Ordinance then it follows that the Governours were Supreme and not the King Or if it be said that both King and Governours are sent by God then they are both equal and so neither of them Supreme Therefore St. Peter's meaning is in short obey the Laws of the King or of his Ministers By which it is evident that neither St. Peter nor S. Paul intended other-Form of Government than only Monarchical much less any Subjecton of Princes to Humane Laws That familiar distinction of the Schoolmen whereby they Subject Kings to the Directive but not to the Coactive Power of Laws is a Confession that Kings are not bound by the Positive Laws of any Nation Since the Compulsory Power of Laws is that which properly makes Laws to be Laws by binding men by Rewards or Punishment to Obedience whereas the Direction of the Law is but like the advice and direction which the Kings Council gives the King which no man says is a Law to the King 4 There want not those who Believe that the first invention of Laws was to Bridle and moderate the over-great Power of Kings but the truth is the Original of Laws was for the keeping of the Multitude in Order Popular Estates could not Subsist at all without Laws whereas Kingdoms were Govern'd many Ages without them The People of Athens as soon as they gave over Kings were forced to give Power to Draco first then to Solon to make them Laws not to bridle Kings but themselves and though many of their Laws were very Severe and Bloody yet for the Reverence they bare to their Law-makers they willingly submitted to them Nor did the People give any Limited Power to Solon but an Absolute Jurisdiction at his pleasure to Abrogate and Confirm what he thought fit the People never challenging any such Power to themselves So the People of Rome gave to the Ten Men who were to chuse and correct their Laws for the Twelve Tables an Absolute Power without any Appeal to the people 5. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busyed with Wars or distracted with Publick Cares so that every private man could not have accesse to their persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then of necessity were Laws invented that so every particular Subject might find his Prince's Pleasure decyphered unto him in the Tables of his Laws that so there might be no need to resort to the King but either for the Interpretation or Mitigation of Obscure or Rigorous Laws or else in new Cases for a Supplement where the Law was Defective By this means both King and People were in many things eased First The King by giving Laws doth free himself of great and intolerable Troubles as Moses did himself by chusing Elders Secondly The people have the Law as a Familiar Admonisher and Interpreter of the King's pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the Presence and Majesty of the King Also the Judges and Magistrates whose help in giving Judgment in many Causes Kings have need to use are restrained by the Common Rules of the Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judge according to the Laws and not follow their own Opinions 6. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King Iames teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws Rigorous or Doubtful he may mitigate and interpret General Laws made in Parliament may upon known Respects to the King by his Authority be Mitigated or Suspended upon Causes only known to him And although a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weale doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positive Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the Best or Only Means for the Preservation of the Common-Wealth By this means are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerours bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipial Law of the Land so much as the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-Fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the Publick Good of their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm That although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Iudgments indifferent and upright Iustice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Iudgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience join'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of a Judge and if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the State But let it be supposed for truth that Kings do swear to observe
of late obtained a great Reputation yet it is not to be found in the Ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church It contradicts the Doctrine and History of the Holy Scriptures the constant Practice of all Ancient Monarchies and the very Principles of the Law of Nature It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in Divinity or dangerous in Policy Yet upon the ground of this Doctrine both Iesuites and some other zealous favourers of the Geneva Discipline have built a perillous Conclusion which is That the People or Multitude have Power to punish or deprive the Prince if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom witness Parsons and Buchanan the first under the name of Dolman in the Third Chapter of his First Book labours to prove that Kings have been lawfully chastised by their Commonwealths The latter in his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos maintains A Liberty of the People to depose their Prince Cardinal Bellarmine and Calume both look asquint this way This desperate Assertion whereby Kings are made subject to the Censures and Deprivations of their Subjects follows as the Authors of it conceive as a necessary Consequence of that former Position of the supposed Natural Equality and Freedom of Mankind and Liberty to choose what form of Government it please And though Sir Iohn Heyward Adam Blackwood Iohn Barclay and some others have Learnedly Confuted both Buchanan and Parsons and bravely vindicated the Right of Kings in most Points yet all of them when they come to the Argument drawn from the Natural Liberty and Equality of Mankind do with one consent admit it for a Truth unquestionable not so much as once denying or opposing it whereas if they did but confute this first erroneous Principle the whole Fabrick of this vast Engine of Popular Sedition would drop down of it self The Rebellious Consequence which follows this prime Article of the Natural Freedom of Mankind may be my Sufficient Warrant for a modest Examination of the original Truth of it much hath been said and by many for the Affirmative Equity requires that an Ear be reserved a little for the Negative In this DISCOURSE I shall give my self these Cautions First I have nothing to do to medle with Mysteries of State such Arcana Imperii or Cabinet-Councels the Vulgar may not pry into An implicite Faith is given to the meanest Artificer in his own Craft how much more is it then due to a Prince in the profound Secrets of Government The Causes and Ends of the greatest politique Actions and Motions of State dazle the Eyes and exceed the Capacities of all men save only those that are hourly versed in the managing Publique Affairs yet since the Rule for each men to know in what to obey his Prince cannot be learnt without a relative Knowledge of those Points wherein a Sovereign may Command it is necessary when the Commands and Pleasures of Superiours come abroad and call for an Obedience that every man himself know how to regulate his Actions or his Sufferings for according to the Quality of the Thing commanded an Active or Passive Obedience is to be yielded and this is not to limit the Princes Power but the extent of the Subjects Obedience by giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's c. Secondly I am not to question or quarrel at the Rights or Liberties of this or any other Nation my task is chiefly to enquire from whom these first came not to dispute what or how many these are but whether they were derived from the Laws of Natural Liberty or from the Grace and Bounty of Princes My desire and Hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample Privileges as any Nation under Heaven the greatest Liberty in the World if it be duely considered is for a people to live under a Monarch It is the Magna Charta of this Kingdom all other shews or pretexts of Liberty are but several degrees of Slavery and a Liberty only to destroy Liberty If such as Maintain the Natural Liberty of Mankind take Offence at the Liberty I take to Examine it they must take heed that they do not deny by Retail that Liberty which they affirm by Whole-sale For if the Thesis be true the Hypothesis will follow that all men may Examine their own Charters Deeds or Evidences by which they claim and hold the Inheritance or Freehold of their Liberties Thirdly I must not detract from the Worth of all those Learned Men who are of a contrary Opinion in the Point of Natural Liberty the profoundest Scholar that ever was known hath not been able to search out every Truth that is discoverable neither Aristotle in Philosophy nor Hooker in Divinity They are but Men yet I reverence their Judgements in most Points and confess my self beholding to their Errors too in this something that I found amiss in their Opinions guided me in the discovery of that Truth which I perswade my self they missed A Dwarf sometimes may see that which a Giant looks over for whilest one Truth is curiously searched after another must necessarily be neglected Late Writers have taken up too much upon Trust from the subtile School-men who to be sure to thrust down the King below the Pope thought it the safest course to advance the People above the King that so the Papal Power might take place of the Regal Thus many an Ignorant Subject hath been fooled into this Faith that a man may become a Martyr for his Countrey by being a Traytor to his Prince whereas the New-coyned distinction of Subjects into Royallists and Patriots is most unnatural since the relation between King and People is so great that their well-being is so Reciprocal 2 To make evident the Grounds of this Question about the Natural Liberty of Mankind I will lay down some passages of Cardinal Bellarmine that may best unfold the State of this Controversie Secular or Civil Power saith he is instituted by Men It is in the People unless they bestow it on a Prince This Power is immediately in the whole Multitude as in the Subject of it for this Power is in the Divine Law but the Divine Law hath given this Power to no particular Man If the Positive Law be taken away there is left no Reason why amongst a Multitude who are Equal one rather than another should bear Rule over the rest Power is given by the Multitude to one man or to more by the same Law of Nature for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One Man or some Few It depends upon the Consent of the Multitude to ordain over themselves a King or Consul or other Magistrates and if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy Thus far Bellarmine in which passages are comprised the strength of all that ever I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject
Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the Law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause If the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and is the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by Nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmine deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent who is Lord-Paramout over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And 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 which quite takes away that New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation For Dominion of Life and Death we find that Iudah the Father pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth saith he that she may be burnt Touching War we see that Abram commanded an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family And Esau met his Brother Iacob with 400 Men at Arms. For matter of Peace Abraham made a League with Abimelech and ratified the Articles with an Oath These Acts of Judging in Capital Crimes of making War and concluding Peace are the chiefest Marks of Sovereignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but after it this Patriarchal Power did continue as the very name Patriarch doth in part prove The three Sons of Noah had the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them was the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him and his Sons Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth Most of the Civilest Nations of the Earth labour to fetch their Original from some One of the Sons or Nephews of Noah which were scattered abroad after the Confusion of Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Regal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World It is a common Opinion that at the Confusion of Tongues there were 72 distinct Nations erected all which were not Confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at Liberty to choose what Governours or Government they pleased but they 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 for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Sons of Iaphet the Conclusion is By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so it is said These are the Sons of Ham after their Families after their Tongues in their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of Shem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he sayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the Number of his Sons the Limits of which Three Parts are all found in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who no doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did he enlarge his Empire by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families And in this sense he may be said to be the Author and first Founder of Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyranny or Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude or by any Faction with them As this
Tyrants Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much as Blamed for committing any of those Acts which Samuel describes and if Samuel's drift had been only to terrifie the People he would not have forgotten to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty in Murthering 85 innocent Priests and smiteing with the Edge of the Sword the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites never shrank at these Conditions proposed by Samuel but accepted of them as such as all other Nations were bound unto For their Conclusion is Nay but we will have a King over Vs that We also may be like all the Nations and that Our King may Iudge us and go out before us to fight our Battels Meaning he should earn his Privileges by doing the work for them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument of their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to Rehoboam is Make thou the grievous Service of thy Father Solomon and his heavy Yoke which he put upon us lighter and we will serve thee To conclude it is true Saul lost his Kingdom but not for being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his Subjects but by being too Merciful to his Enemies his sparing Agag when he should have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal Power By giving to Caesar those things that were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatfoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Dei si omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Caesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Caesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferre The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment 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 If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the King Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo c. All are under him and he under none but God only If he offend since no Writ can go against him their Remedy is by Petitioning him to amend his Fault which if he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as a Revenger Let none presume to Search into his Deeds much less to Oppose them When the Iews asked our Blessed Saviour whether they should pay Tribute he did not first demand what the Law of the Land was or whether there was any Statute against it nor enquired whether the Tribute were given by Consent of the people nor advised them to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar. Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Iews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Vsurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these words to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood a Monarch that carryed a Sword Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power that is the Ruler that carryeth the Sword for he is the Minister of God to thee for he beareth not the Sword in vain It is not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Ruler or Magistrate so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between Supreme and Sent proves plainly that the Governours were sent by Kings for if the Governours were sent by God and the King be an Humane