foolish opinion, that kings who commonly are the worst of men, should be so high in God's account, as that he should have put the world under them, to be at their beck, and be governed according to their humour; and that for their sakes alone he should have reduced all mankind, whom be made after his own image, into the same condition with brutes. After all this, rather than say nothing, you produce M. Aurelius as a countenancer of tyranny; but you had better have let him alone. I cannot say whether he ever affirmed, that princes are accountable only before God's tribunal. But Xiphiline 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: περὶ αυταρχίας ὁ Θεὸς μόνος κρίνειν divara. But that this word Autarchy and Monarchy are synonymous, I cannot easily persuade myself to believe. And the more I read what goes before, the less I find myself inclinable to think so. And certainly whoever considers the context, will not easily apprehend what cohe rence this sentence has with it, and must needs wonder how it comes so abruptly into the text; especially since Marcus Aurelius, that mirror 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 emperor honoured the memory of Thraseas, and Helvidius, 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 proposed to himself a form of government, under which all men might equally enjoy the benefit of the law, and right and justice be equally administered 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 anything of our own, that we live in your houses. These things Xiphiline relates of him. So little did he arrogate aught to himself by virtue of his sovereign right. When he died, he recommended his son to the Romans, for his successor, if they should think he deserved it. So far was he from pretending to a

VOL. I.

E

commission from Heaven to exercise that absolute and imaginary right of sovereignty, that Autarchy, that you tell us of. "All the Latin and Greek books are full of authorities of this nature." But we have heard none of them yet. "So are the Jewish authors." And yet, you say, "the Jews in many things allowed but too little to their princes." Nay, you will find that both the Greeks and the Latins allowed much less to tyrants. And how little the Jews allowed 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 tore in pieces and burnt, that they might be more at liberty to tyrannize over the people without control or fear 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, "Let my sentence come forth from thy presence." Therefore, says Barnachmoni, "God only can judge the king." And yet it is most likely that David penned this Psalm when he was persecuted by Saul, at which time, though himself were anointed, he did not decline being judged even by Jonathan: "Notwithstanding, if there be iniquity in me, slay me thyself," 1 Sam. xx. At least, in this Psalm he does no more than what any person in the world would do upon the like occasion; being falsely accused by men, he appeals to the judgment of God himself," Let thine eyes look upon the thing that is right; thou hast proved and visited mine heart," &c. What relation has this to a temporal judicature? Certainly they do no good office to the right of kings, that thus discover the weakness of its foundation. Then you come with that threadbare argument, which of all others is most in vogue with our courtiers, "Against thee, thee only have I sinned," Psalm li. 6. As if David in the midst of his repentance, when overwhelmed with sorrow, and almost drowned in tears, he was humbly imploring God's mercy, had any thoughts of this kingly right of his when his heart was so low, that he thought he deserved not the right of a slave. And can we think, that he despised all the people of God, his own brethren, to that degree, as to believe that he might murder them, plunder them, 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 knowledge either of himself, or of his duty to his neighbour. So without doubt when he says, "against thee only," he meant, against thee chiefly have I sinned, &c. But whatever he means, 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 anything of that nature from them. "But David was never questioned for this, nor made to plead for his life before the Sanhedrim." 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. xii. "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 punished at all? But the reason why David was not proceeded against as a malefactor, is not much in the dark: he had condemned 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 sovereign 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 pronounced against himself; verse 13, "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 will endeavour to be as short as I can in what I have undertaken to perform. But some things I must not pass by without taking notice of; as first and foremost your notorious contradictions; for in the 30th "The Israelites do not deprecate an unjust, page you say, 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 fryingpan into the fire," say you," and groan under the cruelty of

the worst of tyrants, rather than live under bad judges, especially being used to such a form of government?" First, you said the Hebrews would rather live under tyrants and judges, here you say they would rather live under judges than tyrants; and that " they desired nothing less than a tyrant." So that your advocate may answer you out of your own book. For according to your principles it is 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 easy 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 itself, but because it most commonly does, as Samuel forewarns the people that theirs would, degenerate into pride and tyranny? If you are not yet satisfied, hark what you say yourself; acknowledge your own hand, and blush; it is in 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 its 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 anything more light and 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 twentyninth page, that " by the constitution of all nations, kings are bound by no law." That" this had been the judg ment both of the eastern and western part of the world." And yet, page 43, you say, "That all the kings of the East ruled karà vónov, 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 have no reason to be angry with you, for either you are mad, or of our side. You do not defend the king's cause, but argue against him, and play the fool with him: or if you are in earnest, that epigram of Catullus,

"Tantò pessimus omnium poeta,

Quantò tu optimus omnium patronus;"

"The worst of poets, I myself declare,

By how much you the best of patrons are "—

that epigram, I say, may be turned, 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 "immersed over head and ears in," has blinded the eyes of your own understanding too, I will make you now sensible that you are become a very brute yourself. 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 author. 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 supposed to hold place in the constitutions of any wise lawmaker, 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 them, you confess of your own accord, That "there are some rabbins, who affirm that their forefathers 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 myself to be. It is not fitting or decent, that any man should be a king, that does not far excel all his subjects. But where men are equals, as in all