Reader
Defense of the People of England · John Milton

Defense of the People of England, Chapter 2

CHAP. II.

THE Argument that Salmaſius, toward the concluſion of his Firſt Chapter, urg'd as … ble; to wit, that it was really ſo, becauſe all men unanimouſly agreed in it; That very Argument, than which, as he appli'd it, there is nothing more falſe; I, that am now about to diſcourſe of the Right of Kings, may turn upon himſelf with a great deal of truth. For, whereas he defines a King (if that may be ſaid to be defin'd which he makes infinite) to be a Perſon in whom the Supream Power of the Kingdom reſides, who is anſwerable to God alone, who may do whatſoever pleaſeth him, who is bound by no Law; I will undertake to demonſtrate, not by mine, but by his own Reasons and Authorities, that there never was a Nation or People of any account (for to ranſack all the unciviliz'd Parts of the World were to no purpoſe) that ever allow'd this to be their King's Right, or put ſuch exorbitant Power into his hand, as that he ſhould not be bound by any Law that be might do what he would, that he ſhould judge all, but be judged of …: Nor ca… my ſelf, that there ever was any one Perſon beſides Salmaſius, of ſo ſlaviſh a Spirit, as to assert the outragious Enormities of Tyrants to be the …eights of Kings. Thoſe amongſt us that were the greateſt Royaliſts, always abhorr'd this fordid Opinion: and Salmaſius himſelf, as appears by ſome other Writings of his, before he was brib'd, was quite of another mind. Inſomuch, that what he here gives out, does not look like the Dictates of a free Subject under a free Government, much leſs in ſo famous a Commonwealth as that of Holland, and the moſt eminent Univerſity there: but ſeems to have been penn'd by ſome deſpicable ſlave that lay rotting in a Priſon, or a Dungeon. If whatever a King has a mind to do, the Right of Kings will bear him out in (which was a Leſſon that the bloody Tyrant Antoninus Caracalla, though his Step-mother Julia preach'd it to him, and endeavour'd to i…ure him to the practice of it, by making him commit inceſt with her ſelf, yet could hardly ſuck in); Then there neither is, nor ever was that King, that deſerv'd the name of a Tyrant. They may ſafely violate all the Laws of God and Man: their very being Kings keeps them innocent. What Crime was ever any of them guilty of? they did but make uſe of their own Right upon their own Vaſſals. No King can commit ſuch horrible Cruelties and Outrages, as will not be within this Right of Kings. So that there's no Pretence left for any Complaints or Expostulations with any of them. And dare you aſſert, That this Right of Kings, as you call it, is grounded upon the Law of Nations, or rather upon that of Nature, you Brute Beaſt? for you deſerve not the name of a Man, that are ſo cruel and unjuſt towards all thoſe of your own kind; that endeavour as much as in you lies, so to bear down and villify the whole Race of Mankind, that were made after the Image of God, as to aſſert and maintain that thoſe cruel and unmerciful Taskmaſters, that through the ſuperſtitious whimſies, … ſloth, or treachery of ſome perſons, get into the Chair, are provided and appointed by nature her ſelf, that mild and gentle Mother of us all, to be the Governours of thoſe Nations they enſlave. By which Peſtilent Doctrine of yours, having rendred them more fierce and untractable, you not only enable them to make havock of, and trample under foot their miſerable ſubjects; but endeavour to arm them for that very purpoſe with the Law of Nature, the Right of Kings, and the very Conſtitutions of Government; than which nothing can be more impious or ridiculous. By my conſent, as Dionyſius formerly, of a Tyrant became a School-maſter, ſo you of a Grammarian, ſhould become a Tyrant; not that you may have that Regal Licenſe of doing other people harm, but a fair opportunity of periſhing miſerably your ſelf: That, as Tiberius complain'd, when he had confin'd himſelf to the Iſland Capreae, you may be reduced into ſuch a condition, as to be ſenſible that you periſh daily. But let us look a little more narrowly into this right of Kings that you talk of. This was the ſenſe of the Eaſtern, and of the VVeſtern part of the world. I ſhall not anſwer you with what Ariſtotle and Cicero, who are both as credible Authors as any we have, tell us, viz. That the people of Aſia eaſily ſubmit to ſlavery, but the Syrians and the Jews are even born to it from the womb. I confeſs there are but few, and thoſe men of great wiſdom and courage, that are either deſirous of Liberty, or capable of uſing it. The greateſt, part of the world chuſe to live under Maſters; but yet they would have them juſt ones. As for ſuch as are unjuſt and tyrannical, neither was God ever ſo much an enemy to Mankind as to enjoyn a neceſſity of ſubmitting to them; nor was there ever any people ſo deſtitute of all ſenſe, and ſunk into ſuch a depth of deſpair, and to impoſe ſo cruel a Law upon themſelves and their poſterity. Firſt, you produce the words of King Solomon in his Eccleſiastes. And we are as willing to appeal to the Scripture as you. As for Solomon's authority, we'l conſider that hereafter, when perhaps we ſhall be better able to underſtand it. Firſt, let us hear God himſelf ſpeak, Deut. 17. 14. VVhen thou art come into the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and ſhalt ſay, I will ſet a King over me, like as the Nations that are round about me. Which paſſage I could wiſh all men would ſeriouſly conſider; for hence it appears by the teſtimony of God himſelf: Firſt, that all Nations are at liberty to erect what form of Government they will amongſt themſelves, and to change it when, and into what they will. This God affirms in expreſs terms concerning the Hebrew Nation; and it does not appear but that other Nations are as to this reſpect in the ſame condition. Another remark that this place yields us, is, That a Commonwealth is a more perfect form of Goverment th…n a Monarchy, and more ſuitable to the condition of Mankind; and in the opinion of God himſelf, better for his own people; for himſelf appointed it; And could hardly be prevail'd withal a great while after, and at their own importunate deſire, to let 'em change it into a Monarchy. But to make it appear that he gave 'em their choice to be Govern'd by a ſingle perſon, or by more, ſo they were juſtly Govern'd, in caſe they ſhould in time to come reſolve upon a King, he preſcribes Laws for this King of theirs to obſerve; whereby he was forbidden to multiply to himſelf Horſes and Wives, or to heap up Riches; whence he might eaſily infer, that no power was put into his hands over others, but according to Law, ſince even thoſe actions of his life, which related only to himself, were under a Law. He was commanded therefore to tranſcribe with his own hand all the Precepts of the Law, and having writ 'em out, to obſerve and keep 'em, that his mind might not be lifted up above his Brethren. 'Tis evident from hence, that as well the Prince as the people was bound by the Law of Moſes. To this purpoſe Joſephus writes, a proper and an able Interpreter of the Laws of his own Country, who was admirably well vers'd in the Jewiſh Policy, and infinitely preferable to a thouſand obſcure ignorant Rabbins: He has it thus in the Fourth Book of his Antiquities: foreign, &c. An Ariſtocracy is the beſt form of Government; wherefore do not you endeavour to ſettle any other; 'tis enough for you that God preſides over ye. But if you will have a King, let him guide himſelf by the Law of God, rather than by his own wiſdom; and lay a reſtraint upon him, if he offer at more power than the ſtate of your affairs will allow of. Thus he expreſſeth himſelf upon this place in Deuteronomy. Another Jewiſh Author, Philo Judaus, who was Joſephus his Contemporary, a very ſtudious man in the Law of Moſes, upon which he wrote a large Commentary; when in his Book concerning the Creation of the King, he interprets this Chapter of Deuteronomy, he ſets a King looſe from the Law no otherwiſe than as an enemy may be ſaid to be ſo: They, ſays he, that to the prejudice and deſtruction of the people acquire great power to themſelves, deſerve not the name of Kings, but that of Enemies. For their actions are the ſame with thoſe of an irreconcilable enemy. Nay, they, that under a pretence of Government are injurious, are worſe than open enemies. We may fence our ſelves againſt the latter; but the malice of the former is ſo much the more Peſtilent, becauſe it is not always easie to be diſcovered. But when is is diſcover'd, why ſhould they not be dealt with as enemies? The ſame Author in his ſecond Book, Allegoriar. Legis, A King, ſays he, and a Tyrant are Contraries. And a little after, A King ought not only to command, but obey. All this is very true, you'l ſay, a King ought to obſerve the Laws, as well as any other man. But what if he will not? What Law is there to puniſh him? I anſwer, the ſame Law that there is to puniſh other men; for I find no exceptions; there is no expreſs Law to puniſh the Prieſts or any other inferior Magiſtrates, who all of 'em, if this opinion of the exemption of Kings from the Penalties of the Law would hold, may by the ſame reaſon claim impunity, what guilt ſoever they contract, becauſe there is no poſitive Law for their puniſhment; and yet I ſuppoſe none of them ever challeng'd ſuch a Prerogative; nor would it ever be allow'd 'em, if they ſhould. Hitherto we have learn'd from the very Text of God's own Law, that a King ought to obey the Laws, and not lift himſelf up above his Brethre. Let us now conſider whether Solomon preacht up any other Doctrine, Ch. 8 v. 2. I counſel thee to keep the King's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. Be not haſty to go out of his ſight; ſtand not in an evil thing, for he doth whatſoever pleaſeth him. VVhere the word of a King is, there is power, and who may ſay unto him, what doſt thou? It is well enough known that here the Preacher directs not his Precepts to the Sanhedrim, or to a Parliament, but to private perſons; and ſuch he commands to keep the King's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. But as they ſwear Allegiance to Kings, do not Kings likewiſe ſwear to obey and maintain the Laws of God, and thoſe of their own Country? So the Reubenites and Gadites promiſe obedience to Jeſhua, Joſh. 1. 17. According as we harkned unto Moſes in all things, ſo will we harken unto thee; only the Lord thy God be with thee, as he was with Moſes. Here's an expreſs condition. Hear the Preacher elſe, Chap. 9. v. 17. The words of wiſe men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. The next caution that Sol…mon gives us, is, Be not haſty to go out of his ſight; ſtand not in an evil thing; for he doth whatſoever pleaſeth him. That is, he does what he will to Malefactors, whom the Law authorizeth him to puniſh, and againſt whom he may proceed with mercy or severity, as he ſees occaſion. Here's nothing like Tyranny. Nothing that a good man needs be afraid of. Where the word of a King is, there is power; and who may ſay to him VVhat doſt thou? And yet we read of one that not only ſaid to a King, VVhat doſt thou? but told him, Thou haſt done fooliſhly. But Samuel, you may ſay, was an Extraordinary Perſon. I anſwer you with your own words, which follow in the 49th. Page of your Book, VVhat was there extraordinary, ſay you, in Saul or in David? And ſo ſay I, what was there in Samuel extraordinary? He was a Prophet, you'l ſay; ſo are they that now follow his example; for they act according to the will of God, either his reveal'd, or his ſecret will, which your ſelf grant in your 50th. Page. The Preacher therefore in this place prudently adviſeth private perſous not to contend with Princes; for it is even dangerous to contend with any man that's either rich or powerful: But what then? muſt therefore the Nobility of a Nation, and all the inferior Magiſtrates, and the whole body of the people not dare to mutter when a King raves and acts like a mad-man? Muſt they not oppoſe a fooliſh, wicked, outragious Tyrant, that perhaps ſeeks the deſtruction of all good men? Muſt they not endeavour to prevent his turning all Divine and Humane things upſide down? muſt they ſuffer him to maſſacre his People, burn their Cities, and commit ſuch Outrages upon them daily; and finally, to have perfect liberty to do what he liſt without controul?

O de Cappadocis eques cataſtis!

Thou ſlaviſh Knight of Cappadocia.

Whom all free People, if you can have the confidence hereafter to ſet your foot within a free Countrey, ought to caſt out from amongſt them, and ſend to ſome remote parts of the World, as a Prodigy of dire portent; or to condemn to ſome perpetual drudgery, as one devoted to ſlavery; ſolemnly obliging themſelves, if they ever let you go, to undergo a worſe ſlavery under ſome cruel…, ſilly Tyrant. No man living can either deviſe himſelf, or borrow from any other, Expreſſions ſo full of Cruelty and Contempt, as may not juſtly be apply'd to you. But go on. VVhen the Iſraelites asked a King of God, they ſaid, they would ſet up a King that ſhould have the ſame Rule and Dominion over them, that the Kings of their neighbour Countries exercis'd over their Subjects. But the Kings of the Eaſt we know had an unlimited Power: as Virgil teſtifies,

—Regem non ſic Aegyptus & ingens

Lydia, nec Populi Parthorum, & Medus, Hydaſpes

Obſervant.—

No Eaſtern Nation ever did adore

The Majeſty of Soveraign Princes more.

Firſt, What is that to us, what ſort of Kings the Iſraelites deſired? eſpecially ſince God was angry with them, not only for deſiring ſuch a King as other Nations had, and not ſuch a King as his own Law deſcribes, but barely for deſiring a King? Nor is it credible that they ſhould deſire an unjuſt King, and one that ſhould be out of the reach of all Laws, who could not bear the Government of Samuel's Sons, though under the power of Laws, but from their Covetouſneſs ſought refuge in a King. And laſtly, The Verſe that you quote out of Virgil, does not prove that the Kings of the Eaſt had an abſolute unlimited Power; for thoſe Bees, that he there ſpeaks of, and who reverence their Kings, he ſays, more than the Egyptians or Medes do theirs, by the Authority of the ſame Poet,

—magnis agitant ſub legibus aevum.

Live under certain Fundamental Laws.

They do not live under a King then, that's tyed to no Law: But now I'le let you ſee how little reaſon you have to think I bear you an ill will. Moſt people think you are a Knave; but I'le make it appear that you have only put on a Knaves Vizor for the preſent. In your Introduction to your Diſcourſe of the Pope's Supremacy, you ſay, that ſome Divines in the Council of Trent made uſe of the Government, that is ſaid to be amongſt Bees, to prove the Pope's Supremacy. This fancy you borrow from them, and urge it here with the ſame malice that they did there. Now that very ſame anſwer that you gave them, whilſt you were an honeſt man, now that you are become a Knave, you ſhall give your ſelf, and pull off with your own hand that Vizor you've now put on; The Bees, ſay you are a State, and ſo natural Philoſophers call them; they have a King, but a harmleſs one, he is a Leader, or Captain, rather than a King▪ he never beats, nor pulls, nor kills his ſubject Bees. No wonder they are ſo obſervant of him then: But in good Faith, you had but ill luck to meddle with theſe Bees; for though they are Bees of Trent, they ſhow you to be a Drone. Ariſtotle, a moſt exact writer of Politicks, affirms that the Aſiatique Monarchy, which yet himſelf calls Barbarous, was according to Law: Politic. 3. And whereas he reckons up five ſeveral ſorts of Monarchies, four of thoſe five he makes Governments according to Laws, and with the conſent of the People; and yet he calls them Tyrannical forms of Government, becauſe they lodg ſo much power in one man's hand. But the Kingdom of the Lacedaemonians he ſays is moſt properly a Kingdom, becauſe there all power is not in the King. The fifth ſort of Monarchy, which he calls foreign, that is, where the King is all in all; and to which he refers that, that you call the right of Kings, which is a Liberty to do what they liſt; he neither tells us when, nor where any ſuch form of Government ever obtain'd. Nor ſeems he to have mention'd it for any other purpoſe than to ſhow how unjuſt, abſurd, and tyr…nnical a Government it is. You ſay, that when Samuel would deter the people from chuſing a King, he propounded to them this right of Kings. But whence had Samuel it? Had he it from the written Law of God? That can't be. We have obſerv'd already, that the Scriptures afford us a quite other Scheme of Soveraignty: Had Samuel it then immediately from God himſelf by Revelation? That's not likely neither, for God diſlikes it, diſcommends it, …ds fault with it: So that Samuel does not expound to the People any right of Kings appointed by God; …ut a corrupt and deprived m…nner of Governing, …en … by the Pride …nd Ambition of Princes. He tells not the people what their Kings ought to do, but what they would do. He told them the manner of their King, as before he told us of the manner of the Prieſts, the Sons of Eli; for he uſeth the ſame word in both places; (which you in the 33d Page of your Book, by an Hebrew Soloeciſm too, call foreign). That manner of theirs was Wicked, and Odious, and Tyranical: It was no right, but great wrong. The Fathers have commented upon this place too: I'le inſtance in one, that may ſtand for a great many; and that's Sulpitius Severus, a contemporary and intimate Friend of St. Jerom, and in St. Auguſtin's opinion, a man of great Wiſdom and Learning. He tells us in his ſacred Hiſtory, that Samuel in that place acquaints the people with the imperious Rule of Kings, and how th…y uſe to Lord it over their Subjects. Certainly it cannot be the right of Kings to domineer and be imperious. But according to Saluſt, that lawful Power and Authority that Kings were entruſted with, for the Preſervation of the publick Liberty, and the good of the Common-wealth, quickly degenerated into Pride and Tyranny: And this is the ſenſe of all Orthodox Divines, and of all Lawyers upon that place of Samuel: And you might have learn't from Sichardus, that moſt of the Rabbins too, were of the ſame mind; at leaſt, not any one of them ever aſſerted that the abſolute inherent right of Kings is there diſcourſed of. Your ſelf in your 5th Chapter, Page 106. complain, that not only Clemens Alexandrinus, but all other Expoſitors miſtake themſelves upon this Text: And you, I'le warrant ye, are the only man that have had the good luck to hit the mark. Now what a piece of folly and impudence is this in you to maintain in oppoſition to all Orthodox Expoſitors, that thoſe very actions which God ſo much condemns, are the right of Kings? And to pretend Law for them? Though your ſelf confeſs, that that right is very often exercis'd in committing Outrages, being injurious, contumelious, and the like. Was any man ever to that degree, ſui juris, ſo much his own Maſter, as that he might lawfully prey upon mankind, bear down all that ſtood in his way, and turn all things up-ſide down? Did the Romans ever maintain, as you ſay they did, That any man might do theſe things ſuo Jure, by vertue of ſome inherent right in himſelf? Saluſt indeed makes C. Memmius a Tribune of the people, in an invective Speech of his, againſt the pride of the Nobility, and their eſcaping unpuniſh'd, howſoever they misbehaved themſelves, to uſe theſe words, viz. to do whatever one has a mind to, without fear of Puniſhment, is to be a King. This Saying you catch'd hold off, thinking it would make for your purpoſe; but conſider it a little better, and you'll find your ſelf deceiv'd. Does he in that place aſſert the right of Kings? Or does he not blame the common-people, and chide them for their ſloth, in ſuffering their Nobility to Lord it over them, as if they were out of the reach of all Law, and in ſubmitting again to that Kingly Tyranny, which together with their Kings themſelves, their Anceſtors had lawfully and juſtly rejected and baniſh'd from amongſt them? If you had conſulted Tully, you would have underſtood both Saluſt and Samuel better. In his Oration pro C. Rabirio, There is none of us ignorant, ſays he, of the manner of Kings. Theſe are their Lordly dictates. Mind what I ſay, and do accordingly. Many paſſages to this purpoſe he quotes out of Poets, and calls them not the right, but the cuſtom or the manner of Kings; and he ſays, We ought to read and conſider them, not only for curioſity ſake, but that we may learn to beware of 'em and avoid 'em. You perceive how miſerably you're come off with Saluſt, who though he be as much an enemy to Tyranny, as any other Author whatſoever, you thought would have Patroniz'd this Tyrannical right that you are eſtabliſhing. Take my word for't, the right of Kings ſeems to be tottering, and even to further its own ruin, by relying upon ſuch weak props for its ſupport; and by endeavouring to maintain it ſelf by ſuch Examples and Authorities, as would haſten its down-fall, if it were further off than it is. The extremity of right or law, you ſay, is the height of injury, Summum jus ſumma injuria; this ſaying is verified moſt properly in Kings, who when they go to the utmoſt of their right, fall into thoſe courſes, in which Samuel makes the Right of Kings to conſiſt. And 'tis a miſerable Right, which when you have ſaid all you can for, you can no otherwiſe defend, than by confeſſing, that it is the greateſt injury that may be. The extremity of Right or Law is ſaid to be, when a man ties himſelf up to Niceties, dwells upon Letters and Syllables, and in the mean time neglects the intent and equity of the Law; or when a written Law is cunningly and maliciouſly interpreted; this Cicero makes to have been the riſe of that common ſaying. But ſince 'tis certain that all right flows from the fountain of Juſtice, ſo that nothing can poſſibly be any man's right that is not juſt, 'tis a moſt wicked thing in you to affirm, that for a King to be unjuſt, rapacious, tyrannical, and as ill as the worſt of 'em ever were, is according to the right of Kings, and to tell us that a Holy Prophet would have perſuaded the people to ſuch a ſenſeleſs thing. For whether written or unwritten, whether extreme or remiſs, what Right can any Man have to be injurious? Which leſt you ſhould confeſs to be true of other Men, but not of Kings; I have one Man's Authority to oppoſe you with, who I think was a King himſelf, and profeſſeth that that Right of Kings that you ſpeak of, is odious both to God and himſelf: It is in the 94th Pſalm, Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowſhip with thee, that frameth miſchief by a law? Be not therefore ſo injurious to God, as to aſcribe this Doctrine to him, viz. that all manner of wicked and flagitious Actions are but the Right of Kings; ſince himſelf tells us, that he abhors all fellowſhip with wicked Princes for this very reaſon, Becauſe under pretence of Soveraignty they create Miſery and Vexation to their Subjects. Neither bring up a falſe Accuſation againſt a Prophet of God; for by making him to teach us in this place what the Right of Kings is, you do not produce the right Samuel, but ſuch another empty Shadow, as was raiſed by the Witch of Endor. Tho for my own part, I verily believe that that infernal Samuel would not have been ſo great a Lyar, but that he would have confeſs'd, that what you call the Right of Kings, is Tyranny. We read indeed of Impieties countenanced by Law, Jus datum ſceleri: you your ſelf confeſs, that they are bad Kings that have made uſe of this boundleſs Licenſe of theirs to do every thing. Now this Right that you have introduc'd for the Deſtruction of Mankind, not proceeding from God, as I have prov'd it does not, muſt needs come from the Devil; and that it does really ſo, will appear more clearly hereafter. By vertue of this Liberty, ſay you, Princes may if they will. And for this, you pretend to have Cicero's Authority. I'm always willing to mention your Authorities, for it generally happens that the very Authors you quote them out of, give you an Anſwer themſelves. Hear elſe what Cicero ſays in his 4th Phillippicke, What cauſe of War can be more juſt and warrantable than to avoid Slavery? For tho a People may have the good fortune to live under a Gentle Maſter, yet they are in a miſerable Condition, whoſe Prince may Tyrannize over them if he will. May, that is, can; has Power enough ſo to do. If he meant it of his Right, he would contradict himſelf, and make that an unjuſt Cauſe of War, which himſelf had affirm'd with the ſame Breath to be a moſt juſt one. It is not therefore the Right of all Kings that you deſcribe, but the Injuriouſneſs, and Force, and Violence of ſome. Then you tell us what private men may do. A private Man, ſay you, may Lie, may be Ungrateful, and ſo may Kings, but what then? May they therefore Plunder, Murder, Raviſh without controul? 'Tis equally prejudicial and deſtructive to the Commonwealth, whether it be their own Prince, or a Robber, or a Foreign Enemy that Spoils, Maſſacres, and Enſlaves them. And queſtionleſs, being both alike Enemies of Humane Society, the one as well as the other may lawfully be oppos'd and puniſh'd; and their own Prince the rather, becauſe he, tho raiſed to that Dignity by the Honours that his People have conferr'd upon him; and being bound by his Oath to defend the Publick Safety, betrays it notwithſtanding all. At laſt you grant, That Moſes preſcribes Laws, according to which the King that the People of Iſrael ſhould chuſe, ought to Govern, tho different from this Right that Samuel propoſeth; which words contain a double Contradiction to what you have ſaid before. For where…s you had affirm'd, That a King was bound by no Law, here you confeſs he is. And you ſet up two contrary Rights, one deſcribed by Moſes, and another by Samuel, which is abſurd. But, ſays the Prophet, you ſhall be Servants to your King. Tho I ſhould grant that the Iſraelites were really ſo, it would not preſently follow, that it was the Right of their Kings to have them ſo; but that by the Uſurpation and Injuſtice of moſt of them, they were reduc'd to that Condition. For the Prophet had foretold them, that that importunate Petition of theirs would bring a Puniſhment from God upon them; not becauſe it would be their King's Right ſo to harraſs them, but becauſe they themſelves had deſerved it ſhould be ſo. If Kings are out of the reach of the Law, ſo as that they may do what they liſt, they are more abſolute than any Maſters, and their Subjects in a more deſpicable Condition than the worſt of Slaves. The Law of God provided ſome Redreſs for them, tho of another Nation, if their Maſters were Cruel and Unreaſonable towards them. And can we imagine that the whole Body of the People of a free Nation, tho oppreſs'd and tyranniz'd over, and prey'd upon, ſhould be left remedileſs? That they had no Law to protect them, no Sancturay to betake themſelves to? Can we think that they were delivered from the Bondage that they were under to the Egyptian Kings, to be reduced into a worſe, to one of their own Brethren? All which being neither agreeable to the Law of God, nor to common Senſe, nothing can be more evident than that the Prophet declares to the People the Manner, and not the Right of Kings; nor the Manner of all Kings, but of moſt. Then you come to the Rabbins, and quote two of them, but you have as bad luck with them here, as you had before. For it is plain, that that other Chapter that Rabbi Joſes ſpeaks of, and which contains, he ſays, the Right of Kings, is that in Deuteronomy, and not in Samuel. For Rabbi Judas ſays very truly, and againſt you, that that Diſcourſe of Samuel's was intended only to frighten the People. 'Tis a moſt pernicious Doctrine to maintain, that to be any ones Right, which in its ſelf is flat Injuſtice, unleſs you have a mind to ſpeak by contraries. And that Samuel intended to affrighten them, appears by the 18th Verſe, And ye ſhall cry out in that day becauſe of your king, which ye ſhall have choſen you, and I will not hear you in that day, ſaith the Lord. That was to be their Puniſhment for their Obſtinacy in perſiſting to deſire a King againſt the Mind and Will of God, and yet they are not forbidden here either to pray againſt him, or to endeavour to rid themſelves of him. For if they might lawfully pray to God againſt him, without doubt they might uſe all lawful means for their own Deliverance. For what Man living, when he finds himſelf in any Calamity, betakes himſelf to God, ſo as to neglect his own Duty in order to a Redreſs, and rely upon his lazy Prayers only? But be it how it will, what is all this to the Right of Kings, or of the Engliſh People? Who neither asked a King againſt the Will of God, nor had one appointed us by God, but by the Right that all Nations have to appoint their own Governors, appointed a King over us by Laws of our own, neither in Obedience to, nor againſt any Command of God? And this being the Caſe, for ought I ſee, we have done well in depoſing our King, and are to be commended for it, ſince the Iſraelites ſinned in asking one. And this the Event has made appear, for we, when we had a King, prayed to God againſt him, and he heard us, and delivered us. But the Jews, who not being under a Kingly Government, deſired a King, he ſuffered to live in Slavery under one, till at laſt, after their return from the Babyloniſh Captivity, they betook themſelves to their former Government again. Then you come to give us a diſplay of your Talmudical Learning, but you have as ill ſucceſs with that, as you have had with all the reſt. For whilſt you are endeavouring to prove that Kings are not liable to any Temporal Judicature, you quote an Authority out of the Treatiſe of the Sanhedrim, That the King neither is judged of others, nor does himſelf judge any. Which is againſt the Peoples own Petition in Samuel; for they deſired a King that might judge them. You labour in vain to ſalve this, by telling us, that it is to be underſtood of thoſe Kings that reigned after the Babyloniſh Captivity. For then, what ſay ye to Maimonides? He makes this difference betwixt the Kings of Iſrael, and thoſe of Juda; that the Kings of the Poſterity of David judge, and are judged, but the Kings of Iſrael do neither. You contradict and quarrel with your ſelf, or your Rabbins, and ſtill do my work for me. This, ſay you, is not to be underſtood of the Kings of Iſrael in their firſt Inſtitution; for in the 17th Verſe 'tis ſaid, You ſhall be his Servants, that is, he ſhall uſe ye to it, not that he ſhall have any Right to make you ſo. Or if you understand it of their Kings Right, 'tis but a Judgment of God upon them for asking a King; the effects of which they were ſenſible of under moſt of their Kings, tho not perhaps under all. But you need no Antagoniſts, you are ſuch a perpetual Adverſary to your ſelf. For you tell us now a Story, as if you were arguing on my ſide, how that firſt Ariſtobulus, and after him J…naeus, Sirnamed Alexander, did not receive that Kingly right that they pretended to, from the Sanhedrim, that great Treaſury and Oracle of the Laws of that Nation, but uſurped it by degrees againſt the Will of the Senate. For whoſe ſake, you ſay, that Childiſh Fable of the principal Men of that Aſſembly, being ſtruck dead by the Angel Gabriel, was firſt invented: And thus you confeſs that this magnificent Prerogative, upon which you ſeem mainly to rely, viz. That Kings are not to be judged by any upon Earth, was grounded upon this worſe than an old Wives Tale, that is, upon a Rabbinical Fable. But that the Hebrew Kings were liable to be call'd in Queſtion for their Actions, and to be puniſhed with ſtripes, if they were found faulty, Sichardus ſhows at large out of the Writings of the Rabbins, to which Author you are indebted for all that you make uſe of, of that ſort of Learning, and yet you have the Impudence to be thwarting with him. Nay, we read in the Scripture that Saul thought himself bound by a Decree of his own making; and in Obedience thereunto, that he caſt Lots with his Son Jonathan which of them two ſhould die. Uzzias likewiſe, when he was thruſt out of the Temple by the Prieſts as a Leper, ſubmitted as every private Perſon in ſuch a Caſe ought to do, and ceas'd to be a King. Suppoſe he ſhould have refuſed to go out of the Temple, and lay down the Government, and live alone, and had reſolved to aſſert that Kingly Right of not being ſubject to any Law; do you think the Prieſts and the People of the Jews would have ſuffered the Temple to be …d, the Laws violated, and live themſelves in danger of the Infection? It ſeems there are Laws againſt a … King, but none againſt a Tyrant. Can any Man poſſibly be …o mad and fooliſh as to fancy that the Laws ſhould …o far provide for the Peoples Health, as tho ſome noiſome Diſtemper ſhould ſeize upon the King himſelf, yet to prevent the Infection's reaching them; and make no Proviſion for the Security of their Lives and Eſtates, and the very being of the whole State againſt the Tyranny of a cruel, unjuſt Prince, which is incomparably the greater miſchief of the two? But, ſay you, there can be no preſident ſhown of any one King, that has been ar…aigned in a Court of Juſtice, and … to dye. Sichardus anſwers that well enough. ▪ …is all one, ſays he▪ as if one ſhould argue on this manner. The Emperor of Germany never was … to appear before one of the Prince-Electors; therefore if the Prince Elector Palatine ſhould Impeach … ▪ he were not bound to plead to it; tho it appears by the Golden Bull, that Charles the … ſubjected himſelf and his Succeſſors to that cognizance and Juriſdiction. But no wonder if Kings were indulged in their Ambition, and their Exorbitances paſſed by, when the … corrupt and depraved, that even private … ▪ if they had either Money or Intereſt, might … the Law▪ the guilty … of never ſo high … That foreign that you ſpeak of, that … upon any other, and ac… Earth, which you ſay is pecu… of Sovereign Princes, Ariſtotle … Book of his …. C…. 10. calls a moſt Tyrannical Form of Government, and not in the leaſt to be endured by a … People. And that Kings are not liable to be questioned for their Actions, you prove by the … of a very Worthy Author, that Barba… Tyrant, Mark … one of thoſe that ſubverted … Commonwealth of R…me: And yet he himſelf when he undertook an Expedition againſt the …, ſummon'd Herod before him, to anſwer to a Cha…ge of Murder, and would have puniſhed him▪ … that Herod brib'd him. So that Anthony's …ing this Prerogative Royal, and your Defence of King Charles, come both out of one and the ſame Spring. And 'tis very reaſonable, ſay you, that it ſhould be ſo; for Kings derive their Authority from God alone. What Kings are thoſe, I pray, that do ſo? For I deny that there ever were any ſuch Kings in the World, that derived their Authority from God alone. Saul the firſt King of Iſrael had never reign'd, but that the People deſired a King, even againſt the Will of God; and tho he was proclaimed King once at Mizpah, yet after that, he lived a private Life, and look'd to his Fathers Cattel, till he was created ſo the ſecond time by the People at Gilgal. And what think ye of David? Tho he had been anointed once by God, was he not anointed the ſecond time in Hebron by the Tribe of Judah, and after that by all the People of Iſrael, and that after a mutual Covenant betwixt him and them? 2 Sam. 5. 1 Chron. 11. Now a Covenant lays an Obligation upon Kings, and reſtrains them within Bounds. Solomon, you ſay, ſucceeded him in the throne of the Lord, and was acceptable to all men: 1 Chron. 29. So, that 'tis ſomething to be well-pleaſing in the Eyes of the People. Jehoiadah the Prieſt made Joaſh King, but firſt he made him and the People enter into a Covenant to one another, 2 Kings 11. I confeſs that theſe Kings, and all that reign'd of David's Poſterity, were appointed to the Kingdom both by God and the People; but of all other Kings of what Country ſoever, I affirm, that they are made ſo by the People only; nor can you make it appear that they are appointed by God any otherwiſe than as all other things, great and ſmall, are ſaid to be appointed by him, becauſe nothing comes to paſs without his Providence. So that I allow the Throne of David was in a peculiar manner call'd, The throne of the Lord; whereas the Thrones of other Princes are no otherwiſe God's, than all other things in the World are his; which if you would, you might have learnt out of the ſame Chapter, Ver. 11, 12. Thine, O Lord, is the greatneſs, &c. for all that is in the Heaven, and in the Earth is thine. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reigneſt over all. And this is ſo often repeated, not to puff up Kings, but to put them in mind, tho they think themſelves Gods, that yet there is a God above them, to whom they owe whatever they are and have. And thus we eaſily underſtand what the Poets, and the Eſſenes among the Jews mean, when they tell us, That 'tis by God that Kings reign, and that they are of Jupiter; for so all of us are of God, we are all his Off-ſpring. So that this univerſal Right of Almighty God's, and the Intereſt that he has in Princes, and their Thrones, and all that belongs to them, does not at all derogate from the Peoples Right; but that notwithſtanding all this, all other Kings, not particularly and by name appointed by God, owe their Soveraignty to the People only, and conſequently are accountable to them for the management of it. The truth of which Doctrine, tho the Common People are apt to flatter their Kings, yet they themſelves acknowledge, whether good ones, as Sarpedon in Homer is deſcribed to have been, or bad ones, as thoſe Tyrants in H…race.

foreign, &c.

Glaucus, in Lycia we're ador'd like Gods:

What makes 'twixt us and others ſo great odds?

He reſolves the Queſtion himſelf: Becauſe, ſays he, we excel others in Heroical Virtues: Let us fight manfully then, ſays he, leſt our Country-men tax us with Sloth and Cowardize. In which words he intimates to us, both that Kings derive their Grandeur from the People, and that for their Conduct and Behaviour in War, they are accountable to them. Bad Kings indeed, tho to caſt ſome Terror into Peoples minds, and beget a Reverence of themſelves, they declare to the World, that God only is the Author of Kingly Government; in their Hearts and Minds they reverence no other Deity but that of Fortune; according to that paſſage in Horace,

Te Dacus aſper, te profugi Schythae,

Regumque matres barbarorum, &

Purpurei metuunt Tyranni.

Injurioſo ne pede proruas

Stantem columnam, neu populus frequens

Ad arma ceſſantes, ad arma

Concitet, imperiumque frangat.

All barb'rous People, and their Princes too,

All Purple Tyrants honour you;

The very wandring Scythians do.

Support the Pillar of the Roman State,

Left all Men be involv'd in one Mans fate.

Continue us in Wealth and Peace;

Let Wars and Tumults ever ceaſe.

So that if 'tis by God that Kings now adays Reign, 'tis by God too that the People aſſert their own Liberty; ſince all things are of him, and by him. I'm ſure the Scripture bears witneſs to both; that by him Kings reign, and that by him they are caſt down from their Thrones. And yet experience teacheth us, that both theſe things are brought about by the People, oftner than by God. Be this Right of Kings therefore what it will, the Right of the People is as much of God as it. And when ever any People without ſome viſible Deſignation of God himſelf, appoint a King over them, they have the ſame Right to put him down, that they had to ſet him up at firſt. And certainly 'tis a more God like Action to depoſe a Tyrant, than to ſet up one: And there appears much more of God in the People, when they depoſe an unjuſt Prince, than in a King that oppreſſ…th an Innocent People. Nay, the People have a Warrant from God to judge wicked Princes; for God has conferrd this very honour upon thoſe that are dear to him, that celebrating the praiſes of Chriſt their own King, they ſhall bind in Chains the Kings of the Nations, (under which Appellation all Tyrants under the Goſpel are included) and execute the Jidgments written upon them that challenge to themſelves an Exemption from all written Laws, Pſalm 149. So that there's but little reaſon left for that wicked and folliſh Opinion, that Kings who commonly are the worſt of Men, ſhould be ſo high in Gods ac…unt, as that he ſhould have put the World under …, to be at their …, and be govern'd according to their humour; and that for their ſakes alone he ſh…uld have reduced all Mankind, whom he made … his own Image, into the ſame condition with …. After all this, rather than ſay nothing, you … …, as a countenancer of Tyranny; but … better have let him alone. I can't ſay … a…irm'd that Princes are accountable … God's Tribunal. But Xiphilene indeed, out of whom you quote thoſe words of M. Aurelius, mentions a certain Government, which he calls an Autarchy, of which he makes God the only Judge. foreign. But that this word Autarchy and Monarchy … Synonymous, I cannot …ſily perſwade my ſelf to believe And the more I read what goes before, the …, I find my ſelf inclinable to think ſo. And certainly whoever conſiders the Context, will not easily apprehend what coherence this ſentence has with it, and muſt needs wonder how it comes ſo abruptly into the Text; eſpecially ſince Marcus Aurelius, that Mirrour of Princes, carried himſelf towards the people, as Capitolinus tells us, juſt as if Rome had been a Commonwealth ſtill. And we all know that when it was ſo, the Supreme Power was in the People. The ſame Emperour honoured the memory of Thraſeas, and H…lvidius, and Cato, and Dio, and Brutus; who all were Tyrant-ſlayers, or affected the reputation of being thought ſo. In the firſt Book that he writes of his own Life, he ſays that he propos'd to himſelf a form of Government, under which all men might equally enjoy the benefit of the Law, and Right and Juſtice be equally adminiſtred to all. And in his fourth Book he ſays, The Law is Maſter, and not he. He acknowledged the right of the Senate and the people, and their Intereſt in all things: We are ſo far, ſays he, from having any thing of our own, that we live in your Houſes. Theſe things Xiphiline relates of him. So little did he arrogate ought to himſelf by vertue of his Soveraign Right. When he died, he recommended his Son to the Romans for his Succeſſor, if they ſhould think he deſerv'd it. So far was he from pretending to a Commiſſion from Heaven to exerciſe that abſolute and imaginary right of Soveraignty, that Autarchy, that you tell us of. All the La…n and Gre…k B…s are full of Authorities of this nature. But we have heard none of 'em yet. So are the Jewiſh Authors. And yet, you ſay, The Jews in many things allow'd but too little to their Princes. Nay, you'l find that both the Gr…ks and the Latins allow'd much leſs to Tyrants. And … … the Jews allow'd them, would appear, if that Book that Samuel wrote of the manner of the Kingdom were extant; which Book the Hebrew Doctors tell us their Kings …re in pieces and burnt, that they might be more at liberty to Tyrannize over the people without controul or f…r of puniſhment. Now look about ye again, and catch hold of ſomewhat or other. In the laſt place you come to wrest David's words in the 17th. Pſalm, … my ſentence come forth from thy …. Therefore, ſays Barnachmoni, God only can judge the King. And yet it's moſt likely that David … this Pſalm when he was perſecuted by S…, at which time, though himſelf were Anointed, he did not decline being judged even by Jonathan: Notwithstanding, if there be …ity in me, ſtay me thy ſelf, 1 Sam 20. At leaſt in this Pſalm he does no more than what any perſon in the world would do upon the like occaſion; being falſely accus'd by men, he … the judgment of God himſelf, Let thine … that is right, th… haſt pr…v…d and …. What relation has this to a Tem…? C…rtainly they do no good office to … Kings, that thus diſcover the weakneſs of its …. Then you come with that threadbare …, which of all others is moſt in vogue with our …, Againſt thee, thee only have I ſinned, Pſal 51. …. As if David in the midſt of his Repentance. when ov…whelm'd with ſorrow, and almoſt …, h… was humbly imploring God's …, had … right of his, when his heart was ſo low, that he thought he deſerv'd not the right of a ſlave. And can we think that he deſpis'd all the people of God, his own Brethren, to that degree, as to believe that he might murder 'em, plunder 'em, and commit Adultery with their wives, and yet not ſin againſt them all this while? So holy a man could never be guilty of ſuch inſufferable pride, nor have ſo little knowledg either of himself, or of his duty to his Neighbour. So without doubt, when he ſays, Againſt thee only, he means, againſt thee chiefly have I ſinned, &c. But whatever he meant, the words of a Pſalm are too full of Poetry, and this Pſalm too full of Paſſion, to afford us any exact definitions of Right and Juſtice; nor is it proper to argue any thing of that nature from '…m. But David was never queſtion'd for this, nor made to plead for his life before the San…edrim. What then? How ſhould they know that any ſuch thing had been, which was done ſo privately, that perhaps for ſome years after not above one or two were privy to it, as ſuch ſecrets there are in moſt Courts? 2 Sam. 12. Thou haſt done this thing in ſecret. Beſides, what if the Senate ſhould neglect to puniſh private perſons? would any infer that therefore they ought not to be puniſh'd at all? But the reaſon why David was not proceeded againſt as a malefactor, is not much in the dark: He had condemn'd himſelf in the 5th. verſe, The man that hath done this thing ſhall ſurely die. To which the Prophet preſently replies, Thou art the man. So that in the Prophet's judgment as well as his own, he was worthy of death; but God by his Soveraign Right over all things, and of his great mercy to David, abſolves him from the guilt of his Sin, and the ſentence of death which he had pronounc'd againſt himſelf; verſe 13th. The Lord hath put away thy ſin, thou ſhalt not die. The next thing you do is to rail at ſome bloody Advocate or other, and you take a deal of pains to refute the concluſion of his Diſcourſe. Let him look to that. I'le endeavour to be as ſhort as I can in what I'ue undertaken to go through with. But ſome things I muſt not paſs by without taking notice of; as firſt and formoſt your notorious contradictions; for in the 30th. Page you ſay, The Iſraelites do not deprecate an unjuſt, rapacious, Tyrannical King, one as bad as the worſt of Kings are. And yet, page 42 you are very ſmart upon your Advocate, for maintaining that the Iſraelites asked for a Tyrant: Would they have leaped out of the Frying-pan into the fire, ſay you and gr…an under the cruelty of the worſt of Tyrants, rather than live under bad Judges, eſpecially being us'd to ſuch a form of Government? Firſt you ſaid the Hebrews would rather live under Tyrants than Judges, here you ſay they would rather live under Judges than Tyrants; and that they deſir'd nothing leſs than a Tyrant So that your Advocate may anſwer you out of your own Book. For according to your Principles 'tis every King's right to be a Tyrant. What you ſay next, is very true, The Supreme Power was then in the people, which appears by their own rejecting their Judges, and making choice of a Kingly Government. Remember this when I ſhall have occaſion to make uſe of it. You ſay that God gave the children of Iſrael a King as a thing good and profitable for them, and deny that he gave them one in his anger as a puniſhment for their ſin. But that will receive an eaſie anſwer; for to what purpoſe ſhould they cry to God becauſe of the King that they had choſen if it were not becauſe a Kingly Government is an evil thing; not in it ſelf, but becauſe it most commonly does, as Samuel forewarns the people that theirs would, degenerate into Pride and Tyranny; if y'are not yet ſatisfied, hark what you ſay your ſelf; acknowledg your own hand, and bluſh; 'tis your Apparatus ad Primatum: God gave them a King in his anger, ſay you, being offended at their ſin in rejecting him from ruling over them; and ſo the Chriſtian Church, as a puniſhment for it's forſaking the pure Worſhip of God has been ſubjected to the more than Kingly Government of one mortal head. So that if your own compariſon holds, either God gave the Children of Iſrael a King as an evil thing, and as a puniſhment; or he has ſet up the Pope for the good of the Church. Was there ever any thing more and light mad than this man is? Who would truſt him in the ſmalleſt matters, that in things of ſo great concern ſays and unſays without any conſideration in the world? You tell us in your 29th. Page, That by the conſtitution of all Nations, Kings are bound by no Law. That this had been the judgment both of the Eaſtern and Weſtern part of the VVorld. And yet pag. 43. you ſay, That all the Kings of the Eaſt ruled foreign, according to Law, nay that the very Kings of Egypt in all matters whatſoever, whether great or ſmall, were tied to Laws. Though in the beginning of this Chapter you had undertook to demonſtrate that Kings are bound by no Laws, that they give Laws to others, but have none preſcribed to themſelves. For my part I've no reaſon to be angry with ye, for either y'are mad, or of our ſide. You do not defend the King's cauſe, but arguë againſt him, and play the fool with him: Or if y'are in earneſt, that Epigram of Catullus:

Tantò peſſimus omnium Poeta,

Quantò tu optimus omnium Patronus,

The worſt of Poets, I my ſelf declare,

By how much you the beſt of Patrons are.

That Epigram, I ſay, may be turn'd, and very properly applied to you; for there never was ſo good a Poet, as you are a bad Patron. Unleſs that ſtupidity, that you complain your Advocate is immers'd over head and ears in, has blinded the eyes of your own underſtanding too, I'le make ye now ſenſible that y'are become a very brute your ſelf. For now you come and confeſs that the Kings of all Nations have Laws preſcribed to them. But then you ſay again, They are not ſo under the power of them, as to be liable to cenſure or puniſhment of death, if they break them. Which yet you have proved neither from Scripture, nor from any good Authour. Obſerve then in ſhort; to preſcribe Municipal Laws to ſuch as are not bound by them, is ſilly and ridiculous; and to puniſh all others, but leave ſome one man at liberty to commit all ſort of Impieties without fear of puniſhment, is moſt unjuſt; the Law being general, and not making any exception; neither of which can be ſuppos'd to hold place in the Conſtitutions of any wiſe Law-maker, much leſs in thoſe of God's own making. But that all may perceive how unable you are to prove out of the writings of the Jews, what you undertook in this Chapter to make appear by 'em, you confeſs of your own accord, That there are some Rabbins, who affirm that their fore fathers ought not to have had any other King than God himſelf; and that he ſet other Kings over them for their puniſhment. And of thoſe men's opinion, I declare my ſelf to be. It is not fitting nor decent that any man ſhould be a King that does not far excel all his Subjects. But where men are Equals as in all Governments very many are, they ought to have an equal interest in the Government, and hold it by turns. But that all Men ſhould be Slaves to one that is their Equal, or (as it happens moſt commonly) far inferior to 'em, and very often a Fool, who can ſo much as entertain ſuch a thought without Indignation? Nor does it make for the Honour of a Kingly Government, that our Saviour was of the poſterity of ſome Kings, more than it does for the commendation of the worſt of Kings, that he was the Offspring of ſome of them too. The Meſſias is a King. We acknowledg him ſo to be, and rejoyce that he is ſo, pray that his Kingdom may come, for he is worthy. Nor is there any other either equal or next to him. And yet a Kingly Government being put into the hands of unworthy and undeſerving perſons, as moſt commonly it is, may well be thought to have done more harm than good to Mankind. Nor does it follow for all this that all Kings as ſuch, are Tyrants. But ſuppoſe it did, as for argument ſake, I'le allow it does, leaſt you ſhould think I'm too hard with ye. Make you the beſt uſe of it you can. Then, ſay you, God himſelf may properly be ſaid to be the King of Tyrants, nay, himſelf the worſt of all Tyrants. If the firſt of theſe concluſions does not follow, another does, which may be drawn from moſt parts of your Book: viz. That you perpetually contradict, not only the Scriptures, but your own ſelf. For in the very laſt fore-going Period you had affirmed that God was the King of all things, having himſelf created them. Now he created Tyrants and Devils, and conſequently by your own reaſon, is the King of ſuch. The 2'd of theſe Concluſions we deteſt, and wiſh that blaſphemous Mouth of yours were ſtopt up, with which you affirm God to be the worſt of Tyrants, If he be, as you often ſay he is, the King and Lord of ſuch. Nor do you much advantage your Cauſe by telling us that Moſes was a King, and had the abſolute and ſupream power of a King. For we could be content that any other were ſo, that could refer our matters to God, as Moſes did, and conſult with him about our affairs. Exod. 18. v. 19. But neither did Moſes, notwithſtanding his great familiatity with God, ever aſſume a Liberty of doing what he would himſelf. What ſays he of himſelf? The people come unto me to enquire of God. They came not then to receive Moſes his own Dictates and Commands, Then ſays Jethro, ver. 19. Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayſt bring their cauſes unto God. And Moſes himſelf ſays, Deut. 4. v 5. I have taught you ſtatutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me. Hence it is that he is ſaid to have been faithful in all the hauſe of God. Numb. 12 v. 7. So that the Lord Jehovah himſelf was the people's King, and Moſes no other than as it were an Interpreter or a Meſſenger betwixt him and them. Nor can you without In piety and Sacriledg; transfer this abſolute ſupream Power and Authority from God to a man; (not having any Warrant from the word of God ſo to do) which Moſes uſed only as a Deputy or Subſtitute to God; under whoſe Eye, and in whoſe preſence, himſelf and the people always were. But now, for an aggravation of your wickedneſs, though here you make Moſes to have exercis'd an abſolute and unlimitted Power, in your apparat. ad primat. Page 230. You ſay that he together with the ſeventy elders ruled the people, and that himſelf was the chief of the people, but not their Maſter. If Moſes therefore were a King, as certainly he was, and the beſt of Kings, and had a Supream and Legal Power, as you ſay he had, and yet neither was the people's Maſter nor Govern'd them alone; then according to you, Kings, though indued with the Supream Power, are not by Vertue of that Sovereign and Kingly Right of theirs Lords over the people, nor ought to Govern them alone; much leſs, according to their own Will and Pleaſure? After all this, you have the Impudence to feign a command from God to that people, to ſet up a King over them, as ſoon as they ſhould be poſſeſſed of the holy land, Deut. 17. For you craftily leave out the former words, and ſhalt ſay, I will ſet a King over me, &c. And now call to mind what you ſaid before, Page 42d and what I ſaid, I ſhould have occaſion to make uſe of: viz. That the power was then in the people, and that they were entirely free. What follows, argues you either Mad or irreligious; take whether you lift: God, ſay you, having ſo long before appointed a Kingly Government, as beſt and moſt proper for that people; what ſhall we ſay to Samuel's oppoſing it, and God's own acting, as if himſelf were againſt it? How do theſe things agree? He finds himſelf caught, and obſerve now with how great malice againſt the Prophet, and impiety againſt God, he endeavours to diſentangle himſelf. We muſt conſider, ſays he That Samuel's own Sons then Judged the people, and the people rejected them becauſe of their corruption; now Samuel was loth his Sons ſhould be lay'd aſide, and God to gratify the Prophet, intimated to him as if himſelf were not very well pleaſed with it. Speak out ye wretch, and never mince the matter: You mean, God dealt deceitfully with Samuel, and he with the people. It is not your Advocate, but your ſelf that are Frantick and Diſtracted; who caſt off all reverence to God Almighty, ſo you may but ſeem to Honour the King. Would Samuel prefer the Intereſt of his Sons and their Ambition, and their Covetouſneſs, before the general good of all the people, when they asked a thing that would be good and profitable for them? Can we think that he would impoſe upon them by cunning and ſubtilty, and make them believe things that were not? Or if we ſhould ſuppoſe all this true of Samuel, would God himſelf countenance and gratify him in it; would he diſſemble with the people? So that either that was not the right of Kings which Samuel taught the people; or elſe that right by the Teſtimony, both of God and the Prophet was an evil thing, was burdenſom, injurious, unprofitable, and chargeable to the Common-wealth: Or Laſtly, (which muſt not be admitted), God and the Prophet …eceiv'd the People. God frequently proteſts that he was extreamly diſpleas'd with them for asking a King▪ v. 7th. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I ſhould not reign over them. As if it were a kind of Idolatry to ask a King, that would even ſuffer himſelf to be ador'd, and aſſume almoſt Divine Honour to himſelf. And certainly, they that ſubject themſelves to a worldly Maſter, and ſet him above all Laws, come but a little ſhort of chuſing a ſtrange God: And a ſtrange one it commonly is; brutiſh, and void of all ſenſe and reaſon. So 1ſt of Sam. Chap. 10th. v. 19th. And ye have this day rejected your God, who himſelf ſaved you out of all your adversities and your tribulation, and ye have ſaid unto him, Nay, but ſet a king over us, &c. and Chap 12th. v. 12th. Ye ſaid unto me, Nay, but a king ſhall reign over us; when the Lord your God was your king, and v. the 17th. See that your wickedneſs is great, that ye have done in the ſight the Lord, in asking you a king. And Hoſea ſpeaks contemptibly of the King, Chap. 13. v. 10th. 11th. I will be thy king; where is any other that may ſave in all thy cities, and thy judges of whom thou ſaideſt: give me a king and princes? I gave th… a king in mine anger, and took him … my wrath. And Gidem that warlike Judg, that was greater than a King; I will not rule over you, ſays he, … ſhall my ſon rule over you; the Lord ſhall rule over you, Judges, Chap the 8th. Intimating thereby, that it is not fit for a man, but for God only to exerciſe Dominion over men. And hence Joſephus in his Book againſt A…, an Egyptian Grammarian, and a …oulmouth'd fellow, like you, calls the Commonwealth of the Hebrews a Theocracy, becauſe the principality was in God only. In Iſaiah, Chap. 26. v. 13. The people in their repentance, complain that it had been miſchievous to them, that other Lords beſides God himſelf, had had Dominion over them. All which places prove clearly, that God gave the Iſraelites a King in his anger; but now who can forbear laughing at the uſe you make of Abimelech's ſtory? Of whom it is ſaid, when he was kill'd, partly by a woman, that hurl'd a piece of a Mill-ſtone upon him, and partly by his own Armour-Bearer; that God rendred the wickedneſs of Abimelech. This Hiſtory, ſay you, proves ſtrongly that God only is the Judge and Avenger of Kings. Yea, if this Argument holds, he is the only Judge and Puniſher of Tyrants, Villanous Raſcals and Baſtards, whoever can get into the Saddle, whether by right or by wrong, has thereby obtain'd a Soveraign Kingly right over the people, is out of all danger of puniſhment, all inferior Magiſtrates muſt lay down their Arms at his feet, the people muſt not dare to mutter. But what if ſome great notorious robber had periſhed in War, as Abimelech did, would any man infer from thence, That God only is the Judge and Puniſher of High-way men? Or what if Abimelech had been condemn'd by the Law, and died by an Executioner's hand, would not God then have rendred his wickedneſs? You never read that the Judges of the Children of Iſrael were ever proceeded againſt according to Law: And yet you confeſs, That where the Government is an Ariſtocracy, the Prince, if there be any, may and ought to be call'd in queſtion, if he break the Laws. This in your 47th. Page. And why may not a Tyrant as well be proceeded againſt in a Kingly Government? Why, becauſe God rendred the wickedneſs of Abimelech. So did the Women, and ſo did his own Armour-bearer; over both which he pretended to a right of Soveraignty. And what if the Magiſtrates had rendred his wickedneſs? Do not they bear the Sword for that very purpoſe, for the puniſhment of Malefactors? Having done with his powerful argument from the Hiſtory of Abimelech's death, he b…takes himſelf, as his cuſtom is, to Slanders and Calumnies; nothing but dirt and filth comes from him; but for thoſe things that he promis'd to make appear, he hath not prov'd any one of them, either from the Scriptures, or from the Writings of the Rabbins. He alledges no reaſon why Kings ſhould be above all Laws, and they only of all mortal men exempt from puniſhment, if they deſerve it. He falls foul upon thoſe very Authors and Authorities that he makes uſe of, and by his own Diſcourſe demonſtrates the truth of the opinion that he argues againſt. And perceiving that he is like to do but little good with his arguments, he endeavours to bring an odium upon us, by loading us with ſlanderous accuſations, as having put to death the moſt Vertuous innocent Prince that ever reign'd. VVas King Solomon, ſays he, better than King Charles the Firſt? I confeſs ſome have ventur'd to compare his Father King James with Solomon, nay to make King James the better Gentleman of the …. Solomon was David's Son, David had been Sau…, …n; but king James was the Son of the End of Darly, who, as …uchanan tells us, becauſe D… the Muſitian get into the Queen's Bed-Chamber at an unſeaſonable time, kill'd him a little after, he could not get to him then becauſe he had Bolted the Door on the inſide. So that King James being the Son of an Ear…, was the better Gentleman; and was frequently called a ſecond Solomon, though it is not very certain that himſelf was not the Son of David the Muſitian too. But how could it ever come into your head to make a compariſon betwixt King C…ries and Solomon? For that very King Charles whom you praiſe thus to the sky, that very man's ob…acy, and covetouſneſs, and cruelty, his hard uſage of all good and honeſt men, the Wars that he rais'd, the Spoilings and Plunderings and Conflagrations that he occaſioned, and the death of innumerable of his Subjects that he was the cauſe of, does his Son Charles, at this very time whileſt I'm a writing, confeſs and bewail in the Stool of Repentance in Scotland and renounces there that Kingly right that you aſſert; but ſince you delight in Parallels, let's compare King Charles and King Solomon together a little: Solomon began his reign with the death of his Brother, who had juſtly deſerved it; King Charles began his with his Father's Funeral, I do not ſay with his Murder; and yet all the marks and tokens of Poyſon that may be, appeared in his dead body; but the ſuſpition lighted upon the Duke of Buckingham only; whom the … notwithſtanding cleared to the Parliament, though he had killed the King, and his Father; and not only ſo… but he diſſolved the Parliament, leſt the matter ſhould be enquired into Solomon oppreſſed the people with heavy Taxes; but he ſpent that …upon the Temple of God, and in raiſing other publick Buildings. King Charles ſpent his in Extravag … Solomon was enticed to Idolatry by many Wives: This man by one. Solomon, though he were ſeduced himſelf, we read not that he ſeduced others; but King Charles ſeduced and enticed others not only by large and ample rewards to corrupt the Church, but by his Edicts and Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutions he compelled them to ſet up Altars, which all Proteſtants abhor, and to bow down to Crucifixes painted over them on the Wall. But yet for all this, Solomon was not condemned to die. Nor does it follow, becauſe he was not, that therefore he ought not to have been. Perhaps there were many Circumſtances that made it then not expedient. But not long after the people both by words and actions made appear what they took to be their right; when Ten Tribes of Twelve revolted from his Son; and if he had not ſaved himſelf by flight, it is very likely they would have ſtoned him, notwithſtanding his Threats and big ſwelling words.