Calvin saith but plainly Monarchichal 10. Now if God as Bellarmie saith hath taught us by Natural Instinct signified to us by the Creation and confirmed by his own Example the Excellency of Monarchy why should Bellarmine or We doubt but that it is Natural Do we not find that in every Family the Government of One Alone is most Natural God did always Govern his own People by Monarchy only The Patriarchs Dukes Judges and Kings weâ—â— all Monarchs There is not in all the Scripture Mention or Approbation oâ— any other Form of Government Aâ— the time when Scripture saith Thâ— was No King in Israel but that eveâ— Man did that which was Right in â—â— Own Eyes Even then the Israelitâ—â— were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Beâ— jamitical War for providing Wives fâ—â— the Benjamites we find the Elders â—â— the Congregation bare only Swaâ—â— Judges 21. 16. To them also were Complaints to be made as appears by Verse 22. And though mention be made of All the Children of Israel All the Congregation and All the People yet by the Term of All the Scripture means only All the Fathers and not All the Whole Multitude as the Text plainly expounds it self in 2. Chron. 1. 2. where Solomon speaks â—nto all Israel to the Captains the Judges and to Every Governour the Chief of the Fathers so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 Kings 8. 12. 2 Chron. 5. 2. At that time also when the People of Israel beg'd a King of Samuel they were Governed by Kingly Power God out of a special Love and Care to the House of Israel did choose to be their King himself and did govern them at that time by his Viceroy Samuel and his â—ons and therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected Thee but Me that â— should not Reign over them It seems â—hey did not like a King by Deputation but desired one by Succession like all the Nations All Nations belike had Kings then and those by Inheritance not by Election for we do not find the Israelites prayed that they themselves might choose their Own King they dream of no such Liberty and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together If other Nations had Elected their own Kings no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated Other Nations as well in the Electing as in the Having of a King Aristotle in his Book of Politicks when he comes to compare the several Kinds of Government he is very reserved in discoursing what Form hâ— thinks Best he disputes subtilely to and fro of many Points and Judiciously of many Errours but concludes nothing himself In all those Books I find little Commendation of Monarchy It was his Hap to live in those Times when the Grecians abounded with several Commonwealths who had then Learning enough to make them seditious Yet in his Ethicks he hath so much good Manners as to confess in right down words That Monarchy is the Best Form of Government and a Popular Estate the Worst And though he be not so free in his Politicks yet the Necessity of Truth hath here and there extorted from him that which amounts no less to the Dignity of Monarchy he confesseth it to be First the Natural and the Divinest Form of Government and that the Gods themselves did live under a Monarchy What can a Heathen say more Indeed the World for a long time â—new no other sort of Government out only Monarchy The Best Order the Greatest Strength the Most Stability and Easiest Government are to be found all in Monarchy and in to other Form of Government The New Platforms of Commonweals were first hatched in a Corner of the World amongst a few Cities of Greece which have been imitated by very â—ew other laces Those very Cities were first for many years governed by Kings untill Wantonness Ambition or Faction of the People made them attempt New kinds of Regiment all which Mutations proved most Bloody and Miserable to the Authors of them happy in nothing but that they continued but a small time 11. A little to manifest the Imperfection of Popular Government let us but examine the most Flourishing Democratie that the World hath ever known I mean that of Rome First for the Durability at the most it lasted but 480 Years for so long it was from the Expulsion of Tarquin to Julius Caesar Whereas both the Assyrian Monarchy lasted without Interruption at the least twelve hundred years and the Empire of the East continued 1495 Years 2. For the Order of it during these 480 years there was not any One settled Form of Government in Rome for after they had once lost the Natural Power of Kings they could not find upon what Form of Government to rest their Fickleness is an Evidence that they found things amiss in every Change At the First they chose two Annual Consuls instead of Kings Secondly those did not please them long but they must have Tribunes of the People to defend their Liberty Thirdly they leave Tribunes and Consuls and choose them Ten Men to make them Laws Fourthly they call for Consuls and Tribunes again sometimes they choose Dictators which were Temporary Kings and sometimes Military Tribunes who had Consular Power All these shiftings caused such notable Alteration in the Government as it passeth Historians to find out any Perfect Form of Regiment in so much Confusion One while the Senate made Laws another while the People The Dissentions which were daily between the Nobles and the Commons bred those memorable Seditions about Usury about Marriages and about Magistracy Also the Graecian the Apulian and the Drusian Seditions filled the Market-places the Temples and the Capitol it self with Blood of the Citizens the Social War was plainly Civil the Wars of the Slaves and the other of the Fencers the Civil Wars of Marius and Sylla of Cataline of Caesar and Pompey the Triumvirate of Augustus Lepidus and Antonius All these shed an Ocean of Blood within Italy and the Streets of Rome Thirdly for their Government let it be allowed that for some part of this time it was Popular yet it was Popular as to the City of Rome only and not as to the Dominions or whole Empire of Rome for no Democratie can extend further than to One City It is impossible to Govern a Kingdom much less many Kingdoms by the whole People or by the Greatest Part of them 12. But you will say yet the Roman Empire grew all up under this kind of Popular Government and the City became Mistress of the World It is not so for Rome began her Empire under Kings and did perfect it under Emperours it did only encrease under that Popularity Her â—reatest Exaltation was under Trajan â—s her longest Peace had been under Augustus Even at those times when the Roman Victories abroad did amaze the World then the
in this sense he may be saiâ— to be the Author and first Founder oâ— Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyranny oâ— Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude oâ— by any Faction with them As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Jacob even until the Egyptian Bondage so we find it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau Iâ— is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their families their places by their nations 7 Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but â—ome petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories â—ould be but small and not worthy the Tiâ—e of Kingdoms but they must consider â—hat at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find â— the time of Abraham which was about â—00 years after the Flood that in a little â—orner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Baâ—â—il most of which were but Kings of â—ities apiece with the adjacent Territoâ—es as of Sodom Gomorrah Shinar c. In â—he same Chapter is mention of Melchiseâ—ck King of Salem which was but the Ciâ—â— of Jerusalem And in the Catalogue of â—â—e Kings of Edom the Names of each â—ing's City is recorded as the only Mark â— distinguish their Dominions In the â—and of Canaan which was but a small cirâ—it Joshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings â—nd about the same time Adonibeseck had â—o Kings whose Hands and Toes he had â—t off and made them feed under his Taâ—â—e A few years after this 32 Kings came â— Benhadad King of Syria and about Seventy Kings of Greece went to the Wars of Troy Caesar found more Kings in France than there be now Princes there and at his Sailing over into this Island he found four Kings in our County of Kent These heaps of Kings in each Nation are an Argument their Territories were but small and strongly confirms our Assertion that Erection of Kingdoms came at first only by Distinction of Families By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Israelites coming into Aegypt where thâ— Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites ouâ— of Bondage God out of a special Caâ— of them chose Moses and Josuah successively to govern as Princes in thâ— Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time hâ— raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gavâ— the Israelites Kings he reestablished thâ— Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special Person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently â—n the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Graunt 8. It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers And therefore we find that God told Cain of his Brother Abel His Desires shall be subject â—nto thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy Brethren and â—et the Sons of thy Mother how before thee As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more Significant to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy by this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae 9. It may be demanded what becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in Case the Crown does escheate for want of an Heir Whether doth it not then Devolve to the People The Answer is It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir for an Heir there always is If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is One Man and but One in the World who is next Heirâ— although the Knowledge who should be that one One Man be quite lost 2. This Ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supreme Power is devolved to the Multitude and that they have Power to Rule and Chose what Rulers they please No the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the Uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected and into such again as into their first Matter many times they return again And because the dependencie of ancient Families is â—oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge â—herefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought fit to adopt many times â—hose for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or Made them fit and capable of such Reâ—al Favours All such prime Heads and â—athers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign Authority on whom they please And he that is so Elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Universal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People If it please God for the Correction of the Prince or punishment of the People to suffer Princes to be removed and others to be placed in their rooms either by the Factions of the Nobility or Rebellion of the People in all sucâ— cases the Judgement of God who haâ—â— power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgment without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and
turn men Unrighteous Acts to the performance oâ— his Righteous Decrees 10. In all Kingdoms or Common wealths in the World whether thâ— Prince be the Supreme Father of the People or but the true Heir of such Father or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation or by Election of the Nobles or of the People or by any other way whatsoever or whether some Few or a Multitude govern the Commonwealth yet still the Authority that is in any One or in Many or in All these is the only Right and Natural Authority of a Supreme Father There is and always shall be continued to the End of the World a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude although by the secret Will of God many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it To confirm this Natural Right of Regal Power we find in the Decalogue That the Law which enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the terms of Honour thy Father as if all power were originally in the Father If Obedience to Parents be immediately due â—y a Natural Law and Subjection to â—rinces but by the Mediation of an â—umane Ordinance what reason is there â—hat the Laws of Nature should give â—ace to the Laws of Men as we see he power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King we find them all one without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them as the Father over one Family so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve feed cloth instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth His War his Peace his Courts of Justice and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father and to their Children their Rights and Privileges so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or Chose Governours 1. ARistotle examined about the Freedom of the People and justified 2. Suarez disputing against the Regality of Adam 3. Families diversly defined by Aristotle Bodin and others 4. Suarez contradicting Bellarmine 5. Of Election of Kings 6. By the Major part of the People 7. By Proxy and by silent Acceptation 8. No Example in Scripture of the Peoples chosing their King Mr. Hooker's Judgment therein 9. God governed always by Monarchy 10. Bellarmine and Aristotle's Judgment of Monarchy 11. Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12. Rome began her Empire under Kings and perfected under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13. Whether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or rather that they came in by Stealth 14. Democraties vilified by their own Historians 15. Popular Government more bloody than Tyranny 16. Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17. The People may not judge or correct their King 18. No Tyrants in England since the Conquest 1. BY conferring these Proofs and Reasons drawn from the Authority of the Scripture it appears little less than a Paradox which Bellarmine and others affirm of the Freedom of the Multitude to chose what Rulers they please Had the Patriarchs their Power given them by their own Children Bellarmine does not say it but the Contrary If then the Fatherhood enjoyed this Authority for so many Ages by the Law of Nature when was it lost or when forfeited or how is it devolved to the Liberty of the Multitude Because the Scripture is not favourable to the Liberty of the People therefore many fly to Natural Reason and to the Authority of Aristotle I must crave Liberty to examine or explain the Opinion of this great Philosopher but briefly I find this Sentence in the Third of his Politiques Cap. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to some not to be natural for one man to be Lord of all the Citizens since a City consists of Equals D. Lambine in his Latine Interpretation of this Text hath omitted the Translation of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this means he maketh that to be the Opinion of Aristotle which Aristotle alleadgeth to be the Opinion but of some This Negligence or Wilful Escape of Lambine â—n not translating a word so Material hath been an occasion to deceive many who looking no farther than this Latine Translation have concluded and made the World now of late believe that Aristotle here maintains a Natural Equality of Men and not only our English Translator of Aristotle Politiques is in this place misled by following Lambine but even the Learned Monsieur Duvall in his Synopsis beaâ— them company and yet this Version of Lambine's is esteemed the best and Printed at Paris with Causabon's corrected Greek Copy though in the rendring of this place the Elder Translations have been more faithful and he that shall compare the Greek Text with the Latine shall find that Causabon had just cause in his Preface to Aristotle Works to complain that the best Translations of Aristotle did need Correction To prove that in these words which seem to favour the Equality of Mankind Aristotle doth not speak according to his own Judgment but recites only the Opinion of others we find him clearly deliver his own Opinion that the Power of Government did originally arise from the Right of Fatherhood which cannot possibly consist with that Natural Equality which Men dream of for in the First of his Politiques he agrees exactly with the Scripture and lays this Foundation of Government The first Society saith he made of Many Houses is a Village which seems most naturally to be a Colony of Families or foster-Brethren of Children and Childrens Children And therefore at he beginning Cities were under the Government of Kings for the eldest in very house is King And so for Kindredâ—ke it is in Colonies And in the fourth of his Politiques cap. 2 He gives the Title of the first and Divinest sort of Government to the Institution of Kings by Defining Tyranny to be a Digression â—â—om the First and Divinest Whosoever weighs advisedly these â—assages will find little hope of Natural Reason in Aristotle to prove the Natural â—iberty of the Multitude Also before â—im the Divine Plato concludes a Commonweal to be nothing else but a large â—amily I know for this Position Aristotle quarrels with his Master but most â—njustly for therein he contradicts his own Principles for they both agree â—o fetch the Original of Civil Government from the prime Government No doubt but Moses's History of the Creation guided these two Philosophers in finding out of this Lineal Subjection deduced from the Laws of the First Parents according to that Rule oâ— St. Chrysostom God made all Mankind of One Man that he might teach the World to be Governed by a King and not by a Multitude The Ignorance of the Creation occasioned several
Errors amongst the Heathen Philosophers Polybius though otherwise a most profound Philosopher and Judicious Historian yet here he stumbles for in searching out the Original of Civil Societies he conceited That Multitudes of Men after a Deluge a Famine or a Pestilence met together like Herds of Cattel without any Dependency untill the strongest Bodies and boldest Minds got the Mastery of their Fellows even as it is saith he among Bulls Bears and Cocks And Aristotle himself forgetting his first Doctrine tells us the first Heroicaâ— Kings were chosen by the People for their deserving well of the Multitude either by teaching them some New Arts or by Warring for them or by Gathering them together or by Dividing Land amongst them also Aristotle had another â—ancy that those Men who prove wise of Mind were by Nature intended to be Lords and Govern and those which were Strong of Body were ordained to obey and to be Servants But this is a dangerous and uncertain Rule and not without some Folly for if a man prove both Wise and Strong what will Aristotle have done with him as he was Wise he could be no â—ervant and as he had Strength he could not be a Master besides to speak like a Philosopher Nature intends all things to be perfect both in Wit and strength The Folly or Imbecillity proceeds from some Errour in Generation â—r Education for Nature aims at Perfection in all her Works 2 Suarez the Jesuite riseth up against the Royal Authority of Adam â—â— defence of the Freedom and Liberty of the people and thus argues By â—ight of Creation saith he Adam had only Oeconomical power but not Political he had a power over his Wife and a Fatherly power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free he might also in process of Time have Servants and a Compleat Family and in that Family he might have compleat Oeconomical Power But after that Families began to be multiplied and Men to be separated and become the Head of several Families they had the same power over their Families But Political Power did not begin until Families began to be gathered together into one perfect Community wherefore aâ— the Community did not begin by the Creation of Adam nor by his Will alone but of all them which did agree in this Community So we cannot say that Adam Naturally had Political Primacy in that Community for that cannot be gathered by any Natural Principles because by the Force of the Law oâ— Nature alone it is not due unto anâ— Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity And if this be not gathered out of the Principles of Nature wâ— cannot say God by a special Gift oâ— Providence gave him this Power Foâ— there is no Revelation of this nor Testimony of Scripture Hitherto Suarez Whereas he makes Adam to have a Fatherly power over his Sons and yet shuts up this power within One Family â—he seems either to imagine that all Adam's Children lived within one House and under one Roof with their Father or else as soon as any of his Children â—ived out of his House they ceased to be Subject and did thereby become Free For my part I cannot believe that Adam although he were sole Monarch of the World had any such spacious Palace as might contain any such Considerable part of his Children It is â—ikelier that some mean Cottage or Tent â—id serve him to keep his Court in It were hard he should lose part of his Authority because his Children lay not within the Walls of his House But if Suarez will allow all Adam's Children to be of his Family howsoever they were separate in Dwellings if their Haâ—itations were either Contiguous or â—t such Distance as might easily receive â—is Fatherly Commands And that all â—hat were under his Commands were â—f his Family although they had many Children or Servants married having temselves also Children Then I see no reason but that we may call Adam's Family a Commonwealth except we will wrangle about Words For Adam living 930 years and seeing 7 or 8 Descents from himself he might live to command of his Children and their Posterity a Multitude far bigger than many Commonwealths and Kingdoms 3. I know the Politicians and Civil Lawyers do not agree well about the Definition of a Family and Bodin doth seem in one place to confine it to a House yet in his Definition he doth enlarge his meaning to all Persons under the Obedience of One and the Same Head of the Family and he approves better of the propriety of the Hebrew Word for a Family which is derived from a Word that signifies a Head a Prince or Lord than the Greek Word for a Family which is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a House Noâ— doth Aristotle confine a Family to One House but esteems it to be made of those that daily converse together whereas before him Charondas called Family Homosypioi those that feed together out of one common Pannier And Epimenides the Cretian terms a Family Homocapnoi those that sit by a Common Fire or Smoak But let Suarez understand what he please by Adam's Family if he will but confess as he needs must that Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute power of Life and Death of Peace and War and the like within their Houses or Families he must give us leave at least to call them Kings of their Houses or Families and if they be so by the Law of Nature what Liberty will be left to their Children to dispose of Aristotle gives the Lie to Plato and â—hose that say Political and Oeconomical â—ocieties are all one and do not differ â—pecie but only Multitudine Pauciâ—te as if there were no difference betwixt a Great House and a Little City All the Argument I find he brings against them in this The Community of Man and Wise â—iffers from the Community of Master and Servant because they have several Ends. The Intention of Nature by Conjunction of Male and Female is Generation but the Scope of Master and Servant is Preservation so that a Wife and a Servant are by Nature distinguished because Nature does not work like the Cutlers of Delphos for she makes but one thing for one Use If we allow this Argument to be sound nothing doth follow but only this That Conjugal and Despotical communities do differ But it is no consequence That therefore Oeconomical and Political Societies do the like For though it prove a Family to consist of two distinct Communities yet it follows not that a Family and a Commonwealth are distinct because as well in the Commonwealth as in the Families both these Communities are found And as this Argument comes not home to our Point so it is not able to prove that Title which it shews forâ— for if it should be granted which yeâ— is false that Generation and Preservation differ about the Individuum yeâ— they agree in the General and servâ— both for the Conservation
Election of a Prince Is there any Example of it ever found in the Whole World To conceit such a thing is to â—magine little less than an Impossibility And so by Consequence no one Form of Government or King was ever established according to this supposed Law of Nature 6. It may be answered by some That if either the Greatest part of a Kingdom or if a smaller part only by Themselves and all the Rest by Proxy or if the part not concurring in Election do after by a Tacit Assent ratifie the Act of Others That in all thesâ— Cases it may be said to be the World of the whole Multitude As to the Acts of the Major part oâ— a Multitude it is true that by Politicâ— Humane Constitutions it is oft ordained that the Voices of the most shall over-rule the Bâ—est and such Ordinances bind because where Men are Assembled by an Humane Power that power that doth Assemble them can also Limit and Direct the manner of the Execution of that Power and by such Derivative Power made known by Law or Custom either the greater part or two Thirds or Three parts of Five or the like have power to oversway the Liberty of their Opposits But in Assemblies that take their Authority from the Law of Nature it cannot be so for what Freedom or Liberty is due to any Man by the Law of Nature no Inferiour Power can alter limit or diminishâ— no One Man nor a Multitude can give away the Natural Right of another The Law of Nature is unchangeable and howsoever One Man may hinder Another in the Use or Exercise of his Natural Right yet thereby No Man â—oseth the Right of it self for the Right â—nd the Use of the Right may be distinguished as Right and Possession are â—oft distinct Therefore unless it can be proved by the Law of Nature that the Major or some other part have Power â—o over-rule the Rest of the Multitude â—t must follow that the Acts of Multitudes not Entire are not Binding to All but only to such as Consent unto them 7. As to the point of Proxy it cannot be shewed or proved That all those that have been Absent from Popular Elections did ever give their Voices to some of their Fellows I ask but one Example out of the History of the whole World let the Commonweal be but named wherever the Multitude or so much as the Greatest part of it consented either by Voice or by Procuration to the Election of a Prince The Ambition sometimes of One Man sometimes of Many or the Faction of a City or Citizens or the Mutiny of an Army hath set up or put down Princes but they have never tarried for this pretended Order by proceeding of the whole Multitude Lastly if the silent Acceptation oâ— a Governour by part of the People be an Argument of their Concurring iâ— the Election of him by the same Reason the Tacit Assent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained From whence it follows that every Prince that comes to a Crown either by Succession Conquest or Usurpation may be said to be Elected by the People which Inference is too ridiculous for in such Cases the People are so far from the Liberty of Specification that they want even that of Contradiction 8. But it is in vain to argue against the Liberty of the People in the Election of Kings as long as men are perswaded that Examples of it are to be found in Scripture It is fit therefore to discover the Grounds of this Errour It is plain by an Evident Text that it is one thing to choose a King and another thing to set up a King over the People this latter power the Children of Israel had but not the former This Distinction is found most evidenâ— in Deut. 17. 15. where the Law of God saith Him shalt thou set King over thee whom â—â—e Lord shall choose so God must Eliâ—e and the People only do Constituâ—e Mr. Hooker in his Eighth Book â—f Ecclesiastical Policy clearly expounds â—is Distinction the words are worthy â—â—e citing Heaps of Scripture saith he â—e alledged concerning the Solemn Coroâ—â—tion or Inauguration of Saul David Soâ—mon and others by Nobles Ancients and the people of the Commonwealth of Isrâ—el as if these Solemnities were a kind of Deed whereby the Right of Dominion is given which strange untrue and unnatural conceits are set abroad by â—ed-men of Rebellion only to animate â—nquiet Spirits and to feed them with â—ossibilities of Aspiring unto the Thrones they can win the Hearts of the People whatsoever Hereditary Title any other before them may have I say these â—njust and insolent Positions I would â—ot mention were it not thereby to make the Countenance of â—ruth more Orient For unless we will openly proclaim Defiance unto all â—aw Equity and Reason we must for â—here is no other Remedy acknowledg that in Kingdoms Hereditary Birth-right giveth Right unto Sovereign Dominion and the Death of the Predecessoâ— putteth the Successor by Blood in Sâ—sin Those publick Solemnities before mentioned do either serve for an open Testification of the Inheritor's Right or belong to the Form of induciâ—â— of him into possession of that thing â—â— hath Right unto This is Mr. Hooker Judgment of the Israelites Power tâ— set a King over themselves No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King they would never have made Choice of Joas a Child but of Seven years old nor of Manases a Boy of Twelve since as Solomon saith Wo to the Land whose King a Child Nor is it probable they would have elected Josias but a very Child and a Son to so Wicked and Idoâ—trous a Father as that his own Servants murthered him and yet all thâ— people set up this young Josias anâ— slew the Conspirators of the Death oâ— Ammon his Father which Justice of the People God rewarded by making this Josias the most Religious King thaâ— ever that Nation enjoyed 9. Because it is affirmed that â—e People have power to choose as â—ell what Form of Government as â—hat Governours they please of which mind is Bellarmine in those â—aces we cited at first Therefore it necessary to Examine the Strength â— what is said in Defence of popular Commonweals against this Natural Form of Kingdoms which I maintain'd Here I must first put the â—ardinal in mind of what he affirms Cold Blood in other places where saith God when he made all Manâ—d of One Man did seem openly to â—â—nifie that he rather approved the Goâ—â—rnment of One Man than of Many â—â—ain God shewed his Opinion â—â—en he endued not only Men but Creatures with a Natural Propensiâ—â— to Monarchy neither can it be â—â—ubted but a Natural Propensity is be referred to God who is Auâ—â—or of Nature And again in a â—â—ird place What Form of Government God confirmed by his Authoriâ—â— may be gathered by that Commonâ—al which he instituted amongst the Hebrews which was not Aristocratical as
it Whereas the Liberties of Favour and Grace which are Claimed in Parliaments are restrained both for Time Place Persons and other Circumstances to the Sole Pleasure of the King The People can not Assemble themselves but the King by his Writs calls them to what place he pleases and then again Scatters them with his Breath at an instant without any other Cause shewed than his Will Neither is the whole Summoned but only so many as the Kings Writs appoint The prudent King Edward the First summoned always those Barons of ancient Families that were most wise to his Parliament but omited their Sons after their Death if they were not answerable to their Parents in Understanding Nor have the whole people Voices in the Election of Knights of the Shire or Burgesses but only Free-holders in the Counties and Freemen in the Cities and Burroughs yet in the City of Westminster all the House-holders though they be neither Free-men nor Free-holders have Voices in their Election of Burgesses Also during the time of Parliament those priviledges of the House of Commons of freedom of Speech Power to punish their own Members to examine the Proceedings and Demeanour of Courts of Justice and Officers to have access to the King's Person and the like are not due by any Natural Right but are derived from the Bounty or Indulgence of the King as appears by a solemn Recognition of the House for at the opening of the Parliament when the Speaker is presented to the King he in the behalf and name of the whole House of Commons humbly craves of His Majesty That He would be pleased to grant them their Accustomed Liberties of freedom of Speech of access to his Person and the rest These Priviledges are granted with a Condition implyed That they keep themselves within the Bounds and Limits of Loyalty and Obedience for else why do the House of Commons inflict punishment themselves upon their own Members for transgressing in some of these points and the King as Head hath many times punished the Members for the like Offences The Power which the King giveth in all his Courts to his Judges or others to punish doth not exclude Him from doing the like by way of Prevention Concurrence or Evocation even in the same point which he hath given in charge by a delegated Power for they who give Authority by Commission do always retain more than they grant Neither of the two Houses claim an Infallibility of not Erring no more than a General Council can It is not impossible but that the greatest may be in Fault or at least Interested or Engaged in the Delinquency of one particular Member In such Cases it is most proper for the Head to correct and not to expect the Consent of the Members or for the Parties peccant to be their own Judges Nor is it needful to confine the King in such Cases within the Circle of any one Court of Justice who is Supreme Judge in all Courts And in rare and new Cases rare and new Remedies must be sought out for it is a Rule of the Common Law In novo Casu novum Remedium est apponendum and the Statute of Westminst 2. cap. 24. giveth Power even to the Clarks of the Chancery to make New Forms of Writs in New Cases lest any man that came to the King's Court of Chancery for help should be sent away without Remedy A President cannot be found in every Case and of things that happen seldom and are not common there cannot be a Common Custom Though Crimes Exorbitant do pose the King and Council in finding a President for a Condigne Punishment yet they must not therefore pass unpunished I have not heard that the people by whose Voices the Knights and Burgesses are chosen did ever call to an account those whom they had Elected they neither give them Instructions or Directions what to say or what to do in Parliament therefore they cannot punish them when they come home for doing amiss If the people had any such power over their Burgesses then we might call it The Natural Liberty of the people with a mischief But they are so far from punishing that they may be punished themselves for intermedling with Parliamentary Business they must only chuse and trust those whom they chuse to do what they list and that is as much liberty as many of us deserve for our irregular Elections of Burgesses 15 A fourth point to be consider'd is that in Parliament all Statutes or Laws are made properly by the King alone at the Rogation of the people as His Majesty King James of happy memory affirms in His true Law of free Monarchy and as Hooker teacheth us That Laws do not take their constraining force from the Quality of such as devise them but from the Power that doth give them the Strength of Laws Le Roy le Veult the King will have it so is the Interpretive Phrase pronounced at the King 's passing of every Act of Parliament And it was the ancient Custom for a long time till the days of Henry the Fifth that the Kings when any Bill was brought unto them that had passed both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was Enacted for a Law but the Custom of the later Kings hath been so gracious as to allow always of the entire Bill as it hath passed both Houses 16 The Parliament is the King's Court for so all the oldest Statutes call it the King in his Parliament But neither of the two Houses are that Supreme Court nor yet both of them together they are only Members and a part of the Body whereof the King is the Head and Ruler The King 's Governing of this Body of the Parliament we may find most significantly proved both by the Statutes themselves as also by such Presidents as expresly shew us how the King sometimes by himself sometimes by his Council and othertimes by his Judges hath over-ruled and directed the Judgments of the Houses of Parliament for the King we find that Magna Charta and the Charter of Forrests and many other Statutes about those times had only the Form of the Kings Letters-Patents or Grants under the Great Seal testifying those Great Liberties to be the sole Act and Bounty of the King The words of Magna Charta begin thus Henry by the Grace of God c. To all Our Arch-Bishops c. and Our Faithful Subjects Greeting Know ye that We of Our meer free-Will have granted to all Free-men these Liberties In the same style goeth the Charter of Forrests and other Statutes Statutum Hibernioe made at Westminster 9. Februarii 14. Hen. 3. is but a Letter of the King to Gerrard Son of Maurice Justice of Ireland The Statute de anno Bissextili begins thus The King to His Justices of the Bench Greeting c. Explanationes Statuti Glocestrioe made by the King and his Justices only were received always as Statutes and