Defense of the People of England, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
THO I am of opinion, Salmaſius, and always was, That the Law of God does exactly agree with the Law of Nature; ſo that having ſhown what the Law of God is, with reſpect to Princes, and what the practice has been of the people of God, both Jews and Chriſtians, I have at the ſame time, and by the ſame Diſcourſe, made to appear what is moſt agreeable to the Law of Nature; yet becauſe you pretend to confute us moſt powerfully by the Law of Nature, I will be content to admit that to be neceſſary, which before I had thought would be ſuperfluous; that in this Chapter I may demonſtrate, That nothing is more ſuitable to the Law of Nature, than that Puniſhment be inflicted upon Tyrants. Which if I do not evince, I will then agree with you, that likewiſe by the Law of God they are exempt. I do not purpoſe to frame a long Diſcourſe of Nature in general, and the original of Civil Societies; that Argument has been largely handled by many Learned men, both Greek and Latin; but I ſhall endeavour to be as ſhort as may be; and my deſign is not ſo much to confute you my ſelf, who would willingly have ſpared this pains; as to ſhow that you confute your ſelf, and deſtroy your own Poſitions. I'll begin with that firſt Poſition which you lay down as a Fundamental, and that ſhall be the Groundwork of my enſuing Diſcourſe. The Law of Nature, say you, is a Principle imprinted on all mens minds, to regard the good of all mankind, conſidering men as united together in Societies. But this innate Principle cannot procure that common good, unleſs, as there are people that muſt be governed, ſo that very Principle aſcertain who ſhall govern them. To wit, leſt the ſtronger oppreſs the weaker, and thoſe perſons, who for their mutual Safety and Protection have united themſelves together, ſhould be diſunited and divided by Injury and Violence, and reduced to a beſtial ſavage life again. This I ſuppoſe is what you mean. Out of the number of thoſe that united into one body, you ſay, there muſt needs have been ſame choſen, who excelled the reſt in Wiſdom and Valour; that they either by force, or by perſuaſion, might reſtrain thoſe that were refractory, and keep them within due bounds; ſometimes it would ſo fall out that one ſingle Perſon, whoſe Conduct and Valour was extraordinary, might be able to do this, and ſometimes more aſſiſted one another with their Advice and Counſel. But ſince it is impoſſible that any one manſhould order all things himſelf, there was a neceſſity of his conſulting with others, and taking ſome into part of the Government with himſelf. So that whether a ſingle perſon reign, or whether the Supreme Power reſide in the body of the People, ſince it is impoſſible that all ſhould adminiſter the affairs of the Commonwealth, or that one man ſhould do all, the Government does always lye upon the ſhoulders of many. And afterwards you ſay, Both Forms of Government, whether by many or a few, or by a ſingle perſon, are equally according to the Law of Nature; for both proceed from the ſame Principle of Nature, viz. That it is impoſſible for any ſingle perſon ſo to govern alone, as not to admit others into a ſhare of the Government with himſelf. Tho I might have taken all this out of the Third Book of Ariſtotle's Politicks, I chose rather to tranſcribe it out of your own Book; for you ſtole it from him, as Prometheus did Fire from Jupiter, to the ruin of Monarchy, and overthrow of your ſelf, and your own opinion. For enquire as diligently as you can for your life, into the Law of Nature, as you have deſcribed it, you will not find the leaſt footſtep in it of Kingly Power, as you explain it. The Law of Nature, ſay you, in ordering who ſhould govern others, reſpected the univerſal good of all mankind. It did not then regard the private good of any particular perſon, not of a Prince; ſo that the King is for the People, and conſequently the People ſuperior to him; which being allowed, it is impoſſible that Princes ſhould have any right to oppreſs or enſlave the people; that the inferior ſhould have right to tyrannize over the ſuperior. So that ſince Kings cannot pretend to any right to do miſchief, the right of the people muſt be acknowledged according to the Law of Nature to be ſuperior to that of Princes; ſo that by the ſame right, that before King hip was known, men united their Strength and Counſels for their mutual Safety and Defence, by the ſame right, that for the preſervation of all mens Liberty, Peace, and Safety, they appointed one or more to govern the reſt; by the ſame right they may depoſe thoſe very perſons, whom for their Valour or Wiſdom they advanced to the Government, or any others that rule diſorderly, if they find them by reaſon of their ſlothfulneſs, folly, or impiety, unfit for Government; ſince Nature does not regard the good of one, or of a few, but of all in general. For what ſort of perſons were they whom you ſuppoſe to have been choſen? You ſay they were ſuch as excelled in Courage and Conduct; to wit, ſuch as by Nature ſeemed fitteſt for Government; who by reaſon of their excellent Wiſdom and Valour, were enabled to undertake ſo great a Charge. The conſequence of this I take to be, That right of Succeſſion is not by the Law of Nature; that no man by the Law of Nature has right to be King, unleſs he excel all others in Wiſdom and Courage; that all ſuch as Reign, and want theſe qualifications, are advanced to the Government by Force or Faction; have no right by the Law of Nature to be what they are, but ought rather to be Slaves than Princes. For Nature appoints that Wiſe men ſhould govern Fools, not that Wicked men ſhould rule over Good men; Fools over wiſe men: And conſequently, they that take the Government out of ſuch mens hands, act according to the Law of Nature. To what end Nature directs Wiſe men ſhould bear the Rule, you ſhall hear in your own words, viz. That by Force or by Perſuaſion, they may keep ſuch as are unruly, within due bounds. But how ſhould he keep others within the bounds of their duty, that neglects, or is ignorant of, or wilfully acts contrary to his own? Alledg now, if you can, any dictate of Nature, by which we are enjoyned to neglect the Wiſe Inſtitutions of the Law of Nature, and have no regard to them in Civil and Publick Concerns, when we ſee what great and admirable things Nature her ſelf effects in things that are inanimate and void of ſenſe, rather than loſe her end. Produce any Rule of Nature, or Natural Juſtice, by which inferior Criminals ought to be puniſhed, but Kings and Princes to go unpuniſhed; and not only ſo, but tho guilty of the greateſt Crimes imaginable, be had in Reverence, and almoſt adored. You agree, That all Forms of Government, whether by many, or a few, or by a ſingle perſon, are equally agreeable to the Law of Nature. So that the perſon of a King is not by the Law of Nature more sacred than a Senate of Nobles, or Magiſtrates, choſen from amongſt the common people, who you grant may be puniſhed, and ought to be, if they offend; and conſequently, Kings ought to be ſo too, who are appointed to rule for the very ſame end and purpoſe that other Magiſtrates are. For, ſay you, Nature does not allow any ſingle perſon to bear rule ſo entirely, as not to have Partners in the Government. It does not therefore allow of a Monarch; it does not allow one ſingle perſon to rule ſo, as that all others ſhould be in a ſlaviſh ſubjection to his Commands only. You that give Princes ſuch Partners in the Government, as in whom, to uſe your own words, the Government always reſides, do at the ſame time make others Colleagues with them, and equal to them; nay, and conſequently you ſettle a power in thoſe Colleagues of puniſhing, and of depoſing them. So that while you your ſelf go about, not to extol a Kingly Government, but to eſtabliſh it by the Law of Nature, you deſtroy it; no greater misfortune could befall Soveraign Princes, than to have ſuch an Advocate as you are. Poor, unhappy wretch! what blindneſs of mind has ſeiz'd you, that you ſhould unwittingly take ſo much pains to diſcover your Knavery and folly, and make it viſible to the world, which before you conceal'd, in ſome meaſure and diſguis'd; that you ſhould be ſo induſtrious to heap diſgrace and ignominy upon your ſelf. What offence does Heaven puniſh you for, in making you appear in publick, and undertake the defence of a deſperate Cauſe, with ſo much impudence and childiſhneſs, and inſtead of defending it, to betray it by your ignorance? What enemy of yours would deſire to ſee you in a more forlorn, deſpicable condition than you are, who have no refuge left from the depth of miſery, but in your own imprudence and want of ſenſe, ſince by your unskilful and ſilly defence, you have rendred Tyrants the more odious and deteſtable, by aſcribing to them an unbounded liberty of doing miſchief with Impunity; and conſequently have created them more enemies than they had before? But I return to your Contradictions. When you had reſolved with your ſelf to be ſo wicked as to endeavour to find out a foundation for Tyranny in the Law of Nature, you ſaw a neceſſity of extolling a Monarchy above other ſorts of Government; which you cannot go about to do, without doing as you uſe to do, that is contradicting your ſelf. For having ſaid but a little before, That all forms of Government, whether by more or fewer, or by a ſingle perſon, are equally according to the Law of Nature, now you tell us, that of all th…ſe ſorts of Government, That of a ſingle perſon is moſt natural. Nay, though you had ſaid in expreſs terms but lately, That the Law of Nature does not allow that any Government ſhould reſide entirely in one man. Now upbraid whom you will with the putting of Tyrants to death; ſince you your ſelf by your own folly, have …ut the Throats of all Monarchs, nay even of Monarchy it ſelf. But it is not to the purpoſe for us here to diſpute which form of Government is beſt, by one ſingle perſon, or by many. I confeſs many eminent and famous men have extolled a Monarchy; but it has always been upon this ſuppoſition, that the Prince were a very excellent perſon, and one that of all others deſerved beſt to reign, without which Suppoſition, no form of Government can be ſo prone to Tyranny as Monarchy is. And whereas you reſemble a Monarchy to the Government of the World, by one Divine Being. I pray anſwer me, Whether you think that any other can deſerve to be inveſted with a power here on earth, that shall reſemble his power that Governs the World, than ſuch a perſon as doth infinitely excel all other men, and both for Wisdom and Goodneſs in some meaſure reſemble the Deity? and ſuch a perſon in my opinion, none can be but the Son of God himſelf. And whereas you make a Kingdom to be a kind of a Family, and make a compariſon betwixt a Prince and a Maſter of a Family; obſerve how lame the Parallel is. For a Maſter of a Family begot part of his Houſhold, at leaſt he feeds all thoſe that are of his houſe; and upon that account deſerves to have the Government; but the reaſon holds not in the caſe of a Prince; nay 'tis quite contrary. In the next place, you propoſe to us for our imitation the example of inferiour Creatures, eſpecially of Birds, and amongſt them of Bees, which according to your skill in Natural Philoſophy, are a ſort of Birds too; The Bees have a King over them. The Bees of Trent you mean; do'nt you remember? all other Bees, you your ſelf confeſs to be …wealths. But leave off playing the fool with Bees; they … to the Muſes, and hate, and (you ſee) confute …etle as you are The Quails are under a Captain Lay … ſnares for your own Bitterns; you are not Fowler good enough to catch us. Now you begin to be perſonally concerned. Galius Gallinaceus, a Cock ſay you, has both Cocks and Hens under him. How can that be, ſince you your ſelf that are Gallus, and but too much Gallinaceus, by report, cannot Govern your own ſingle Hen, but let her Govern you: So that if a Gallinaceus Bee a King over many Hens. you that are a ſlave to one, muſt own your ſelf not to be ſo good as a Gallinaceus, but ſome Ster…orarius Gallus, Dunghill-Cock or other. For matter of Books, there is no body publiſhes huger Dunghills than you, and you diſturb all people with your ſhitten Cock-crow; that's the only property in which you reſemble a true Cock. I'le throw you a great many Barley-corns, if in ranſacking this Dunghill Book of yours, you can ſhow me but one Jewel; but why ſhould I promiſe you Barley, that never p…kt at corn, as that honeſt plain Cock that we read of in Aeſop, but at Gold, as that Roguey Cock in Plautus; though with a different event; for you found a hundred Jacobuſſes, and he was ſtruck dead with Euclio's Club, which you deſerve more than he did. But let us go on: That ſame natural reaſon that deſigns the good and ſafely of all mankind, requires, that whoever is once promoted to the S…ignty, be preſerved in the poſſeſſion of it. Whoever queſtion'd this, as long as his preſervation is conſiſtent with the ſafety of all the reſt? But is it not obvious to all men that nothing can be more contrary to natural reaſon than that any one man ſhould be preſerved and defended to the utter ruin and deſtruction of all others? But yet (you ſay) it is better to keep and defend a bad Prince, nay one of the worſt that ever was, than to change him for another; becauſe his ill Government cannot do the Commonwealth ſo much harm as the diſturbances will occaſion, which muſt of neceſſity be raiſed before the people can get rid of him. But what is this to the right of Kings by the Law of Nature? If nature teacheth me rather to ſuffer my ſelf to be robbed by High-way men rather; if I ſhould be taken captive by ſuch, to purchaſe my Liberty with all my Eſtate, than to fight with them for my life, can you infer from th… that they have a natural right to rob and ſpoil me? Nature teacheth men to give way ſometimes to the violence and outrages of Tyrants, the neceſſity of affairs ſometimes enforceth a Toleration with their enormities; what foundation can you find in this forced patience of a Nation, in this compulſory ſubmiſſion, to build a right upon, for Princes to Tyrannize by the Law of Nature? that right which Nature has given the people for their own preſervation, can you affirm that ſhe has inveſted Tyrants with for the people's ruin and deſtruction? Nature teacheth us, of two evils to chuſe the leaſt; and to bear with oppreſſion, as long as there is a neceſſity of ſo doing; and will you infer from hence, that Tyrants have ſome right by the Law of Nature to oppreſs their Subjects, and go unpuniſhed, becauſe as circumſtances may fall out, it may ſometimes be a leſs miſchief to bear with them than to remove them? Remember what your ſelf once wrote concerning Biſhops againſt a Jeſuit; you were then of another opinion than you are now: I have quoted your words formerly; you there affirm that ſeditious Civil diſſentions and diſcords of the Nobles and Common people againſt and amongſt one another, are much more tolerable, and leſs miſchievous than certain miſery and deſtruction under the Government of a ſingle perſon, that plays the Tyrant. And you ſaid very true. For you had not then run mad; you had not then been bribed with Charles his Jacobuſſes. You had not got the King's-Evil. I ſhould tell you perhaps, if I did not know you, that you might be aſhamed thus to prevaricate. But you can ſooner burſt than bluſh, who have caſt off all ſhame for a little profit. Did you not remember, that the Commonwealth of the people of Rome flouriſhed and became glorious when they had baniſhed their Kings? Could you poſſibly forget that of the Low-Countries? which after it had ſhook off the yoke of the King of Spain, after long and tedious Wars, but Crown'd with ſucceſs, obtained its Liberty, and feeds ſuch a pitiful Grammarian as your ſelf with a Penſion; not that their youth might be ſo infatuated by your Sophiſtry as to chuſe rather to return to their former Slavery than inherit the Glorious Liberty which their Anceſtors purchaſed for them. May thoſe pernicious principles of yours be baniſhed with your ſelf into the moſt remote and barbarous corners of the World. And laſt of all, the Commonwealth of England might have afforded you an example, in which Charles, who had been their King, after he had been taken captive in War, and was found incurable, was put to death. But they have defaced and impoveriſhed the Iſland with Civil broils and diſcords, which under its Kings was happy, and ſwam in Luxury. Yea, when it was almoſt buried in Luxury and Voluptuouſneſs, and the more inured thereto, that it might be enthralled the more eaſily; when its Laws were aboliſhed, and its Religion agreed to be ſold, they delivered it from Slavery. You are like him that publiſhed Simplicius in the ſame Volume with Epictetus, a very grave Stoick, Who call an Iſland happy, becauſe it ſwims in Luxury. I'm ſure no ſuch Doctrine ever came out of Zeno's School. But why ſhould not you, who would give Kings a power of doing what they liſt, have liberty your ſelf to broach what new Philoſophy you pleaſe? Now begin again to act your part. There never was in any King's Reign ſo much blood ſpilt, ſo many Families ruined. All this is to be imputed to Charles, not to us, who firſt raiſed an Army of Iriſhmen againſt us; who by his own Warrant Authorized the Iriſh Nation to conſpire againſt the Engliſh; who by their means slew Two hundred Thouſand of his Engliſh Subjects in the Province of U…, beſides what Numbers were ſ…ain in other parts of that Kingdom; who ſollicited two Armies towards the deſtruction of the Parliament of England, and the City of London; and did many other actions of Hoſtility before the Parliament and people had Liſted one Soldier for the preſervation and defence of the Government. What Principles, what Law, what Religion ever taught men rather to conſult their eaſe, to ſave their money, their blood, nay their lives themſelves, than to oppoſe an enemy with force? for I make no difference betwixt a Foreign Enemy, and another, ſince both are equally dangerous and deſtructive to the good of the whole Nation. The People of Iſrael ſaw very well, that they could not poſſibly puniſh the Benjamites forSpan… Murthering the Levite's Wife, without the loſs of many Men's lives: And did that induce them to ſit ſtill? Was that accounted a ſufficient Argument why they ſhould abſtain from War, from a very Bloody, Civil War? Did they therefore ſuffer the Death of one poor Woman to be unrevenged? Certainly if Nature teacheth us rather to endure the Government of a King, though he be never ſo bad, than to endanger the lives of a great many Men in the recovery of our Liberty; it muſt teach us likewiſe not only to endure a Kingly Government, which is the only one that you argue ought to be ſubmitted to, but an Ariſtocracy and a Democracy: Nay, and ſometimes it will perſuade us, to ſubmit to a Multitude of Highway-men, and to Slaves that Mutiny. Fulvius and Rupilius, if your Principles had been received in their days, muſt not have engaged in the Servile War (as their Writers call it) after the Praetorian Armies were Slain: Craſſus muſt not have Marched againſt Spartacus, after the Rebels had deſtroyed one Roman Army, and ſpoil'd their Tents: Nor muſt …mp…y have undertaken the Piratick War. But the State of Rome muſt have purſued the dictates of Nature, and muſt have ſubmitted to their own Slaves, or to the Pyrates, rather than run the hazard of loſing ſome Mens lives. You do not prove at all, that Nature has imprinted any ſuch notion as this of yours on the minds of Men: And yet you cannot forbear boding us ill luck, and denouncing the Wrath of God againſt us, (which may Heaven divert and inflict it upon your ſelf, and all ſuch Prognoſticators as you) who have puniſhed as he deſerved, one that had the name of our King, but was in Fact our implacable Enemy; and we have made Atonement for the Death of ſo many of our Countreymen, as our Civil Wars have occaſion'd, by ſhedding his Blood, that was the Author and Cauſe of them. Then you tell us, that a Kingly Government appears to be more according to the Laws of Nature, becauſe more Nations, both in our days and of old, have ſubmitted to that Form of Government, than ever did to any other. I anſwer, If that be ſo, it was neither the effect of any Dictate of the Law of Nature, nor was it in Obedience to any Command from God. God would not ſuffer his own People to be under a King; he conſented at laſt, but unwillingly; what Nature and right Reaſon dictates, we are not to gather from the practice of moſt Nations, but of the wiſeſt and moſt prudent. The Grecians, the Romans, the Italians, and Carthagenians, with many other, have of their own accord, out of choice, preferr'd a Commonwealth to a Kingly Government; and theſe Nations that I have named, are better inſtances than all the reſt. Hence Sulpitius Severus ſays, That the very Name of a King was always very odious among freeborn People. But theſe things concern not our preſent purpoſe, nor many other Impertinences that follow over and over again. I'll make haſte to prove, that by Examples, which I have proved already by Reaſon, viz. That it is very agreeable to the Law of Nature, that Tyrants ſhould be puniſhed; and that all Nations by the inſtinct of Nature, have puniſhed them; which will expoſe your Impudence, and make it evident, that you take a liberty to publiſh palpable down-right lies. You begin with the Egyptians; and indeed, who does not ſee, that you play the Gipſy your ſelf throughout? Amongſt them, ſay you, there is no mention extant of any King, that was ever ſlain by the People in a Popular Inſurrection, no War made upon any of their Kings by their Subjects, no attempt made to depoſe any of them. What think you then of Oſiris, who perhaps was the firſt King that the Egyptians ever had? Was not he ſlain by his Brother Typhon, and five and twenty other Conſpirators? And did not a great part of the Body of the People ſide with them, and fight a Battel with Iſis and Orus, the late King's Wife and Son? I paſs by Seſoſtris, whom his Brother had well-nigh put to Death, and Chemmis, and Cephrenes, againſt whom the People were deſervedly enraged; and becauſe they could not do it while they were alive, they threatned to tear them in pieces after they were dead. Do you think that a People that durſt lay violent hands upon good Kings, had any reſtraint upon them, either by the Light of Nature or Religion, from putting bad ones to Death? Could they that threatened to pull the dead Bodies of their Princes out of their Graves, when they ceaſed to do miſchief, tho by the Cuſtom of their own Country, the Corps of the meaneſt Perſon was ſacred and inviolable, abſtain from inflicting Puniſhment upon them in their Life-time, when they were acting all their Villanies, if they had been able; and that upon ſome Maxim of the Law of Nature? I know you would not ſtick to anſwer me in the Affirmative, how abſurd ſoever it be; but that you may not offer at it, I'll pull out your Tongue. Know then, that ſome Ages before Cephrene s time, one Ammoſis was King of Egypt, and was as great a Tyrant, as who has been the greateſt; him the People bore with. This you are glad to hear; this is what you would be at. But hear what follows, my honeſt tell-truth. I ſhall ſpeak out of Diodorus, They bore with him for ſome while, becauſe he was too ſtring for them. But when Actiſanes King of Ethiopia made War upon him, they took that oppotunity to revolt, ſo that being deforced, he was eaſily ſubdued, and Egypt became an Acceſſion to the Kingdom of Ethiopia. You ſee the …tians, as ſoon as they could, took up Arms againſt a Tyrant; they joyned Forces with a Foreign ſaince, to depoſe their own King, and diſinherit his Poſterity; they choſ… to live under a moderate and good Prince, as Actiſanes was, tho a Foreigner, rather than under a Tyrant of their own. The ſame People with a very unanimous Conſent took up Arms againſt Apries, another Tyrant, who relied upon Foreign Aids that he had hired to aſſiſt him. Under the Conduct of Amaſis their General they Conquered, and afterward Strangled him, and placed Amaſis in the Throne. And obſerve this Circumſtance in the Hiſtory; Amaſis kept the … aptive King a good while in the Palace, and treated him well: At laſt, when the People com… …d that he nouriſhed his own and their Enemy; he put him into their hands, who put him to Death in the manner I have mentioned. There things are related by Heroditus and Diodorus. Where are you now? Do you think that any Tyrant would not chuſe a Hatchet rather than an Halter? Aſ… ſay you, when the Egyptians were brought … … by the Perſians, they continued faithful to … which is moſt falſe, they never were faithful to …: For in the fourth year after Cambyſes had … … th…m, they rebelled. Afterward, when … … … tamed them, within a ſhort time after … r…volted from his Son Artaxerxes, and ſet up one … to be their King. After whoſe Death they rebell'd again, and made one Tachus King, and made War upon Artaxerxes Mnemon. Neither were they better Subjects to their own Princes, for they depoſed Tachus, and confer'd the Government upon his Son Nectanebus, till at laſt Artaxerxes Ochus brought them the ſecond time into Subjection to the Perſian Empire. When they were under the Macedonian Empire, they declared by their Actions, that Tyrants ought to be under ſome reſtraint: They threw down the Statutes and Images of Ptolomaeus Phyſco, and would have killed himſelf, but that the Mercenary Army that he Commanded, was too ſtrong for them. His Son Alexander was forced to leave his Country by the meer Violence of the People, who were incenſed againſt him for killing his Mother. And the People of Alexandria dragged his Son Alexander out of the Palace, whoſe Inſolent Behaviour gave juſt Offence, and killed him in the Theatre. And the ſame People depoſed Ptolomaeus Auletes for his many Crimes. Now, ſince it is impoſſible that any Learned Man ſhould be ignorant of theſe things that are ſo generally known; and ſince it is an inexcuſable fault in Salmaſius to be ignorant of them, whoſe profeſſion it is to teach them others, and whoſe very aſſerting things of this Nature ought to carry in its ſelf an Argument of Credibility; it is certainly a very ſcandalous thing, either that ſo Ignorant, Unlearned a Blockhead, ſhould to the Scandal of all Learning, profeſs himſelf, and be accounted a Learned Man, and obtain Salaries from Princes and States; or that ſo impudent and notorious a Lyar ſhould not be branded with ſome particular Mark of Infamy, and for ever baniſhed from the Society of learned and honeſt Men. Having ſearched among the Egyptians for Examples, let us now conſider the Ethiopians their Neighbours. They adore their Kings, whom they ſuppoſe God to have appointed over them, almoſt as if they were a ſort of gods themſelves: And yet whenever the Prieſts condemn any of them, they kill themſelves: And on that manner, ſays Diodorus, they puniſh all their Criminals; they put them not to death, but ſend a Miniſter of Juſtice to command them to kill themſelves. In the next place you mention the Aſſyrians, the Medes, and the Perſians, who of all others were moſt obſervant of their Princes: And you affirm contrary to all Hiſtorians that have wrote any thing concerning thoſe Nations, That the Regal Power there, had an unbounded Liberty annexed to it, of doing what the King liſted. In the firſt place the Prophet Daniel tells us, how the Babylonians expelled Nebuchadnezzar out of human Society, and made him graze with the Beaſts, when his pride grew to be inſufferable. The Laws of thoſe Countries were not entituled the Laws of their Kings, but the Laws of the Medes and Perſians; which Laws were irrevocable, and the Kings themſelves were bound by them: Inſomuch that Darius the Mede, tho he earneſtly deſired to have delivered Daniel from the hands of the Princes, yet could not effect it. Thoſe Nations, ſay you, thought it no ſufficient pretence to reject a Prince, becauſe he abuſed the Right which was inherent in him as he was Sovereign. But in the very writing of theſe words you are ſo ſtupid, as that with the ſame breath that you commend the Obedience and Submiſſiveneſs of thoſe Nations, of your own accord you make mention of Sardanapalus'r being deprived of his Crown by Arbaces. Neither was it he alone that accompliſhed that Enterprise, for he had the aſſiſtance of the Prieſts, (who of all others were beſt verſed in the Law), and of the people; and it was wholly upon this account that he deposed him, becauſe he abuſed his authority and power, not by giving himſelf over to cruelty, but to luxury and effeminacy. Run over the Hiſtories of Herodotus, Ct…ſias, Diodorus, and you will find things quite contrary to what you aſſert here; you will find that thoſe Kingdoms were deſtroyed for the moſt part by ſubjects, and not by foreigners; that the Aſſyrians were brought down by the Medes, who then were their ſubjects, and the Medes by the Perſians, who at that time were like wiſe ſubject to them. Your ſelf confeſs, that Cyrus rebell'd, and that at the ſame time in divers parts of the Empire little upſtart Governments were formed by thoſe that ſhook off the Medes. But does this agree with what you ſaid before? does this prove the obedience of the Medes and Perſians to their Princes, and that Jus Regium which you had aſſerted to have been univerſally received amongſt thoſe Nations? What Potion can cure this brainſ… frenzy of yours? You ſay, It appears by Herodotus how abſolute the Perſian Kings were. Cambyſes being deſirous to marry his Siſter, conſulted with the Judges, who were the Interpreters of the Laws, to whoſe Judgment all difficult matters were to be referred. What anſwer had he from them? They told him, They knew no Law which permitted a Brother to marry his Siſter; but another Law they knew, that the Kings of Perſia might do what they liſted. Now to this I anſwer, if the Kings of Perſia were really ſo abſolute, what need was there of any other to interpret the Laws, beſides the King himſelf? Thoſe ſuperfluous, unneceſſary Judges would have had their abode and reſidence in any other place rather than in the Palace, where they were altogether uſeleſs. Ag…in if thoſe Kings might do what ever they would, it is not credible that ſo ambitious a Prince as Cambyſes was, ſhould be ſo ignorant of that grand Prerogative, as to conſult with the Judges, whether what he deſired were according to Law. What was the matter then? either they deſigned to humour the King, as you ſay they did, or they were afraid to croſs his inclination, which is the account that Herodotus gives of it; and ſo told him of ſuch a Law, as they knew would pleaſe him, and in plain terms made a fool of him; which is no new thing with Judges and Lawyers now a days. But, ſay you, Artabanus a Perſian told Themiſtocles, that there was no better Law in Perſia, than that by which it was Enacted, That Kings were to be honoured and adored. An excellent Law that was without doubt which commanded ſubjects to adore their Princes! but the Primitive Fathers have long ago damned it; and Artabanus was a proper perſon to commend ſuch a Law, who was the very man that a little while after ſlew Xerxes with his own hand. You quote Regicides to aſſert Royalty. I am afraid you have ſome deſign upon Kings. In the next place you quote the Poet Claudian, to prove how obedient the Perſians were. But I appeal to their Hiſtories and Annals, which are full of the Revolts of the Perſians, the Medes, the Bactrians, and Babylonians, and give us frequent inſtances of the Murders of their Princes. The next perſon whoſe authority you cite, is Otanes the Perſian, who likewiſe killed Smerdis then King of Perſia, to whom, out of the hatred which he bore to a Kingly Government, he reckons up the impieties and injurious actions of Kings, their violation of all Laws, their putting men to death without a legal conviction, their rapes and adulteries; and all this you will have called the right of Kings, and ſlander Samuel again as a teacher of ſuch Doctrine. You quote Homer, who ſays that Kings derive their authority from Jupiter; to which I have already given an anſwer. For King Philip of Macedon, whoſe aſſerting the right of Kings, you make uſe of: I'le believe Charles his deſcription of it, as ſoon as his. Then you quote ſome Sentences out of a fragment of Diogenes a Pythagorean; but you do not tell us what ſort of a King he ſpeaks of. Obſerve therefore how he begins that Diſcourſe; for whatever follows muſt be underſtood to have relation to it. Let him be King, ſays he, that of all others is moſt juſt, and ſo he is that acts moſt according to Law; for no man can be King that is not juſt; and without Laws there can be no Juſtice. This is directly oppoſite to that Regal right of yours. And Ecphantas, whom you likewiſe quote, is of the ſame opinion: Whoſoever takes upon him to be a King, ought to be naturally moſt pure and clear from all imputation: And a little after, Him, ſays he, we call a King, that governs well, and he only is properly ſo. So that ſuch a King as you ſpeak of, according to the Philoſophy of the Pythagoreans, is no King at all. Hear now what Plato ſays in his eighth Epiſtle: Let Kings, ſays he, be liable to be called to account for what they do: Let the Laws controul not only the people, but Kings themſelves, if they do any thing not warranted by Law. I'le mention what Ariſtotle ſays in the Third Book of his Politicks; It is neither for the Publick Good, nor is it juſt, ſays he, where all men are by nature alike and equal, that any one ſhould be Lord and Maſter over all the reſt, neither where there are no Laws; nor is it for the Publick Good, or Juſt, that one man ſhould be a Law to the reſt; nor is it ſo where there are Laws; nor that any one, tho a good man, thould be Lord over other good m…n, nor a bad man over bad men. And in the Fifth Book ſays he, That King whom the people refuse to be govern'd by, is no longer a King, but a Tyrant. Hear what Xenophon ſays in Hiero: People are ſo far from revenging the Deaths of Tyrants, that they confer great Honour upon him that Kills one, and erect Statues in their Temples to the Honour of Tyrannicides. Of this I can produce an … witness, Marcus Tullius, in his Oration pro Milone, The Grecians, ſays he, aſcribe Divine Worſhip to ſuch as kill Tyrants: What things of this nature have … my ſelf ſeen at Athens, and in other Cities of Greece? How many Religious Obſervances have been in…ted in honour of ſuch men? How many Hymns? They are conſecrated to Immortality and Adoration, and their Memory endeavoured to be perpetuated. And …ly, Polybius, an Hiſtorian of great Authority and Gravity, in the Sixth Book of his … ſays thus: When Princes began to in… their own Luſts and ſenſual Appetites, then …doms were turned into ſo many Tyrannies, and the Subjects began to conſpire the Death of their Governors; neither were they the profligate ſort ſort that were the Authors of thoſe Deſigns, but the most Generous and Magnanimous. I could quote many … like paſſage, but I ſhall inſtance in no more▪ … Philoſophers you appeal to the Poets; and … willing to follow you thither. Aeſchylus … to inform us, That the Power of the Kings of …, as not to be liable to the cenſure of any … questioned before any Human Judicature …gedy that is called, The Suppliants, calls … Argives, a Governor not obnoxious to th… … any Tribunal. But you muſt know, for … you ſay, the more you diſcover your raſhneſs and want of judgment; you muſt know, I ſay, that one is not to regard what the Poet ſays, but what perſon in the Play ſpeaks, and what that perſon ſays; for different perſons are introduced, ſometimes good, ſometimes bad; ſometimes wiſe men, ſometimes fools; and ſuch words are put into their mouths, as it is moſt proper for them to ſpeak; not ſuch as the Poet would ſpeak, if he were to ſpeak in his own perſon. The Fifty Daughters of Danaus being banished out of Egypt, became Suppliants to the King of the Argives; they begg'd of him, that he would protect them from the Egyptians, who purſued them with a Fleet of Ships. The King told them he could not undertake their Protection, till he had imparted the matter to the people; For, ſays he, if I should make a promiſe to you, I ſhould not be able to perform it, unleſs I conſult with them firſt. The Women being Strangers and Suppliants, and fearing the uncertain ſuffrages of the people, tell him, That the Power of all the people reſides in him alone▪ that he judges all others, but is not judged himſelf by any. He anſwers: I have told you already, That I cannot do this thing that you deſire of me, without the peoples conſent; nay, and tho I could, I would not. At laſt he refers the matter to the people; I will aſſemble the people, ſays he, and perſuade them to protect you. The people met, and reſolved to engage in their quarrel; inſomuch that Danaus their Father bids his Daughters be of good cheer, for the people of the Countrey, in a Popular Convention had voted their Safeguard and Defence. If I had not related the whole thing, how raſhly would this impertinent Ignoramus have determined concerning the Right of Kings among the Grecians, out of the mouths of a few Women that were Strangers and Suppliants, tho the King himſelf, and the Hiſtory be quite contrary? The ſame thing appears by the ſtory of Oreſtes in Euripides, who after his Father's Death was himſelf King of the Argives, and yet was called in question by the people for the death of his Mother, and made to plead for his Life, and by the major ſuffrage was condemned to dye. The ſame Poet in his Play called The Suppliants, declares, That at Athens the Kingly Power was ſubject to the Laws; where Theſeus then King of that City is made to ſay theſe words: This is a free City, it is not governed by one man; the people reigns here. And his Son Demophoon, who was King after him, in another Tragedy of the ſame Poet, called H…raclidae, I do not exerciſe a Tyrannical power over them, as if they were Barbarians: I am upon other terms with them; but if I do them Juſtice, they will do me the like. Sophocles in his Oedipus ſhows, That anciently in Thebes the Kings were not abſolute neither: Hence ſays Tireſias to Oedipus, I am not your Slave. And Creon to the ſame King, I have ſome Right in this City, ſays he, as well as you. And in another Tragedy of the ſame Poet, called Antigone, Aemon tells the King, That the City of Thebes is not govern'd by a ſingle perſon. All men know that the Kings of Lacedemon have been arraigned, and ſometimes put to death judicially. Theſe inſtances are ſufficient to evince what Power the Kings in Greece had. Let us conſider now the Romans: You betake your ſelf to that paſſage of C. Memmius in Saluſt, of Kings having a liberty to do what they list, and go unpuniſhed; to which I have given an anſwer already, Saluſt himſelf ſays in expreſs words, That the Ancient Government of Rome was by their Laws, tho the Name and Form of it was Regal; which form of Government, when it grew into a Tyranny, you know they put down and changed. Cicero in his Oration againſt Piſo, Shall I, ſays he, account him a Conſul, who would not allow the Senate to have any Authority in the Commonwealth? Shall I take notice of any man as Conſul, if at the ſame there be no ſuch thing as a Senate; when of old, the City of Rome acknowledged not their Kings, if they acted without or in oppoſition to the Senate? Do you hear; the very Kings themſelves at Rome ſignified nothing without the Senate. But, ſay you, Romulus governed as he liſted; and for that you quote Tacitus. No wonder: The Government was not then eſtabliſhed by Law; they were a confus'd multitude of ſtrangers more like, than a State; and all mankind lived without Laws, before Governments were ſetled. But when Romulus was dead, tho all the people were deſirous of a King, not having yet experienced the ſweetneſs of Liberty, yet, as Livy informs us, The Soveraign Power reſided in the People; ſo that they parted not with more Right than they retained: The ſame Author tells us, That that ſame Power was afterwards extorted from them by their Emperours. Servius Tullius at firſt reigned by fraud, and as it were a Deputy to Tarquinius Priſcus; but afterward he referred it to the people, Whether they would have him reign or no? At laſt, ſays Tacitus, he became the Author of ſuch Laws as the Kings were obliged to obey. Do you think he would have done ſuch an injury to himſelf and his Poſterity, if he had been of opinion that the Right of Kings had been above all Laws? Their laſt King, Tarquinius Superbus, was the firſt that put an end to that cuſtom of conſulting the Senate concerning all Publick Affairs; for which very thing, and other enormities of his, the people depoſed him and baniſhed him and his Family. Theſe things I have out of Livy and Cicero, than whom you will hardly produce any better Expoſitors of the Right of Kings among the Romans. As for the Dictatorſhip, that was but Temporary, and was never made uſe of, but in great extremities, and was not to continue longer than six months. But that thing which you call the Right of the Roman Emperors, was no Right, but a plain downright Force; and was gained by War only. But Tacitus, ſay you, that lived under the Government of a ſingle perſon, writes thus; The Gods have committed the Sovereign Power in human Affairs to Princes only, and have left to Subjects the honour of being obedient. But you tell us not where Tacitus has theſe words; for you were conſcious to your ſelf, that you imposed upon your Readers in quoting them; which I presently ſmelt out, tho I could not find the place of a sudden: For that Expreſſion is not Tacitus's own, who is an approved Writer, and of all others the … Enemy to Tyrants; but Tacitus relates that …us, a Gentleman of Rome, being accuſed for a Capital Crime, amongſt other things that he ſaid to save his life, flattered Tiberius on this manner; (it is in the Sixth Book of his Annals); The Gods have entrusted you with the ultimate Judgment in all things; they have left us the honour of obedience. And you cite this paſſage as if Tacitus had ſaid it himſelf; you … together whatever ſeems to make for your Opinion, either out of oftentation, or out of weakneſs; you would leave out nothing that you could find in a Baker's, or a Barber's Shop; …ay, you would be glad of any thing that looked like an Argument, from the Hang-man himſelf. If you would have read Tacitus himſelf, and not have tranſcribed ſome looſe Quotations out of him by other Authors, he would have taught you whence that Imperial Right had its Original. After the Conqueſt of Aſia, ſays he, the whole ſtate of our Affairs was turned upſide down; nothing of the ancient integrity of our Forefathers was left amongſt us; all men ſhook off that former equality which had been obſerved, and began to have a reverence for the Mandates of Princes. This you might have learned out of the Third Book of his Annals, whence you have all your Regal Right: When that ancient equality was laid aſide, and inſtead thereof Ambition and Violence took place, Tyrannical Forms of Government ſtarted up, and fixed themſelves in many Countries. This ſame thing you might have learned out of Dio, if your natural Levity and Unſetledneſs of Judgment would have ſuffered you to apprehend any thing that's ſolid. He tells us in his Fifty third Book of his Hiſtory, out of which book you have made ſome quotation already, That Octavius Caeſar, partly by Force, and partly by Fraud, brought things to that paſs, that the Emperors of Rome became no longer fettered by Laws. For he, tho he promiſed to the people in publick that he would lay down the Government, and obey the Laws, and become ſubject to others, yet under pretence of making War in ſeveral Provinces of the Empire, ſtill retained the Legions, and ſo by degrees invaded the Government, which he pretended, he would forgo. This was not regularly getting from under the Law, but breaking forcibly through all Laws, as Spartacus the Gladiator might have done; and then aſſuming to himſelf the ſtyle of Prince or Emperor, as if God or the Law of Nature had put all men and all Laws into ſubjection under him. Would yo… enquire a little further into the Original of the Right of the Roman Emperors? Mircus Antonius, whom Caeſar, when by taking up Arms againſt the Commonwealth, he had got all the Power into his hands, had made Conſul, when a Solemnity called the Luperelia was celebrated at Rome, (as had been contrived before-hand, that he ſhould) ſet a Crown upon Caeſar's head, (though the people ſighed and lamented at the ſight) and cauſed it to be entred upon record, That Mirous Antonius at the Lupercalia, made Caeſar King at the Inſtance of the people Of which action, Cicero in his ſecond Philippick, Was Lucius Tarquinius therefore expelled, ſays he, Spurius Caſſius, Sp. Milius, and Marcus Manilius put to death, that after many ages Marcus Antonius ſhould make a King in Rome contrary to Law? But you deſerve to be tortured, and loaded with everlaſting diſgrace, much more than Mark Antony; tho I would not have you proud becauſe he and your ſelf are put together; for I do not think ſo deſpicable a Wretch as you fit to be compared with him in any thing but Impiety; you that in thoſe horrible Lupercalia of yours, ſet not a Crown upon one Tyrant's head, but upon all, and ſuch a Crown as you would have limited by no Laws, nor liable to any. Indeed if we muſt believe the Oracles of the Emperors themſelves, (for ſo ſome Chriſtian Emperors, as Theodoſius and Valens, have called their Edicts, …od. lib. 1. tit. 14.) the Authority of the Emperors depends upon that of the Law. So that the Majeſty of the Perſon that reigns, even by the Judgment, or call it the Oracle, of the Emperors themſelves, muſt ſubmit to the Laws, on whoſe Authority it depends. Hence Pliny tells Trajan in his Panegyrick, when the Power of the Emperors was grown to its height: A Principality, and an Abſolute Sovereignty are quite different things. Trajan puts down whatever looks like a Ringdom; he rules like a Prince, that there may be no room for a Magiſterial Power. And afterwards, Whatever I have ſaid of other Princes, I ſaid that I might ſhow how our Prince reforms and corrects the Manners of Princes, which by long cuſtom have been corrupted and depraved. Are not you aſhamed to call that the Right of Kings, that Pliny calls the corrupt and depraved Cuſtoms of Princes? But let this ſuffice to have been ſaid in ſhort of the Right of Kings, as it was taken at Rome. How they dealt with their Tyrants, whether Kings or Emperors, is generally known. They expelled Tarquin. But, ſay you, How did they expel him? Did they proceed againſt him judicially? No ſuch matter: When he would have come into the City, they ſhut the gates againſt him. Ridiculous Fool! What could they do but ſhut the gates, when he was haſtning to them with part of the Army? And what great difference will there be, whether they baniſhed him, or put him to death, ſo they puniſhed him one way or other? The beſt men of that age kill'd Caeſar the Tyrant in the very Senate. Which action of theirs, Marcus Tullius, who was himſelf a very excellent man, and publickly call'd the Father of his Countrey, both elſewhere and particularly in his ſecond Philippick, extols wonderfully. I'll repeat ſome of his words, All good Men kill'd Caeſar, as far as in them lay. Some Men could not adviſe in it, others wanted Courage to act in it, others wanted an Opportunity, all had a good will to it. And afterwards, What greater and more glorious Action (ye holy gods!) ever was performed, not in this City only, but in any other Country? what Action more worthy to be recommended to everlaſting memory? I am not unwilling to be included within the number of thoſe that adviſed it, as within the Trojan Horſe. The paſſage of Seneca may relate both to the Romans, and the Grecians, There cannot be a greater, nor more acceptable Sacrifice offered up to Jupiter, than a wicked Prince. For if you conſider Hercules, whoſe words theſe are, They ſhew what the Opinion was of the principal Men amongſt the Grecians in that Age; If the Poet, who flouriſhed under Nero (and the moſt worthy Perſons in Plays generally expreſs the Poet's own Senſe) then this paſſage ſhows us what Seneca himſelf and all good Men, even in Nero's time, thought was fit to be done to a Tyrant; and how vertuous an Action, how acceptable to God they thought it to kill one. So every good Man of Rome, as far as in him lay, kill'd Domitian. Pliny the Second, owns it openly in his Panegyrick to Trajan the Emperor, We took pleaſure in daſhing thoſe proud Looks againſt the Ground, in piercing him with our Swords, in mangling him with Axes, as if he had bled and felt pain at every ſtroke: No man could ſo command his passion of Joy, but that he counted it a piece of Revenge to behold his mangled Limbs, his Members torn aſunder, and after all, his ſtern and hor… Statues thrown down and burnt. And afterwards, They cannot love good Princes enough, that cannot hate bad ones as they deſerve. Then amongſt other Enormities of Domitian, he reckons this for one, that he put to Death Ep…phroditus, that had kill'd Nero, Had we forgotten the avenging Nero's Death? Was it likely that he would ſuffer his Life and Actions to be ill ſpoken of, whoſe Death he revenged? He ſeems to have thought it almoſt a Crime not to kill Nero, that counts it ſo great a one to puniſh him that did it. By what has been ſaid, it is evident, that the beſt of the Romans did not only kill Tyrants, as oft as they could, and howſoever they could; but that they thought it a commendable, and a praiſe-worthy Action ſo to do, as the Grecians had done before them. For when they could not proceed judicially againſt a Tyrant in his life-time, being interior to him in Strength and Power, yet after his Death they did it, and condemn'd him by the Valerian Law. For Valerius Publicola, Junius Brutus his Colleague, when he ſaw, that Tyrants being guarded with Soldiers, could not be brought to a legal Tryal, he deviſed a Law to make it lawful to kill them any way, tho uncondemn'd, and that they that did it, ſhould afterwards give an account of their ſo doing. Hence, when Caſſius had actually run Caligula through with a Sword, tho every Body elſe had done it in their hearts, Valerius Aſiaticus, one that had been Conſul, being preſent at the time, cried out to the Soldiers, that began to Mutiny becauſe of his Death, I wiſh I my ſelf had kill'd him. And the Senate at the ſame time was ſo far from being diſpleaſed with Caſſius for what he had done, that they reſolved to extirpate the Memory of the Emperors, and to raze the Temples that had been erected in Honour of them. When Claudius was preſently ſaluted Emperor by the Soldiers, they forbad him by the Tribune of the People to take the Government upon him; but the Power of the Soldiers prevailed. The Senate declared Nero an Enemy, and made enquiry after him, to have puniſhed him according to the Law of their Anceſtors; which required, that he ſhould be ſtript naked, and hung by the Neck upon a forked Stake, and whipt to Death. Conſider now, how much more mildly and moderately the Engliſh dealt with their Tyrant, tho many are of Opinion, that he cauſed the ſpilling of more Blood than ever Nero himſelf did. So the Senate condemn'd Domitian after his Death; they commanded his Statues to be pull'd down and daſh'd in pieces, which was all they could do. When Commodus was ſlain by his own Officers, neither the Senate, nor the People puniſht the Fact, but declared him an Enemy, and enquired for his dead Corps to have made it an Example. An Act of the Senate made upon that occaſion is extant in Lampridius: Let the Enemy of his Country be depriv'd of all his Titles; let the Parricide be drawn, let him be torn in pieces in the Spoliary, let the Enemy of the gods, the Executioner of the Senate be drag'd with a Hake, &c. The ſame Perſons in a very full Senate condemn'd Didius Julianus to Death, and ſent a Tribune to ſlay him in the Palace. The ſame Senate depoſed Maximinus, and declared him an Enemy. Let us hear the words of the Decree of the Senate concerning him, as Capitolinus relates it, The Conſul put the queſtion, Conſcript Fathers, what is your pleaſure concerning the Maximines? They anſwered, They are Enemies, they are Enemies, who ever kills them ſhall be rewarded. Would you know now, whether the People of Rome, and the Provinces of the Empire obeyed the Senate, or Maximine the Emperor? Hear what the ſame Author ſays, The Senate wrote Letters into all the Provinces, requiring them to take care of their Common Safety and Liberty; the Letters were publickly read. And the Friends, the Deputies, the Generals, the Tribunes, the Soldiers of Maximine, were ſlain in all places; very few Cities were found that kept their Faith with the publick Enemy. Herodian relates the ſame thing. But what need we give any more Inſtances out of the Roman Hiſtories? Let us now ſee what manner of thing the Right of Kings was in thoſe days, in the Nations that bordered upon the Empire. Ambiorix, a King of the Gauls, confeſſeth, The Nature of his Dominion to be ſuch, that the People have as great Power over him, as he over them. And conſequently, as well as he judged them, he might be judged by them. Vercingetorix, another King in Gaul, was accuſed of Treaſon by his own People. Theſe things Caeſar relates in his Hiſtory of the Gallick Wars. Neither is the Regal Power among the Germans abſolute and uncontroulable; leſſer matters are ordered and diſpoſed by the Princes; greater Affairs by all the People. The King or Prince is more conſiderable by the Authority of his Perſuaſions, than by any Power that he has of Commanding. If his Opinion be not approv'd of, they declare their diſlike of it by a general murmuring Noiſe. This is out of Tacitus. Nay, and you your ſelf now confeſs, that what but of late you exclaim'd againſt as an unheard of thing, has been often done, to wit, That no leſs than fifty Scotiſh Kings have been either Baniſhed, or Impriſoned, or put to Death, nay, and ſome of them publickly executed. Which having come to paſs in our very Iſland; why do you, as if it were your Office to conceal the violent Deaths of Tyrants, by burying them in the dark, exclaim againſt it as an abominable and unheard of thing? You proceed to commend the Jews and Chriſtians for their Religious Obearence even to Tyrants, and to heap one lye upon another, all which I have already con…uted you in. Of late you made large Enccmiums of the Obedience of the Aſſyrians and Perſians, and now you reckon up their Rebellions; and tho but of late you ſaid they never had Rebell'd at all, now you give us a great many reaſons why they Rebell'd ſo often. Then you reſume the Narrative of the manner of our King's Death, which you had broken off long ſince; that if you had not taken care ſu…i…ntly to appear ridiculous, and a Fool then, you may do it now. You ſaid, He was led through the Members of his own Court. What you mean by the Members of the Court, I would gladly know. You enumerate the Calamities that the Romans underwent by changing their Kingdom into a Commowealth. In which I have already ſhown how groſly you give your ſelf the lye. What was it you ſaid when you wrote againſt the Jeſuit? You demonſtrated, That in an Ariſtocracy, or a popular State there c…uld but he Sediti…s and Tumults, whereas under a Tyrant nothing was to be l…ked for, but certain Ruin and Deſtruction: And dare you now ſay, you vain corrupt Mortal, That th…ſe Seditions were Puniſhments inflicted upon them f…r Ban…ſhing their Kings; to wit, becauſe King Charles gave you a hundred Jacobuſſ…s afterward? Therefore the Romans ſhall be puniſhed for Baniſhing their Kings. But they that kill'd Julius Caeſar, did not proſper afterwards. I confeſs, if I would have had any Tyrant ſpared, it ſhould have been him. For altho he introduced a Monarchical Government into a … State by force of Arms, yet perhaps himſelf deserved a Kingdom beſt; and yet I conceive that none of thoſe that killed him can be ſaid to have been puniſhed for ſo doing, any more than Caius Anthonius, … 's Colleague for deſtroying Cataline, who when he was afterward condemn'd for other Crimes, ſays Cicero in his Oration, Pro Flacco, Cataline's Sepulch… was ad…rn'd with Flowers. For they that fa▪ voured Cataline, then rejoyced, They gave out then, that what Cataline did was juſt, to encreaſe the Peoples hatred againſt thoſe that had cut him off. Theſe are Artifices, which wicked Men make uſe of, to deter the beſt of Men from puniſhing Tyrants, and ſlagitious Perſons. I might as eaſily ſay the quite contrary, and inſtance in them that have killed Tyrants, and proſpered afterwards; if any certain inference might be drawn in ſuch …aſes from the Events of things. You object further, That the Engliſh did not put their Hereditary King to Death in like manner, as Tyrants uſe to be ſlain, but as Robbers and Traytors are executed. In the firſt place I do not, nor can any wiſe Man underſtand what a Crowns being Hereditary, ſhould contribute to a King's Crimes being unpuniſhable. What you aſcribe to the Barbarous Cruelty of the Engliſh, proceeded rather for their Clemency and Moderation, and as ſuch, deſerves Commendation; who, tho the bein… a Tyrant, is a Crime that comprehends all ſorts of Enormities, ſuch as Robberies, Treaſons, and Rebellions againſt the whole Nation, yet were contented to inflict no greater puniſhment upon him for being ſo, than they uſed of courſe to do upon any Common Highway-man, or ordinary Traytor. You hope ſome ſuch Men as Harmodius and Thraſibulus will riſe up amongſt us, and make Expiation for the King's Death by ſhedding th…ir Blood that were the Authors of it. But you will run …d with deſpair, and be deteſted by all good Men and put an end to that wretched Life of yours, by h…nging your ſelf, before you ſee Men like H…dius avenging the Blood of a Tyrant upon ſuch … h…ve done no other than what they did themſelves. That you will come to ſuch an end is moſt pro… ble, nor can any other be expected of ſo great a Rogue; but the other thing is an utter impoſſibility. You mention thirty Tyrants that rebelled in Callienus's time. And what if it fall out, that one Tyrant happens to oppoſe another, muſt therefore all they that reſiſt Tyrants be accounted ſuch themſelves? You cannot perſuade Men into ſuch a belief, you Slave of a Knight; nor your Author Trebellius Pollio, the moſt inconſiderable of all Hiſtorians that have writ. If any of the Emperors were declared Enemies by the Senate, you ſay, it was done by Faction, but could not have been by Law. You put us in mind what it was that made Emperours at firſt: It was Faction and Violence, and to ſpeak plainer, it was the Madneſs of Anthony, that made Generals at firſt Rebel againſt the Senate, and the People of Rome; there was no Law, no Right for their ſo doing. Galba, you ſay, was puniſhed for his Inſurection againſt Nero. Tell us likewiſe how …ſpaſian was puniſhed for taking up Arms againſt Vitellius. There was as much difference, you ſay, betwixt Charles and Nero, as betwixt thoſe Engliſh …chers, and the Roman Senators of th… Age. Deſ…ic…ble Villain! by whom it is Scandalous to be commended, and a Praiſe to be Evil ſpoken of: But a few Periods before, diſcourſing of this very thing, you ſaid, That the Roman Senate under the Emperors, was in effect but an Aſſembly of Slaves in Robes: And here you ſay, That very Senate was an Aſſembly of Kings; which if it be allowed, then are Kings according to your own Opinion, but Slaves with Robes on. Kings are bleſſed, that have ſuch a Fellow as you to write in their praiſe, than whom no Man is more a Raſcal, no Beaſt more void of Senſe, unleſs this one thing may be ſaid to be peculiar to you, that none ever brayed ſo learnedly. You make the Parliament of England more like to Nero, than to the Roman Senate. This itch of yours of making ſilly Similitudes, enforces me to rectify you, whether I will or no: And I will let you ſee how like King Charles was to Nero. Nero, you ſay, commanded his own Mother to be run through with a Sword. But Charles murdered both his Prince, and his Father, and that by Poyſon. For to omit other evidences; he that would not ſuffer a Duke that was accuſed for it, to come to his Tryal, muſt needs have been guilty of it himſelf. Nero ſlew many thouſands of Chriſtians; but Charles ſlew many more. There were thoſe, ſays Suetonius, that praiſed Nero after he was dead, that long'd to have had him again, That hung Garlands of Flowers upon his Sepulchre, and gave out that they would never proſper that had been his Enemies. And ſome there are tranſported with the like Phrenſy, that wiſh for King Charles again, and extol him to the higheſt degree imaginable, of whom you a Knight of the Halter are a Ringleader. The Engliſh Soldiers more Savage than their own Maſtiffs, erect…d a new and unheard-of Court of Juſtice. Obſerve this ingenious Symbol, or adage of Salmaſius, which he has now repeated ſix times over, More Savage than their own Maſtiffs. Take notice, Orators and School-Maſters, pluck, if you are wiſe, this Elegant Flower, which Salmaſius is ſo very fond of: Commit this Flouriſh of a Man, that is ſo much a Maſter of words, to your Desks for ſafe Cuſtody, leſt it be loſt. Has your rage made you forget words to that degree, that like a Cuckcow, you muſt needs ſay the ſame thing over and over again? What ſtrange thing has befallen you? The Poet tells us, That Spleen and Rage turn'd Hecuba into a Dog; and it has turn'd you, the Lord of St. Lupus, into a Cuckow. Now you come out with freſh Contradictions. You had ſaid before, page 113. That Princes were not bound by any Laws, neither C…ercive, nor Directory; that they were bound by no Law at all. Now you ſay, That you will diſcourſe by and by of the difference betwixt ſome Kings and others, in point of Pow…r; ſome having had more, ſome leſs. You ſay, You will prove that Kings cannot be judged, nor c…ndemn'd by their own Subjects, by a moſt ſolid Argument; but you do it by a very ſilly one, and 'tis this; You ſay, There was no other difference than that betwixt the Judges, and the Kings of the Jews; and yet the reaſon why the Jews required to have Kings over them, was becauſe they were weary of their Judges, and hated their Government. Do you think that, becauſe they might Judge and Condemn their Judges, if they misbehaved themſelves in the Government; they therefore hated and were weary of them, and would be under Kings, whom they ſhould have no Power to reſtrain and keep within Bounds, tho they ſhould break through all Laws? Who but you ever argued ſo childiſhly? So that they deſired a King for ſome other reaſon, than that they might have a Maſter over them, whoſe Power ſhould be ſuperior to that of the Law; which reaſon what it was, it is not to our preſent purpoſe to make a Conjecture: Whatever it was, both God and his Prophets tells us, it was no piece of prudence in the People to deſire a King. And now you fall foul upon your Rabbins, and are very angry with them for ſaying, That a King might be judged and condemned to undergo Stripes; out of whoſe Writings you ſaid before you had proved that the Kings of the Jews could not be judged. Wherein you confeſs, that you told a lye when you ſaid you had proved any ſuch thing out of their Writings. Nay, you come at laſt to forget the Subject you were upon, of writing in the King's Defence, and raiſe little impertinent Controverſies about Solomon's Stales, and how may Stalls he had for his Horſes. Then of a Jocky you become a Ballad-ſinger again, or rather, as I ſaid before, a raving diſtracted Cuckoo. You complain, That in theſe latter Ages, Diſcipline has been more remiſs, and the Rule leſs obſerved and kept up to; to wit, becauſe one Tyrant is not permitted without a …heck from the Law, to let looſe the Roms of all Diſcipline, and corrupt all Mens manners. This Doctrine, you ſay, the Browniſts introduced amongſt thoſe of the …eform'd Religion; ſo that Luther, Calvin, Zum…lius, Bucer, and all the moſt Celebrated Orthodox Divines are Browniſts in your Opinion. The Engliſh have the leſs reaſon to take your Reproaches ill, becauſe they hear you belching out the ſame Slanders againſt the moſt eminent Doctors of the Church, and in effect againſt the whole Reformed Church it ſelf.