vain Thus these of Tit. 3. and 1 Pet. 2. are to be expounded after the same manner Verily if we might not use distinctions here or in respect of what the Apostles speak concerning Kings then were it altogether unlawful for us to pray against Kings because the Apostle commandeth us 1 Tim. 2. to pray for them I wonder if these words can be taken without all limitation and restriction No verily Otherwise it were unlawful for us to pray against Popish Mahumetan and Paganish Kings Such side with the Beast and whom the Lord appointeth to destruction Rev. 12.17.19 20. In many places of Scripture we read of prayers poured-out against such Therfore the Apostle's words deserve a distinction and must be taken in a restricted sense And if 1 Tim. 2. why not also Rom. 13. the Apostle's words deserve a distinction And so it is no otherwise lawful for us to pray for them but as it is lawful to obey them and subject our necks to their yoke There is a time when we are necessarily tied to obey them This is in the time of non-ability to resist And if it be lawful then to obey them it is lawful then to pray for them When the People of God are brought to such a condition that they are not able to resist wicked Kings nor shake-off their yoke there is nothing lest them then but prayers and tears And what is the end of their prayers for them It is most for their own good and advantage That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty The People of God in the time of weaknesse and want of power can do no more but roll their Kings over upon God and intreat him to do with and in their Kings what they cannot perform But whereas the People of God have power to resist Kings and shake-off their yoke no question as it is lawful to act so likewise to pray against their proceedings And that ever with a reservation of God's secret decree for disposing upon their persons according to his pleasure And whereas he faith Def. Reg. cap. 6. that if the power of the People be the higher power under any kind of Government it followeth there is no distinction and difference of Governments He is not a little mistaken It is great want of Philosophy that maketh him say so The power of the people is the ground-work of the power of all Governments The original and fountain-power is still reserved in the people And so the kinds of Government though they be different formally yet not materially Democracy is dilatated Aristocracy and Aristocracy dilatated Monarchy Aristocracy contracted Democracy and Monarchy contracted Aristocracy Thus the three differ not essentially but accidentally Even as the hand v. g. is one whether folded or unfolded Assert 3. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up in its room This is made good from what is above written SECT V. Whether or not doth the Covenant tie us to preserve Monarchy inviolably IN removing this difficulty there be two things in the Covenant which we must carefully look to 1. Christ's Interest And this is 1.2.4.5.6 Art 2. The Interest of King and Kingdom Art 3. In order to these things we give you these Assertions Assert 1. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon We shall not need to stand here It is a matter without all controversie and denied by none who professe Christ This way there must be no rescinding of our Oath though to our own hurt Psa 15. He that swareth to his own hurt and changeth not still espousing Christ's quartel shall abide in the Lord's tabernacle and shall dwell in his holy bill Assert 2. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy inviolably There is very good reason for this To stand-by and maintain Kingly power either it is a duty simply necessary or not Simply necessary it cannot be 1. Because any Civil Government in it-self is lawful And consequently as they are in themselves we may lawfully give-up our allegeance to any of them But if Monarchy were simply necessary at no time could we lawfully by Oath bind our selves to maintain any other Government for so we are absolutely and in all respects obliged to maintain Monarchy and submit our necks thereto 2. The preservation and maintenance of Monarchy is not necessary to salvation Who will say that none can be saved who act against it and do not maintain it What is every Government sinful but it and do all sin who oppose it No verily The contrary is shewed already And if the preservation of and standing by Monarchy be not in it-self simply necessary it is great rashnesse and unlawfulnesse to enter in Oath and Covenant absolutely to maintain it notwithstanding all hazards may ensue thereupon 'T is to make our duty necessary where it is not so in it-self Thus we bind the conscience where God bindeth not Whereupon I demand whether or not are we any otherwise obliged to set-to to our duty but in answerableness thereto and as it is in it self Sure I am none will say but the Oath should be suitable and proportionable to the duty And if by our Oath we swear either to adde to or diminish from our duty then are we either supererogatory or wanting therein And thus we walk not the right way but encline either to the right or the left hand Whereupon we make our duty wil-worship either freeing the conscience where God freeth not or binding where God bindeth not So then the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy being in it-self a duty not simply necessary it must needs be granted that we cannot swear absolutely to maintain it unlesse we make our duty wil-worship and supererogatory And that God never required at our hands Upon this we conclude this argument That duty which in it-self is not absolutely necessary we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set-to to it But the maintenance and preservation of Monarchy is a duty in it-self not absolutely necessary Ergo we cannot lawfully swear absolutely to set-to to it The Proposition is manifest from the proportionablenesse that should be between the Oath and the Duty sworn to The Assumption is no lesse evident from the proportionablenesse that ought to be between the duty and the object of the duty And if that be not kept entire then verily there is an enclining either to the right or to the left hand And so we either diminish from or supererogat to our duty Moreover it is to swear to an impossibility to enter in Oath and Covenant to stand absolutely by Kingly Government 'T is a matter very ordinary and possible that all power be blocked-up from thee till thou canst not so much as endeavour to maintain it much lesse actually stand in defence and preservation thereof I
the head and glory thereof And that because the Nations and great ones of the Earth be two main pillars by which Babylon is underpropped for as the Whore doth sit upon the Nations Rev. 17.1.15 so the great men of the Earth bewail her desolation Rev 18.9 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.23 yea and side with her as she engageth against the Saints of the Most High Rev. 19.19 A great Star from Heaven burning as a Lamp shal fall upon the waters and their fountains Rev. 8.10 by which the waters shall be enbitâ—ered as with wormwood v. 11. so that many of them shall die being turned into blood and made bitter kev. 8.11 compared with chap. 17.4 Which waters and sountains thereof be the very destroyers and persecutors of the Saints Rev. 16.6 expounded to be Babylon and such as side with her Rev. 18.24 Behold how the Lord in overthrowing Babylon maketh its King and Lucifer Isa 14.4 compared with v. 12. to fall from his throne and dignity Whose fall seiseth upon the Nations and the great ones of the Earth by which they are enbittered and enraged making die and made to die And that because the ruin of Babylon is attended and accomplished with the fall of the Nations Rev. 16.19 and overthrow of Kings Rev. 19.20 21. the Lord of hosts staining the pride of all glory and bringing into contempt all the honourable of the Earth Isa 23.9 Where upon the heathen shall rage and the people imagine a vain thing the Kings of the Earth shall set themselves and the Rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed Psa 2.1 2. So that as they shall be enbittered making many die many men dying of the waters because of their bitterness so they themselves shall be destroyed the waters and fountains thereof turning into blood And thus the three main props of Babylon shall be quite overturned viz. the forces of the Nations their heads and the Nations themselves the Lord overturning overturning overturning Babylon that it be no more until he come whose right it is the Lord giving unto his Son the Diadem and the Crown Ezek. 21.26 27. anointing him King on his holy Hill Zion laying the Government on his shoulders in the day of his Personal Appearance And thus there is an overturn for every pillar of Babylon The fourth party plagued is the Sun Rev. 16 8. which in Scripture is taken these several wayes 1 for the physical and visible Sun Gen. 15.12 2 God himself Psa 84.11 3 Christ Cant. 1.6 Mal. 4.2 4 by way of comparison it is taken for the Church Cant. 6.10 5 the chief though transformed light or the Lucifer of an Antichristian and Babylonish state Isa 13.10 compared with chap. 14.12 Jer. 15.9 Ezek. 32.7 Joel 2.10 31. chap. 3.15 Amos 8.9 Mic. 3.6 Matth. 24.29 Mark 13.24 Acts 2.20 Rev. 6.12 6 a main and chief light of the Church of God Isa 30.26 No man in reason will say that in the out-powring of the fourth vial is understood the plaguing of God of Christ which to aver is blasphemy or any such like thing but the darkning the Lucifer of Babylon or the main pretended light of the antichristian state with spiritual darkness So that all the transformed and pretended lights of the Babylonish state shall be in a great part thereof smitten with darknes Rev. 8.12 having their understanding darkened being alienated from the â—e of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart Ephes 4.18 God sending them strong delusion that they should beleeve a lye 2 Thess 2.11 The fisth party plagued is the Seat of the Beast Rev. 16.10 i. e. his power and authority which shall be smitten with great darkness his kingdom being full thereof Rev. 16.10 compared with chap. 13.2 A smoke rising out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace by which the Sun and Air are darkened at the sounding of the fifth Angel while-as a star falleth from Heaven on the Earth Rev. 9.1 2. whence Babylon is overthrown by violence and darkness the day of the Lord upon it being a day of wastness and desolation a day of darkness and gloominess a day of clouds and thick darkness Zeph. 1.15 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light even very dark and no brightness in it Amos 5.20 And thus with a whirlwind of violence and a cloud of darkness the Lord cometh up from the North Ezek. 1.4 to lay Babylon with all her glory in the dust for as by violence the powers of Babylon are overthrown so by darkness they are hardened in heart contemning the truth blaspheming God and not repenting of their deeds Rev. 16.9 10 11. So that the greater violence is executed against them the more obstinate in wickedness they become blaspheming God his People and Interest Rev. 16.21 Pharaoh-like the more plagued the more hardened As appeareth in some measure at this very hour among the enemies of Zion's Interest The more to day the Egyptians are plagued the more blasphemously do they reproach and are hardened in heart The sixth party plagued is the River Euphrates Rev. 16.12 Concerning which there be these things considerable 1 The up-drying of it Which cannot be understood mystically seeing in no place of Scripture the word Euphrates is taken in a mystical sense It is read twenty times only in the Scriptures and no where is it taken mystically but literally as is more then evident to any that shall enquire after it We must needs therefore say that the River Euphrates shall be dried up the Lord with his mighty wind shaking his hand over it smiting it in the seven streams and making men to go over it dry-shod Isa 11.15 2 The end for which it is dried-up Which is to prepare a way for those Kings that come up from the East or the rising of the Sun Rev. 16.12 And thus there shall be an high way for the remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up from the Land of Egypt Isa 11.16 Whence the Lord setting his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people Israel from Assyria and from Egypt Isa 11.11 shall miraculously deliver them as he did while-as he set his hand the first time in bringing them up from Egypt by the conduct of Moses for as at the first time he dried-up the Red-sea before them so at the second time of their recovery he will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian-sea and dry up the River Euphrates before them smiting it in its seven streams that they may go over it dry-shod Now upon what accompt the people of the Jews are called the Kings of the East you may reade for this The Saints Kingdom sect 7. 3 The engagement the people of the Jews come to as they come up from the East Then do the unclean spirits
all one with the Angels plaguing And that not only because they are alike in number but also one and the same effects are produced by them though some things are enlarged in speaking of them the one way which are abbreviated the other I do therfore conceive these Angels are not distinguished but only in order to different relations and employments And thus one and the same Angels both proclaim and execute the wrath of God upon all the enemies of Christ's Interest and his People And as for their proclaiming by sounding with trumpets see Joel 3. v. 9,10,11,12 Of their executing the vials of God's wrath on the enemy and the avenger see v. 13 14 c. of that same chapter I shall a little glance at that which the holy Ghost intendeth Rev. 16. And to this end I divide the chapter in these three parts The first is a preface v. 1. The second is a narration from v. 2. to v. 18. The third is a peroration from v. 18. to the close of the Chapter The first â— pass in naming of it In the second there be these two things considerable 1 a party plaguing to wit Angels the Ministers and executors of God's wrath And they be in number Seven Secondly a party plagued in number Seven also The first of which is the Earth v. 2. Which in Scriprure in general is taken two wayes 1 Relatively i. e. as it is joyned with some other words to make up the sense of it I have nothing to do with it as it is thus taken 2 Absolutely Thus it is taken three wayes 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.1 2 As it is contradistinguished from Zâ—on standing in opposition thereto Isa 60.2 compaâ—ed with ver 1. and chap. 58. v. 14. And thus it can be no other but Babylon or a People walking in a Babylontsh State for upon a Scripture accompt Babylon directly immediately and diametrally opposech Ziâ— as from many and sundry places is evident 3 For the assistants of the Church Rev. 12.16 In this Rev. 16.2 the Earth cannot be understood to be one of the four Elements Sense and Reason will teach us so much that this noisom and grievous sore Rev. 16.2 expounded to be hail and fire mingled with blood Rev. 8.7 cannot properly be called the punishment or plague of the Earth one of the four Elements It is then to be taken mystically for the assistants of the Church not only because they will rather be preserved then plagued in contributing their help to the Saints the Kenite escapeth when Amalek perishâ—th because of his kindness to Israel in his coming up from Egypt but also they have rather upon them the mark of the Woman then of the Beast Now the Earth spoken of in the foresaid place is expounded to be men who worship the image of the Beast having his mark upon them who cannot be the opposers but the worshippers thereof and therefore must needs be such as be in and of Babylon which must fall the vials of the wrath of God being powred forth upon her Isa 21.9 Rev. 11. v. 13. chap. 14.8 chap. 18. v. 2. The second party plagued is the Sea which is taken in general two wayes 1 comparatively Isa 57.20 2 absolutely And that these five or six wayes 1 For the navigable and salt water Exed 14.2 2 For the brasen and molten sea in which the Priest did wash 2 Chron. 4.6 3 For trassique Jer. 51.36 4 For the powers of the Nations Isa 60.5 Jer. 51.42 5 For the glassie-Sea in the new Jerusalem Rev. 4 6. No man will understand the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3 as relating either to the Sea under the Law or to that which is navigable for as the one was long before the out-powring of the second vial so the other to speak properly is uncapable of being plagued Moreover it is very unheard-of that the navigable Sea should be turned into blood the third part of the living creatures in it should die c. as be competent to the Sea spoken of Rev. 16.3 compared with chap. 8.8.9 Neither can it be understood 〈◊〉 tratively because here it is taken absolutely And none will sav that it is the Glassy Sea in the new Jerusalem On such the vials of Gods wrath will never be poured It therefore remaineth to say that God in powring-out the vials upon the Sea destroyeth the Forces of the Nations and blocketh-up all their trading and trassique which he doth by 〈◊〉 a mountain burning with fire into the Sea Rev. 8.8 that is by stretching-out his hand upon the destroying mountain Babylon rouling her down from the rocks and mâ—king her a burnt mountain Jer. 51.2 5. The fall of Babylon is upon the powers of the Nations and her fall making them to fall for the powers and forces of the Nations be one of the pillars of the Babylonish state the Armies of the Earth siding with the Beast and False-Prophet Rev. 19.19 against the Ancient of dayes and his Armies v. 11 12. So that the fall of Babylon can no otherwise be accomplished and brought to pass but as it bringeth along with it the ruin and the overthrow of the Forces of the Nations Hag. â— 22 compared with Rev. 19.20 21. Thus the fall of Babylon shal be upon the Forces of the Nations in so far as their overthrow is begotten as its ruin is intended and accomplished The third party plagued is the Waters and fountains of waters Rev. 16.4 I do find waters these several waies taken in the Scriptures 1 for one of the four Elements Gen. 1.6 2 for a calm and spiritual state Psa 23.2 3 for crostes and afflictions Psa 69.1 2. 4 for the vengeance and judgment of God Psa 73.10 5 for the graces and Spirit of God Isa 55.1 compared with Joh. 4.14 and 7.38 39. 6 for the Nations as also their Head and Glory Isa 8.7 Rev. 17.15 Moreover fountains of waters are taken diversly in the Scriptures 1 for the heads springs of the elementary and physical waters Gen. 7.11 2 for goods and possessions Pro. 5.16 3 for the springs of spiritual graces Isa 41.18 Rev. 7.17 Beside I do find the word as it is taken in the singular number more variously understood then as it is taken in the plural viz. for the spring of physical waters Gen. 16.7 a womans fountain Levit. 20.18 possession and habitation Deut. 33.28 God himself Jer. 2.13 the Law of the wise Pro. 13.14 the fear of the Lord Prov. 14.27 the Church of Christ Cant. 4.12.15 spoken of the eye of man Jer. 9.1 In this place by waters must needs be understood the Nations and by the fountains of waters the glory of the same Sure I am no man in reason will say That the plaguing of the elementary waters of spiritual graces spiritual quietness afflictions and judgment or any such like thing is intended in the out-pouring of the third vial No verily but the ruin and desolation of the Nations together with
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 King 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 ΑΘΗΠDiod. 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 κατὰ νόμον 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 milâ—tat 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 sit 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
perpetuall title from blood-right because he opinionateth that the Lacedemonian Kings were not properly Kings but because the greatest authority the Lacedemonian Kings had was in leading-forth the Army There indeed they were primi above the Senat and Ephorie Whereupon he also calleth the Laconick Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power of leading forth the Army by it's own power He is so far from being of Salmasius opinion that contrariwise he reckoneth up the Laconick Monarchy amongst the proper species and and kindes of royall power Polit. 3. cap. 10. and 11. And whileas he speaketh of the Lacedemonian Kings he doth so call them Pol. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Inst 2. Aristotle doth so faith Salmasius 1. Because the power of the battell was hereditary to the Lacedemonian Kings 2. Because the Lacedemonian Kings in battell had a full free and Kingly power Aye faith he they had also a power in those things which related to the ceremonies wherewith Kings in old were solemnly entrusted Def. Reg. cap. 8. Ans The first reason is forthwith nought 'T is a bad consequence The Laceà emonian Kings were hereditary Commanders of the Army in chief Ergo Aristotle because of that calleth them Kings Zuasi vero he had had no such reason for him to call them Kings if they had onely been entrusted with the power of the battell by election Friend you are a-little mistaken in this 1. Because Aristotle divideth the power of the battell into hereditary and elective power Pol. 3. cap. 10. Thus he contra-distinguisheth the one from the other as two different species properly and specifically differencing the power of the battell in generall 2. Because a Kingly power is not therefore Kingly because it is hereditary Yea which is more a Kingly power cater is requisitis is properly and formally elective And therefore Aristotle should have had more reason to have called them Kings if their power had been by election and not by succession So the man himself judgeth whileas he faith that the Carthaginian and Cretian kings were better ordained then the Laconick Because faith he the Laconick kings are ordained by succession and they by election And he addeth a reason to this because faith he by election the best are choosed whereas by blood-right the like cannot be had Whereupon faith he the heriditary title of Kings amongst the Lacedemonians hath brought great hurt and detriment unto the Commonwealth Polit. 2. cap. 9. And as for his second reason it plainly contradicteth himself for so he confesseth that in the battell they had a Kingly power And he hath little reason to say that Aristotle called them Kings because they had a power of over-seeing the sacrifices So had the Athenian annuall Princes whom properly he will not admit to be called Kings Howsoever it cannot be denied but properly they were Kings albeit they were subjected to Law 1. Because it doth not follow that a King properly is not a King because he is a regulated King We have shewed already that GOD no otherwise mouldeth the King but as he subjecteth him to Law Assert 2. And afterward we shall shew how that the Kings of the Jews were regulated Kings And yet who will deny but they were proper Kings 2. The King is not properly King unlesse he be a regulated King and subjected to Law as both already and afterward is shewed And therefore the Lacedemonian Kings were Kings properly the rather because they were regulated 3. Because Salmasius himself confesseth that in the battell the Lacedemonian Kings had a full and Kingly power And yet then their power was not absolute and arbitrary They had not then a full power to act against Law but according to Law as you may learn from Conclus 6. in comparing their power with Agamemnon's power Therefore either Salmasius will contradict himself or else he must needs say that Kings are properly Kings though they be regulated 4. Because all that write of the Lacedemonian Commonwealth of whom we have cited many already do call the Captain-Generals of their Armies Kings And 't is remarkable that Lylander in an oration which was found after his death perswaded the Lacedemonians to shake-off the Kingly government and elect a Captain-Generall for governing the battell Plut. Aemyl prob in Lyâ— This he speaketh of the Lacedemonian Kings as contradistinguished from Captain-Generalls of Armies O but faith Salmasius Lysander onely deherted the people from setting over their Armies Captain-Generalls by succession and perswaded them to take from them the name of Kings Def. reg cap. 8. See how the man bewrayeth himself for Lysander was Captain-Generall of the Lacedemonian Army And yet he was not their King Therefore amongst the Lacedemonians it was one thing to be King and another thing to be Captain Generall of the Army I confesse their King had also the power of the Army But he had not onely other power beside but also he had power of the battell in a more intense way then any deputed and substituted Captain amongst the people Otherwise there had been no difference between Lysander and the King who was but onely Captain of the Army Yea which is more Lysander doth not speak of shaking-off regium nomen but regiam potestatem as is clear out of Probus But sure I am regia potestas is not nomen regis but res regis Salmasius shall have no need to deny that the Carthaginian annuall Kings were Kings properly so called But in the interim he shall give us leave to consider and take a light view of the nature of the word susetes Which is taken in a twofold sense 1. Largely And so the word may be derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sapha Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophe speculator inspector episcopus or ephorus Thus sufetes may be referred to judges of any sort And in this sense Alexander ab Alexandro referreth it to the Graecian â—symnetâ— the Egyptian dioecetes the Persian megistanes the Oscian medix c. Geni di lib. 4. cap. 23. Him Julius Scaliger followeth whileas he faith Porro qui Hebraïce sciunt non ignorant Poenos Tyrorum colonos esse concedent mihi Sufes idem esse quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the man supplying Festus words saith Sufes dictus est Pocnerum lingua summus magistratus ut Oscorum medix c. 2. Strictly and by limitation And so it is derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saphat Whence sufes is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sophet Which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judge In this sense it is applyed to the Carthaginian yearly Kings and Roman Consuls Alex. ab Al. gen di lib. 3. cap. 3. The word sufes by Festus and T. Livius is rendered consul So it is by Sabellicus Aen. 5. lib. 5. It cannot be denâ—ed but as sufetes is a Puâ—ick Word so in it 's most strict and rigorous acceptation it is only
which he citeth out of hist de monast Steph. Cadom in Norm i. e. I have acquired the Royall Crown which none of my ancestours did bear which the grace of GOD alone and not hereditary right bestowed upon me I constitute no heir of the English Kingdom but I recommend it to the eternall Creator whose I am and in whose hands are all things for I did not enjoy such a honour by hereditary right but by dire conflicts and great effusion of mans blood I took it from the perjured King Harald and subjected it to my dominion having killed or put to flight his favourers Thus Salmasius may see that he buildeth hereditary right to the Kingdom of England upon a sandy foundation in pleading for the undoubtednes thereof from what right the Conquerour had over it Let it be so the Conquerour himself had right to it by the sword yet in his fore-going latter-wil he shaketh all his succestors loose of any right to it by succession and casteth the disposition thereof wholly over upon GOD and the people Whence was it that as is said already the people did create Rufus king in his room and passed-by Robert his eldest son 'T is remarkable that no where it can be read that the Conquerour did tie the Crown of England to his posterity Salmasius cap. 8. maketh a fashion of proving it out of Malmsburiensis Hundingtonionsis and other English histortans who say nothing but that the Conquerour subdued England and caused the people swear allegeance and sidelity to himself No other thing can be read in them And no-where can salmasius find it that ever he did tie the people of England by bath both to himself and his posterity Neither dar Salmasies conclude any thing from these Historians directly He concludeth that but by the way because of the Conquerour's full and absolute subjecting of England to himself as indeed these Historians do report Yet friend this is but a stollen dint You lose more then you gain by it As for Camden he cannot be of Salmasius judgement unlesse he contradict himself From him we have said already that the power of the Parliament is above the King Therefore whileas he faith that the King of England hath supremam potestatem merum imperium it cannot be understood of the kingdom taken in a collective body And it is true indeed taking the people sigillatim one by one the King of England is above them all and interiour to none but to GOD. And in this sense he speaketh well nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit In this sense the latter part of Cokius words is to purpose Because of this superiority the 24. Parl. Henr. 8. passeth a fair complement upon him saying that the kingdom of England doth acknowledge none superiour to it under GOD but his majesty and that it is governed by no Laws but what were made within it-self by the tolerance of him and his progenitors Per tolerantiam tuce gratiae tuorum progenitorum Misalmasi it had been more for thy purpose if they had said Per authoritatom tuae gratiae tuorum progenitorum This soundeth no ordinative and effective but permissive and approbative power in the King Well let this passe the former part of Coktus words doth not speak of the absoluteneste of the King but of the kingdom of England Juxa tgitur lages bajus regni antiquas saith he hoc Angliae regnum absolutum est imperium De jur Reg. eccles He saith not Angliae Rex absolutus est imperiator There is a difference indeed between the King's power and the kingdom's power So much of England We come now in the next room to demonstrate the King of Scotland according to the Law of the Nation to be a regulated and non-absolute Prince This is so clear that we need not to speak any thing of it And it is so abundantly proved by our godly 81 dear Country-man Lex Rex quaest 43. that no man in it can go beyond him Therefore we shall only glance at it by comparing in some few particulars the Lacedemonian kingdome with the Scotish in subjecting their Kings to Law 1. As the Lacedemonian King did every thing according to Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polit. 3. cap. 10 so the King of Scotland hath power to do no other wayes In the Parliament an 1560. the Nobility saith frequently to Q. Regent Regum Scotorum limitatum esse imperium nee unquam ad untus libiâ—inem sed ad legum praescriptum 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 Finnanâ—s Rex 10. his time viz That the king should enjoyn nothing of concernments 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 I awes 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
confound that which is ordinary and extraordinary together and illustrate them both by one and the same example As for the fourth species taken in this sense I do verily imagine that his words deserve a distinction Whereupon the question may be moved whether or not doth Aristotle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he maketh the fifth species of royall government understand an all-commanding power according to law or both according to and against law it cannot be imagined as afterward shall appear that Aristotle understandeth an all-commanding power above Law Therefore is it that Polit. 3. cap. 10. he interlaceth the fifth species of Monarchy with the fourth Without any clear and formall distinction as he doth cap. 11. he passeth from the one to the other in a continuat way linking the one with the other And so taking up the fourth and the fifth species under a continuat notion we easily resolve Aristotle's meaning by this distinction In the former part of the fourth species he a verreth That Monarchy in the dayes of the Heroes was in some things restricted wanting this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power And in the latter part of it he saith that in ancient times kings had that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verily the man in this is very cryptick and unclear He speaketh of the dayes of the Heroes indesinitly So doth he of ancient times But opposing ancient times to the days of the Heroes they can be relative to no times but to the golden age which was immediately after the Deluge about 131 years All this time as is shewed already there was not so much as any politick government at all And to this Age immediately succeeded the time of Heroicisme Nimrod and many other heroick Blades immediately after that Age did breakforth who erected kingdoms and did many valiant acts And if we speak of the ancient times before the Flood we find also as is shewed already that contradistinguishing ancient times from the time of Heroicisme there was no kingly power set-up till men of renown and heroick spirits did erect it about the 1556 year of the world And all the while before which was the Golden Age before the Flood there was no kind of Politick government at all as is shewed already So then whether before or after the Flood the times of the Heroes did immediatly succeed to the ancient times And as in the ancient times there was no Monarchy or Regall power so it was firstly erected and set-up by the Heroes Therefore you may see that is very hard to purge Aristotle's meaning in this from errour Yet for respect I bear to the man I will put upon his words the best sense they can bear And so I suppose that he referreth both the parts of the fourth species to the dayes of the Heroes Now it cannot be denied but even amongst Heroes of the secondary kind there was difference of power some being of a more intense and some of a more remisse power No question those of them who in respect of time were prior to others were also in dignity and power prior to them I cannot think but how much more Regall power was in request so much more the power of it was extended Therefore was it as is shewed already that some kings were altogether illimited and uncircumscribed in power But in the fore-times of Heroicism Monarchy was more in request then in the after-times thereof And consequently those ordinary Heroes who had the first start of time before others of that same kind were of a more vast and intense power then they As they were superiour to them in time so likewayes in power In this sense Aristotle's words hold good if he refer the former part of the fourth species to the after-most times and ultimat center of Heroicisme and the latter part to the prior though not to the first times thereof You cannot say that the former part is relative to ordinary and the latter part to extraordinary Heroes It is already proved by us Conel 1. That extraordinary Heroes had more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power They had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an arbitrary power to do what they listed These two Caligula speaking of himself to Antonia pertinently distinguisheth Remember saith he that I may do all things and that I have power to do to all men what I please Sucton in Calig cap. 29. Thus he putteth a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing power And beside this even ordinary Heroes namely the founders of primary Colonies had an absolute power without al restriction Con. 2. Where also is shewed that Heroes in after times as founders of after-Colonies had an absolute power though not so intense and uncircumscribed as founders of primary Colonies Such indeed had power to do all things though not to undo all things And so according to the rules of proportion as the after-Heroes were of lesse power then the former so the last of them had lesser power then any of them Aristotle saith That at last the power of Kings became exceedingly lessened This was after the flower of heroicism was quite faded This could not be at the first but hath come on by degrees After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the erectors of primary Colonies had in-stepped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Aristotle saith was in ancient times i. e. in the times of the after-Heroes in and about the dayes of the founders of the secondary Colonies And then toward the close or in and about the middle time of Heroicism the Kingly power in some things became restricted as Aristotle saith And so he subjoyneth that at last it became exceedingly lessened Now you see that in reason no better construction can be put upon this fourth species of Monarchy assigned by Aristotle And for reverence of the man's memory I suppose that the third species of Royal power is taken by him both in an ordinary and extraordinary acceptation And he only illustrateth it as it is taken in an extraordinary sense because that way it is more material then the other way He passeth the illustration thereof as it is taken in an ordinary notion because so it is not only lesse material but also that way it is more clear then the other way Or I may say that Aristotle confoundeth these two notions together because comparitively aesymnetick Monarchy taken in an extraordinary notion may be called ordinary The reason of this is because men at least may be because of personal endowments more frequently called to govern in an absolute and ordinary way then for extraordinary Heroicism and such like Howsoever this I know that Aristotle reckoned-up no other kinds of Monarchy but such as have power to and do govern according to Law But these who are advanced to an illimited power because of personal endowments are not precisely called thereto to govern whether
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. ae 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 faith 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 Tryphiodor 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 in sinuateth 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 some what subjected to Law for not only Agamemnon but also Theseus were no leste 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 faith Tantique Areopagus fuit ut Heroas semideos illuc in judicium advocatos dicerent Pisistratus in eo judicium subire non dubita it lib. 3. cap. 5. i. e. And Areopagus was of such power that they cited into judgment the Heroes and Semidei and Pisiâ—atus 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 restricted Yet we say that many of them had a vast and arbitrary power Yeâ— 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 preciâ—ely and properly their power was but Pambasilick an all-governing and not arbitrary and illimited We shall stand here a while to speak of the Kingdom of England for it is not only the chief subject of our discourse in order to which we drive all that we speak but also it falleth-in here by a string-line Already we have spoken of it at length from the dayes of the Conquerour or a little before until now It therefore remaineth we speak of it as it was from its beginning unto the reign of the Normans And so we consider it under these notions 1. As it was in its first beginning and original And though I will not say that Britain was inhabited so soon as other Kingdoms which lie in and about the middle and chief part of the Earth No question such parts were firstly inhabited as both history and reason doth teach Yet I may very conveniently say that the chiefest Kingdoms and those which he next Armenia being planted after people were extreamly multiplied on the earth they did seek out to inhabit the uttermost Isles of the world There was a physical necessity for this People daily multiplying could not dwell all in one part but of necessity they behoved to depart one from another for residence sake Yea there was a moral reason for it also No question desire of great lands and possessions so soon as people were greatly multiplied on the earth after the flood could not but set them a work to seek-out the remotest parts This is confirmed by what the holy Ghost faith The sons of Japhet Gomer by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands every one after his tongue after their families in their nations Gen. 10. I pray you tell me whileas the holy Ghost speaketh there indefinitely of the Isles of the Nations if he doth exclude the Isle of Britain What more reason is there to exclude it then any other And for my self I think there is more reason to include it then any of the rest Firstly because it is the chiefest Isle in the world And therefore in it self the more delectable and the more to be sought after Secondly because Gomer whom Berosus calleth Comerus Gallus did come into Italy and erected Colonies there Ant. lib. 5. Now tell me is it not most probable that Gomer did translate Colonies from Italy into France and from thence into Britain every-one of them lying contiguously one with another We find as much in his name as pointeth-out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gomer signifieth to end And is not Britain
do well shortly to observe these things 1. They were spared because of their personal endowments They were extraordinary men Therefore they were extraordinarily priviledged They got an inch to the yard and piece beyond common Now ab extraordinariis ad ordinaria non est sequela 2. It cannot be denied but they got a dispensation for some points of delinquency But Royallists have to prove that they positively tyrannized over the Commonwealth and destroyed it and not withstanding had exemption and immunity from law This I am sure they can never make good 3 This speaketh something of the exemption of Kings from Law de facto But Royallists when they have said this have as yet to prove that this factunt is de jure Inst O but say they de jure David and if he then also Solomon and all other kings beside had immunity from Law for he saith Against thee thee only have I sinned Psal 51. And they take this to be the meaning of the place as if David had been subject to none but to God And for this namely they cite Ambrose in Apolog. Dav. cap. 10. l. 2. Epist 7. See Deus Rex and Salmasius def reg cap. 3. But this is the main prop that all Royallists have for setting-up the arbitrary and lawless power of the King Ans I shall not stand here to repeat the judgment of Interpreters Our learned and dear Countryman Lex Rex quoest 26. of this speaketh abundantly But in few words I expound the words thus They are to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuating that David had mainly sinned against the LORD and that David was more grieved for his sins in so far as they offended GOD then in so far as they offended man No question they are to be considered in an hyperbolick sense They must not be taken in an exclusive but in an inclusive notion Just so as are these words I am the LORD and there is none else Isâ— 45. Deat 4. Now this cannot be taken literally and simply as it is propounded Otherwise it should follow that there were no creature beside the Creator and no other thing beside the LORD And yet it is known that there are Angels men and many other creatures Therefore their sense is meerly figurative and hyperbolick pointing-out the eminency of GOD's essence Even so David thereby aggravateth his grief for his offence done against the LORD He only repeateth his sin done against GOD. But he speaketh nothing expresly 〈◊〉 as it was done against Bathshebah and Uriah No reason can be given for this but because it more grieved him that he had offended God then man And so as a man only taken-up with thoughts of guiltiness and miscarriage in order to God he only harpeth upon that string As a man over-charged with sorrow for sin done against God can take no time to think upon his offence to man So David carrieth himself just so here And yet it cannot be denied but he sinned both against Bathshebah and Uriah Otherwise in so far as he committed adultery with the one and murder against the other in so far he did not sin And consequently he was excusable both before God and man Where there is no sin there is no Law Our godly and dear Country-man would fain put a fair construction upon Ambrose saying that his meaning is There was none above David de facte ibid. But the simple truth is Ambrose is altogether of Salmasius opinion Rex unique er at saith he nullis ipse legibus tenebatur c. Any man that speaketh so plain language to this purpose as he doth 't is but lost travel to glosse it But if we compare Ambrose's practice with his judgment we will find the one contrary to the other It is reported of him That he did excommunicate Emperour Theodosius and would not suffer him to enter the Church so called till firstly he did satisfie for his slaughter committed amongst the Thessalonians Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 7. Sozâ—m lib. 7. cap. 24. Hondorf Lonic theatr bist exempl 5. proec We admire how Ambrose could do so much against the Emperour in action seing to his practice he is contrary in profession I cannot over-leap an interpretation which Salmasius citeth out of one whom he calleth Anonymâ—s He alleadgeth that David 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 bad no place undor theâ— Testament O! saith he what ignorance and wickednesse go hand in hand in these knaves Def. Reg. cap. 3. This glossâ— which Salmasius so much hisseth-at is the very words of Lyra. And it is cited by our dear Country-man Lex Rex quoest 26. Well then let that Anonymâ—s 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 Lyna ignorant also And I must needs say Hell and the Dâ—vil 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 Aeny 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 now 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 rail 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 destroving 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 Jewiâ—h 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 Salmasius 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 sleeth cap. 9. to what Josephus saith as to a main ruth 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 faith is the common judgment of Jewish Writers Rex obediat curioe senatus majoris i. e. The King let him be obedient to the authority of the higher Sanhedrin Deut. 17. Senatus major intersiciendi gladio jus habeat i.e. Let the higher Sanhedrin have the right and power of killing by the sword Exod. 21. Nemo sese opponat decretts sanctioris Senatus i.e. Let none withstand and resist the Statutes of the greater Sandedrin Deut. 17. R. Mos Egypt proec aff 176. and 225. proec 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 faith Qui ex familia Davidis sunc judicant judicantur And so in expounding that Rexneque judicat neque judicatur cod San. cap. 11. he saith That it is true in respect of the Kings of Israel but not in respect of the Kings of Judah And in what sense it is true concerning the Kings of Israel is already explicated by us The Gematick Writers from these words Ob house of David execute judgment in the morning and deliver him that is spoiled out of the band of the oppressour Jerem. 21. move this Question Nisi in jus vocari póssent quomodo judicarent i. e. How could the house of David judge unlesse they were judged This they prove because in Scripture we are commanded to search and try our wayes i.e. as they say Corrige te ipsum deinde alios corrige Salmasius rageth at this and he denieth what they infer I shall not take it upon me to make good their consequences Let Salmasius impugn them as much as he will My purpose is only to shew That they are not of his opinion They are contented not only to say That the king of the Jews at-least of Judah as Salmasius himself out of Sichardus R. Lakises hath was subjected to Law but also they dispute for that and endeavour to enforce it by Arguments Secondly from their acting with the concurrence of their Princes And David consulted with the Captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader And David said uuto all the Congregation of Israel If it seem good unto you let us send abroad unto our brethren that they may gather themselves unto us 1 Chron. 13. There is much in this If it seem good unto you This insinuateth that as David would not act without the advice and counsel of his people so his acting depended from their determination For the King had taken counsel and his Priests and all the Congregation in Jerusalem to keep the Pass-over in the second moneth He doth it not of his own head without advice And the thing pleased the King and all the Congregation It is a thing done by common consent So they established a decree Mark it is not said So the King established a decree But the Authority both of King and Princes is interposed The decree floweth from the joynt-authority of both Therefore it is added So the posts went with Letters from the King and the Princes 2 Chron. 30. They go not forth as commissioned only from the King but also from the Princes And it is most remarkable that which Zedekiah said unto the Princes The King is not he that can do any thing against you Jerem. 38. Ergo if the King could do nothing against the will of the Princes he had not an arbitrary power to dispose upon matters as he pleased Inst The
condescend upon three cases wherin the King was judged and punished by the Sanhedrin viz. Idolatry Murder and Adultery Let Salmasius impugn their sayings and consequences as much as he will no question they speak many things from the purpose I regard not All that I seek of them is to shew that they are far from his opinion though he leaneth much to humane authority Yea that which in their sayings seemeth most for him he himself is not fully satisfied therewith He is constrained to put a fair face upon that Rex neque judicat saying That it only hath place in the Kings of the Jews after the Captivity But if his construction stand then we shall expound the words thus Rex neque judicat i.e. The King of the Jews after the Captivity did not judge neque judicatur i.e. The King of the Jews whether before or after the Captivity was not judged And so you must after the same manner expound the words which are added to these And for my self I take this exposition of his to be meer non-sense And sure I am there is no Humanist who according to the rules of true Rhetorick can admit such an exposition I see he will have Rex taken in an ambiguous sense But I know not if ever he read that one and the same word in a continuate Oration is taken under divers senses Such cryptick expressions become not Humanists but Sophists Amphibologick Prophets Well we have given the sense of these words already in this same Section Concl. 2. And we mind no more to stand here but only put Salmasius in mind of this That the Kings of the Jews whether according to the Law of God or the Law of man had no prerogative royal above Law Ergo far lesse any other Kings are so priviledged Fourthly Absolute power in actu primo is a tvrannick power Ergo it is not a lawful power and a power from God The Antecedent cannot be denied because absolute and arbitrary power putteth the King or any invested therewith in a disposition for and capacity of acting either according or contrary to Law of tyrannizing and non-tyrannizing over the People Now this aptitude of arbitrary power is the very adus primus thereof The consequence is also undeniable for God cannot be the author of any evil and tyrannous power Power in so far as it is tyrannous in as far it is sinful and unlawful either in lesse or more The Scripture of God crieth-down tyranny and so doth the very Law of Nature But who will say That God hath hand in any thing that is evil and unjust unlâ—sse he will not be ashamed to say That God is the author of sin And if it be so that absolute and arbitrary power is not of God I admire how Malignants are not ashamed to plead so much for it The point being thus established from Scripture and reason grounded thereupon the next thing we have to do in this businesse is to shew that it is not onely my judgement but even that also which the very light of Nature taught Ethnicks to embrace Herodot approveth Pindarus because he called Law the King and Lord of every thing lib. 3. And lib. 7. he saith that amongst the Lacedamonians Law was King In like manner Plutarch approveth Pindarus for that same comment in Princ. Plato doth much cry-up Lycurgus because he prevented tyranny in choosing some to govern with him in the Kingdom and made Law King So that saith he Law became the King of men and not men the Kings of Law In epist ad famil Dion And in the politicks he saith We should not call the civill and kingly power absolute Aristotle reproveth arbitrary power in the Lacedemonian Ephorie and in plain terms saith that it had done better to judge according to Law then according to it 's own will Polit. 2. cap. 7. And Polit. 4. cap 4. he saith in even-down termes that Law ought to rule all Which maketh him say that where Law doth not lord there is not a Republick Yea cap. 5. he calleth absolute optimacy tyranny calling it all one with the tyranny of kingly government Pol. 5 cap. 10 he differenceth the tyrant from the King in this viz. that the object of the King is honestum and of the tyrant quod placet Thus he maketh Salmasius his cui quod libet licet the propriety of a Tyrant not of a King And therefore shutting-up the whole matter in a word he calleth all powers above Law meer tyrannies But you shall not need to imagine that Aristotle in this contradicteth himself whileas Pol. 3. cap. 11. 12 he alloweth pambasilick monarchy 1. Because as is above said there is great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And already we have shewed that Aristotle doth not absolutely but comparatively oppose government laid upon one governing ex voluntate to government mannaged and carried-on secundum legem 2. It is far from Aristotle's mind to dispute simply and absolutely for such a power But his main purpose is to dispute against these who deny pambasilick and all-governing monarchy to be according to Nature And it cannot be denied but both mixed and unmixed monarchy are naturall albeit arbitrary and unlimited regall power be against the very Law of Nature it self It is no wonder though Aristotle speak something for Royall power Had he not Alexander to deal-with who could endure none to govern but himself Church-Prophets or rather prating parasites such as are the lying spirits and King-flatterers now a-dayes were they as great Courtiers as Aristotle was I trow they should not be ashamed in plain language and positive terms to prefer the King to CHRIST The Ethnicks called Jupiter primus But they could find in their heart to change that and say Caesar primus Tell not me that Aristotle is for absolute and uncircumscribed monarchy Compare place with place and you will finde the contrary Yea Polit. 2. cap. 12. he layeth down this as a ground That Monarchy transgressing the right model is against Nature it self But sure I am a power to tyrannize and act against Law is against the right model for both in actu primo and actu secunâ—o it is a tyrannick power Howsoever Aristotle in that same place explaineth what the right model is as is shewed by us already And it is far from taking-in arbitrary power And which is more Aristotle is so far from allowing arbitrary Monarchy that as afterward is shewed no Government taked so much room in his heart as Deinocracy And what need we stand here do not all Law-givers disclaim arbitrary and uncircumscribed power viz. Zaleucus Charondas Onomacritus Thales Lycurgus Philolaus Plato Dracon Pittacus and Androdamas of whom Aristotle speaketh Pol. 2. cap. 10. These could not have precisely prescribed Laws for hedging-in the wayes of people unlesse they had been positive and even-down enemies to absolute and arbitrary power Howsoever it is without controversy That the