with that which is storied saying That the Britans were a people of lesser Britany which is in the Celtick region who in old did inhabit the Isle of Britain Whether you shall imagine this Bretan and Brito to be all one or that the Trojans came into Britain while as they came along into France I remit it to the Reader to judge as a thing arbitrary and indifferent And herein I do not contemn the authority of Waldhave who calleth Britain Brute's Lands Thus concerning the original of Britain firstly and lastly I have offered my judgment freely which being arightly considered doth much serve to reconcile all different opinions in this matter Well whether you say that Bretan came into this Isle with Bretanes or Brutus with Trojans I shall not stand to controvert if he be Brito of whom Hyginus speaketh while as Francus son to Hector came along into France and did reign there what power they had is already shewed but namely concl 2. It being sufficiently proved that Britain was secondly enpeopled by Bretan and very probably concluded to have been enpeopled the third time by fugitive and dispersed Trojans under the conduct of Brito of whom as we may probably say though the contrary may be also holden Hyginus speaketh It now remaineth to consider what power those Kings had who succeeded Bretan and Brito The tract of time which interveened between these two Kings may be easily learned for it is gatherable from Berosus that Bretan erected his kingdom under the reign of Baleus R. Assyr XI in or about the fourteenth or sixteenth year of his reign ann mund 2225 or 2227. and Brito did set-up his kingdom in Britain as may be gathered from Manetbo in or about the first or second year of Teutheus reign King of Assyria XXIX in and about the year of the world 2791 or 2792. Concerning the power of these two Kings we have spoken And we come nextly to speak of the power of those Kings who succeeded them untill the dayes of C. Caesar Out of no ancient Writer we can learn in particular what those Kings were But in the general we learn these two things 1. That in old Britain was governed by Kings 2. That afterward though before Caesars time it was divided into Satrapees and governed by many Princes We take it upon us to illustrate and prove both these The first is evident from Tacitus who saith Olim Regibus parebant To which he immediatly subjoineth Nunc per principes factionibus studiis trabuntur Thus he distinguisheth between the condition of Britain as it was in old and as it was in and about his time In old saith he it was governed by Kings but now being divided into factions it is governed by Princes And therefore in another place he saith a ragibus usque ad priâ—cipes But Salmas by principes understandeth the Roman Caesars Def. Reg. cap. 8. He saith so that he may elude the Government of England by many He would have it to passe if he could get it that it was never governed but by Kings It is no wonder that he be blinded in other things seing he shutteth his eyes at so clear a light as this It cannot be denied but Tacitus speaks of the government of England as it was in old and as
saith so because God only could pardon him But saith Salmasius this cannot be for the remission of sins obtained by the blood of Christ under the new Testament unto life eternal had no place under the old Testament O! saith he what ignorance and wickednesse go hand in hand in these knaves Def. Reg. cap. 3. This glosse which Salmasius so much hisseth-at is the very words of Lyra. And it is cited by our dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 26. Well then let that Anonymus be what he will whom I take not to be the authour of Lex Rex Salmasius hath no reason for that interpretation to call him ignorant unlesse he call Lyra ignorant also And I must needs say Hell and the Devil never invented worse then what now Salmasius speaketh I wonder if he dare deny but Christ was also mediatour under the old Testament aswell as under the new Dare he say That under the old Testament remission of sins unto life eternal was not centred upon Christ and acquired by him Hath this man a face to deny Christ to be the Redeemer of Beleevers under the Law By whose mediation I pray you did they pass from death to life if not by the righteousness of Christ who is the only Advocat before the Father for the sins of all the Elect I confesse those who were under the Law beleeved in Christ who was to be incarnated and who was about to shed his blood on the Crosse for the Redemption of Beleevers But doth this take-away Christ's blood shed under the new Testament as the ground and center of Salvation and remission of sins to Beleevers under the old Testament Howsoever sure I am this Gentleman cannot deny but under the old Testament God only could pardon sin Now this Authour whom he calleth an ignorant and pestilent knave saith no more but this And I shall let any indifferent Reader judge between Salmasius and him whether or not Salmasius hath reason to fail so much against him because he saith That under the old Testament GOD only could pardon David's sin Oh! that this poor wretch is not ashamed to speak so blasphemously This truth is old enough and can speak for it self And sure I am there is no honest heart who will allow Salmasius in this Royallists need not to brag much because David was unpunishable by man for his murder and adultery Arguing from this the state of the Question between us and them is changed And thus the Question is moved Whether or not a man according to God's own heart one worth ten thousand and as in qualification so in station above every one of the People should be cut-off and punished by the State for committing adultery with a privat woman and committing murder against a privat man And what if I should hold the negative of the Question as indeed I make it a great case and do spare to determine upon either of the parts at this time yet would Royallists gain just nothing The Question between them and us is this Whether or not the King is unpunishable by man though turned a positive tyrant and forthwith a destroyer of the Commonwealth Friends shew me the like practice in David and the Sanhedrin's sparing him notwithstanding and I shall yeeld to you Ye are so far from being able to do so that weighing David's murder in a square ballance you will find it lighter then is supposed for neither he nor his had formally but virtually a hand in the murder of Uriah This is far from a destroying of the People 'T is not like Nero's wish that all Rome had but one Neck that he might cut it off Now Royallists must object from the Sanhedrin's sparing a Nero. Otherwise they beat the air and change the state of the Question Conclus 4. The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power This we make good firstly from divine institution and God's moulding of the King Deut. 17. from which is already proved Subsect 1. Assert 2. That the power of the Jewish king is hedged-in by Law And Josephus on the place saith That he should do nothing without the consent and advice of the Priest and Sanhedrin Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 8. 'T is but vanity in Saâ—nasius to clude Josephus speech saying That his meaning is only concerning the Kings of the Jews after the captivity Def. Reg. cap. 2. Is he not blind that seeth not this man's deceit Sure I am that which is spoken of the King Deut. 17. was spoken long before the Kings of the Jews after the captivity yea long before there was any King in Israel 'T is the very positive rule and pattern of all Kings And Josephus in the place above cited as it were commenting on Moses words giveth the meaning of them Nay but you shall further observe the fallacy of this Gentleman He studieth to put his own construction as most beseemeth his honour upon Josephus words And yet notwithstanding he refelleth Josephus and cannot rest satisfied with his own construction Yea which is more he fleeth cap. 9. to what Josephus saith as to a main truth in respect of all the Kings of Israel both before and after the Captivity Then tell me what manner of man can he be who cap. 2. declineth from and cap. 9. enclineth to Josephus In the one place he plainly denieth That the Kings of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity were tied to do nothing without the consent of the high-Priest and Sanhedrin And yet in the other place he affirmeth the contrary But he loseth all his labour whether to deny what Josephus saith or to glosse it according to his own humour for as afterward is shewed Josephus was no friend to Monarchy And which is more what Josephus saith is the common judgment of Jewish Writers Rex obediat curiae senatus majoris i. e. The King let him be obedient to the authority of the higher Sanhedrin Deut. 17. Senatus major interficiendi gladio jus habeat i. e. Let the higher Sanhedrin have the right and power of killing by the sword Exod. 21. Nemo sese opponat decretis sanctioris Senatus i. e. Let none withstand and resist the Statutes of the greater Sandedrin Deut. 17. R. Mos Egypt praec aff 176. and 225. praec neg 316. It cannot be denied but the Jewish King was regulated seing not only he was oblidged to give obedience to the higher Sanhedrin but also every one without exception was tied not to contraveen the Acts and Sentence thereof He had not so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The power of the sword was not in his hand but in the Sanhedrin's Thus his power was restricted as was the authority of the Lacedemonian king and the power of other Kings as is spoken-of already at length Yea Maimonides saith Qui ex familia Davidis sunt judicant judicantur And so in expounding that Rex neque judicat neque judicatur
doth both to riches and vertue cap. 7. Thus whether in Monarchy or Aristocracy in their most reformed condition not onely qualification is looked-to but also naturall priviledges are required as necessary conditions But we hear not a word of any naturall priviledge in choosing and setting-apart the Judges and Rulers of the Jewish first Commonwealth There is not a word spoken of their riches and honour but of their abilities for the discharge of their trust The Holy Ghost saith not The wise men rich and honorable together with the heirs of the Rulers were appointed to govern There is not a word of any such naturall respect And do you imagine that the Holy Ghost at any time would have past-by in silence these naturall priviledges if they had been required as necessary conditions in the Judges and Rulers of the Jewes Well is it so that according to the Holy Ghost's way only the vertuous and godly should govern and none other did bear rule in the first institution of the Jewish Commonwealth why shall we imagine but the people did bear rule amongst them I hope you will not say that vertue and godlinesse is not to be found amongst the people but amongst the great ones The contrary is rather true 'T is hard for a rich man to enter Heaven Mat. 19. Job 32 9. 1 Cor. 1 26 27 28 29. 'T is observable at this time there was but small difference amongst the people of the Jews in the matter of riches The most they had was the gold and silver they had gotten from the Egyptians Ex. 3.11 and 12. And every man and woman amonost them gote jewels of silver and gold from the Egyptians Nay but it was not a time of their wealth while as they travelled in the wilderness Their condition then was very unsetled What they had then was from hand to mouth Any provision they had was from GOD'S extraordinary furnishing And they were all that way a-like served And after they had entered the Land and gotten possession of it we read the Land was equally divided amongst them according to their Tribes and Families They lived then as a peculiar people claiming neerer relation one to another then any people did In after-ages and corrupt times they could all tell you they all were the children and seed of Abraham The neerest bonds of Nature tied every one of them to supply another's wants And as for Titles of honour amongst them we read of none till they gote Kings Such vile and prodigali titles as to day are used then were unknown Yet obeserve there was a two-fold and only a two-fold sort of Titles amongst them 1. A Title of Office And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Officers Ex. 18. Deut. 1. Josh 24 Both which were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judges and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers And as by their vertue they came to be Judges and Rulers so by that same they attained to these Titles of Office Which are most approved and commendable as they are most ordinary and usuall 2. A title of meer nature Thus in the time of Judges and Captains they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heaâ—s Josh 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief of the Fathers Ezr. 4.8 and 10. These Titles and Priviledges they had from the precedency of Nature as the first-born hath from the younger The very Law of Nature it-self admitteth precedency both in respect of office and of naturall generation and priority Otherwise every thing should be turned topsie turvie and all should run into confusion But you shall not find thorow all the Book of GOD any other sort of titles used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King is also a title of office You shall not shew me where the Rulers of the people of Israel are called Dukes Marquesses Earles Vicounts c. Such titles I tkink came from hell and I wish they may thither return Now tell me whether or not I have good reason to say that the Jewish Commonwealth under Judges was popular and democratick No precedency amongst them was known then but what either office or nature did bear them to They knew not precedency because of honour and riches what it meaned Any precedency amongst them was either from naturall generation or from qualification And none amongst them was advanced to any place of trust because of any natural priviledge and carnal respect but because of vertue and godlinesse And this was to be found amongst the people We believe qualification hangeth not at the girdles of great men And such were not amongst the people of the Jews in the time of the Judges And though the Seventy were chosen out from amongst the Judges and Officers of the people yet doth it not follow but they were popular for the Rulers were chosen from amongst the people And so the Seventy being of the Rulers it necessarily followeth that they were chosen from among the people It will never conclude that they were not popular Governours but that afterward they were advanced to an higher degree of office then they were formerly The Sanhedrin was entrusted with the management of the most publick and greatest matters 2. It is said Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men And Moses chose able men out of all Israel Ex. 18. There is a noble emphasis in all or in all Israel Mark the vastnesse and latitude thereof It is not said Judges were chosen from amongst the rich and honorable of Israel That indeed had insinuated the restriction of places of office and trust to the rich and honourable Blood-respect and natural ties had been necessary conditions in the choosing of Judges if that had been said But the word all a note of universality doth exempt none therefrom It declareth all and every one of the people without exception who were vertuous and godly and fit for the discharge of publick trust secluding all natural ties and priviledges to be capable of official power Indeed you need not take all in a restricted sense for at this time they had none inclosing rich men worldly worms and vain-gloriously honourable They knew nothing but the priority of Nature and the precedency of Vertue And if you call not this Popular Government I know not what you call Popular Howsoever let me have this and I crave no better Because it is alleadged Moses Joshua and the other Judges did reign as Kings we shall shortly demonstrate to you what power they had Therefore shortly observe these Conclusions Conclus 1. Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly Power This is more then manifest Ever till then Moses governed all and none but he Exod. 18. This he did not because he delighted to lord over the people and that none should rule but he 'T is known that he rested not contented with what Rulers he had appointed at the desire and counsell of Jethro He intreated the Lord to appoint other Rulers to bear burden with
consisting of a thousand members This could not but be popular if he followed the plat-form of the Cretian and Lacedemonian Commonwealths His government is called Aristocracy not as it is different from Democracy but because it was managed by the best It is evident from Anaximenes epistle to him that in the matter of government they were both of one judgment Socrates is onely for popular government He runneth so far on this way that he determineth upon these things 1. All within the Kingdom have capacity of governing 2. All things are common 3. All the people are either ground-tillers or souldiers I shall not stand here to repeat Aristotle's examination and censure on these things But shortly you shall have our judgment of them The first cannot be denied caeteris paribus for we suppose all who are fit to govern as occasion serveth should be admitted thereto And passing all carnall and naturall priviledges there is none of the people who per se and from nature hath any more power to govern then another Only qualification for conveniency of and vocation to governing do make the difference amongst men The second I cannot away with The community of wives and children I understand not It hath no ground either in the Law of GOD or of Nature But as for communication of riches I shall elswhere offer my judgement We heartily subscribe to the third for by ground-tillers he understandeth men of every trade and vocation contra-distinct from these who serve in the wars Thus I take the man not to be for idleness and Nobility And he holdeth idle men and Noble-men so called as unprofitable yea as non-members in the Common-wealth So do I too He is for none such So am I. From these three things Socrates concludeth That the Governours of the Commonwealth are that same way in respect of the people and these whom they govern even as other threeds are in respect of silk He would have the Magistrate shining and glorious in vertue far beyond the people Plato is fully of Socrates judgment De Rep. Arist Pol. 2. cap. 4. 'T is reported of him That the Arcadians and Thebans having desired him to institute and set-up Government amongst them he did it not because they would not admit equality as he learned And it is known that by Aristocracy he doth not understand that which is contradistinguished from Democracy No verily But he opposeth it not only to the confused multitude but also to the Government of these who are set-apart to govern because of some natural priviledges Thus by Aristocracy he understandeth the Government of the best And it is the very quintesscence and compleat form of Popular Government 'T is the square and mid-way of removing the tyranny of Monarchy and Oligarchy and the confusion of the popular multitude This kind of Government he desired Dion to promote and set-up amongst the Syracusians 'T is observable while as Dion was setting forward against Dionysius for restoring the Syracusians to liberty and the up-setting of Popular Government amongst them he was incited thereto and encouraged not only by Eudamus and the Governours of the Republick but also by Philosophers All of these unanimously assisted him Aristotle also in this is not wanting He concludeth Popular Government to be the best because it enclineth to mediocrity It striketh a midst betwixt all Governments Polit. 4. cap. 11. Thirdly Of the chiefest Historians and Orators Berosus imputeth it as a great fault to Nimrod because he erected Kingly Government contrary to what Janus i. e. Noah gave commandment and precept for Ant. lib. 4. I confess what Government was before that time was not purely politick Yet it drew very near the borders of Democracy for then they knew not what it was to be governed by one or by some few because of riches honour and such like No verily they admitted no precedency but purely natural and moral Purely natural because speaking rigorously they lived then as under fatherly and oeconomical Government Purely moral because those did govern who were eminent in godlinesse and vertue It is called the golden age because then men were free of deceit each one living in a brotherly conscionable way with another They knew not what Law-quircks and Politick quiddities meant then All lived as under one common father governed according to the Laws of pure Nature and Justice Subsect 2. Concl. 3. Thus then none were holden-back to govern to whom Nature and Vertue had given the precedency And this I find only to be the difference between Popular Government and what Government was then The one was natural and the other is political Persons then did govern not only because of vertue and godlinesse but also because of natural priority No wonder because then they lived under Governours as under natural fathers Government then was rather oeconomical then political But Popular Government though it giveth place to Physical and natural precedency yet not in the matter of Government It admitteth natural precedency in natural things But in policy only vertue and godlinesse have the first place Yet there is no repugnancy but per accidens in politick things both may consubsist Natural precedency in it self is not repugnantly capable of that which giveth political preferment Herodot seemeth to commend Ottanes who against Darius pleaded for the up-setting of Popular Government among the Persians He saith that Ottanes took the middle way Lib. 3. But in medio stat virtus No wonder though he enclineth to Ottanes judgment rather then to the opinion of Darius who pleaded for Monarchy The man as is said already approveth Pindarus in saying Law is King But amongst the Persians Monarchy was ever above Law Josephus calleth the Government firstly instituted amongst the Jews the best of Governments Ant. Jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. lib. 6. cap. 4. Howsoever he taketh-up the plat-form of that Government is not material But I may determinately say it was democratick and popular This we take to be the judgment of Salust He opposeth liberty to Regal Government a free City to Monarchy Yea he inveigheth against the Grecians as base free of vertue and painfulnesse because saith he libertatem per inertiam amiserint And he speaketh of Noble-men as unprofitable members in quibus sicut in statua nihil est additamenti Yea he calleth them socordes ignavi adding per superbiam cuncta gentibus moderantur Moreover he laieth down this as a maxim Libertas juxta bonis malis strenuis ignavis optabilis est Liberty is to be desired by all good and bad stout and cowardly In fragm Cicero was fully of Pompey's way He greatly commended his cause and did much exhort others thereto This you may see in many of his Epistles lib. 2. ep 18. lib. 4. ep 44. lib. 5. ep 62.64 74. See Plutarch in Cicer. Now Pompey was clearly for the defence and preservation of the Roman Commonwealth at it was established before Caesar's usurpation It is beyond all controversie at that