But this Priviledge belonging only to the King's Person hinders not but they may be questioned opposed and resisted who use unjust force though they pretend a Commission from him which the Law authorizes not As is plain in the Case of him that has the King 's Writ to arrest a Man which is a full Commission from the King and yet he that has it cannot break open a Man's House to do it nor execute this Command of the King upon certain days nor in certain places though this Commission have no such exception in it but they are the Limitations of the Law which if any one transgress the King's Commission excuses him not For the King's Authority being given him only by the Law he cannot impower any one to act against the Law or justifie him by his Commission in so doing The Commission or Command of any Magistrate where he has no Authority being as void and insignificant as that of any private Man The difference between the one and the other being that the Magistrate has some Authority so far and to such ends and the private Man has none at all For 't is not the Commission but the Authority that gives the Right of acting and against the Laws there can be no Authority But notwithstanding such Resistance the King's Person and Authority are still both secured and so no danger to Governour or Government 207. Thirdly Supposing a Government wherein the Person of the chief Magistrate is not thus Sacred yet this Doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his Power will not upon every slight occasion indanger him or imbroil the Government For where the injured Party may be relieved and his damages repaired by Appeal to the Law there can be no pretence for Force which is only to be used where a Man is intercepted from appealing to the Law For nothing is to be accounted Hostile Force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an Appeal And 't is such Force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of War and makes it lawful to resist him A Man with a Sword in his hand demands my Purse in the High-way when perhaps I have not 12 d. in my Pocket This Man I may lawfully kill To another I deliver 100 l. to hold only whilst I alight â—hich he refuses to restore me when I am got up again but draws his Sword to defend the possession of it by force I endeavour to retake it The mischief this Man does me is a hundred or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me whom I kill'd before he really did me any and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully The Reason whereof is plain because the one using force which threatned my Life I could not have time to appeal to the Law to secure it And when it was gone 't was too late to appeal The Law could not restore Life to my dead Carcass The Loss was irreparable which to prevent the Law of Nature gave me a Right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of War with me and threatned my destruction But in the other case my Life not being in danger I might have the benefit of appealing to the Law and have Reparation for my 100 l. that way 208. Fourthly But if the unlawful acts done by the Magistrate be maintained by the Power he has got and the remedy which is due by Law be by the same Power obstructed yeâ— the Right of resisting even in such manifest Acts of Tyranny will not suddenly or on slight occasions disturb the Government For if it reach no farther than some private Mens Cases though they have a right to defend themselves and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them yet the Right to do so will not easily ingage them in a Contest wherein they are sure to perish It being as impossible for one or a few oppressed Men to disturb the Government where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned in it as for a raving mad Man or heady Male content to overturn a well setled State the People being as little apt to follow the one as the other 209. But if either these illegal Acts have extended to the Majority of the People or if the Mischief and Oppression has light only on some few but in such Cases as the Precedent and Consequences seem to threaten all and they are perswaded in their Consciences that their Laws and with them their Estates Liberties and Lives are in danger and perhaps their Religion too how they will be hindred from resisting illegal Force used against them I cannot tell This is an Inconvenience I confess that attends all Governments whatsoever when the Governours have brought it to this pass to be generally suspected of their People the most dangerous state they can possibly put themselves in wherein they are the less to be pityed because it is so easie to be avoided It being as impossible for a Governour if he really means the good of his People and the preservation of them and their Laws together not to make them see and feel it as it is for the Father of a Family not to let his Children see he loves and takes care of them 210. But if all the World shall observe Pretences of one kind and Actions of another Arts used to elude the Law and the Trust of Prerogative which is an Arbitrary Power in some things left in the Prince's hand to do good not harm to the People employed contrary to the end for which it was given If the People shall find the Ministers and subordinate Magistrates chosen suitable to such ends and favoured or laid by proportionably as they promote or oppose them If they see several Experiments made of Arbitrary Power and that Religion underhand favoured though publickly proclaimed against which is readiest to introduce it and the Operators in it supported as much as may be and when that cannot be done yet approved still and liked the better and a long Train of Actings shew the Councils all tending that way how can a Man any more hinder himself from being perswaded in his own Mind which way things are going or from casting about how to save himself than he could from believing the Captain of the Ship he was in was carrying him and the rest of the Company to Algiers when he found him always stearing that Course though cross Winds Leaks in his Ship and want of Men and Provisions did often force him to turn his Course another way for some time which he steadily returned to again as soon as the Wind Weather and other Circumstances would let him CHAP. XIX Of the Dissolution of Governments 211. HE that will with any clearness speak of the Dissolution of Government ought in the first place to distinguish between the Dissolution of the Society and the Dissolution of the
contulit ac regnum quod liberum à majoribus populo traditum accepit alienae ditioni mancipavit Nam tunc quamvis forte non eâ mente id agit populo plane ut incommodet tamen quia quod praecipuum est regiae dignitatis amisit ut summus scilicet in regno secundum Deum sit solo Deo inferior atque populum etiam totum ignorantem vel invitum cujus libertatem sartam tectam conservare debuit in alterius gentis ditionem potestatem dedidit hác velut quadam regni abalienatione effecit ut nec quod ipse in regno imperium habuit râ—tineat nec in eum cui collatum voluit juris quicquam transeraâ— atque ita eo facto liberum jam suae potestatis populum relinquit cujus rei exemplum unum annales Scotici suppeditant Barclay contra Monarchom l. 3. c. 16. which may be thus Englished 237. What then Can there no Case happen wherein the people may of right and by their own Authority help themselves take Arms and set upon their King imperiously domineering over them None at all whilst he remains a King Honour the King and he that resists the Power resists the Ordinance of God are divine Oracles that will never permit it The People therefore can never come by a Power over him unless he does something that makes him cease to be a King For then he divests himself of his Crown and Dignity and returns to the state of a private Man and the People become free and superiour the Power which they had in the Interregnum before they Crown'd him King devolving to them again But there are but few miscarriages which bring the matter to this state After considering it well on all sides I can find but two Two Cases there are I say whereby a King ipso facto becomes no King and loses all Power and Regal Authority over his People which are also taken notice of by Winzerus The first is if he indeavour to overturn the Government that is if he have a purpose and design to ruin the Kingdom and Commonwealth as it is recorded of Nero that he resolved to cut off the Senate and People of Rome lay the City wast with Fire and Sword and then remove to some other place And of Caligula that he openly declar'd that he would be no longer a head to the People or Senate and that he had it in his thoughts to cut off the worthiest Men of both Ranks and then retire to Alexandria and he wisht that the People had but one Neck that he might dispatch them all at a blow Such designs as these when any King harbours in his thoughts and seriously promotes he immediately gives up all care and thought of the Commonwealth and consequently forfeits the Power of Governing his Subjects as a Master does the dominion over his Slaves whom he hath abandon'd 238. The other Case is When a King makes himself the dependent of another and subjects his Kingdom which his Ancestors left him and the People put free into his hands to the Dominion of another For however perhaps it may not be his intention to prejudice the People yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of Regal Dignity viz. to be next and immediately under God Supream in his Kingdom and also because he betray'd or forced his People whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved into the Power and Dominion of a Foreign Nation By this as it were alienation of his Kingdom he himself loses the Power he had in it before without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it and so by this act sets the People free and leaves them at their own disposal One Example of this is to be found in the Scotch Annals 239. In these Cases Barclay the great Champion of Absolute Monarchy is forced to allow That a King may be resisted and ceases to be a King That is in short not to multiply Cases In whatsoever he has no Authority there he is no King and may be resisted For wheresoever the Authority ceases the King ceases too and becomes like other Men who have no Authority And these two Cases he instances in differ little from those above mention'd to be destructive to Governments only that he has omitted the Principle from which his Doctrine flows and that is The breach of trust in not preserving the Form of Government agreed on and in not intending the end of Government it self which is the publick good and preservation of Property When a King has Dethron'd himself and put himself in a state of War with his People what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no King as they would any other Man who has put himself into a state of War with them Barclay and those of his Opinion would do well to tell us Bilson a Bishop of our Church and a great Stickler for the Power and Prerogative of Princes does if I mistake not in his Treatise of Christian Subjection acknowledge That Princes may forfeit their Power and their title to the Obedience of their Subjects and if there needed authority in a Case where reason is so plain I could send my Reader to Bracton Fortescue and the Author of the Mirror and others Writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our Government or Enemies to it But I thought Hooker alone might be enough to satisfie those Men who relying on him for their Ecclesiastical Polity are by a strange fate carried to deny those Principles upon which he builds it Whether they are herein made the Tools of Cunninger Workmen to pull down their own Fabrick they were best look This I am sure their civil Policy is so new so dangerous and so destructive to both Rulers and People that as former Ages never could bear the broaching of it so it may be hoped those to come redeem'd from the Impositions of these Egyptian Under-Taskmasters will abhor the Memory of such servile Platterers who whilst it seem'd to serve their turn resolv'd all Government into absolute Tyranny and would have all Men born to what their mean Souls fitted them Slavery 240. Here 't is like the common Question will be made who shall be Judge whether the Prince or Legislative act contrary to their Trust This perhaps ill-affected and factious Men may spread amongst the People when the Prince only makes use of his due Prerogative To this I reply The People shall be Judge for who shall be Judge whether his Trustee or Deputy acts well and according to the Trust reposed in him but he who deputes him and must by having deputed him have still a Power to discard him when he fails in his Trust If this be reasonable in particular Cases of private Men why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment where the Welfare of Millions is concerned and also where the evil if not prevented is greater and the Redress
of any Man else can be free from Subjection to their Parents whereby it appears that the Power on one side and the Subjection on the other our A here speaks of is that Natural Power and Subjection between Parents and Children for that which every Mans Children owed could be no other and that our A always affirms to be absolute and unlimited This natural Power of Parents over their Children Adam had over his Posterity says our A and this Power of Parents over their Children his Children had over theirs in his Life time says our A also so that Adam by a natural Right of Father had an absolute unlimited Power over all his Posterity and at the same time his Children had by the same Right absolute unlimited Power over theirs here then are two absolute unlimited Powers existing together which I would have any body reconcile one to another or to common Sense for the Salvo he has put in of Subordination makes it more absurd To have one Absolute Vnlimited nay Vnlimitable Power in Subordination to another is so manifest a Contradiction that nothing can be more Adam is Absolute Prince with the Vnlimited Authority of Fatherhood over all his Posterity All his Posterity are then absolutely his Subjects and as our A says his Slaves Children and Grand Children are equally in this State of Subjection and Slavery and yet says our A the Children of Adam have paternal i. e. Absolute Unlimited Power over their own Children which in plain English is they are Slaves and Absolute Princes at the same time and in the same Government and one part of the Subjects have an Absolute Unlimited Power over the other by the natural Right of Parentage 70. If any one will suppose in favour of our A that he here meant that Parents who are in Subjection themselves to the Absolute Authority of their Father have yet some Power over their Children I confess he is something nearer the truth but he will not at all hereby help our A for he no where speaking of the Paternal Power but as an Absolute Unlimited Authority cannot be suppos'd to understand any thing else here unless he himself had limited it and shewed how far it reach'd And that he means here paternal Authority in that large Extent is plain from the immediate following words This Subjection of Children being says he the Fountain of all Regal Authority p. 12. The Subjection then that in the former Line he says every Man is in to his Parents and consequently what Adam's Grand Children were in to their Parents was that which was the Fountain of all Regal Authority i. e. According to our A s Absolute Vnlimitable Authority and thus Adams â— Children had Regal Authority over their Children whilst they themselves were Subjects to their Father and Fellow Subjects with their Children But let him mean as he pleases 't is plain he allows Adams Children to have Paternal Power p. 12. as all other Fathers to have Paternal Power over their Children O. 156. From whence one of these two things will necessarily follow that either Adams Children even in his life time had and so all other Fathers have as he Phrases it p. 12. By Right of Fatherhood Royal Authority over their Children or else that Adam by Right of Fatherhood had not Royal Authority For it must be that Paternal Power does or does not give Royal Authority to them that have it If it does not then Adam could not be Sovereign by this Title nor any body else and then there is an end of all our A's Politics at once If it does give Royal Authority then every one that has Paternal Power has Royal Authority and then by our A s Patriarchal Government there will be as many Kings as there are Fathers 71. And thus what a Monarchy he hath set up let him and his Disciples consider Princes certainly will have great Reason to thank him for these new Politics which set up as many Absolute Kings in every Country as there are Fathers of Children and yet who can blame our A for it it lying unavoidably in the way of one discoursing upon our A s Principles For having placed an Absolute Power in Fathers by Right of Begetting he could not easily resolve how much of this Power belong'd to a Son over the Children he had begotten And so it fell out to be a very hard matter to give all the Power as he does to Adam and yet allow a part in his Life time to his Children when they were Parents and which he knew not well how to deny them this makes him so doubtful in his Expressions and so uncertain where to place this Absolute Natural Power which he calls Fatherhood sometimes Adam alone has it all as p. 13. O. 244 245. pref Sometimes Parents have it which word scarce signifies the Father alone p. 12 19. Sometimes Children during their Fathers life time as p. 12. Sometimes Fathers of Families as p. 78 and 79. Sometimes Fathers indefinitely O. 155. Sometimes the Heir to Adam O. 253. Sometimes the Posterity of Adam 244. 246. Sometimes prime Fathers all Sons or Grand Children of Noah O. 244. Sometimes the Eldest Parents p. 12. Sometimes all Kings p. 19. Sometimes all that have Supream Power O. 245. Sometimes Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the natural Parents of the whole People p. 19. Sometimes an Elective King p. 23. Sometimes those whether a few or a Multitude that govern the Commonwealth p. 23. Sometimes he that can catch it an Vsurper p. 23. O. 155. 72. Thus this new nothing that is to carry with it all Power Authority and Government This Fatherhood which is to design the Person and Establish the Throne of Monarchs whom the People are to obey may according to Sir Robt. come into any hands any how and so by his Politics give to Democracy Royal Authority and make an Usurper a lawful Prince And if it will do all these fine Feats much good do our Author and all his Followers with their omnipotent Fatherhood which can serve for nothing but to unsettle and destroy all the lawful Governments in the World and to Establish in their room Disorder Tyranny and Uâ—urpation CHAP. VII Of Fatherhood and Propriety Considered together as Fountains of Sovereignty 73. IN the foregoing Chapters we have seen what Adams Monarchy was in our A s Opinion and upon what Titles he founded it And the Foundations which he lays the chief stress on as those from which he thinks he may best derive Monarchical Power to future Princes are two viz. Fatherhood and Property and therefore the way he proposes to remove the Absurdities and Inconveniences of the Doctrine of Natural Freedom is to maintain the Natural and Private Dominion of Adam O. 222. Conformable hereunto he tells us the Grounds and Principles of Government necessarily depend upon the Original of Property O. 108. The Sâ—bjection of Children to their Parents is the Fountain of all Regal
of the Posterity of Adam not descended from Cain 77. The same inconvenience he runs into about the three Sons of Noah who as he says p. 13. had the whole World divided amongst them by their Father I aâ—k then in which of the three shall we find the Establishment of Regal Power after Noahs Death If in all three as our A there seems to say Then it will follow that Regal Power is founded in Property of Land and follows Private Dominion and not in paternal Power or natural Dominion and so there is an end of paternal Power as the Fountain of Regal Authority and the so much magnified Fatherhood quite vanishes If the Regal Power descended to Shem as Eldest and Heir to his Father then Noahs Division of the World by Lot to his Sons or his 10 Years sayling about the mediterranean to appoint each Son his part which our A tells of p. 15. was labour lost his Division of the World to them was to ill or to no purpose for his Grant to Cham and Iaphet was little worth if Shem notwithstanding this Grant as soon as Noah was dead was to be Lord over them Or if this Grant of Private Dominion to them over their assigned Territories were good here were set up two distinct sorts of Power not Subordinate one to the other with all those inconveniences which he musters up against the Power of the People O. 158. and which I shall set down in his own words only changing Property for People All Power on Earth is either derived or usâ—rped from the Fatherly Power there being no other Original to be found of any Power whatsoever for if there should be granted two sorts of Power without any Subordination of one to the other they would be in perpetual strife which should be Supream for two Supreams cannot agree If the Fatherly Power be Supream then the Power grounded on Private Dominion must be subordinate and depend on it and if the Power grounded on Property be Supream then the Fatherly Power must submit to it and cannot be exercised without the Licence of the Proprietors which must quite destroy the Frame and Course of Natuâ—e This is his own arguing against two distinct Independent Powers which I have set down in his own words only putting Power rising from Property for Power of the People and when he has answered what he himself has urged here against two distinct Powers we shall be better able to see how with any tolerable Sense he can derive all Regal Authority from the natural and Private Dominion of Adam from Fatherhood and Property together which are distinct Titles that do not always meet in the same Person and 't is plain by his own Confession presently seperated as soon both as Adams and Noahs Death made way for Succession Though our A frequently in his Writings jumbles them together and omits not to make use of either where he thinks it will sound best to his purpose but the Absurdities of this will more fully appear in the next Chapter where we shall examine the ways of conveyance of the Soveriegnty of Adam to Princes that were to Reign after him CHAP. VIII Of the Conveyance of Adams Sovereign Monarchical Power 78. SR Rob. having not been very happy in any Proofs he brings for the Sovereignty of Adam is not much more fortunate in conveying it to future Princes who if his Politics be true must all derive their Titles from him The ways he has assigned as they lye scatter'd up and down in his Writings I will set down in his own Words In his Preface he tells us that Adam being Monarch of the whole World none of his Posterity had any right to possess any thing but by his Grant or Permission or by Succession from him here he makes two ways of conveyance of any thing Adam stood possessed of and those are Grant or Succession All Kings either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Proginetors who were at first the natural Parents of the whole People p. 19. There cannot be any multitude of Men whatsoever but that in it consider'd by it self there is one Man amongst them that in nature hath a right to be the King of all the rest as being the next Heir to Adam O. 253. Here in these places Inheritance is the only way he allows of conveying Monarchical Power to Princes O. 155. All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power O. 158. All Kings that now are or ever were are or were either Fathers of their People or the Heirs of such Fathers or Usurpers of the right of such Fathers O. 253. And here he makes Inheritance or Vsurpation the only ways whereby Kings come by this Original Power But yet he tells us this Fatherly Empire as it was of its self Hereditary so it was alienable by Patent and seizable by an Vsurper O. 190. So then here Inheritance Grant or Usurpation will convey it And last of all which is most admirable he he tells us p. 100. It skils not which way Kings come by their Power whether by Election Donation Succession or by any other means for it is still the manner of the Government by Sâ—pream Power that makes them properly Kings and not the means of obtaining their Crowns which I think is a full answer to all his whole Hypothesis and Discourse about Adams Royal Authority as the Fountain from which all Princes were to derive theirs And he might have spared the trouble of speaking so much as he does up and down of Heirs and Inheritance if to make any one Properly a King needs no more but Governing by Supream Power and it matters not by what means he came by it 79. By this notable way our A may make Oliver as Properly King as any one else he could think of And had he had the Happiness to live under Massanellos Government he could not by this his own Rule have forborn to have done Homage to him with O King live for ever since the manner of his Government by Supream Power made him Properly King who was but the day before Properly a Fisher-man And if Don Quixot had taught his Squire to govern with Supream Authority our A no doubt could have made a most Loyal Subject in Sancho Pancha's Island and he must have deserved some Preferment in such Governments since I think he is the first Politician who pretending to settle Government upon its true Basis and to establish the Thrones of lawful Princes ever tould the World that he was Properly a King whose manner of Government was by Sapream Power by what means soever he obtained it which in plain English is to say that Regal and Supream Power is properly and truly his who can by any means seize upon it and if this be to be Properly a King I wonder how he came to think of or where he will find an Vsurper 80. This is so strange a Doctrin that the
the same Law either Governments in the World are not to be claim'd and held by this Title of Adams Heir and then the starting of it is to no purpose the being or not being Adams Heir signifies nothing as to the Title of Dominion Or if it really be as our A says the true Title to Government and Sovereignty the first thing to be done is to find out this true Heir of Adam seat him in his â—hrone and then all the Kings and Princes of the World come and resign up their Crowns and Scepters to him as things that belong no more to them then to any of their Subjects 105. For either this Right in nature of Adams Heir to be King over all the Race of Men for altogether they make one Multitude is a right not necessary to the making of a Lawful King and so there may be Lawful Kings without it and then Kings Titles and Power depend not on it or else all the Kings in the World but one are not Lawful Kings and so have no Right to Obedience either this Title of Heir to Adam is that whereby Kings hold their Crown and have a Right to Subjection from their Subjects and then one only can have it and the rest being Subjects can require no Obedience from other Men who are but their fellow Subjects or else it is not the Title whereby Kings Rule and have a Right to Obedience from their Subjects and then Kings are Kings without it And this Dream of the natural Sovereignty of Adams Heir is of no use to Obedience and Government For if Kings have a Right to Dominion and the Obedience of their Subjects who are not nor can possibly be Heirs to Adam what use is there of such a Title when we are obliged to obey without it If they have not we are discharged of our Obedience to them for he that has no Right to command I am under no Obligation to obâ—y and we are all free till our A or any body for him will shew us Adams right Heir If there be but onâ— Heir of Adam there can be but one Lawful King in the World and no body in conscience can be obliged to Obedience till it be resolved who that is for it may be any one who is not known to be of a Younger House and all others have equal Titles If there be more then one Heir of Adam every one is his Heir and so every one has Regal Power for if two Sons can be Heirs together then all the Sons are equally Heirs and so all are Heirs being all Sons or Sons Sons of Adam betwixt these two the Right of Heir cannot stand for by it either but one only Man or all Men are Kings and take which you please it dissolves the Bonds of Government and Obedience since if all Men are Heirs they can owe Obedience to no body if only one no body can be obliged to pay Obedience to him till he be known and his Title made out CHAP. XI Who Heir 106. THE great question which in all Ages has disturbed Mankind and brought on them the greatest part of those Mischiefs which have ruin'd Cities depopulated Countries and disordered the Peace of the World has been not whether there be Power in the World nor whence it came but who should have it The seâ—tling of this therefore being of no smaller moment then the security of Princes and the peace and welfare of their Estates and Kingdoms a writer of Politics one would think should take great care in setling this point and be very clear in it For if this remain disputable all the rest will be to very little purpose And by dressing up Power with all the Splendor and Temptation Absoluteness can add to it without shewing who has a right to have it is only to give a greater edg to Mans natural Ambition which of it self is but too apt to be intemperate and to set Men on the more eagerly to Scramble and so lay a sure and lasting Foundation of endless contention and disorder instead of that Peace and Tranquillity which is the business of Government and the end of Human Society 107. This our A is more then ordinarily obliged to do because he affirming that the Assignment of Civil Power is by Divine institution hath made the conveyance as well as the Power it self Sacred so that no Power no consideration can divert it from that Person to whom by this Divine Right it is assigned no necessity or contrivance can substitute another Person in his room For if the Assignment of Civil Power be by Divine Institution and Adams Heir he to whom it is thus Assigned as we see in the foregoing Chapter our A tells us it would be as much Sacriledge for any one to be King who was not Adams Heir as it would have been amongst the Iews for any one to have been Priest who had not been of Aarons posterity For not only the Priesthood in general being by Divine Institution but the Assignment of it to the Sole Line and Posterity of Aaron made it impossible to be injoy'd or exercised by any one but those Persons who are the Off-spring of Aaron whose succession therefore was carefully observed and by that the Persons who had a Right to the Priesthood certainly known 108. Let us see then what care our A has taken to make us know who is this Heir who by Divine Institution has a Right to be King over all Men. The first account of him we meet with is p. 12. in these words This Subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself it follows that Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents Matters of such consequence as this is should be in plain words as little liable as might be to Doubt or Equivocation and I think if Language be capable of expressing any thing destinctly and clearly that of Kindred and the several Degrees of nearness of Blood is one It were therefore to be wish'd that our A had used a little more intelligible expressions here that we might have better known who it is to whom the Assignment of Civil Power is made by Divine Institution or at least would have told us what he meant by Eldest Parent for I believe if Land had been Assigned or Granted to him and the Eldest Parents of his Family he would have thought it had needed an Interpreter and 't would scarce have been known to whom next it belong'd 109. In Propriety of Speech and certainly Propriety of Speech is necessary in a discourse of this nature Eldest Parents signifies either the Eldest Men and Women that have had Children or those who have longest had Issue and then our A s assertion will be that those Fathers and Mothers who have been longest in the World or longest Fruitful have by Divine Institution a Right to Civil Power If
Regal and Royal Authority as particularly p. 12. the page immediately preceding this Instance of Abraham This Regal Authority he says those that govern Common-wealths have and if it be true â—hat Regal and Royal Authority be in those that govern Common-wealths it is as true that Common-wealths are govern'd by Kings for if Regal Authority be in him that Governs he that Governs must needs be a King and so all Common-wealths are nothing but down right Monarchies and then what need any more ado about the matter the Governments of the World are as they should be there is nothing but Monarchy in it This without doubt was the surest way our A could have found to turn all other Governments but Monarchical out of the World 135. But all this scarce proves Abraham to have been a King as Heir to Adam If by Inheritance he had been King Lot who was of the same Family must needs have been his Subject by that Title before the Servants in his Family but we see they lived as Friends and Equals and when their Herdâ— Men could not agree there was no pretence of Jurisdiction or Superiority between them but they parted by consent Gen. 13. hence he is called both by Abraham and by the Text Abrahams Brother the Name of Friendship and Equality and not of Jurisdiction and Authority though he were really but his Nephew And if our A knows that Abraham was Adams Heir and a King 't was more it seems then Abraham himself knew or his Servant whom he sent a woing for his Son for when he sets out the advantages of the Match 24. Gen. 35. thereby to prevail with the Young-woman and her Friends He says I am Abrahams Servant and the Lord hath Blessed my Master greatly and he is become great and he hath given him Flocks and Herds and Silver and Gold and Men-Servants and Maid-Servants and Camels and Asses and Sarah my Masters Wife bare a Son to my Master all he hath Can one think that a discreet Servant that was thus particular to set out his Masters Greatness would have omitted the Crown Isaac was to have if he had known of any such Can it be imagin'd he should have neglected to have tould them on such an occasion as this that Abraham was a King a Name well known at that time for he had nine of them his Neighbours if he or his Master had thought any such thing the likeliest matter of all the rest to make his Errand Successful 136. But this discovery it seems was reserved for our A to make 2 or 3000 Years after and let him injoy the Credit of it only he should have taken care that some of Adams Land should have descended to this his Heir as well as all Adams Lordship for though this Lordship which Abraham if we may believe our A as well as the other Patriarchs by Right descending to him did injoy was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation Yet his Estate his Territories his Dominions were very narrow and scanty for he had not the Possession of a Foot of Land till he bought a Field and a Cave of the Sons of Heth to bury Sarah in 137. The instance of Esau joyn'd with this of Abraham to prove that the Lordship which Adam had over the whole World by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did injoy is yet more pleasant then the former Esau met his Brother Jacob with 400 Men at Arms He therefore was a King by Right of Heir to Adam 400 Arm'd Men then however got together are enough to prove him that leads them to be a King and Adams Heir There have been Tories in Ireland whatever there are other in Countries who would have thankt our A â— for so honourable an Opinion of them especially if there had been no body near with a better Title of 500 Armed Men to question their Royal Authority of 400 'T is a shame for Men to trifle so to say no worse of it in so serious an Argument Here Esau is brought as a Proof that Adams Lordship Adams Absolute Dominion as large as that of any Monarch descended by Right to the Patriarchs and in this very Chap. p. 19. Iacob is brought as an instance of one that by Birthright was Lord over his Brethren so we have here two Brothers Absolute Monarchs by the same Title and at the same time Heirs to Adam The Eldest Heir to Adam because he met his Brother with 400 Men and the youngest Heir to Adam by Birthright Esau injoy'd the Lordship which Adam had over the whole World by Right descending to him in as large and ample manner as the absolutest Dominion of any Monarch and at the same time Iacob Lord over him by thâ— Right Heirs have to be Lords over their Brethren Rifum teneatis I never I confess met with any Man of Parts so Dexterous as Sir Robt. at this way of arguing But 't was his Misfortune to light upon Principles that could not be accommodated to the Nature of things and Human Affairs nor could be made to agree with that Constitution and Order which God had settled in the World and therefore must needs often clash with common Sense and Experience 138. In the next Section he tells us This Patriarchal Power continued not only till the Flood but after it as the name Patriarch doth in part prove The word Patriarch doth more then in part prove thatâ— Patriarchal Power continued in the World as long as there were Patriarchs for 't is necessary that Patriarchal Power should be whilst there are Patriarchs as it is necessary there should be Paternal or Conjugal Power whilst there are Fathers or Husbands but this is but playing with Names That which he would fallaciously insinuate is the thing in question to be proved and that is that the Lordship which Adam had over the World the supposed Absolute Universal Dominion of Adam by Right deseending from him the Patriarchs did injoy If he affirms such an Absolute Monarchy continued to the Flood in the World I would be glad to know what Records he has it from for I confess I cannot find a word of it in my Bible If by Patriarchal Power he means any thing else it is nothing to the matter in hand And how the name Patriarch in some part proves that those who are called by that name had Absolute Monarchical Power I confess I do not see and therefore I think needs no answer till the Argument from it be made out a little clearer 139. The three Sons of Noah had the World says our A divided amongst them by their Father for of them was the whole World overspread p. 14. The World might be overspread by the Off spring of Noahs Sons though he never divided the World amongst them For the Earth might be Replenished without being divided all our As Argument here therefore proves no such Division However I allow it to him and
the Proofs he here gives us of the descent of Adams Lordship For continuing his Story of this descent he says 143. In the dispersion of Babel we must certainly find the Establishment of Royal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World p. 14. If you must find it pray do and you will help us to a new piece of History But you must shew it us before we shall be bound to believe that Regal Power was Established in the World upon your Principles for that Regal Power was Established in the Kingdoms of the World I think no body will dispute but that there should be Kingdoms in the World whose several Kings enjoy'd their Crowns by right descending to them from Adam that we think not only Apocrypha but also utterly impossible and if our A has no better Foundation for his Monarchy then a supposition of what was done at the dispersion of Babel The Monarchy he erects thereon whose top is to reach to Heaven to unite Mankind will serve only to divide and scatter them as that Tower did will produce nothing but confusion 144. For he tells us the Nations they were divided into were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even in the confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the Diversity of Languages according to the Diversity of Families p. 14. it would have been a hard matter for any one but our A to have found out so plainly in the Text he here brings that all the Nations in that dispersion were governed by Fathers and that God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority The words of the Text are These are the Sons of Shem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations and the same thing is said of Cham and Iaphet after an Enumeration of their Posterities in all which there is not one word said of their Governors or Forms of Governmentâ— of Fathers or Fatherly Authority But our A â— who is very quick sighted to spye out Fatherhood where no body else could see any the least glimpses of it tells us positivâ—ly their Ruler were Fathers and God was carâ—fâ—l to preserve the Fatherly Authority and why because those of the same Family spoke the same Language and so of necessity in the division kept together just as if one should argue thus Hanibal in his Army consisting of divers Nations kept those of the same Language togegether therefore Fathers were Captains of each Band and Hanibal was careful of the Fatherly Authority or in Peopling of Carolina the English French Scotch and Welâ—h that are there Plant themselves together and by them the Country is divided in their Lands after their Tongues after their Families after their Nations that therefore care was taken of the Fatherly Authority or because in many parts of America every little Tribe was a distinct People with a different Language one should infer that therefore God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority or that therefore their Rulers enjoy'd Adams Lordship by right descending to them though we know not who were their Governors nor what their Form of Government but only that they were divided into little Independent Societies speaking different Languages 145. The Scripture says not a word of their Rulers or Forms of Government but only gives an account how Mankind came to be divided into distinct Languages and Nations and therefore 't is not to argue from the Authority of Scripture to tell us positively Fathers were their Rulers when the Scripture says no such thing but to set up Phansies of ones own Brain when we confidently aver Matter of Fact where records are utterly silent and therefore the same ground has the rest that he says that they were not confused Multitudes without Heads and Governors and at liberty to choose what Governors or Governments they pleased 146. For I demand when Mankind were all yet of one Language all congregated in the plain of Shinar were they then all under one Monarch who enjoyed the Lordship of Adam by right descending to him If they were not there was then no thoughts 't is plain of Adams Heir no right to Government known then upon that Title no care taken by God or Man of Adams Fatherly Authority If when Mankind were but one People dwelt altogether and were of one Language and were upon Building a City together and when 't was plain they could not but know the Right Heir for Shem lived till Isaacs time a long while after the Division at Babel If then I say they were not under the Monarchical Government of Adams Fatherhood by right descending to the Heir 't is plain there was no regard had to the Fatherhood no Monarchy acknowledg'd due to Adams Heir no Empire of Shems in Asia and consequently no such Division of the World by Noah as our A has talked of And as far as we can conclude any thing from Scripture in this matter it seems from this place that if they had any Government it was rather a Common wealth then an Absolute Monarchy For the Scripture tells us Gen. 11. they said 't was not a Prince commanded the Building of this City and Tower 't was not by the command of one Monarch but by the consultation of many a Free People let us build us a City They built it for themselves as Free-men not as Slaves for their Lord and Master that we be not scattered abroad and for having a City once built fixed Habitations to settle their Bodies and Families This was the consultation and design of a People that were at liberty to part asunder but desired to keep in one Body and could not have been either necessary or likely in Men tyed together under the Government of one Monarch who if they had been as our A tells us all Slaves under the Absolute Dominion of a Monarch needed not have taken such care to hinder themselves from wandering out of the reach of his Dominion I demand whether this be not plainer in Scripture then any thing of Adams Heir or Fatherly Authority 147. But if being as God says Gen. 11. 6. one People they had one Ruler one King by natural Right Absolute and Supream over them what care had God to preserve the Paternal Authority of the Supream Fatherhood if on a suddain he suffers 72 for so many our A talks of distinct Nations to be erected out of it under distinct Governors and at once to withdraw themselves from the Obedidience of their Soveriegn This is to entitle Gods care how and to what we please can it be Sense to say that God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority in those who had it not For if these were Subjects under a Supream Prince what Authority had they when at the same time he takes away the true Supream Fatherhood of the natural Monarch can it be reason to say that God for the Preservation of Fatherly Authority lets several new
Dukes of Edom of Abraham and 9 Kings his Neighbours if Iacob and Esau and 31 Kings in Canaan the 72 Kings mutilated by Adonibeseck the 32 Kings that came to Benaded the 70 Kings of Greece making War at Troy were as our A contends all of them Sovereign Princes ' â—is evident that Kings derived their Power from some other Original then Fatherhood since some of these had Power over more then their own Posterity and 't is Demonstration they could not be all Heirs to Adam For I challenge any Man to make any pretence to Power by Right of Fatherhood either intelligible or possible in any one otherwise then either as Adams Heir or as Progâ—nitor over his own descendants naturally sprung from him And if our A could shew that any one of these Princes of which he gives us here so large a Catalogue had his Authority by either of these Titles I think I might yield him the Cause though 't is manifâ—st they are all impertinent and directly contrary to what he brings them to prove viz. That the Lordship which Adam had over the World by Right descended to the Patriarchs 150. Having told us p. 16. That the Patriarchal Government continued in Abraham Isaac and Jacob until the Egyptian Bondage p. 17. he tells us By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Israelites coming into Egypt where the exercise of Supream Patriarchal Government was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince what these Footsteps are of paternal Government in our A Sense i. e. of Absolute Monarchical Power descending from Adam and exercised by Right of Fatherhood we have seen that is for 2290 Years no Footsteps at all since in all that time he cannot produce any one Example of any Person who Claim'd or Exercised Regal Authority by Right of Fatherhood or shew any one who being a King was Adams Heir All that his Proofs amount to is only this that there were Fathers Patriarchs and Kings in that Age of the World but that the Fathers and Patriarchs had any Asolute Arbitrary Power or by what Titles those Kings had theirs and of what extent it was the Scripture is wholly silent 't is manifest by Right of Fatherhood they neither did nor could claim any Title to Dominion and Empire 151. To say that the Exercise of Supream Patriarchal Government was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince proves nothing but what I before suspected viz. That Patriarchal Iurisdiction or Government was a fallacious expression and does not in our A signifie what he would yet insinuate by it Paternal and Regal Power such an Absolute Sovereignty as he supposes was in Adam 152. For how can he say that Patriarchical Iurisdiction was intermitted in Egypt where there was a King under whose Regal Government the Israelites were If Patriarchal were Absolute Monarchical Iurisdiction and if it were not but something else why does he make such a do about a Power not in question and nothing to the purpose The Exercise of Patriarchal Jurisdiction if Patriarchal be Regal was not intermitted whilst the Israelites were in Egypt 'T is true the Exercise of Regal Power was not then in the hands of any of the promised Seed of Abraham nor before neither that I know but what is that to the intermission of Regal Authority as descending from Adam unless our A will have it that this chosen Line of Abraham had the Right of Inheritance to Adams Lordship and then to what purpose are his instances of the 72 Rulers in whom the Fatherly Authority was preserved in the confusion at Babel of Esau and the 12 Dukes of Edom why are these brought as examples of the exercise of true Patriarchal Government and joyn'd with those of Abraham and Iudah If the exercise of Patriarchical Iurisdiction were intermitted in the World when ever the Posterity of of Iacob had not Supream Power I imagined Monarchical Government would have served his turn in the hands of Pharoh or any body But one cannot easily discover in all places what his discourse tends to as particularly in this place it is not obvious to guess what he drives at when he says the exercise of Supream Patriarchal Iurisdiction in Egypt or how this serves to make out the descent of Adams Lordship to the Patriarchs or any body else 153. For I thought he had been giving us out of Scripture Proofs and Examples of Monarchical Government founded on Paternal Authority descending from Adam and not an History of the Iew amongst whom yet we find no Kings till many Years after they were a People and no mention of their being Heir to Adam or Kings by Paternal Authority when they had them I expected talking so much as he does of Scripture that he would have produced thence a Series of Monarchs whose Titles were clear to Adams Fatherhood and who as Heirs to him own'd and exercised Paternal Jurisdiction over their Subjects and that this was the true Patriarchical Government whereas he neither proves that the Patriarchs were Kings nor that either Kings or Patriarchs were Heirs to Adam or so much as pretended to it And one may as well prove that the Patriarchs were all Absolute Monarchs that the Power both of Patriarchs and Kings was only Paternal and that this Power descended to them from Adam I say all these Propositions may be as well proved by a confused account of a multitude of little Kings in the West-Indies out of Ferdinando Soto or any of our late Histories of the Northern America or by our A s 70 Kings of Greece out of Homer as by any thing he brings out of Scripture in that Multitude of Kings he has reckon'd up 154. And methinks he should have let Homer and his Wars of Troy alone since his great Zeal to Truth or Monarchy carried him to such a pitch of transport against Philosophers and Poets that he tells us in his Preface that there are too many in these days who please themselves in runing after the Opinions of Philosophers and Poets to find out such an Original of Government as might promise them some Title to Liberty to the great Scandal of Christianity and bringing in of Atheism And yet these Heathen Philosophers Aristotle and Poet Homer are not rejected by our zealous Christian Politician when ever they offer any thing that seems to serve his turn But to return to his Scripture History our A farther tells us p. 18. that after the return of the Israelites out of Bondage God out of a special care of them chose Moses and Joshua Successively to Govern as Princes in the place and stead of the Sâ—pream Fathers If it be true that they returned out of Bondage it must be into a State of Freedom and must imply that both before and after this Bondage they were Free unless our A will say that changing of Masters is returning out of Bondage or that a Slave returns out of Bondage when he is
Grant This yet will not help out Succession for if as our A says the benefit of the Grant be intended to the Issue of the Grantee this will not direct the Succession since if God give any thing to a Man and his Issue in general the Claim cannot be to any one of that Issue in particular every one that is of his race will have an equal Right If it be said our A meant Heir I believe our A was as willing as any Body to have used that word if it would have served his turn but Solomon who succeded David in the Throne being no more his Heir then Ieroboam who succeeded him in the Government of the ten Tribes was his issue our A had reason to avoid saying that God intended it to the Heirs when that would not hold in a Succession which our A could not except against and so he has left his Succession as undetermin'd as if he had said nothing about it for if the Regal Power be given by God to a Man and his Issue as the Land of Canaan was to Abraham and his Seed must they not all have a Title to it all share in it And one may as well say that by Gods Grant to Abrâ—ham and his Seed the Land of Canaan was to belong only to one of his Seâ—d exclusive of all others as by Gods Grant of Doâ—inion to a Man and his Issâ—e this Dominion was to belong all to one of his Issue exclusive of all others 163. But how will our A prove that whensoever God made choice of any special Person to be a King he intended that the I suppose he means his Issue also should have benefit thereof Has he so soon forgot Moses and Ioshua whom in this very Section he says God out of a special care chose to govern as Princes and the Judges that God raised up Had not these Princes having the Authority of the Supream Fatherhood the same Power that the Kings had and being specially chosen by God himself should not their Issue have the benefit of that choice as well as David or Solomon If these had the Paternal Authority put into their hands immediately by God why had not their Issue the benâ—fit of this Grant in a Succession to this Power Or if they had it as Adams Heirs why did not their Heirs enjoy it after them by Right descending to them for they could not be Heirs to one another was the Power the same and from the same Original in Moses Ioshua and the Iudges as it was in David and the Kings and was it inheritable in one and not in the other If it was not Paternal Authority then Gods own People were govern'd by those that had not Paternal Authority and those Governours did well enough without it If it were Paternal Authority and God chose the Persons that were to exercise it our A s Rule fails that whensoever God makes choice of any Person to be Supream Ruler for I suppose the name King has no Spell in it 't is not the Title but the Power makes the difference he intends that the Issue also should have the benefit of it since from their coming out of Egypt to Davids time 400 Years the Issue was never so sufficiently comprended in the Person of the Father as that any Son after the Death of his Father succeeded to the Government amongst all those Judges that judged Israel If to avoid this it be said God always chose the Person of the Successor and so transferring the Fatherly Authority to him excluded his Issue from succeeding to it that is manifestly not so in the Story of Iephtha where he Articled with the People and they made him judge over them as is plain Iudg. 11. 164. 'T is in vain then to say that whensoever God chooses any special Person to have the exercise of Paternal Authority for if that be not to be King I desire to know the difference between a King and one having the exercise of Paternal Authority he intends the Issue also should have the benefit of it since we find the Authority the Judges had ended with them and descended not to their Issue and if the Judges had not Paternal Authority I fear it will trouble our A or any of the Friends to his Principles to tell who had then the Paternal Authority that is the Government and Supream Power amongst the Israelites and I suspect they must confess that the chosen People of God continued a People several hundreds of Years without any Knowledge or Thought of this Paternal Authority or any appearance of Monarchical Government at all 165. To be satisfied of this he need but read the Story of the Levitâ— and the War thereupon with the Benjamiâ—es in the 3. last Chap. of Iud. and when he finds that the Levite appeals to the People for Justice that it was the Tribes and the Congregation that debated resolved and directed all that was done on that occasion he must conclude either that God was not careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority amongst his own chosen People or else that the Fatherly Authority may be preserved where there is no Monarchical Government If the latter then it will follow that though Fatherly Authority be never so well proved yet it will not infer a necessity of Monarchical Government If the former it will seem very strange and improbable that God should ordain Fatherly Authority to be so Sacred amongst the Sons of Men that there could be no Power nor Government without it and yet that amongst his own People even whilst he is providing a Government for them and therein prescribes Rules to the several States and Relations of Men this Great and Fundamental one this most material and necessary of all the rest should be concealed and lye neglected for 400 Years after 166. Before I leave this I must ask how our A knows that whensoever God makes choice of any special Person to be King he intends that the Issue should have the benefit thereof does God by the Law of Nature or Revelation say so By the same Law also he must say which of his Issue must enjoy the Crown in Succession and so point out the Heir or else leave his Issue to divide or scramble for the Government both alike absurd and such as will destroy the benefit of such Grant to the Issue When any such Declaration of Gods Intention is produced it will be our Duty to believe God intends it so but till that be done our A must shew us some better Warrant before we shall be obliged to receive him as the Authentic Reveler of Gods Intentions 167. The Issue says our A is comprehended sufficiently in the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Grant And yet God when he gave the Land of Canaan to Abraham Gen. 13. 15. thought fit to put his Seed into the Grant too so the Priesthood was given to Aaron and his Seed And the Crown God
gave not only to David but his Seed also And however our A assures us that God intends that the Issue should have the benefit of it when he chooses any Person to be King yet we see that the Kingdom he gave to Saul without mentioning his Seed after him never came to any of his Issue and why when God chose a Person to be King he should intend that his Issue should have the benefit of it more then when he chose one to be Judg in Israel I would fain know a reason or why does a Grant of Fatherly Authority to a King more comprehend the Issue then when a like Grant is made to a Judge Is Paternal Authority by Right to descend to the Issue of one and not of the other there will need some Reason to be shewn of this difference more then the name when the thing given is the same Fatherly Authority and the manner of giving it Gods choice of the Person for I suppose our A when he says God raised up Iudges will by no means allow they were chosen by the People 168. But since our A has so confidently assured us of the care of God to preserve the Fatherhood and pretends to build all he says upon the Authority of the Scripture we may well expect that that People whose Law Constitution and History is chiefly contain'd in the Scripture should furnish him with the clearest Instances of Gods care of preserving of the Fatherly Authority in that People who 't is agreed he had a most peculiar care of let us see then what State this Paternal Authority or Government was in amongst the Iews from their beginning to be a People It was omitted by our A s confession from their coming into Egypt till their return out of that Bondage above 200 Years From thence till God gave the Israelites a King about 400 Years more our A gives but a very slender account of it nor indeed all that time are there the least Footsteps of Paternal or Regal Government amongst them But then says our A God Re-establish'd the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government 169. What a Lineal Succession to Paternal Government was then Establish'd we have already seen I only now consider how long this lasted and that was to their Captivity about 500 Years From whence to their Destruction by the Romans above 650 Years after the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government was again lost and they continued a People in the promised Land without it so that of 1750 Years that they were Gods peculiar People they had Hereditary Kingly Government amongst them not one third of the time and of that time there is not the leaft Footsteps of one moment of Paternal Government nor the Re-establishment of the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to it whether we suppose it to be derived as from its Fountain from David Saul Abraham or which upon our A s Principles is the only true From Adam **** AN ESSAY Concerning the True Oringinal Extent and End OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT BOOK II. CHAP. I. 1. IT having been shewn in the foregoing Discourse 1 o. That Adam had not either by natural Right of Fatherhood or by positive Donation from God any such Authority over his Children nor Dominion over the World as is pretended 2 o. That if he had his Heirs yet had no Right to it 3 o. That if his Heirs had there being no Law of Nature nor positive Law of God that determins which is the Right Heir in all Cases that may arise the Right of Succession and consequently of bearing Rule could not have been certainly determined 4 o. That if even that had been determined yet the knowledge of which is the Eldest Line of Adams Posterity being so long since utterly lost that in the Races of Mankind and Families of the World there remains not to one above another the least pretence to be the Eldest House and to have the Right of Inheritance All these premises having as I think been clearly made out it is impossible that the Rulers now on Earth should make any benefit or derive any the least shadow of Authority from that which is held to be the Fountain of all Power Adams Private Dominion and Paternal Iurisdiction so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all Government in the World is the product only of Force and Violence and that Men live together by no other Rules but that of Beasts where the strongest carries it and so lay a Foundation for perpetual Disorder and Mischeif Tumult Sedition and Rebellion things that the followers of that Hipothesis so loudly cry out against must of necessity find out another rise of Government another Original of Political Power and another way of designing and knowing the Persons that have it then what Sr. Robt. E. hath taught us 2. To this purpose I think it may not be amiss to set down what I take to be Political Power That the Power of a Magistrate over a Subject may be distinguished from that of a Father over his Children a Master over his Servant a Husband over his Wife and a Lord over his Slave All which distinct Powers happening sometimes together in the same Man if he be considered under these different Relations it may help us to distinguish these Powers one from another and shew the difference betwixt a Ruler of a Common-wealth a Father of a Family and a Captain of a Gally 3. Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of death and consequently all less Penalties for the Regulating and Preserving of Property and of employing the force of the Community in the Execution of such Laws and in the defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury and all this only for the Public Good CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature 4. TO understand Political Power a right and derive it from its Original we must consider what Estate all Men are naturally in and that is a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit within the bounds of the Law of Nature without asking leave or depending upon the Will of any other Man A State also of Equality wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal no one having more then another there being nothing more evident then that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature and the use of the same faculties should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection unless the Lord and Master of them all should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty 5. This equality of Men by Nature the Judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in it self and beyond all question that he makes
Pattern of the first Ages in Asia and Europe whilst the Inhabitants were too few for the Countrey and want of People and Money gave Men no temptation to enlarge their Possessions of Land or contest for wider extent of Ground are little more than Generals of their Armies and though they command absolutely in War yet at home and in time of Peace they exercise very little Dominion and have but a very moderate Sovereignty the Resolutions of Peace and War being ordinarily either in the People or in a Council Though the War it self which admits not of Pluralities of Governours naturally devolves the Command into the King's sole Authority 109. And thus in Israel it self the chief Business of their Judges and first Kings seems to have been to be Captains in War and Leaders of their Armies which besides what is signified by going out and in before the People which was to march forth to War and home again in the Heads of their Forces appears plainly in the story of Iephtha The Ammonites making War upon Israel the Gileadites in fear send to Iephtha a Bastard of their Family whom they had cast off and article with him if he will assist them against the Ammonites to make him their Ruler which they do in these Words And the People made him head and captain over them Iudg. 11. 11. which was as it seems all one as to be Judge And he judged Israel Iudg. 12. 7. that is was their Captain-general six Years So when Iotham upbraids the Shechemites with the Obligation they had to Gideon who had been their Judge and Ruler he tells them He fought for you and adventured his life far and delivered you out of the hands of Midian Iudg. 9.17 Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as a General and indeed that is all is found in his History or in any of the rest of the Judges And Abimelech particularly is called King though at most he was but their General And when being weary of the ill Conduct of Samuel's Sons the Children of Israel desired a King like all the nations to judge them and to go out before them and to fight their battels 1 Sam. 8. 20. God granting their Desire says to Samuel I will send thee a man and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel that he may save my peole out of the hands of the Philistines c. 9. v. 16. As if the only business of a King had been to lead out their Armies and fight in their Defence and accordingly at his Inauguration pouring a Vial of Oyl upon him declares to Saul that the Lord had anointed him to be Captain over his inheritance c. 10. v. 1. And therefore those who after Saul's being solemnly chosen and saluted King by the Tribes at Mispah were unwilling to have him their King make no other Objection but this How shall this man save us v. 27. as if they should have said This Man is unfit to be our King not having Skill and Conduct enough in War to be able to defend us And when God resolved to transfer the Government to David it is in these Words But now thy Kingdom shall not continue the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people c. 13. v. 14. As if the whole Kingly Authority were nothing else but to be their General and therefore the Tribes who had stuck to Saul's Family and opposed David's Reign when they came to Hebron with terms of Submission to him they tell him amongst other Arguments they had to submit to him as to their King That he was in effect their King in Saul's time and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their King now Also say they in time past when Saul was King over us thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel and the Lord said unto thee thou shalt feed my People Israel and thou shalt be a Captain over Israel 110. Thus whether a Family by degrees grew up into a Commonwealth and the Fatherly Authority being continued on to the elder Son every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one every one acquiesced till time seemed to have confirmed it and setled a right of Succession by Prescription or whether several Families or the Descendants of several Families whom Chance Neighbourhood or Business brought together united into Society the need of a General whose Conduct might defend them against their Enemies in War and the great confidence the Innocence and Sincerity of that poor but vertuous Age such as are almost all those which begin Governments that ever come to last in the World gave Men one of another made the first Beginners of Commonwealths generally put the Rule into one Man's hand without any other express Limitation or Restraint but what the Nature of the thing and the End of Government required It was given them for the publick Good and Safety and to those Ends in the Infancies of Common-wealths they commonly used it and unless they had done so young Societies could not have subsisted without such nursing Fathers without this care of the Governours all Governments would have sunk under the Weakness and Infirmities of their Infancy the Prince and the People had soon perished together 111. But the golden Age tho' before vain Ambition and amor sceleratus habendi evil Concupiscence had corrupted Mens minds into a Mistake of true Power and Honour had more Virtue and consequently better Governours as well as less vicious Subjects and there was then no stretching Prerogative on the one side to oppress the People nor consequently on the other any Dispute about Priviledge to lessen or restrain the Power of the Magistrate and so no contest betwixt Rulers and People about Governours or Government Yet when Ambition and Luxury in future Ages would retain and increase the Power without doing the Business for which it was given and aided by Flattery taught Princes to have distinct and separate Interests from their People Men found it necessary to examine more carefully the Original and Rights of Government and to find out ways to restrain the Exorbitances and prevent the Abuses of that Power which they having intrusted in another's hands only for their own good they found was made use of to hurt them 112. Thus we may see how probable it is that People that were naturally free and by their own consent either submitted to the Government of their Father or united together out of different Families to make a Government should generally put the Rule into one Man's hands and chuse to be under the Conduct of a single Person without so much as by express Conditions limiting or regulating his Power which they thought safe enough in his Honesty and Prudence Though they never dream'd of Monarchy being Iure Divino which we never heard
Government That which makes the Community and brings Men out of the loose State of Nature into one Politick Society is the Agreement which every one has with the rest to incorporate and act as one Body and so be one distinct Commonwealth The usual and almost only way whereby this Union is dissolved is the Inroad of foreign Force making a Conquest upon them For in that Case not being able to maintain and support themselves as one intire and independent Body the Union belonging to that Body which consisted therein must necessarily cease and so every one return to the state he was in before with a liberty to shift for himself and provide for his own Safety as he thinks fit in some other Society Whenever the Society is dissolved 't is certain the Government of that Society cannot remain Thus Conquerors Swords often cut up Governments by the Roots and mangle Societies to pieces separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the Protection of and Dependence on that Society which ought to have preserved them from violence The World is too well instructed in and too forward to allow of this way of dissolving of Governments to need any more to be said of it and there wants not much Argument to prove that where the Society is dissolved the Government cannot remain that being as impossible as for the Frame of an house to subsist when the Materials of it are scattered and displaced by a Whirl-wind or jumbled into a confused heap by an Earthquake 212. Besides this over-turning from without Governments are dissolved from within First When the Legislative is altered Civil Society being a state of Peace amongst those who are of it from whom the state of War is excluded by the Umpirage which they have provided in their Legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them 'T is in their Legislative that the Members of a Commonwealth are united and combined together into one coherent living Body This is the Soul that gives Form Life and Unity to the Commonwealth from hence the several Members have their mutual Influence Sympathy and Connexion and therefore when the Legislative is broken or dissolved Dissolution and Death follows For the Essence and Union of the Society consisting in having one Will the Legislative when once established by the Majority has the declaring and as it were keeping of that Will The Constitution of the Legislative is the first and fundamental Act of Society whereby provision is made for the Continuation of their Union under the Direction of Persons and Bonds of Laws made by Persons authorized thereunto by the Consent and Appointment of the People without which no one Man or number of Men amongst them can have Authority of making Laws that shall be binding to the rest When any one or more shall take upon them to make Laws whom the People have not appointed so to do they make Laws without Authority which the People are not therefore bound to obey by which means they come again to be out of subjection and may constitute to themselves a new Legislative as they think best being in full liberty to resist the force of those who without Authority would impose any thing upon them Every one is at the disposure of his own Will when those who had by the delegation of the Society the declaring of the publick Will are excluded from it and others usurp the place who have no such Authority or Delegation 213. This being usually brought about by such in the Commonwealth who mis-use the Power they have It is hard to consider it aright and know at whose door to lay it without knowing the Form of Government in which it happens Let us suppose then the Legislative placed in the Concurrence of three distinct Persons First A single hereditary Person having the constant supream executive Power and with it the Power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain Periods of Time Secondly An Assemby of hereditary Nobility Thirdly An Assembly of Representatives chosen pro tempore by the People Such a Form of Government supposed it is evident 214. First That when such a single Person or Prince sets up his own Arbitrary Will in place of the Laws which are the Will of the Society declared by the Legislative then the Legislative is changed For that being in effect the Legislative whose Rules and Laws are put in execution and required to be obeyed when other Laws are set up and other Rules pretended and inforced than what the Legislative constituted by the Society have enacted 't is plain that the Legislative is changed Who-ever introduces new Laws not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental Appointment of the Society or subverts the old disowns and overturns the Power by which they were made and so sets up a new Legislative 215. Secondly When the Prince hinders the Legislative from assembling in its due time or from acting freely pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted the Legislative is altered For 't is not a certain number of Men no nor their meeting unless they have also Freedom of debating and Leisure of perfecting what is for the good of the Society wherein the Legislative consists when these are taken away or altered so as to deprive the Society of the due exercise of their Power the Legislative is truly altered For it is not Names that constitute Governments but the use and exercise of those Powers that were intended to accompany them so that he who takes away the Freedom or hinders the acting of the Legislative in its due seasons in effect takes away the Legislative and puts an end to the Government 216. Thirdly When by the Arbitrary Power of the Prince the Electours or ways of Election are altered without the Consent and contrary to the common Interest of the People there also the Legislative is altered For if others then those whom the Society hath authorized thereunto do chuse or in another way than what the Society hath prescribed those chosen are not the Legislative appointed by the People 217. Fourthly The delivery also of the People into the subjection of a foreign Power either by the Prince or by the Legislative is certainly a change of the Legislative and so a Dissolution of the Government For the end why People entered into Society being to be preserved one intire free independent Society to be governed by its own Laws this is lost when-ever they are given up into the Power of another 218. Why in such a Constitution as this the Dissolution of the Government in these Cases is to be imputed to the Prince is evident because he having the Force Treasure and Offices of the State to imploy and often perswading himself or being flattered by others that as supreme Magistrate he is uncapable of controul he alone is in a Condition to make great Advances toward such Changes under pretence of lawful Authority and has it in his hands to terrifie or