manifest this by the words Be it enacted by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same But King James says Filmer in his Law of free Monarchy affirms the contrary and it may be so yet that is nothing to us No man doubts that he desired it might be so in England but it dos not from thence appear that it is so The Law of a free Monarchy is nothing to us for that Monarchy is not free which is regulated by a Law not to be broken without the guilt of Perjury as he himself confessed in relation to ours As to the words cited from Hooker I can find no hurt in them To draw up the form of a good Law is a matter of invention and judgment but it receives the force of a Law from the power that enacts it We have no other reason for the paiment of Excise or Customs than that the Parliament has granted those Revenues to the King to defray the publick Charges Whatever therefore King James was pleased to say in his Books or in those written for him we do not so much as know that the killing of a King is Treason or to be punished with death otherwise than as it is enacted by Parliament and it was not always so for in the time of Ethelstan the Estimates of Lives were agreed in Parliament and that of a King valued at thirty thousand Thrymsae And if that Law had not bin alter'd by the Parliament it must have bin in force at this day It had bin in vain for a King to say he would have it otherwise for he is not created to make Laws but to govern according to such as are made and sworn to assent to such as shall be proposed He who thinks the Crown not worth accepting on these conditions may refuse it The words Le Roy le veult are only a pattern of the French fashions upon which some Kings have laid great stress and would no doubt have bin glad to introduce Car tel est nostre plaisir but that may prove a difficult matter Nay in France it self where that Stile and all the ranting expressions that please the vainest of men are in mode no Edict has the power of a Law till it be registred in Parliament This is not a mere ceremony as some pretend but all that is essential to a Law Nothing has bin more common than for those Parliaments to refuse Edicts sent to them by the King When John Chastel had at the instigation of the Jesuits stabb'd Henry the fourth in the Mouth and that Order had designed or executed many other execrable crimes they were banished out of the Kingdom by an Arrest of the Parliament of Paris Some other Parliaments registred the same but those of Tholouse and Bordeaux absolutely refused and notwithstanding all that the King could do the Jesuits continued at Tournon and many other places within their Precincts till the Arrest was revoked These proceedings are so displeasing to the Court that the most violent ways have bin often used to abolish them About the year 1650 Seguier then Chancellor of France was sent with a great number of Soldiers to oblige the Parliament of Paris to pass some Edicts upon which they had hesitated but he was so far from accomplishing his design that the People rose against him and he thought himself happy that he escaped with his Life If the Parliaments do not in all parts of the Kingdom continue in the Liberty of approving or rejecting all Edicts the Law is not altered but oppressed by the violence of the Sword And the Prince of Condé who was principally employ'd to do that work may as I suppose have had leisure to reflect upon those Actions and cannot but find reason to conclude that his excellent valour and conduct was used in a most noble exploit equally beneficial to his Country and himself However those who are skilled in the Laws of that Nation do still affirm that all publick Acts which are not duly examined and registred are void in themselves and can be of no force longer than the miserable People lies under the violence of Oppression which is all that could reasonably be said if a Pirat had the same power over them But whether the French have willingly offer'd their ears to be bor'd or have bin subdued by force it concerns us not Our Liberties depend not upon their will virtue or fortune how wretched and shameful soever their Slavery may be the evil is only to themselves We are to consider no human Laws but our own and if we have the spirit of our Ancestors we shall maintain them and die as free as they left us Le Roy le veut tho written in great Letters or pronounced in the most tragical manner can signify no more than that the King in performance of his Oath dos assent to such Laws as the Lords and Commons have agreed Without prejudice to themselves and their Liberties a People may suffer the King to advise with his Council upon what they propose Two eyes see more than one and human judgment is subject to errors Tho the Parliament consist of the most eminent men of the Nation yet when they intend good they may be mistaken They may sefely put a check upon themselves that they may farther consider the most important matters and correct the errors that may have bin committed if the King's Council do discover them but he can speak only by the advice of his Council and every man of them is with his head to answer for the advices he gives If the Parliament has not bin satisfied with the reasons given against any Law that they offer'd it has frequently pass'd and if they have bin satisfied 't was not the King but they that laid it aside He that is of another opinion may try whether Le Roy le veut can give the force of a Law to any thing conceived by the King his Council or any other than the Parliament But if no wise man will affirm that he can do it or deny that by his Oath he is obliged to assent to those that come from them he can neither have the Legislative power in himself nor any other part in it than what is necessarily to be performed by him as the Law prescribes I know not what our Author means by saying Le Roy le veut is the interpretative phrase pronounced at the passing of every Act of Parliament For if there be difficulty in any of them those words do no way remove it But the following part of the paragraph better deserves to be observed It was says he the antient custom for á long time until the days of Henry the fifth for the Kings when any Bill was brought to them that had passed both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was enacted as a Law But the custom of the
DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT BY Algernon Sidney Son to Robert Earl of Leicester and Ambassador from the Commonwealth of England to Charles Gustavus King of Sweden Published from an Original Manuscript of the Author LONDON Printed and are to be sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster MDCXCVIII THE PREFACE HOW highly the Writings of wise and good Men concerning Government have bin esteemed in all Ages the testimony of History and the preservation of so many Books composed by the Antients on that Subject do sufficiently manifest And it may be truly said that unless men have utterly abandon'd themselves to all that is detestable they have seldom attempted to detract from the worth of the Assertors of Liberty tho Ambition and other passions have influenced them to act in opposition to it When Augustus had surprised a young Roman who was related to him reading a political Discourse of Cicero he commended his judgment in that choice The History of France written by the President de Thou with a spirit of Freedom that might have bin worthy of those who had liv'd before the violation of their Liberty has bin so generally valued by men of all ranks in that Nation that'tis hard to find a Book on any important Subject which has had so many Editions And the just esteem that the Emperor Charles the fifth made of the Memoirs of Philip de Commines tho that Author has given so many instances of his detestation of Tyranny may be enough to put this matter out of dispute But if all other proof were wanting the implacable hatred and unwearied industry of the worst of men to suppress such Writings would abundantly testify their excellency That Nations should be well informed of their Rights is of the most absolute necessity because the happiness or infelicity of any People intirely depends upon the enjoyment or deprivation of Liberty which is so invincibly proved in the following Discourses that to endeavour to make it more clear would be an unpardonable presumption If any man think the publication of this Work to be unseasonable at this time he is desired to consider that as men expect good Laws only from a good Government so the Reign of a Prince whose Title is founded upon the principle of Liberty which is here defended cannot but be the most proper if not the only time to inform the People of their just Rights that from a due sense of their inestimable value they may be encouraged to assert them against the attempts of ill men in time to come 'T is not necessary to say any thing concerning the Person of the Author He was so well known in the world so universally esteemed by those who knew how to set a just value upon true Merit and will appear so admirable in the following Discourses as not to stand in need of a flattering Panegyrick But it may not be amiss to say something of the Discourses now published The Paper delivered to the Sheriffs immediately before his death informs us that he had left a Large and a Lesser Treatise written against the Principles contained in Filmer's Book and that a small part of the lesser Treatise had bin produced for evidence against him at his Trial. 'T is there also said that the lesser Treatise neither was nor probably ever should have bin finished This therefore is the Large Work mentioned in that Paper and not the Lesser upon part of which the wicked Sentence pronounc'd and executed against him was grounded It remains only to add a few words for satisfaction of the Publick that these Discourses are genuine And here I shall not need to say that they were put into the hands of a Person of eminent Quality and Integrity by the Author himself and that the Original is in the judgment of those who knew him best all written by his own hand His inimitable manner of treating this noble Subject is instead of a thousand demonstrations that the Work can belong to no other than the Great Man whose name it bears DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT CHAP. I. SECTION I. INTRODUCTION HAVING lately seen a Book intituled Patriarcha written by Sir Robert Filmer concerning the Universal and undistinguished Right of all Kings I thought a time of leisure might be well employed in examining his Doctrine and the Questions arising from it which seem so far to concern all Mankind that besides the influence upon our future Life they may be said to comprehend all that in this World deserves to be cared for If he say true there is but one Government in the World that can have any thing of Justice in it and those who have hitherto bin esteemed the best and wisest of Men for having constituted Commonwealths or Kingdoms and taken much pains so to proportion the Powers of several Magistracies that they might all concur in procuring the Publick Good or so to divide the Powers between the Magistrates and People that a well-regulated Harmony might be preserved in the whole were the most unjust and foolish of all Men. They were not builders but overthrowers of Governments Their business was to set up Aristocratical Democratical or mixed Governments in opposition to that Monarchy which by the immutable Laws of God and Nature is imposed upon Mankind or presumptuously to put Shackles upon the Monarch who by the same Laws is to be absolute and uncontrolled They were rebellious and disobedient Sons who rose up against their Father and not only refused to hearken to his Voice but made him bend to their Will In their opinion such only deserved to be called Good Men who endeavoured to be good to Mankind or to that Country to which they were more particularly related and in as much as that Good consists in a felicity of Estate and perfection of Person they highly valued such as had endeavoured to make Men better wiser and happier This they understood to be the end for which Men enter'd into Societies And tho Cicero says that Commonwealths were instituted for the obtaining of Justice he contradicts them not but comprehends all in that word because 't is just that whosoever receives a Power should employ it wholly for the accomplishment of the Ends for which it was given This Work could be performed only by such as excelled in Virtue but lest they should deflect from it no Government was thought to be well constituted unless the Laws prevailed above the Commands of Men and they were accounted as the worst of Beasts who did not prefer such a Condition before a subjection to the fluctuating and irregular Will of a Man If we believe Sir Robert all this is mistaken Nothing of this kind was ever left to the choice of Men. They are not to enquire what conduces to their own good God and Nature have put us into a way from which we are not to swerve We are not to live to him nor to our selves but to the Master that he hath set over us One Government
publick if they be few and the matters not great others will not suffer their quiet to be disturbed by them if they are many and grievous the Tyranny thereby appears to be so cruel that the Nation cannot subsist unless it be corrected or suppress'd Corruption of Judgment proceeds from private Passions which in these cases never govern and tho a zeal for the publick good may possibly be misguided yet till it Le so it can never be capable of excess The last Tarquin and his lewd Son exercised their Fury and Lust in the murders of the best men in Rome and the rape of Lucretia Appius Claudius was filled with the like madness Caligula and Nero were so well established in the power of committing the worst of Villanies that we do not hear of any man that offer'd to defend himself or woman that presumed to refuse them If they had bin judges in these cases the utmost of all Villanies and Mischiefs had bin established by Law but as long as the judgment of these matters was in the People no private or corrupt Passion could take place Lucius Brutus Valerius Horatius and Virginius with the People that followed them did not by the expulsion of the Kings or the suppression of the Decemviri assume to themselves a power of committing Rapes and Murders nor any advantages beyond what their equals might think they deserved by their virtues and services to the Commonwealth nor had they more credit than others for any other reason than that they shewed themselves most forward in procuring the publick Good and by their Valour and Conduct best able to promote it Whatsoever happen'd after the overthrow of their Liberty belongs not to my Subject for there was nothing of popularity in the judgments that were made One Tyrant destroy'd another the same Passions and Vices for the most part reigned in both The last was often as bad as his Predecessor whom he had overthrown and one was sometimes approved by the People for no other reason than that it was thought impossible for him to be worse than he who was in possession of the Power But if one instance can be of force amongst an infinite number of various Accidents the words of Valerius Asiaticus who by wishing he had bin the man that had kill'd Caligula did in a moment pacify the fury of the Soldiers who were looking for those that had done it shew that as long as men retain any thing of that Reason which is truly their Nature they never fail of judging rightly of Virtue and Vice whereas violent and ill Princes have always done the contrary and even the best do often deflect from the rules of Justice as appears not only by the examples of Edward the first and third who were brought to confess it but even those of David and Solomon Moreover to shew that the decision of these Controversies cannot belong to any King but to the People we are only to consider that as Kings and all other Magistrates whether supreme or subordinate are constituted only for the good of the People the People only can be fit to judg whether the end be accomplished A Physician dos not exercise his Art for himself but for his Patients and when I am or think I shall be sick I send for him of whom I have the best opinion that he may help me to recover or preserve my health but I lay him aside it I find him to be negligent ignorant or unfaithful and it would be ridiculous for him to say I make my self judg in my own case for I only or such as I shall consult am fit to be the judg of it He may be treacherous and through corruption or malice endeavour to poison me or have other defects that render him unfit to be trusted but I cannot by any corrupt passion be led wilfully to do him injustice and if I mistake 't is only to my own hurt The like may be said of Lawyers Stewards Pilots and generally of all that do not act for themselves but for those who employ them And if a Company going to the Indies should find that their Pilot was mad drunk or treacherous they whose lives and goods are concerned can only be fit to judg whether he ought to be trusted or not since he cannot have a right to destroy those he was chosen to preserve and they cannot be thought to judg perversly because they have nothing to lead them but an opinion of truth and cannot err but to their own prejudice In the like manner not only Solon and Draco but Romulus Numa Hostilius the Consuls Dictators and Decemviri were not distinguished from others that it might be well with them Sed ut bonum faelix faustumque sit Populo Romano but that the prosperity and happiness of the People might be procured which being the thing always intended it were absurd to refer the judgment of the performance to him who is suspected of a design to overthrow it and whose passions interests and vices if he has any lead him that way If King James said any thing contrary to this he might be answered with some of his own words I was says he sworn to maintain the Laws of the Land and therefore had bin perjured if I had broken them It may also be presumed he had not forgotten what his Master Buchanan had taught in the Books he wrote chiefly for his Instruction that the violation of the Laws of Scotland could not have bin so fatal to most of his Predecessors Kings of that Country nor as he himself had made them to his Mother if Kings as Kings were above them SECT XV. A general presumption that Kings will govern well is not a sufficient security to the People BUT says our Author yet will they rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he ceases to rule according unto his Laws Yet where he sees them rigorous or doubtful he may mitigate or interpret This is therefore an effect of their goodness they are above Laws but will rule by Law we have Filmers's word for it But I know not how Nations can be assured their Princes will always be so good Goodness is always accompanied with Wisdom and I do not find those admirable qualities to be generally inherent or entail'd upon supreme Magistrates They do not seem to be all alike and we have not hitherto found them all to live in the same Spirit and Principle I can see no resemblance between Moses and Caligula Joshua and Claudius Gideon and Nero Samson and Vitellius Samuel and Otho David and Domitian nor indeed between the best of these and their own Children If the Sons of Moses and Joshua had bin like to them in wisdom valour and integrity 't is probable they had bin chosen to succeed them if they were not the like is less to be presumed of others
is established over all and no Limits can be set to the Power of the Person that manages it This is the Prerogative or as another Author of the same stamp calls it The Royal Charter granted to Kings by God They all have an equal right to it Women and Children are Patriarchs and the next in Blood without any regard to Age Sex or other Qualities of the Mind or Body are Fathers of as many Nations as fall under their power We are not to examine whether he or she be young or old virtuous or vicious sober minded or stark mad the Right and Power is the same in all Whether Virtue be exalted or suppressed whether he that bears the Sword be a Praise to those that do well and a Terror to those that do evil or a Praise to those that do evil and a Terror to such as do well it concerns us not for the King must not lose his Right nor have his Power diminished on any account I have bin sometimes apt to wonder how things of this nature could enter into the head of any Man Or if no wickedness or folly be so great but some may fall into it I could not well conceive why they should publish it to the World But these thoughts ceased when I considered that a People from all Ages in love with Liberty and desirous to maintain their own Privileges could never be brought to resign them unless they were made to believe that in Conscience they ought to do it which could not be unless they were also perswaded to believe that there was a Law set to all Mankind which none might transgress and which put the examination of all those Matters out of their power This is our Author's Work By this it will appear whose Throne he seeks to advance and whose Servant he is whilst he pretends to serve the King And that it may be evident he hath made use of Means sutable to the Ends proposed for the Service of his great Master I hope to shew that he hath not used one Argument that is not false nor cited one Author whom he hath not perverted and abused Whilst my work is so to lay open these Snares that the most simple may not be taken in them I shall not examin how Sir Robert came to think himself a Man fit to undertake so great a work as to destroy the principles which from the beginning seem to have bin common to all Mankind but only weighing the Positions and Arguments that he alledgeth will if there be either truth or strength in them confess the discovery comes from him that gave us least reason to expect it and that in spight of the Antients there is not in the world a piece of Wood out of which a Mercury may not be made SECT II. The common Notions of Liberty are not from School Divines but from Nature IN the first lines of his Book he seems to denounce War against Mankind endeavouring to overthrow the principle of Liberty in which God created us and which includes the chief advantages of the life we enjoy as well as the greatest helps towards the felicity that is the end of our hopes in the other To this end he absurdly imputes to the School Divines that which was taken up by them as a common notion written in the heart of every Man denied by none but such as were degenerated into Beasts from whence they might prove such Points as of themselves were less evident Thus did Euclid lay down certain Axioms which none could deny that did not renounce common Sense from whence he drew the proofs of such Propositions as were less obvious to the Understanding and they may with as much reason be accused of Paganism who say that the whole is greater than a part that two halfs make the whole or that a streight Line is the shortest way from Point to Point as to say that they who in Politicks lay such Foundations as have been taken up by Schoolmen and others as undeniable Truths do therefore follow them or have any regard to their Authority Tho the Schoolmen were corrupt they were neither stupid nor unlearned They could not but see that which all men saw nor lay more approved Foundations than That Man is naturally free That he cannot justly be deprived of that Liberty without cause and that he doth not resign it or any part of it unless it be in consideration of a greater good which he proposes to himself But if he doth unjustly impute the invention of this to School Divines he in some measure repairs his Fault in saying This hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity The Divines of the Reformed Churches have entertained it and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it That is to say all Christian Divines whether Reformed or Unreformed do approve it and the People every where magnify it as the height of human felicity But Filmer and such as are like to him being neither Reformed nor Unreformed Christians nor of the People can have no title to Christianity and in as much as they set themselves against that which is the height of human Felicity they declare themselves Enemies to all that are concern'd in it that is to all Mankind But says he They do not remember that the desire of Liberty was the first cause of the fall of Man and I desire it may not be forgotten that the Liberty asserted is not a Licentiousness of doing what is pleasing to every one against the command of God but an exemption from all human Laws to which they have not given their assent If he would make us believe there was any thing of this in Adam's Sin he ought to have proved that the Law which he transgressed was imposed upon him by Man and consequently that there was a Man to impose it for it will easily appear that neither the Reformed or Unreformed Divines nor the People following them do place the felicity of Man in an exemption from the Laws of God but in a most perfect conformity to them Our Saviour taught us not to fear such as could kill the Body but him that could kill and cast into Hell And the Apostle tells us that we should obey God rather than Man It hath bin ever hereupon observed that they who most precisely adhere to the Laws of God are least sollicitous concerning the commands of men unless they are well grounded and those who most delight in the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God do not only subject themselves to him but are most regular observers of the just Ordinances of Man made by the consent of such as are concerned according to the Will of God The error of not observing this may perhaps deserve to be pardoned in a Man that had read no Books as proceeding from ignorance if such as are grosly ignorant can be excused when they take upon them to write of such matters as require the highest knowledg But
which a grave Author's sense is best comprehended it will appear that all his Books of Laws and of a Commonwealth are chiefly grounded upon this That Magistrates are chosen by Societies seeking their own good and that the best men ought to be chosen for the attaining of it whereas his whole design of seeking which is the best Form of Government or what Laws do most conduce to its perfection and permanency if one Rule were by nature appointed for all and none could justly transgress it if God had designed an universal Lord over the whole world or a particular one over every Nation who could be bound by no Law were utterly absurd and they who write Books concerning Political matters and take upon them to instruct Nations how to govern themselves would be found either foolishly to mispend their time or impiously to incite people to rebel against the Ordinance of God If this can justly be imputed to Plato he is not the wise Man he is supposed to have bin and can less deserve the title of Divine which our Author gives him but if he remain justly free from such Censures it must be confessed that whilst he seeks what is good for a people and to convince them by reason that it is so he takes it for granted that they have a liberty of chusing that which appears to be the best to them He first says that this Good consists in the obtaining of Justice but farther explaining himself he shews that under the name of Justice he comprehends all that tends to their perfection and felicity in as much as every People by joining in a civil Society and creating Magistrates doth seek its own good and 't is just that he or they who are created should to the utmost of their power accomplish the end of their Creation and lead the people to Justice without which there is neither perfection nor happiness That the proper act of Justice is to give to every one his due to Man that which belongs to Man and to God that which is God's But as no man can be just or desire to be so unless he know that Justice is good nor know that it is good unless he know that original Justice and Goodness through which all that is just is just and all that is good is good 't is impossible for any man to perform the part of a good Magistrate unless he have the knowledg of God or to bring a People to Justice unless he bring them to the knowledg of God who is the Root of all Justice and Goodness If Plato therefore deserve credit he only can duly perform the part of a good Magistrate whose moral Vertues are ripened and heightned by a superinduction of Divine Knowledg The misery of Man proceeds from his being separated from God This Separation is wrought by corruption his restitution therefore to Felicity and Integrity can only be brought about by his reunion to the Good from which he is fallen Plato looks upon this as the only worthy Object of Man's desire and in his Laws and Politicks he intends not to teach us how to erect Manufactures and to increase Trade or Riches but how Magistrates may be helpful to Nations in the manner before-mentioned and consequently what Men are fit to be Magistrates If our Author therefore would make use of Plato's Doctrine to his end he ought to have proved that there is a Family in every Nation to the chief of which and successively to the next in Blood God dos ever reveal and insuse such a knowledg of himself as may render him a Light to others and failing in this all that he says is to no purpose The weakness in which we are born renders us unable to attain this Good of our selves we want help in all things especially in the greatest The fierce Barbarity of a loose multitude bound by no Law and regulated by no Discipline is wholly repugnant to it Whilst every man fears his Neighbour and has no other defence than his own strength he must live in that perpetual anxiety which is equally contrary to that happiness and that sedate temper of mind which is required for the search of it The first step towards the cure of this pestilent Evil is for many to join in one body that every one may be protected by the united force of all and the various Talents that men possess may by good discipline be rendred useful to the whole as the meanest piece of wood or stone being placed by a wise Architect conduces to the beauty of the most glorious Building But every man bearing in his own breast Affections Passions and Vices that are repugnant to this end and no man owing any submission to his Neighbour none will subject the correction or restriction of themselves to another unless he also submit to the same Rule They are rough pieces of timber or stone which 't is necessary to cleave saw or cut This is the work of a skilful Builder and he only is capable of erecting a great Fabrick who is so Magistrates are Political Architects and they only can perform the Work incumbent on them who excel in Political Vertues Nature in variously framing the minds of men according to the variety of Uses in which they may be imploy'd in order to the institution and preservation of Civil Societies must be our Guide in allotting to every one his proper work And Plato observing this Variety affirms that the Laws of Nature cannot be more absurdly violated than by giving the Government of a People to such as do not excel others in those Arts and Vertues that tend to the ultimate Ends for which Governments are instituted By this means those who are Slaves by Nature or rendred so by their Vices are often set above those that God and Nature had fitted for the highest Commands and Societies which subsist only by order fall into corruption when all Order is so preposterously inverted and the most extreme Confusion introduced This is an Evil that Solomon detested Folly is set in great dignity and the Rich sit in low places I have seen Servants upon Horses and Princes walking as Servants upon the Earth They who understand Solomon's Language will easily see that the Rich and the Princes he means are such only who are rich in Vertue and Wisdom and who ought to be preferred for those Qualities And when he says a Servant that reigneth is one of the three things the Earth cannot bear he can only mean such as deserve to be Servants for when they reign they do not serve but are served by others which perfectly agrees with what we learn from Plato and plainly shews that true Philosophy is perfectly conformable with what is taught us by those who were divinely inspired Therefore tho I should allow to our Author that Aristotle in those words It seems to some not to be natural for one Man to be Lord of all the Citizens since the City
lineal Subjection And in the next affirms That the Ignorance of the Creation occasioned several amongst the Heathen Philosophers to think that men met together as herds of Cattel Whereas they could not have bin ignorant of the Creation if they had read the Books that Moses writ and having that knowledg they could not think that men met together as herds of Cattel However I deny that any of them did ever dream of that lineal Subjection derived from the first Parents of mankind or that any such thing was to be learnt from Moses Tho they did not perhaps justly know the beginning of Mankind they did know the beginnings and progress of the Governments under which they lived and being assured that the first Kingdoms had bin those which they called Heroum Regna that is of those who had bin most beneficial to Mankind that their Descendents in many places degenerating from their Vertues had given Nations occasion to set up Aristocracies and they also falling into corruption to institute Democracies or mixed Governments did rightly conclude That every Nation might justly order their own Affairs according to their own pleasure and could have neither obligation nor reason to set up one man or a few above others unless it did appear to them that they had more of those Virtues which conduce to the good of Civil Societies than the rest of their Brethren Our Author's cavil upon Aristotle's Opinion That those who are wise in mind are by Nature sitted to be Lords and those who are strong of body ordained to obey deserves no answer for he plainly falsifies the Text Aristotle speaks only of those qualities which are required for every purpose and means no more than that such as are eminent in the virtues of the mind deserve to govern tho they do not excel in bodily strength and that they who are strong of body tho of little understanding and uncapable of commanding may be useful in executing the commands of others But is so far from denying that one man may excel in all the perfections of mind and body that he acknowledges him only to be a King by nature who dos so both being required for the full performance of his Duty And if this be not true I suppose that one who is like Agrippa Posthumus Corporis viribus stolidé ferox may be fit to govern many Nations and Moses or Samuel if they naturally wanted bodily strength or that it decayed by age might justly be made Slaves which is discovery worthy our Author's invention SECT II. Every Man that hath Children hath the right of a Father and is capable of preferment in a Society composed of many I Am not concerned in making good what Suarez says A Jesuit may speak that which is true but it ought to be received as from the Devil cautiously lest mischief be hid under it and Sir Robert's frequent prevarications upon the Scripture and many good Authors give reason to suspect he may have falsified one that few Protestants read if it served to his purpose and not mentioning the place his fraud cannot easily be discovered unless it be by one who has leisure to examin all his vastly voluminous Writings But as to the point in question that pains may be saved there is nothing that can be imputed to the invention of Suarez for that Adam had only an Oeconomical not a political Power is not the voice of a Jesuit but of Nature and common Sense for Politick signifying no more in Greek than Civil in Latin 't is evident there could be no Civil Power where there was no Civil Society and there could be none between him and his Children because a Civil Society is composed of Equals and fortified by mutual compacts which could not be between him and his Children at least if there be any thing of truth in our Author's Doctrine That all Children do perpetually and absolutely depend upon the Will of their Father Suarez seems to have bin of another opinion and observing the benefits we receive from Parents and the Veneration we owe to them to be reciprocal he could not think any Duty could extend farther than the knowledg of the Relation upon which it was grounded and makes a difference between the Power of a Father before and after his Children are made free that is in truth before and after they are able to provide for themselves and to deliver their Parents from the burden of taking care of them which will appear rational to any who are able to distinguish between what a Man of fifty years old subsisting by himself and having a Family of his own or a Child of eight doth owe to his Father The same reason that obliges a Child to submit entirely to the Will of his Parents when he is utterly ignorant of all things dos permit and often enjoyn men of ripe age to examin the commands they receive before they obey them and 't is not more plain that I owe all manner of duty affection and respect to him that did beget and educate me than that I can owe nothing on any such account to one that did neither This may have bin the opinion of Suarez but I can hardly believe such a notion as that Adam in process of time might have Servants could proceed from any other brain than our Authors for if he had lived to this day he could have had none under him but his own Children and if a Family be not compleat without Servants his must always have bin defective and his Kingdom must have bin so too if that has such a resemblance to a Family as our Author fancies This is evident that a hard Father may use his Children as Servants or a rebellious stubborn Son may deserve to be so used and a gentle and good Master may shew that kindness to faithful and well-deserving Servants which resembles the sweetness of a fatherly rule but neither of them can change their nature a Son can never grow to be a Servant nor a Servant to be a Son If a Family therefore be not compleat unless it consist of Children and Servants it cannot be like to a Kingdom or City which is composed of Freemen and Equals Servants may be in it but are not Members of it As Truth can never be repugnant to Justice 't is impossible this should be a prejudice to the paternal rule which is most just especially when a grateful remembrance of the benefits received doth still remain with a necessary and perpetual obligation of repaying them in all affection and duty whereas the care of ever providing for their Families as they did probably increase in the time of our first long living Fathers would have bin an insupportable burden to Parents if it had bin incumbent on them We do not find that Adam exercised any such power over Cain when he had slain Abel as our Author fancies to be Regal The Murderer went out and built a City for himself and called it by the
Sons of Vespasian and Constantine inherited the Roman Empire tho their Fathers had no such title but gaining the Empire by violence which Hooker says is meer Tyranny that can create no right they could devolve none to their Children The Kings of France of the three races have inherited the Crown but Meroveus Pepin and Hugh Capet could neither pretend title nor conquest or any other Right than what was conferred upon them by the Clergy Nobility and People and consequently whatsoever is inherited from them can have no other Original for that is the gift of the People which is bestowed upon the first under whom the Successors claim as if it had bin by a peculiar Act given to every one of them It will be more hard to shew how the Crown of England is become hereditary unless it be by the Will of the People for tho it were granted that some of the Saxon Kings came in by inheritance which I do not having as I think proved them to have bin absolutely elective yet William the Norman did not for he was a Bastard and could inherit nothing William Rufus and Henry did not for their elder Brother Robert by right of inheritance ought to have bin preferred before them Stephen and Henry the second did not for Maud the only Heiress of Henry the first was living when both were crowned Richard John and those who followed did not for they were Bastards born in adultery They must therefore have received their Right from the People or they could have none at all and their Successors fall under the same condition Moreover I find great variety in the deduction of this hereditary Right In Sparta there were two Kings of different Families endowed with an equal power If the Heraclidae did reign as Fathers of the People the AEacidae did not if the right was in the AEacidae the Heraclidae could have none for 't is equally impossible to have two Fathers as two thousand 'T is in vain to say that two Families joined and agreed to reign jointly for 't is evident the Spartans had Kings before the time of Hercules or Achilles who were the Fathers of the two Races If it be said that the regal power with which they were invested did entitle them to the right of Fathers it must in like manner have belonged to the Roman Consuls Military Tribunes Dictators and Pretors for they had more Power than the Spartan Kings and that glorious Nation might change their Fathers every year and multiply or diminish the number of them as they pleased If this be most ridiculous and absurd 't is certain that the Name and Office of King Consul Dictator or the like dos not confer any determined Right upon the Person that hath it Every one has a right to that which is allotted to him by the Laws of the Country by which he is created As the Persians Spartans Romans or Germans might make such Magistrates and under such names as best pleased themselves and accordingly enlarge or diminish their Power the same Right belongs to all Nations and the Rights due unto as well as the Duties incumbent upon every one are to be known only by the Laws of that place This may seem strange to those who know neither Books nor Things Histories nor Laws but is well explain'd by Grotius who denying the Soveraign Power to be annexed to any Man speaks of divers Magistrates under several names that had and others that under the same names had it not and distinguishes those who have the Summum Imperium summo modo from those who have it modo non summo and tho probably he looked upon the first sort as a thing meerly speculative if by that summo modo a right of doing what one pleases be understood yet he gives many Examples of the other and among those who had liberrimum imperium if any had it he names the Kings of the Sabeans who nevertheless were under such a condition that tho they were as Agatharchidas reports obeyed in all things whilst they continued within the Walls of their Palace might be stoned by any that met them without it He finds also another obstacle to the Absolute power Cum Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem Senatus sive Populus which parts are proportioned according to the Laws of each Kingdom whether Hereditary or Elective both being equally regulated by them The Law that gives and measures the Power prescribes Rules how it should be transmitted In some places the supreme Magistrates are annually elected in others their Power is for life in some they are meerly elective in others hereditary under certain Rules or Limitations The antient Kingdoms and Lordships of Spain were hereditary but the Succession went ordinarily to the eldest of the reigning Family not to the nearest in Blood This was the ground of the Quarrel between Corbis the Brother and Orsua the Son of the last Prince decided by Combat before Scipio I know not whether the Goths brought that custom with them when they conquered Spain or whether they learnt it from the Inhabitants but certain it is that keeping themselves to the Families of the Balthei and Amalthei they had more regard to Age than Proximity and almost ever preferred the Brother or eldest Kinsman of the last King before his Son The like custom was in use among the Moors in Spain and Africa who according to the several Changes that happened among the Families of Almohades Almoranides and Benemerini did always take one of the reigning Blood but in the choice of him had most respect to Age and Capacity This is usually called the Law of Thanestry and as in many other places prevailed also in Ireland till that Country fell under the English Government In France and Turky the Male that is nearest in Blood succeeds and I do not know of any deviation from that Rule in France since Henry the First was preferred before Robert his elder Brother Grandchild to Hugh Capet but notwithstanding the great veneration they have for the Royal Blood they utterly exclude Females lest the Crown should fall to a Stranger or a Woman that is seldom able to govern her self should come to govern so great a People Some Nations admit Females either simply as well as Males or under a condition of not marrying out of their Country or without the consent of the Estates with an absolute exclusion of them and their Children if they do according to which Law now in force among the Swedes Charles Gustavus was chosen King upon the resignation of Queen Christina as having no Title and the Crown setled upon the Heirs of his Body to the utter exclusion of his Brother Adolphus their Mother having married a German Tho divers Nations have differently disposed their Affairs all those that are not naturally Slaves and like to Beasts have preferred their own Good before the personal Interests of him that expects the Crown so as upon no pretence
governed by him than to enjoy their Liberty or rather they do enjoy their Liberty which is never more safe than when it is defended by one who is a living Law to himself and others Wheresoever such a man appears he ought to reign He bears in his Person the divine Character of a Sovereign God has raised him above all and such as will not submit to him ought to be accounted Sons of Belial brought forth and slain But he dos withal confess that if no such man be sound there is no natural King All the Prerogatives belonging to him vanish for want of one who is capable of enjoying them He lays severe Censures upon those who not being thus qualified take upon them to govern men equal to or better than themselves and judges the assumption of such Powers by persons who are not naturally adapted to the administration of them as barbarous Usurpations which no Law or Reason can justify and is not so much transported with the excellency of this true King as not to confess he ought to be limit d by Law Qui legem praeesse jubet videtur jubere praeesse Deum Leges qui autem hominem praeesse jubet adjungit bestiam libido quippe talis est atque obliquos agit etiam viros optimos qui sunt in potestate ex quo mens atque appetitus Lex est This agrees with the words of the best King that is known to have bin in the world proceeding as is most probable from a sense of the Passions that reigned in his own breast Man being in honour hath no understanding but is like to the beast that perisheth This shews that such as deny that Kings do reign by Law or that Laws may be put upon Kings do equally set themselves against the opinions of wise Men and the Word of God and our Author having found that Learning made the Grecians seditious may reasonably doubt that Religion may make others worse so as none will be fit Subjects of his applauded Government but those who have neither Religion nor Learning and that it cannot be introduced till both be extinguished Aristotle having declared his mind concerning Government in the Books expresly written on that Subject whatsoever is said by the by in his Moral Discourses must be referred to and interpreted by the other And if he said which I do not find that Monarchy is the best Form of Government and a Popular State the worst he cannot be thought to have meant otherwise than that those Nations were the most happy who had such a Man as he thinks fit to be made a Monarch and those the most unhappy who neither had such a one nor a few that any way excelled the rest but all being equally brutish must take upon them the Government they were unable to manage for he dos no where admit any other end of Just and Civil Government than the good of the governed nor any advantage due to one or a few persons unless for such Vertues as conduce to the common good of the Society And as our Author thinks Learning makes men seditious Aristotle also acknowledges that those who have Understanding and Courage which may be taken for Learning or the effect of it will never endure the Government of one or a few that do not excel them in Vertue but no where dispraises a Popular Government unless the multitude be composed of such as are barbarous stupid lewd vicious and uncapable of the Happiness for which Governments are instituted who cannot live to themselves but like a herd of Beasts must be brought under the dominion of another or who having amongst themselves such an excellent Person as is above described will not submit to him but either kill banish or bring him to be equal with others whom God had made to excel all I do not trouble my self or the Reader with citing here or there a Line out of his Books but refer my self to those who have perused his Moral and Political Writings submitting to the severest Censures if this be not the true sense of them and that Vertue alone in his opinion ought to give the preheminence And as Aristotle following the wise Men of those times shews us how far Reason improved by Meditation can advance in the knowledg and love of that which is truly good so we may in Filmer guided by Heylin see an Example of corrupted Christians extinguishing the Light of Religion by their Vices and degenerating into Beasts whilst they endeavour to support the personal Interest of some men who being raised to Dignities by the consent of Nations or by unwarrantable ways and means would cast all the Power into the hands of such as happen to be born in their Families as if Governments had not bin instituted for the common good of Nations but only to increase their Pride and foment their Vices or that the care and direction of a great People were so easy a work that every Man Woman or Child how young weak foolish or wicked soever may be worthy of it and able to manage it SECT XI Liberty produceth Vertue Order and Stability Slavery is accompanied with Vice Weakness and Misery OUR Author's judgment as well as inclinations to Vertue are manifested in the preference he gives to the manners of the Assyrians and other Eastern Nations before the Grecians and Romans Whereas the first were never remarkable for any thing but Pride Lewdness Treachery Cruelty Cowardice Madness and hatred to all that is good whilst the others excelled in Wisdom Valour and all the Vertues that deserve imitation This was so well observed by St. Augustin that he brings no stronger Argument to prove that God leaves nothing that is good in man unrewarded than that he gave the dominion of the best part of the World to the Romans who in moral Vertues excelled all other Nations And I think no Example can be alledged of a Free People that has ever bin conquer'd by an Absolute Monarch unless he did incomparably surpass them in Riches and Strength whereas many great Kings have bin overthrown by small Republicks and the success being constantly the same it cannot be attributed to Fortune but must necessarily be the production of Vertue and good Order Machiavel discoursing of these matters finds Vertue to be so essentially necessary to the establishment and preservation of Liberty that he thinks it impossible for a corrupted People to set up a good Government or for a Tyranny to be introduced if they be vertuous and makes this Conclusion That where the matter that is the body of the People is not corrupted Tumults and Disorders do no hurt and where it is corrupted good Laws do no good Which being confirmed by Reason and Experience I think no wise man has ever contradicted him But I do not more wonder that Filmer should look upon Absolute Monarchy to be the Nurse of Vertue tho we see they did never subsist together than that he
were in them Secondly Neither Plato nor Aristotle acknowledg either reason or justice in the power os a Monarch unless he has more of the Virtues conducing to the good of the Civil Society than all those who compose it and employ them for the publick advantage and not to his own pleasure and profit as being set up by those who seek their own good for no other reason than that he should procure it To this end a Law is set as a rule to him and the best men that is such as are most like to himself made to be his Assistants because say they Lex est mens sine affectu quasi Deus whereas the best of men have their affections and passions and are subject to be misled by them Which shews that as the Monarch is not sor himself nor by himself he dos not give but receive power nor admit others to the participation of it but is by them admitted to what he has Whereupon they conclude that to prefer the absolute power of a man as in those Governments which they call Barbarorum regna before the regular Government of Kings justly exercising a power instituted by Law and directed to the publick good is to chuse rather to be subject to the lust of a Beast than to be governed by a God And because such a choice can only be made by a Beast I leave our Author to find a description of himself in their Books which he so often cites But if Aristotle deserve credit the Princes who reign for themselves and not for the People preferring their own pleasure or profit before the publick become Tyrants which in his language is Enemies to God and Man On this account Boccalini introduces the Princes of Europe raising a mutiny against him in Parnassus for giving such definitions of Tyrants as they said comprehended them all and forcing the poor Philosopher to declare by a new definition that Tyrants were certain men of antient times whose race is now extinguished But with all his Wit and Learning he could not give a reason why those who do the same things that rendred the Antient Tyrants detestable should not be so also in our days In the third place The Scriptures declare the necessity of setting bounds to those who are placed in the highest dignities Moses seems to have had as great abilities as any man that ever lived in the world but he alone was not able to bear the weight of the Government and therefore God appointed Seventy chosen men to be his assistants This was a perpetual Law to Israel and as no King was to have more power than Moses or more abilities to perform the duties of his Office none could be exempted from the necessity of wanting the like helps Our Author therefore must confess that they are Kings who have them or that Kingly Government is contrary to the Scriptures When God by Moses gave liberty to his People to make a King he did it under these conditions He must be one of their Brethren They must chuse him he must not multiply Gold Silver Wives or Horses he must not lift up his Heart above his Brethren And Josephus paraphrasing upon the place says He shall do nothing without the advice of the Sanhedrin or if he do they shall oppose him This agrees with the confession of Zedekiah to the Princes which was the Sanhedrin The King can do nothing without you and seems to have bin in pursuance of the Law of the Kingdom which was written in a Book and laid up before the Lord and could not but agree with that of Mosis unless they spake by different Spirits or that the Spirit by which they did speak was subject to error or change and the whole series of God's Law shews that the Pride Magnificence Pomp and Glory usurped by their Kings was utterly contrary to the will of God They did lift up their hearts above their Brethren which was for bidden by the Law All the Kings of Israel and most of the Kings of Jadah utterly rejected it and every one of them did very much depart from the observation of it I will not deny that the People in their institution of a King intended they should do so they had done it themselves and would have a King that might uphold them in their disobedience they were addicted to the Idolatry of their accursed Neighbours and desired that Government by which it was maintained amongst them In doing this they did not reject Samuel but they rejected God that he should not reign over them They might perhaps believe that unless their King were such as the Law did not permit he would not perform what they intended or that the name of King did not belong to him unless he had a power that the Law denied But since God and his Prophets give the name of King to the chief Magistrate endow'd with a power that was restrain'd within very narrow limits whom they might without offence set up we also may safely give the same to those of the same nature whether it please Fihner or not 4. The practice of most Nations and I may truly say of all that deserve imitation has bin as directly contrary to the absolute power of one man as their Constitutions or if the original of many Governments lie hid in the impenetrable darkness of Antiquity their progress may serve to shew the intention of the Founders Aristotle seems to think that the first Monarchs having bin chosen for their Virtue were little restrain'd in the exercise of their Power but that they or their Children falling into Corruption and Pride grew odious and that Nations did on that account either abolish their Authority or create Senates and other Magistrates who having part of the Power might keep them in order The Spartan Kings were certainly of this nature and the Persian till they conquer'd Babylon Nay I may safely say that neither the Kings which the frantick people set up in opposition to the Law of God nor those of the bordering Nations whose example they chose to follow had that absolute power which our Author attributes to all Kings as inseparable from the name Achish the Philistin lov'd and admir'd David he look'd upon him as an Angel of God and promised that he should be the keeper of his head for ever but when the Princes suspected him and said he shall not go down with us to Battel he was obliged to dismiss him This was not the language of Slaves but of those who had a great part in the Government and the Kings submission to their will shows that he was more like to the Kings of Sparta than to an absolute Monarch who dos whatever pleases him I know not whether the Spartans were descended from the Hebrews as some think but their Kings were under a regulation much like that of the 17 of Deut. tho they had two Their Senate of twenty eight and the Ephori
pleased only to affirm it without giving the least shadow of a reason to perswade us to believe him This might justify me if I should reject his assertion as a thing said gratis but I may safely go a step farther and affirm That men lived under Laws before there were any Kings which cannot be denied if such a Power necessarily belongs to Kings as he ascribes to them For Nimrod who established his Kingdom in Babel is the first who by the Scripture is said to have bin a mighty one in the Earth He was therefore the first King or Kings were not mighty and he being the first King Mankind must have lived till his time without Laws or else Laws were made before Kings To say that there was then no Law is in many respects most absurd for the nature of man cannot be without it and the violences committed by ill men before the Flood could not have bin blamed if there had bin no Law for that which is not cannot be transgressed Cain could not have seared that every man who met him would slay him if there had not bin a Law to slay him that had slain another But in this case the Scripture is clear at least from the time that Noah went out of the Ark for God then gave him a Law sufficient for the state of things at that time if all violence was prohibited under the name of shedding Blood tho not under the same penalty as Murder But Penal Laws being in vain if there be none to execute them such as know God dos nothing in vain may conclude that he who gave this Law did appoint some way for its execution tho unknown to us There is therefore a Law not given by Kings but laid upon such as should be Kings as well as on any other Persons by one who is above them and perhaps I may say that this Law presseth most upon them because they who have most power do most frequently break out into acts of Violence and most of all disdain to have their will restrained and he that will exempt Kings from this Law must either find that they are excepted in the Text or that God who gave it has not a Power over them Moreover it has bin proved at the beginning of this Treatise that the first Kings were of the accursed race and reigned over the accursed Nations whilst the holy Seed had none If therefore there was no Law where there was no King the accursed Posterity of Cham had Laws when the blessed Descendents of Shem had none which is most absurd the word Outlaw or Lawless being often given to the wicked but never to the just and righteous The impious folly of such Assertions gos farther than our Author perhaps suspected for if there be no Law where there is no King the Israelites had no Law till Saul was made King and then the Law they had was from him They had no King before sor they asked one They could not have asked one of Samuel if he had bin a King He had not bin offended and God had not imputed to them the sin of rejecting him if they had asked that only which he had set over them If Samuel were not King Moses Joshua and the other Judges were not Kings for they were no more than he They had therefore no King and consequently if our Author say true no Law If they had no Law till Saul was King they never had any for he gave them none and the Prophets were to blame for denouncing judgments against them for receding from or breaking their Law if they had none He cannot say that Samuel gave them a Law for that which he wrote in a Book and laid up before the Lord was not a Law to the People but to the King If it had bin a Law to the People it must have bin made publick but as it was only to the King he laid it up before God to restify against him if he should adventure to break it Or if it was a Law to the People the matter is not mended for it was given in the time of a King by one who was not King But in truth it was the Law of the Kingdom by which he was King and had bin wholly impertinent if it was not to bind him for it was given to no other person and to no other end Our Author's Assertion upon which all his Doctrine is grounded That there is no Nation that allows Children any action or remedy for being unjustly governed is as impudently false as any other proposed by him for tho a Child will not be heard that complains of the Rod yet our own Law gives relief to Children against their Fathers as well as against other persons that do them injuries upon which we see many ill effects and I do rather relate than commend the practice In other places the Law gives relief against the extravagancies of which Fathers may be guilty in relation to their Children tho not to that excess as to bring them so near to an equality as in England They cannot imprison sell or kill their Children without exposing themselves to the same punishments with other men and if they take their Estates from them the Law is open and gives relief against them but on the other side Children are punished with Death if they strike or outragiously abuse their Parents which is not so with us Now if the Laws of Nations take such care to preserve private men from being too hardly used by their true and natural Fathers who have such a love and tenderness for them in their own Blood that the most wicked and barbarous do much more frequently commit crimes for them than against them how much more necessary is it to restrain the fury that Kings who at the best are but phantastical Fathers may exercise to the destruction of the whole People 'T is a folly to say that David and some other Kings have had or that all should have a tenderness of affection towards their People as towards their Children for besides that even the first Proposition is not acknowledged and will be hardly verified in any one instance there is a vast distance between what men ought to be and what they are Every man ought to be just true and charitable and if they were so Laws would be of no use but it were a madness to abolish them upon a supposition that they are so or to leave them to a future punishment which many do not believe or not regard I am not obliged to believe that David loved every Israelite as well as his Son Absalom but tho he had I could not from thence inser that all Kings do so unless I were sure that all of them were as wise and virtuous as he But to come more close to the matter Do we not know of many Kings who have come to their Power by the most wicked means that can enter into the heart of man even
taking upon him to be King till the Tribe of Judah had chosen him that he often acknowledged Saul to be his Lord. When Baanah and Rechab brought the head of Ishbosheth to him he commanded them to be slain Because they had killed a righteous man upon his Bed in his own House which he could not have said if Ishbosheth had unjustly detained from him the ten Tribes and that he had a right to reign over them before they had chosen him The Word of God did not make him King but only foretold that he should be King and by such ways as he pleased prepared the hearts of the People to set him up and till the time designed by God for that work was accomplished he pretended to no other Authority than what the six hundred men who first followed him afterwards the Tribe of Judah and at last all the rest of the People conferred upon him I no way defend Absalom's revolt he was wicked and acted wickedly but after his death no man was ever blamed or questioned for siding with him and Amasa who commanded his Army is represented in Scripture as a good man even David saying that Joab by slaying Abner and Amasa had killed two men who were better than himself which could not have bin unless the People had a right of looking into matters of Government and of redressing abuses tho being deceived by Absalom they so far erred as to prefer him who was in all respects wicked before the man who except in the matter of Uriah is said to be after God's own heart This right was acknowledged by David himself when he commanded Hushai to say to Absalom I will be thy Servant O King and by Hushai in the following Chapter Nay but whom the Lord and his People and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and with him will I abide which could have no sense in it unless the People had a right of chusing and that the choice in which they generally concurred was esteemed to be from God But if Saul who was made King by the whole People and anointed by the command of God might be lawfully resisted when he departed from the Law of his Institution it cannot be doubted that any other for the like reason may be resisted If David tho designed by God to be King and anointed by the hand of the Prophet was not King till the People had chosen him and he had made a Covenant with them it will if I mistake not be hard to find a man who can claim a right which is not originally from them And if the People of Israel could erect and pull down institute abrogate or transfer to other Persons or Families Kingdoms more firmly established than any we know the same right cannot be denied to other Nations SECT II. The Kings of Israel and Judah were under a Law not safely to be transgress'd OUR Author might be pardon'd if he only vented his own follies but he aggravates his own crime by imputing them to men of more Credit and tho I cannot look upon Sir Walter Raleigh as a very good Interpreter of Scripture he had too much understanding to say That if practice declare the greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Israel and Judah were not tied to any Law but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest matters for there is no sense in those words If practice declares the greatness of Authority even the best were tied to no Law signifies nothing for practice cannot declare the greatness of Authority Peter the Cruel of Castille and Christiern the 2d of Denmark kill'd whom they pleas'd but no man ever thought they had therefore a right to do so and if there was a Law all were tied by it and the best were less likely to break it than the worst But if Sir Walter Raleigh's opinion which he calls a conjecture be taken there was so great a difference between the Kings of Israel and Judah that as to their general proceedings in point of Power hardly any thing can be said which may rightly be applied to both and he there endeavours to show that the reason why the ten Tribes did not return to the house of David after the destruction of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasba was because they would not endure a Power so absolute as that which was exercised by the house of David If he has therefore any where said that the Kings did what they pleased it must be in the sense that Moses Maimonides says The Kings of Israel committed many extravagancies because they were insolent impious and despisers of the Law But whatsoever Sir Walter Raleigh may say for I do not remember his words and have not leisure to seek whether any such are found in his Books 't is most evident that they did not what they pleased The Tribes that did not submit to David nor crown him till they thought fit and then made a Covenant with him took care it might be observed whether he would or not Absalom's Rebellion follow'd by almost all Israel was a terrible check to his Will That of Sheba the Son of Bichri was like to have bin worse if it had not bin suppressed by Joab's diligence and David often confessed the Sons of Zerviah were too hard for him Solomon indeed overthrowing the Law given by Moses multiplying Gold and Silver Wives and Horses introducing Idolatry and lifting up his heart above his Brethren did what he pleased but Rehoboam paid for all the ten Tribes revolted from him by reason of the heavy burdens laid upon them stoned Adoram who was sent to levy the Tributes and set up Jeroboam who as Sir Walter Raleigh says in the place before cited had no other Title than the curtesy of the People and utterly rejected the house of David If practice therefore declares a right the practice of the People to avenge the injuries they suffered from their Kings as soon as they found a man fit to be their Leader shews they had a right of doing it 'T is true the best of the Kings with Moses Joshua and Samuel may in one sense be said to have done what they pleased because they desired to do that only which was good But this will hardly be brought to confer a right upon all Kings And I deny that even the Kings of Judah did what they pleased or that it were any thing to our question if they did Zedekiah professed to the great men that is to the Sanhedrin that without them he could do nothing When Amaziah by his folly had brought a great slaughter upon the Tribe of Judah they conspired against him in publick Council whereupon he fled to Lachish and they pursuing him thither killed him avowed the Fact and it was neither question'd nor blamed which examples agree with the paraphrase of Josephus on Deut. 17. He shall do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin and if
no Power but what is given by the Laws If this be not the case I desire to know who made the Laws to which they and their Predecessors have sworn and whether they can according to their own will abrogate those antient Laws by which they are made to be what they are and by which we enjoy what we have or whether they can make new Laws by their own Power If no man but our Author have impudence enough to assert any such thing and if all the Kings we ever had except Richard the second did renounce it we may conclude that Austin's words have no relation to our dispute and that 't were to no purpose to examine whether the Fathers mention any reservation of Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People it being as lawful for all Nations if they think fit to frame Governments different from those that were then in being as to build Bastions Halfmoons Hornworks Ravelins or Counterscarps or to make use of Muskets Cannon Mortars Carabines or Pistols which were unknown to them What Solomon says of the Hebrew Kings dos as little concern us We have already proved their Power not to have bin absolute tho greater than that which the Law allows to ours It might upon occasion be a prudent advice to private persons living under such Governments as were usual in the Eastern Countries to keep the King's Commandments and not to say What dost thou because where the Word of a King is there is Power and all that he pleaseth he will do But all these words are not his and those that are must not be taken in a general sense for tho his Son was a King yet in his words there was no power He could not do what he pleased nor hinder others from doing what they pleased He would have added weight to the Yoak that lay upon the necks of the Israelites but he could not and we do not find him to have bin master of much more than his own Tongue to speak as many foolish things as he pleased In other things whether he had to deal with his own people or with strangers he was weak and impotent and the wretches who flatter'd him in his follies could be of no help to him The like has befallen many others Those who are wise virtuous valiant just and lovers of their People have and ought to have Power but such as are lewd vicious foolish and haters of their People ought to have none and are often deprived of all This was well known to Solomon who says That a wise Child is better than an old and foolish King that will not be advised When Nabuchodonosor set himself in the place of God his Kingdom was taken from him and he was driven from the society of men to herd with beasts There was Power for a time in the word of Nero he murdered many excellent men but he was call'd to account and the World abandon'd the Monster it had too long endur'd He found none to defend him nor any better help when he desir'd to die than the hand of a Slave Besides this some Kings by their Institution have little Power some have bin deprived of what they had for abusing or rendring themselves unworthy of it and Histories afford us innumerable examples of both sorts But tho I should confess that there is always Power in the word of a King it would be nothing to us who dispute concerning Right and have no regard to that Power which is void of it A Thief or a Pyrat may have Power but that avails him not when as often befel the Cesars he meets with one who has more and is always unsafe since having no effect upon the Consciences of men every one may destroy him that can And I leave it to Kings to consider how much they stand obliged to those who placing their Rights upon the same foot expose their Persons to the same dangers But if Kings desire that in their Word there should be power let them take care that it be always accompanied with Truth and Justice Let them seek the good of their People and the hands of all good men will be with them Let them not exalt themselves insolently and every one will desire to exalt them Let them acknowledg themselves to be the Servants of the Publick and all men will be theirs Let such as are most addicted to them talk no more of Cesars nor the Tributes due to them We have nothing to do with the name of Cesar. They who at this day live under it reject the Prerogatives antiently usurped by those that had it and are govern'd by no other Laws than their own We know no Law to which we owe obedience but that of God and our selves Asiatick Slaves usually pay such Tributes as are imposed upon them and whilst braver Nations lay under the Roman Tyranny they were forced to submit to the same burdens But even those Tributes were paid for maintaining Armies Fleets and Garisons without which the poor and abject life they led could not have bin preserved We owe none but what we freely give None is or can be imposed upon us unless by our selves We measure our Grants according to our own Will or the present occasions for our own safety Our Ancestors were born free and as the best provision they could make for us they left us that Liberty intire with the best Laws they could devise to defend it 'T is no way impair'd by the Opinions of the Fathers The words of Solomon do rather confirm it The happiness of those who enjoy the like and the shameful misery they lie under who have suffer'd themselves to be forced or cheated out of it may perswade and the justice of the Cause encourage us to think nothing too dear to be hazarded in the defence of it SECT IX Our own Laws confirm to us the enjoyment of our native Rights IF that which our Author calls Divinity did reach the things in dispute between us or that the Opinions of the Fathers which he alledges related to them he might have spared the pains of examining our Laws for a municipal Sanction were of little force to confirm a perpetual and universal Law given by God to mankind and of no value against it since man cannot abrogate what God hath instituted nor one Nation free it self from a Law that is given to all But having abused the Scriptures and the Writings of the Fathers whose Opinions are to be valued only so far as they rightly interpret them he seems desirous to try whether he can as well put a false sense upon our Law and has fully compassed his design Aocording to his custom he takes pieces of passages from good Books and turns them directly against the plain meaning of the Authors expressed in the whole scope and design of their Writings To show that he intends to spare none he is not ashamed to cite Bracton who of all our antient Law-writers is
says governed by God rather than by men whilst those who subjected themselves to the will of a man were governed by a beast This being so our Author's next clause That tho a King do frame all his Actions to be according unto Law yet he is not bound thereunto but as his good will and for good example or so far forth as the general Law for the safety of the Commonwealth doth naturally bind him is wholly impertinent For if the King who governs not according to Law degenerates into a Tyrant he is obliged to frame his actions according to Law or not to be a King for a Tyrant is none but as contrary to him as the worst of men is to the best But if these obligations were untied we may easily guess what security our Author's word can be to us that the King of his own good will and for a good example will frame his actions according to the Laws when experience instructs us that notwithstanding the strictest Laws and most exquisite Constitutions that men of the best abilities in the world could ever invent to restrain the irregular appetites of those in power with the dreadful examples of vengeance taken against such as would not be restrained they have frequently broken out and the most powerful have for the most part no otherwise distinguished themselves from the rest of men than by the enormity of their vices and being the most forward in leading others to all manner of crimes by their example SECT XVI The observation of the Laws of Nature is absurdly expected from Tyrants who set themselves up against all Laws and he that subjects Kings to no other Law than what is common to Tyrants destroys their being OUR Authors last clause acknowledging Kings to be bound by a general Law to provide for the safety of the People would be sufficient for my purpose if it were sincere for municipal Laws do only shew how that should be performed and if the King by departing from that rule degenerates as he says into a Tyrant 't is easily determined what ought then to be done by the People But his whole book being a heap of contradictions and frauds we can rely upon nothing that he says And his following words which under the same Law comprehend both Kings and Tyrants shew that he intends Kings should be no otherwise obliged than Tyrants which is not at all By this means says he are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerors bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any municipal Law of the Land so much as by the natural Law of a Father which obligeth them to ratify the Acts of their Forefathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects If he be therefore in the right Tyrants and Conquerors are Kings and Fathers The words that have bin always thought to comprehend the most irreconcileable contrariety the one expressing the most tender love and care evidently testified by the greatest obligations conferred upon those who are under it the other the utmost of all injuries that can be offer'd to men signify the same thing There is no difference between a Magistrate who is what he is by Law and a publick Enemy who by force or fraud sets himself up against all Law And what he said before that Kings degenerated into Tyrants signifies nothing for Tyrants also are Kings His next words are no less incomprehensible for neither King nor Tyrant can be obliged to preserve the Lands Goods and Liberties of their Subjects if they have none But as Liberty consists only in being subject to no man's will and nothing denotes a Slave but a dependence upon the will of another if there be no other Law in a Kingdom than the will of a Prince there is no such thing as Liberty Property also is an appendage to Liberty and 't is as impossible for a man to have a right to Lands or Goods if he has no Liberty and enjoys his Life only at the pleasure of another as it is to enjoy either when he is deprived of them He therefore who says Kings and Tyrants are bound to preserve their Subjects Lands Liberties Goods and Lives and yet lays for a foundation that Laws are no more than the significations of their Pleasure seeks to delude the world with words which signify nothing The vanity of these whimseys will farther appear if it be considered that as Kings are Kings by Law and Tyrants are Tyrants by overthrowing the Law they are most absurdly joined together and 't is not more ridiculous to set him above the Law who is what he is by the Law than to expect the observation of the Laws that enjoin the preservation of the Lands Liberties Goods and Lives of the People from one who by fraud or violence makes himself master of all that he may be restrain'd by no Law and is what he is by subverting all Law Besides if the safety of the People be the supreme Law and this safety extend to and consist in the preservation of their Liberties Goods Lands and Lives that Law must necessarily be the root and beginning as well as the end and limit of all magistratical Power and all Laws must be subservient and subordinate to it The question will not then be what pleases the King but what is good for the People not what conduces to his profit or glory but what best secures the Liberties he is bound to preserve he dos not therefore reign for himself but for the People he is not the Master but the Servant of the Commonwealth and the utmost extent of his Prerogative is to be able to do more good than any private man If this be his work and duty 't is easily seen whether he is to judg of his own performance or they by whom and for whom he reigns and whether in order to this he be to give Laws or to receive them 'T is ordinarily said in France Il faut que chacun soit servi a sa mode Every mans business must be done according to his own mind and if this be true in particular Persons 't is more plainly so in whole Nations Many eyes see more than one the collected wisdom of a People much surpasses that of a single Person and tho he should truly seek that which is best 't is not probable he would so easily find it as the body of a Nation or the principal men chosen to represent the whole This may be said with justice of the best and wisest Princes that ever were but another Language is to be used when we speak of those who may succeed and who very often through the defects of Age Person or Sex are neither fit to judg of other mens affairs nor of their own and are so far from being capable of the highest Concernments relating to the safety of whole Nations that the most trivial cannot reasonably be referred to them There are few men
his Son gave them occasion to resume If this was commendable in them it must be so in other Nations If the Germans might preserve their Liberty as well as the Parthians submit themselves to absolute Monarchy 't is as lawful for the descendents of those Germans to continue in it as for the Eastern Nations to be slaves If one Nation may justly chuse the Government that seems best to them and continue or alter it according to the changes of times and things the same right must belong to others The great variety of Laws that are or have bin in the world proceeds from this and nothing can better shew the wisdom and virtue or the vices and folly of Nations than the use they make of this right they have bin glorious or infamous powerful or despicable happy or miserable as they have well or ill executed it If it be said that the Law given by God to the Hebrews proceeding from his wisdom and goodness must needs be perfect and obligatory to all Nations I answer that there is a simple and a relative perfection the first is only in God the other in the things he has created He saw that they were good which can signify no more than that they were good in their kind and suted to the end for which he designed them For if the perfection were absolute there could be no difference between an Angel and a Worm and nothing could be subject to change or death for that is imperfection This relative perfection is seen also by his Law given to mankind in the persons of Adam and Noah It was good in the kind fit for those times but could never have bin enlarged or altered if the perfection had bin simple and no better evidence can be given to shew that it was not so than that God did asterwards give one much more full and explicit to his People This Law also was peculiarly applicable to that People and season for if it had bin otherwise the Apostles would have obliged Christians to the intire observation of it as well as to abstain from idolatry fornication and blood But if all this be not so then their judicial Law and the form of their Commonwealth must be received by all no human Law can be of any value we are all Brethren no man has a prerogative above another Lands must be equally divided amongst all Inheritances cannot be alienated for above fifty years no man can be raised above the rest unless he be called by God and enabled by his Spirit to conduct the People when this man dies he that has the same Spirit must succeed as Joshua did to Moses and his Children can have no title to his Office when such a man appears a Sanhedrim of seventy men chosen out of the whole People are to judg such causes as relate to themselves whilst those of greater extent and importance are referred to the General Assemblies Here is no mention of a King and consequently if we must take this Law for our pattern we cannot have one If the point be driven to the utmost and the precept of Deuteronomy where God permitted them to have a King if they thought fit when they came into the promised Land be understood to extend to all Nations every one of them must have the same liberty of taking their own time chusing him in their own way dividing the Kingdom having no King and setting up other Governors when they please as before the Election of Saul and after the return from the Captivity and even when they have a King he must be such a one as is describ'd in the same Chapter who no more resembles the Soveraign Majesty that our Author adores and agrees as little with his Maxims as a Tribun of the Roman People We may therefore conclude that if we are to follow the Law of Moses we must take it with all the appendages a King can be no more and no otherwise than he makes him for whatever we read of the Kings they had were extreme deviations from it No Nation can make any Law and our Lawyers burning their Books may betake themselves to the study of the Pentateuch in which tho some of them may be well versed yet probably the profit arising from thence will not be very great But if we are not obliged to live in a conformity to the Law of Moses every People may frame Laws for themselves and we cannot be denied the right that is common to all Our Laws were not sent from Heaven but made by our Ancestors according to the light they had and their present occasions We inherit the same right from them and as we may without vanity say that we know a little more than they did if we find our selves prejudic'd by any Law that they made we may repeal it The safety of the People was their supreme Law and is so to us neither can we be thought less fit to judg what conduces to that end than they were If they in any Age had bin perswaded to put themselves under the power or in our Author's phrase under the sovereign Majesty of a child a fool a mad or desperately wicked person and had annexed the right conferred upon him to such as should succeed it had not bin a just and right Sanction and having none of the qualities essentially belonging to a Law could not have the effect of a Law It cannot be for the good of a People to be governed by one who by nature ought to be governed or by age or accident is rendred unable to govern himself The publick interests and the concernments of private men in their lands goods liberties and lives for the preservation of which our Author says that regal Prerogative is only constituted cannot be preserved by one who is transported by his own passions or follies a slave to his lusts and vices or which is sometimes worse governed by the vilest of men and women who flatter him in them and push him on to do such things as even they would abhor if they were in his place The turpitude and impious madness of such an act must necessarily make it void by overthrowing the ends for which it was made since that justice which was sought cannot be obtain'd nor the evils that were fear'd prevented and they for whose good it was intended must necessarily have a right of abolishing it This might be sufficient for us tho our Ancestors had enslaved themselves But God be thanked we are not put to that trouble We have no reason to believe we are descended from such fools and beasts as would willingly cast themselves and us into such an excess of misery and shame or that they were so tame and cowardly to be subjected by force or fear We know the value they set upon their Liberties and the courage with which they defended them and we can have no better example to incourage us never to suffer them to be violated or diminished