and People at London and Harold excused himself for not performing his Oath to William the Norman because he said he had made it unduly and presumptuously without consulting the Nobility and People and without their Authority William was received with great joy by the Clergy and People and saluted King by all swearing to observe the antient good and approved Laws of England and tho he did but ill perform his Oath yet before his death he seemed to repent of the ways he had taken and only wishing his Son might be King of England he confessed in his last Will made at Caen in Normandy that he neither found nor left the Kingdom as an Inheritance If he possessed no right except what was conferred upon him no more was conserred than had bin enjoy'd by the antient Kings according to the approved Laws which he swore to observe Those Laws gave no power to any till he was elected and that which they did then give was so limited that the Nobility and People reserved to themselves the disposition of the greatest Affairs even to the deposition and expulsion of such as should not well perform the duty of their Oaths and Office And I leave it to our Author to prove how they can be said to have had the Sword and the Power so as to be feared otherwise than as the Apostle says by those that do evil which we acknowledg to be not only in the King but in the lowest Officer of Justice in the world If it be pretended that our later Kings are more to be seared than William the Norman or his Predecessors it must not be as has bin proved either from the general right of Kings or from the Doctrine of the Apostle but from something else that is peculiar and subsequent which I leave our Author's Disciples to prove and an answer may be found in due time But to show that our Ancestors did not mistake the words of the Apostle 't is good to consider when to whom and upon what occasion he spoke The Christian Religion was then in its infancy his discourses were addressed to the Professors of it who tho they soon grew to be considerable in number were for the most part of the meanest sort of People Servants or Inhabitants of the Cities rather than Citizens and Freemen joined in no civil Body or Society nor such as had or could have any part in the Government The occasion was to suppress the dangerous mistake of many converted Jews and others who knowing themselves to be freed from the power of Sin and the Devil presumed they were also freed from the obligation of human Laws And if this Error had not bin crop'd in the bud it would have given occasion to their Enemies who desired nothing more to destroy them all and who knowing that such Notions were stirring among them would have bin glad that they who were not easily to be discovered had by that means discovered themselves This induced a necessity of diverting a poor mean scatter'd People from such thoughts concerning the State to convince them of the Error into which they were fallen that Christians did not owe the same obedience to Civil Laws and Magistrates as other men and to keep them from drawing destruction upon themselves by such ways as not being warranted by God had no promise of his Protection St. Paul's work was to preserve the Professors of Christianity as appears by his own words I exhort that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and for all that are in Authority that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates to be ready for every good work St. Peter agrees with him fully in describing the Magistrate and his Duty shewing the reasons why obedience should be pay'd to him and teaching Christians to be humble and contented with their condition as free yet not using their Liberty for a cover to malice and not only to fear God and honor the King of which conjunction of words such as Filmer are very proud but to honor all men as is said in the same verse This was in a peculiar manner the work of that time in which those who were to preach and propagate the Gospel were not to be diverted from that Duty by entangling themselves in the care of State-affairs but it dos in some sense agree with all times for it can never be the duty of a good man to oppose such a Magistrate as is the Minister of God in the exercise of his Office nor to deny to any man that which is his due But as the Christian Law exempts no man from the Duty he ows to his Father Master or the Magistrate it dos not make him more a Slave than he was before nor deprive him of any natural or civil Right and if we are obliged to pay Tribute Honor or any other thing where it is not due it must be by some Precept very different from that which commands us to give to Cesar that which is Cesar's If he define the Magistrate to be the Minister of God doing Justice and from thence draws the Reasons he gives for rendring Obedience to him we are to inquire whose Minister he is who overthrows it and look for some other reason sor rendring obedience to him than the words of the Apostles If David who was willing to lay down his life sor the people who hated iniquity and would not suffer a liar to come into his presence was the Minister of God I desire to know whose Minister Caligula was who set up himself to be worshipped for a God and would at once have destroyed all the people that he ought to have protected Whose Minister was Nero who besides the abominable impurities of his lise and hatred to all virtue as contrary to his Person and Government set fire to the great City If it be true that contrariorum contraria est ratio these questions are easily decided and if the reasons of things are eternal the same distinction grounded upon truth will be good for ever Every Magistrate and every man by his works will for ever declare whose Minister he is in what spirit he lives and consequently what obedience is due to him according to the Precept of the Apostle If any man ask what I mean by Justice I answer That the Law of the Land as far as it is Sanctio recta jubens honesta prohibens contraria declares what it is But there have bin and are Laws that are neither just nor commendable There was a Law in Rome that no God should be worshipped vvithout the consent of the Senat Upon vvhich Tertullian says scoffingly That God shall not be God unless he please Man and by virtue of this Law the first Christians were exposed to all manner of cruelties and some
say Saisit le vif There can be therefore no such Law or it serves for nothing If there be Judges to interpret the Law no man is a King till judgment be given in his favour and he is not King by his own Title but by the Sentence given by them If there be none the Law is merely imaginary and every man may in his own case make it what he pleases He who has a Crown in his view and Arms in his hand wants nothing but success to make him a King and if he prosper all men are obliged to obey him 'T is a folly to say the matter is clear and needs no decision for every man knows that no Law concerning private Inheritances can be so exactly drawn but many Controversies will arise upon it that must be decided by a Power to which both Parties are subject and the disputes concerning Kingdoms are so much the more difficult because this Law is no where to be found and the more dangerous because the Competitors are for the most part more powerful Again this Law must either be general to all mankind or particular to each Nation If particular a matter of such importance requires good proof when where how and by whom it was given to every one But the Scriptures testifying to the contrary that God gave Laws to the Jews only and that no such thing as hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of Blood was prescribed by them we may safely say that God did never give any such Law to every particular nor to any Nation If he did not give it to any one he did not give it to all for every one is comprehended in all and if no one has it 't is impossible that all can have it or that it should be obligatory to all when no man knows or can tell when where and by what hand it was given nor what is the sense of it all which is evident by the various Laws and Customs of Nations in the disposal of hereditary Successions And no one of them that we know has to this day bin able to shew that the method follow'd by them is more according to nature than that of others If our Author pretend to be God's Interpreter and to give the solution of these doubts I may ask which of the five following ways are appointed by God and then we may examine Cases resulting from them 1. In France Turky and other places the Succession comes to the next Male in the streight eldest Line according to which the Son is preferr'd before the Brother of him who last enjoy'd the Crown as the present King of France before his Uncle the Duke of Orleans and the Son of the eldest before the Brothers of the eldest as in the case of Richard the second of England who was advanced preferably to all the Brothers of the black Prince his Father 2. Others keep to the Males of the reigning Family yet have more regard to the eldest Man than to the eldest Line and representation taking no place among them the eldest Man is thought to be nearest to the first King and a second Son of the person that last reigned to be nearer to him than his Grandchild by the eldest Son according to which Rule any one of the Sons of Edward the third remaining after his death should have bin preferr'd before Richard the second who was his Grandchild 3. In the two cases beforementioned no manner of regard is had to Females who being thought naturally uncapable of commanding men or performing the Functions of a Magistrate are together with their Descendents utterly excluded from the supreme as well as from the inferior Magistracies and in Turky France and other great Kingdoms have no pretence to any Title But in some places and particularly in England the advantages of Proximity belong to them as well as to Males by which means our Crown has bin transported to several Families and Nations 4. As in some places they are utterly rejected and in others received simply without any condition so those are not wanting where that of not marrying out of the Country or without the consent of the Estates is imposed of which Sweden is an Example 5. In some places Proximity of Blood is only regarded whether the Issue be legitimate or illegitimate in others Bastards are wholly excluded By this variety of Judgments made by several Nations upon this Point it may appear that tho it were agreed by all that the next in Blood ought to succeed yet such Contests would arise upon the interpretation and application of the general Rule as must necessarily be a perpetual Spring of irreconcilable and mortal Quarrels If any man say The Rule observed in England is that which God gave to Mankind I leave him first to dispute that point with the Kings of France and many others who can have no right to the Crowns they wear if it be admitted and in the next place to prove that our Ancestors had a more immediate communication with God and a more certain knowledge of his Will than others who for any thing we know may be of Authority equal to them but in the mean time we may rationally conclude that if there be such a Rule we have had no King in England for the space of almost a thousand years having not had one who did not come to the Crown by a most manifest violation of it as appears by the forecited Examples of William the first and second Henry the first Henry the second and his Children John Edward the third Henry the fourth Edward the fourth and his Children Henry the seventh and all that claim under any of them And if Possession or Success can give a right it will I think follow that Jack Straw Wat Tyler Perkin Warbeck or any other Rascal might have had it if he had bin as happy as bold in his Enterprize This is no less than to expose Crowns to the first that can seize them to destroy all Law and Rule and to render Right a slave to Fortune If this be so a late Earl of Pembroke whose understanding was not thought great judged rightly when he said his Grandfather was a wise man tho he could neither write nor read in as much as he resolved to follow the Crown tho it were upon a Coalstaff But if this be sufficient to make a wise man 't is pity the secret was no sooner discovered since many who for want of it liv'd and died in all the infamy that justly accompanies Knavery Cowardice and Folly might have gained the reputation of the most excellent Men in their several ages The bloody Factions with which all Nations subject to this sort of Monarchy have bin perpetually vexed might have bin prevented by throwing up cross or pile or by battel between the Competitors body to body as was done by Corbis and Orsua Cleorestes and Polinices Ironside and Canutus it being most unreasonable or rather impiously absurd for any to
continue in any If the Power be not conferred upon them they have it not and if they have it not their want of leisure to do Justice cannot have bin the cause for which Laws are made and they cannot be the signification of their Will but are that to which the Prince ows Obedience as well as the meanest Subject This is that which Bracton calls esse sub lege and says that Rex in regno superiores habet Deum Legem Fortescue says The Kings of England cannot change the Laws and indeed they are so far from having any such Power that the Judges swear to have no regard to the King's Letters or Commands but if they receive any to proceed according to Law as if they had not bin And the breach of this Oath dos not only bring a blemish upon their Reputation but exposes them to capital Punishments as many of them have found 'T is not therefore the King that makes the Law but the Law that makes the King It gives the rule for Succession making Kingdoms sometimes Hereditary and sometimes Elective and more often than either simply Hereditary under condition In some places Males only are capable of inheriting in others Females are admitted Where the Monarchy is regular as in Germany England c. the Kings can neither make nor change Laws They are under the Law and the Law is not under them their Letters or Commands are not to be regarded In the administration of Justice the question is not what pleases them but what the Law declares to be right which must have its course whether the King be busy or at leisure whether he will or not The King who never dies is always present in the supreme Courts and neither knows nor regards the pleasure of the man that wears the Crown But lest he by his Riches and Power might have some influence upon judicial Proceedings the great Charter that recapitulates and acknowledges our antient inherent Liberties obliges him to swear that he will neither sell delay nor deny Justice to any man according to the Laws of the Land which were ridiculous and absurd if those Laws were only the signification of his Pleasure or any way depended upon his Will This Charter having bin confirmed by more than thirty Parliaments all succeeding Kings are under the obligation of the same Oath or must renounce the benefit they receive from our Laws which if they do they will be found to be equal to every one of us Our Author according to his custom having laid down a false proposition gos about to justify it by false examples as those of Draco Solon the Decemviri and Moses of whom no one had the Power he attributes to them and it were nothing to us if they had The Athenians and Romans as was said before were so far from resigning the absolute Power without appeal to themselves that nothing done by their Magistrates was of any force till it was enacted by the People And the power given to the Decemviri sine provocatione was only in private cases there being no superior Magistrate then in being to whom Appeals could be made They were vested with the same Power the Kings and Dictators enjoy'd from whom there lay no Appeal but to the People and always to them as appears by the case of Horatius in the time of Tullus Hostilius that of Marcus Fabius when Papirius Cursor was Dictator and of Nenius the Tribun during that of Q. Fabius Maximus all which I have cited already and reser to them There was therefore a reservation of the supreme Power in the People notwithstanding the creation of Magistrates without Appeal and as it was quietly exercised in making Strangers or whom they pleased Kings restraining the power of Dictators to six months and that of the Decemviri to two years when the last did contrary to Law endeavour by force to continue their Power the People did by force destroy it and them The case of Moses is yet more clear he was the most humble and gentle of all men he never raised his heart above his brethren and commanded Kings to live in the same modesty he never desired the People should depend upon his will In giving Laws to them he fulfill'd the will of God not his own and those Laws were not the signification of his will but of the will of God They were the production of God's Wisdom and Goodness not the invention of Man given to purify the People not to advance the glory of their Leader He was not proud and insolent nor pleas'd with that ostentation of Pomp to which fools give the name of Majesty and whoever so far exalts the power of a man to make Nations depend upon his pleasure dos not only lay a burden upon him which neither Moses nor any other could ever bear and every wise man will always abhor but with an impious fury endeavours to set up a Government contrary to the Laws of God presumes to accuse him of want of wisdom or goodness to his own People and to correct his Errors which is a work fit to be undertaken by such as our Author From hence as upon a solid foundation he proceeds and making use of King James's words infers that Kings are above the Laws because he so teaches us But he might have remembred that having affirmed the People could not judg of the disputes that might happen between them and Kings because they must not be judges in their own case 't is absurd to make a King judg of a case so nearly concerning himself in the decision of which his own Passions and Interests may probably lead him into errors And if it be pretended that I do the same in giving the judgment of those matters to the People the case is utterly different both in the nature and consequences The King's judgment is merely for himself and if that were to take place all the Passions and Vices that have most power upon men would concur to corrupt it He that is set up for the publick good can have no contest with the whole People whose good he is to procure unless he deflect from the end of his Institution and set up an interest of his own in opposition to it This is in its nature the highest of all delinquencies and if such a one may be judg of his own crimes he is not only sure to avoid punishment but to obtain all that he sought by them and the worse he is the more violent will his desires be to get all the power into his hands that he may gratify his lusts and execute his pernicious designs On the other side in a popular Assembly no man judges for himself otherwise than as his good is comprehended in that of the publick Nothing hurts him but what is prejudicial to the Commonwealth such amongst them as may have received private Injuries are so far only considered by others as their Sufferings may have influence upon the
the Moors than an old Astrologer or a Child Alphonso and Sancho being dead Alphonso El Desheredado laid claim to the Crown but it was given to Ferdinand the Fourth and Alphonso with his descendents the Dukes de Medina Celi remain excluded to this day Peter sirnamed the Cruel was twice driven out of the Kingdom and at last killed by Bertrand to Guesclin Constable of France or Henry Count of Trastamara his Bastard-Brother who was made King without any regard to the Daughters of Peter or to the House of La Cerda Henry the Fourth lest a Daughter called Joan whom he declared his Heir but the Estates gave the Kingdom to Isabel his Sister and crowned her with Ferdinand of Arragon her Husband Joan Daughter to this Ferdinand and Isabel salling mad the Estates committed the care of the Government to her Father Ferdinand and after his death to Charles her Son But the French have taught us that when a King dies his next Heir is really King before he take his Oath or be crowned From them we learn that Le mort saisit le vif And yet I know no History that proves more plainly than theirs that there neither is nor can be in any man a right to the Government of a People which dos not receive its being manner and measure from the Law of that Country which I hope to justify by four Reasons 1. When a King of Pharamond's Race died the Kingdom was divided into as many parcels as he had Sons which could not have bin if one certain Heir had bin assigned by nature for he ought to have had the whole and if the Kingdom might be divided they who inhabited the several parcels could not know to whom they owed obedience till the division was made unless he who was to be King of Paris Metz Soissons or Orleans had worn the Name of his Kingdom upon his forehead But in truth if there might be a division the Doctrine is false and there was no Lord of the whole This wound will not be healed by saying The Father appointed the division and that by the Law of nature every man may dispose of his own as he thinks fit for we shall soon prove that the Kingdom of France neither was nor is disposeable as a Patrimony or Chattel Besides if that Act of Kings had bin then grounded upon the Law of nature they might do the like at this day But the Law by which such Divisions were made having bin abrogated by the Assembly of Estates in the time of Hugh Capet and never practised since it follows that they were grounded upon a temporary Law and not upon the Law of Nature which is eternal If this were not so the pretended certainty could not be for no man could know to whom the last King had bequeathed the whole Kingdom or parcels of it till the Will were opened and that must be done before such Witnesses as may deserve credit in a matter of this importance and are able to judg whether the Bequest be rightly made for otherwise no man could know whether the Kingdom was to have one Lord or many nor who he or they were to be which intermission must necessarily subvert their Polity and this Doctrine But the truth is the most Monarchical men among them are so far from acknowledging any such right to be in the King of alienating bequeathing or dividing the Kingdom that they do not allow him the right of making a Will and that of the last King Lewis the 13th touching the Regency during the minority of his Son was of no effect 2. This matter was made more clear under the second race If a Lord had bin assigned to them by nature he must have bin of the Royal Family But Pepin had no other Title to the Crown except the merits of his Father and his own approved by the Nobility and People who made him King He had three sons the eldest was made King of Italy and dying before him lest a Son called Bernard Heir of that Kingdom The Estates of France divided what remained between Charles the Great and Carloman The last of these dying in few years left many Sons but the Nobility made Charles King of all France and he dispossessed Bernard of the Kingdom of Italy inherited from his Father so that he also was not King of the whole before the expulsion of Bernard the Son of his elder Brother nor of Aquitain which by inheritance should have belonged to the Children of his younger Brother any otherwise than by the will of the Estates Lewis the Debonair succeeded upon the same title was deposed and put into a Monastery by his three Sons Lothair Pepin and Lewis whom he had by his first Wife But tho these lest many Sons the Kingdom came to Charles the Bald. The Nobility and People disliking the eldest Son of Charles gave the Kingdom to Lewis le Begue who had a legitimate Son called Charles le Simple and two Bastards Lewis and Carloman who were made Kings Carloman had a Son called Lewis le faineant he was made King but afterwards deposed for his vicious Lise Charles le Gros succeeded him but for his ill Government was also deposed and Odo who was a stranger to the Royal Blood was made King The same Nobility that had made five Kings since Lewis le Begue now made Charles le Simple King who according to his name was entrapped at Peronne by Ralph Duke of Burgundy and forced to resign his Crown leaving only a Son called Lewis who fled into England Ralph being dead they took Lewis sirnamed Outremer and placed him in the Throne he had two Sons Lothair and Charles Lothair succeeded him and died without Issue Charles had as fair a title as could be by Birth and the Estates confessed it but their Ambassadors told him that he having by an unworthy Life render'd himself unworthy of the Crown they whose principal care was to have a good Prince at the head of them had chosen Hugh Capet and the Crown continues in his race to this day tho not altogether without interruption Robert Son to Hugh Capet succeeded him He left two Sons Robert and Henry but Henry the younger Son appearing to the Estates of the Kingdom to be more fit to reign than his elder Brother they made him King Robert and his descendents continuing Dukes of Burgundy only for about ten Generations at which time his Issue Male failing that Dutchy returned to the Crown during the Life of King John who gave it to his second Son Philip for an Apannage still depending upon the Crown The same Province of Burgundy was by the Treaty of Madrid granted to the Emperor Charles the fifth by Francis the first but the People resused to be alienated and the Estates of the Kingdom approved their refusal By the same Authority Charles the 6th was removed from the Government when he appeared to be mad and other examples of a like nature
SECT XXVI Tho the King may be entrusted with the power of chusing Judges yet that by which they act is from the Law I Confess that no Law can be so perfect to provide exactly for every case that may fall out so as to leave nothing to the discretion of the Judges who in some measure are to interpret them But that Laws or Customs are ever few or that the paucity is the reason that they cannot give special rules or that Judges do resort to those principles or Common Law Axioms whereupon former judgments in cases something alike have bin given by former Judges who all receive their Authority from the King in his right to give Sentence I utterly deny and affirm 1. That in many places and particularly in England the Laws are so many that the number of them has introduced an uncertainty and confusion which is both dangerous and troublesom and the infinite variety of adjudged cases thwarting and contradicting each other has render'd these difficulties inextricable Tacitus imputes a great part of the miseries suffer'd by the Romans in his time to this abuse and tells us that the Laws grew to be innumerable in the worst and most corrupt state of things and that Justice was overthrown by them By the same means in France Italy and other places where the Civil Law is rendred municipal Judgments are in a manner arbitrary and tho the intention of our Laws be just and good they are so numerous and the volumes of our Statutes with the interpretations and adjudged Cases so vast that hardly any thing is so clear and fixed but men of wit and learning may find what will serve for a pretence to justify almost any judgment they have a mind to give Whereas the Laws of Moses as to the Judicial part being short and few Judgments were easy and certain and in Switzerland Sweden and some parts of Denmark the whole volume that contains them may be read in few hours and by that means no injustice can be done which is not immediately made evident 2. Axioms are not rightly grounded upon judged Cases but Cases are to be judged according to Axioms the certain is not proved by the uncertain but the uncertain by the certain and every thing is to be esteemed uncertain till it be proved to be certain Axioms in Law are as in Mathematicks evident to common sense and nothing is to be taken for an Axiom that is not so Euclid dos not prove his Axioms by his Propositions but his Propositions which are abstruse by such Axioms as are evident to all The Axioms of our Law do not receive their Authority from Coke or Hales but Coke and Hales deserve praise for giving judgment according to such as are undeniably true 3. The Judges receive their Commissions from the King and perhaps it may be said that the Custom of naming them is grounded upon a right with which he is entrusted but their power is from the Law as that of the King also is For he who has none originally in himself can give none unless it be first conserred upon him I know not how he can well perform his Oath to govern according to Law unless he execute the power with which he is entrusted in naming those men to be Judges whom in his conscience and by the advice of his Council he thinks the best and ablest to perform that Office But both he and they are to learn their duty from that Law by which they are and which allots to every one his proper work As the Law intends that men should be made Judges for their integrity and knowledg in the Law and that it ought not to be imagined that the King will break his trust by chusing such as are not so till the violation be evident nothing is more reasonable than to intend that the Judges so qualified should instruct the King in matters of Law But that he who may be a child over aged or otherwise ignorant and uncapable should instruct the Judges is equally absurd as for a blind man to be a guide to those who have the best eyes and so abhorrent from the meaning of the Law that the Judges as I said before are sworn to do justice according to the Laws without any regard to the King's words letters or commands If they are therefore to act according to a set rule from which they may not depart what command soever they receive they do not act by a power from him but by one that is above both This is commonly confess'd and tho some Judges have bin found in several ages who in hopes of reward and preferment have made little account of their Oath yet the success that many of them have had may reasonably deter others from following their example and if there are not more instances in this kind no better reason can be given than that Nations do frequently fail by being too remiss in asserting their own rights or punishing offenders and hardly ever err on the severer side 4. Judgments are variously given in several States and Kingdoms but he who would find one where they lie in the breast of the King must go at least as far as Marocco Nay the Ambassador who was lately here from that place denied that they were absolutely in him However 't is certain that in England according to the Great Charter Judgments are passed by equals no man can be imprison'd disseiz'd of his Freehold depriv'd of Life or Limb unless by the sentence of his Peers The Kings of Judah did judg and were judged and the Judgments they gave were in and with the Sanhedrim In England the Kings do not judg but are judged and Bracton says That in receiving justice the King is equal to another man which could not be if judgments were given by him and he were exempted from the judgment of all by that Law which has put all judgments into the hands of the People This power is executed by them in grand or petty Juries and the Judges are assistants to them in explaining the difficult points of the Law in which 't is presumed they should be learned The strength of every judgment consists in the verdict of these Juries which the Judges do not give but pronounce or declare and the same Law that makes good a verdict given contrary to the advice or direction of the Judges exposes them to the utmost penalties if upon their own heads or a command from the King they should presume to give a Sentence without or contrary to a Verdict and no pretensions to a power of interpreting the Law can exempt them if they break it The power also with which the Judges are entrusted is but of a moderate extent and to be executed bona fide Prevarications are capital as they proved to Tresilian Empson Dudley and many others Nay even in special Verdicts the Judges are only assistants to the Juries who find it specially
it never had any effect which to us is the same 'T is as ridiculous to think of retrieving that which from the beginning of the World was lost as to create that which never was But I may go farther and affirm that tho there had bin such a right in the first Fathers of Manking exercised by them and for some ages individually transmitted to their eldest Sons it must necessarily perish since the generations of men are so confused that no man knows his own original and consequently this Heir is no where to be found for 't is a folly for a man to pretend to an Inheritance who cannot prove himself to be the right Heir If this be not true I desire to know from which of Noah's Sons the Kings of England France or Spain do deduce their Original or what reason they can give why the title to Dominion which is fancied to be in Noah did rather belong to the first of their respective Races that attained to the Crowns they now enjoy than to the meanest Peasant of their Kingdoms or how that can be transmitted to them which was not in the first We know that no man can give what he hath not that if there be no giver there is no gift if there be no root there can be no branch and that the first point failing all that should be derived from it must necessarily fail Our Author who is good at resolving difficulties shews us an easy way out of this strait 'T is true says he all Kings are not natural Parents of their Subjects yet they 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 the Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all those that were subject to their Father c. By this means it comes to pass that many a Child succeeding a King hath the right of a Father over many a grey-headed multitude and hath the title of Pater Patriae An Assertion comprehending so many points upon which the most important Rights of all mankind do depend might deserve some proof But he being of opinion we ought to take it upon his credit doth not vouchsafe to give us so much as the shadow of any Nevertheless being unwilling either crudely to receive or rashly to reject it I shall take the liberty of examining the Proposition and hope I may be pardoned if I dwell a little more than ordinarily upon that which is the foundation of his Work We are beholden to him for confessing modestly that all Kings are not the natural Fathers of their People and sparing us the pains of proving that the Kings of Persia who reigned from the Indies to the Hellespont did not beget all the men that lived in those Countries or that the Kings of France and Spain who began to reign before they were five years old were not the natural Fathers of the Nations under them But if all Kings are not Fathers none are as they are Kings If any one is or ever was the Rights of Paternity belong to him and to no other who is not so also This must be made evident for matters of such importance require proof and ought not to be taken upon supposition If Filmer therefore will pretend that the right of Father belongs to any one King he must prove that he is the Father of his People for otherwise it doth not appertain to him he is not the man we seek 'T is no less absurd to say he is to be reputed Heir to the first Progenitor for it must be first proved that the Nation did descend from one single Progenitor without mixture of other races that this Progenitor was the Man to whom Noah according to Filmer's whimfical division of Asia Europe and Africa among his Sons did give the Land now inhabited by that people That this Division so made was not capable of Subdivisions and that this Man is by a true and uninterrupted Succession descended from the first and eldest Line of that Progenitor and all fails if every one of these points be not made good If there never was any such man who had that Right it cannot be inherited from him If by the same rule that a parcel of the World was allotted to him that parcel might be subdivided amongst his Children as they increased the subdivisions may be infinite and the right of Dominion thereby destroyed If several Nations inhabit the same Land they owe obedience to several Fathers that which is due to their true Father cannot be rendred to him that is not so for he would by that means be deprived of the Right which is inseparably annexed to his person And lastly whatsoever the right of an Heir may be it can belong only to him that is Heir Lest any should be seduced from these plain Truths by frivolous suggestions 't is good to consider that the title of Pater Patria with which our Author would cheat us hath no relation to the matters of Right upon which we dispute 'T is a figurative speech that may have bin rightly enough applied to some excellent Princes on account of their care and love to their People resembling that of a Father to his Children and can relate to none but those who had it No man that had common sense or valued truth did ever call Phalaris Dionysius Nabis Nero or Caligula Fathers of their Countries but Monsters that to the utmost of their power endeavoured their destruction which is enough to prove that sacred Name cannot be given to all and in consequence to none but such as by their Virtue Piety and good Government do deserve it These matters will yet appear more evident if it be considered that tho Noah had reigned as a King that Zoroaster as some suppose was Ham who reigned over his Children and that thereby some Right might perhaps be derived to such as succeeded them yet this can have no influence upon such as have not the like Original and no man is to be presumed to have it till it be proved since we have proved that many had it not If Nimrod set himself up against his Grandfather and Ninus who was descended from him in the fifth generation slew him they ill deserved the name and rights of Fathers and none but those who have renounced all Humanity Virtue and common sense can give it to them or their Successors If therefore Noah and Shem had not so much as the shadow of Regal Power and the actions of Nimrod Ninus and others who were Kings in their times shew they did not reign in the right of Fathers but were set up in a direct opposition to it the titles of the first Kings were not from Paternity nor consistent with it Our Author therefore who should have proved every point doth neither prove any one nor
must perpetually spring First if there be such a Law no Human Constitution can alter it No length of time can be a defence against it All Governments that are not conformable to it are vicious and void even in their root and must be so for ever That which is originally unjust may be justly overthrown We do not know of any at least in that part of the World in which we are most concerned that is established or exercised with an absolute power as by the Authors of those opinions is esteemed inseparable from it Many as the Empire and other States are directly contrary and on that account can have no justice in them It being certain therefore that he or they who exercise those Governments have no right that there is a Man to whom it doth belong and no man knowing who he is there is no one man who has not as good a title to it as any other There is not therefore one who hath not a right as well as any to overthrow that which hath none at all He that hath no part in the Government may destroy it as well as he that has the greatest for he neither has that which God ordained he should have nor can shew a title to that which he enjoys from that original Prerogative of Birth from whence it can only be derived If it be said that some Governments are arbitrary as they ought to be and France Turky and the like be alledged as instances the matter is not mended for we do not only know when those who deserve to be regarded by us were not absolute and how they came to be so but also that those very Families which are now in possession are not of very long continuance had no more title to the original right we speak of than any other men and consequently can have none to this day And tho we cannot perhaps say that the Governments of the barbarous Eastern Nations were ever other than they are yet the known Original of them deprives them of all pretence to the Patriarchical Inheritance and they may be as justly as any other deprived of the Power to which they have no title In the second place tho all mens Genealogies were extant and fully verified and it were allowed that the Dominion of the World or every part of it did belong to the right Heir of the first Progenitor or any other to whom the first did rightly assign the parcel which is under question yet it were impossible for us to know who should be esteemed the true Heir or according to what rule he should be judged so to be for God hath not by a precise word determined it and Men cannot agree about it as appears by the various Laws and Customs of several Nations disposing severally of Hereditary Dominions 'T is a folly to say they ought to go to the next in blood for 't is not known who is that next Some give the preference to him who amongst many Competitors is the sewest degrees removed from their common Progenitor who first obtained the Crown Others look only upon the last that possessed it Some admit of representation by which means the Grandchild of a King by his eldest Son is preferred before his second Son he being said to represent his dead Father who was the eldest Others exclude these and advance the younger Son who is nearer by one degree to the common Progenitor that last enjoyed the Crown than the Grandchild According to the first rule Richard the second was advanced to the Crown of England as Son of the eldest Son of Edward the third before his Uncles who by one degree were nearer to the last Possessor And in pursuance of the second Sancho sirnamed the Brave second Son of Alphonso the Wise King of Castile was preferred before Alphonso Son of Ferdinand his elder Brother according to the Law of Thanestry which was in sorce in Spain ever since we have had any knowledg of that Country as appears by the contest between Corbis and Orsua decided by Combat before Stipio Africanus continued in full force as long as the Kingdom of the Goths lasted and was ever highly valued till the House of Austria got possession of that Country and introduced Laws and Customs formerly unknown to the Inhabitants The Histories of all Nations furnish us with innumerable Examples of both sorts and whosoever takes upon him to determine which side is in the right ought to shew by what authority he undertakes to be the Judg of Mankind and how the infinite breaches thereby made upon the rights of the governing Families shall be cured without the overthrow of those that he shall condemn and of the Nations where such Laws have bin in sorce as he dislikes and till that be done in my opinion no place will afford a better lodging for him that shall impudently assume such a Power than the new buildings in Moor-Fields 'T is no less hard to decide whether this next Heir is to be sought in the Male line only or whether Females also be admitted If we follow the first as the Law of God and Nature the title of our English Kings is wholly abolished for not one of them since Henry the 1 st has had the least pretence to an inheritance by the masculine Line and if it were necessary we have enough to say of those that were before them If it be said that the same Right belongs to Females it ought to be proved that Women are as fit as Men to perform the Office of a King that is as the Israelites said to Samuel to go in and out before us to judg us and to fight our Battels for it were an impious folly to say that God had ordained those for the Offices on which the good of Mankind so much depends who by nature are unable to perform the duties of them If on the other side the sweetness gentleness delicacy and tenderness of the Sex render them so unfit for manly exercises that they are accounted utterly repugnant to and inconsistent with that modesty which does so eminently shine in all those that are good amongst them that Law of Nature which should advance them to the Government of Men would overthrow its own work and make those to be the heads of Nations which cannot be the heads of private Families for as the Apostle says The Woman is not the head of the Man but the Man is the head of the Woman This were no less than to oblige Mankind to lay aside the name of reasonable Creature for if Reason be his Nature it cannot enjoin that which is contrary to it self if it be not the definition Homo est animal rationale is false and ought no longer to be assumed If any man think these Arguments to be mistaken or misapplied I desire him to enquire of the French Nation on what account they have always excluded Females and such as descended from them How comes the House of Bourbon to
it Some being incensed against their Kings as the Romans exasperated by the Villanies of Tarquin and the Tuscans by the Cruelties of Mezentius abolished the name of King Others as Athens Sicion Argos Corinth Thebes and the Latins did not stay for such extremities but set up other Governments when they thought it best for themselves and by this conduct prevented the evils that usually fall upon Nations when their Kings degenerate into Tyrants and a Nation is brought to enter into a War by which all may be lost and nothing can be gained which was not their own before The Romans took not this salutary Course the mischief was grown up before they perceived or set themselves against it and when the effects of Pride Avarice Cruelty and Lust were grown to such a height that they could no longer be endured they could not free themselves without a War and whereas upon other occasions their Victories had brought them increase of Strength Territory and Glory the only reward of their Virtue in this was to be delivered from a Plague they had unadvisedly suffered to grow up among them I confess this was most of all to be esteemed for if they had bin overthrown their condition under Tarquin would have bin more intolerable than if they had fallen under the power of Pirrhus or Hannibal and all their following Prosperity was the fruit of their recover'd Liberty But it had bin much better to have reformed the State after the death of one of their good Kings than to be brought to fight for their Lives against that abominable Tyrant Our Author in pursuance of his aversion to all that is good disapproves this and wanting reasons to justify his dislike according to the custom of Impostors and Cheats hath recourse to the ugly terms of a back-door Sedition and Faction as if it were not as just for a People to lay aside their Kings when they receive nothing but evil and can rationally hope for no benefit by them as for others to set them up in expectation of good from them But if the truth be examin'd nothing will be found more orderly than the changes of Government or of the Persons and Races of those that governed which have bin made by many Nations When Pharamond's Grandson seemed not to deserve the Crown he had worn the French gave it to Meroveus who more resembled him in Virtue In process of time when this Race also degenerated they were rejected and Pepin advanced to the Throne and the most remote in blood of his Descendents having often bin preferred before the nearest and Bastards before the legitimate Issue they were at last all laid aside and the Crown remains to this day in the Family of Hugh Capet on whom it was bestow'd upon the rejection of Charles of Lorrain In like manner the Castilians took Don Sancho sirnamed the Brave second Son to Alphonso the Wise before Alphonso el Desheredado Son of the elder Brother Ferdinand The States of Arragon preferred Martin Brother to John the first before Mary his Daughter married to the Count de Foix tho Females were not excluded from the Succession and the House of Austria now enjoys that Crown from Joan Daughter to Ferdinand In that and many other Kingdoms Bastards have bin advanced before their legitimate Brothers Henry Count of Trastamara Bastard to Alphonso the II King of Castile received the Crown as a reward of the good Service he had done to his Country against his Brother Peter the Cruel without any regard had to the House of La Cerda descended from Alphonso el Desheredado which to this day never enjoy'd any greater honour than that of Duke de Medina Celi Not long after the Portuguese conceiving a dislike of their King Ferdinand and his Daughter married to John King of Castile rejected her and her Uncle by the Father's side and gave the Crown to John a Knight of Calatrava and Bastard to an Uncle of Ferdinand their King About the beginning of this age the Swedes deposed their King Sigismund for being a Papist and made Charles his Uncle King Divers Examples of the like nature in England have bin already mentioned All these transportations of Crowns were Acts performed by Assemblies of the three Estates in the several Kingdoms and these Crowns are to this day enjoy'd under Titles derived from such as were thus brought in by the deposition or rejection of those who according ing to descent of blood had better Titles than the present Possessors The Acts therefore were lawful and good or they can have no Title at all and they who made them had a just power so to do If our Author can draw any advantage from the resemblance of Regality that he finds in the Roman Consuls and Athenian Archons I shall without envy leave him the enjoyment of it but I am much mistaken if that do not prove my assertion that those Governments were composed of the three simple species for if the Monarchical part was in them it cannot be denied that the Aristocratical was in the Senate or Areopagi and the Democratical in the People But he ought to have remembred that if there was something of Monarchical in those Governments when they are said to have bin Popular there was something of Aristocratical and Democratical in those that were called Regal which justifies my proposition on both sides and shews that the denomination was taken from the part that prevail'd and if this were not so the Governments of France Spain and Germany might be called Democracies and those of Rome and Athens Monarchies because the People have a part in the one and an image of Monarchy was preserved in the other If our Author will not allow the cases to be altogether equal I think he will find no other difference than that the Consuls and Archons were regularly made by the Votes of the consenting People and orderly resign'd their Power when the time was expir'd for which it was given whereas Tarquin Dionysius Agathocles Nabis Phalaris Cesar and almost all his Successors whom he takes for compleat Monarchs came in by violence fraud and corruption by the help of the worst men by the slaughter of the best and most commonly when the method was once establish'd by that of his Predecessor who if our Author say true was the Father of his Country and his also This was the root and foundation of the only Government that deserves praise this is that which stampt the divine character upon Agathocles Dionysius and Cesar and that had bestow'd the same upon Manlius Marius or Catiline if they had gain'd the Monarchies they affected But I suppose that such as God has bless'd with better judgment and a due regard to Justice and Truth will say that all those who have attained to such greatness as destroys all manner of good in the places where they have set up themselves by the most detestable Villanies came in by a backdoor and that such Magistrates as were
was as soon composed as the rebellion of the County of Vaux against the Canton of Bern and those few of the like nature that have happened among them have had the like Success So that Thuanus in the History of his time comprehending about fifty years and relating the horrid domestick and foreign Wars that distracted Germany France Spain Italy Flanders England Scotland Poland Denmark Sweden Hungary Transilvania Muscovy Turky Africk and other places has no more to say of them than to shew what Arts had bin in vain used to disturb their so much envied quiet But if the modest temper of the People together with the Wisdom Justice and Strength of their Government could not be discomposed by the measures of Spain and France by the industry of their Ambassadors or the malicious craft of the Jesuits we may safely conclude that their State is as well setled as any thing among men can be and can hardly comprehend what is like to interrupt it As much might be said of the Cities of the Hanseatick Society if they had an entire Soveraignty in themselves But the Cities of the United Provinces in the Low Countries being every one of them Soveraign within themselves and many in number still continuing in their Union in spite of all the endeavours that have bin used to divide them give us an example of such steddiness in practice and principle as is hardly to be parallel'd in the world and that undeniably prove a temper in their Constitutions directly opposite to that which our Author imputes to all popular Governments and if the Death of Barnevelt and De Wit or the preserment of some most unlike to them be taken for a testimony that the best men thrive worst and the worst best I hope it may be consider'd that those Violences proceeded from that which is most contrary to Popularity tho I am not very willing to explain it If these matters are not clear in themselves I desire they may be compared with what has happen'd between any Princes that from the beginning of the world have bin joined in League to each other whether they were of the same or of different Nations Let an example be brought of six thirteen or more Princes or Kings who enter'd into a League and sor the space of one or more ages did neither break it nor quarrel upon the explication of it Let the States of the Switzers Grisons or Hollanders be compared with that of France when it was sometimes divided between two three or four Brothers of Meroveus or Pepin's Races with the Heptarchy of England the Kingdoms of Leon Arragon Navarr Castille and Portugal under which the Christians in Spain were divided or those of Cordoua Sevil Malaga Granada and others under the Power of the Moors and if it be not evident that the popular States have bin remarkable for Peace among themselves constancy to their Union and Fidelity to the Leagues made with their Associates whereas all the abovementioned Kingdoms and such others as are known among men to have bin joined in the like Leagues were ever infested with domestick Rebellions and Quarrels arising from the Ambition of Princes so as no Confederacy could be so cautiously made but they would find ways to elude it or so solemn and sacred but they would in far less time break through it I will confess that Kingdoms have sometimes bin as free from civil disturbances and that Leagues made between several Princes have bin as constantly and religiously observed as by Commonwealths But if no such thing do appear in the world and no man who is not impudent or ignorant dare pretend it I may justly conclude that tho every Commonwealth hath its Action sutable to its Constitution and that many associated together are not so free from disturbances as those that wholly depend upon the Authority of a Mother City yet we know of none that have not bin and are more regular and quiet than any Principalities and as to Foreign Wars they seek or avoid them according to their various Constitutions SECT XXIII That is the best Government which best provides for War OUR Author having huddled up all popular and mixed Governments into one has in some measure forced me to explain the various Constitutions and Principles upon which they are grounded but as the wisdom of a Father is seen not only in providing Bread for his Family or encreasing his Patrimonial Estate but in making all possible provision for the security of it so that Government is evidently the best which not relying upon what it dos at first enjoy seeks to increase the number strength and riches of the People and by the best Discipline to bring the Power so improved into such order as may be of most use to the Publick This comprehends all things conducing to the administration of Justice the preservation of domestick Peace and the increase of Commerce that the People being pleased with their present condition may be filled with love to their Country encouraged to fight boldly for the publick Cause which is their own and as men do willingly join with that which prospers that Strangers may be invited to fix their Habitations in such a City and to espouse the principles that reign in it This is necessary for several reasons but I shall principally insist upon one which is that all things in their beginning are weak The Whelp of a Lion newly born has neither strength nor fierceness He that builds a City and dos not intend it should increase commits as great an absurdity as if he should desire his Child might ever continue under the same weakness in which he is born If it do not grow it must pine and perish for in this world nothing is permanent that which dos not grow better will grow worse This increase also is useless or perhaps hurtful if it be not in Strength as well as in Riches or Number for every one is apt to seize upon ill guarded Treasures and the terror that the City of London was possessed with when a few Dutch Ships came to Chatham shews that no numbers of men tho naturally valiant are able to defend themselves unless they be well arm'd disciplin'd and conducted Their multitude brings consusion their Wealth when 't is like to be made a prey increases the fears of the owners and they who if they were brought into good order might conquer a great part of the World being destitute of it durst not think of defending themselves If it be said that the wise Father mention'd by me endeavours to secure his Patrimony by Law not by Force I answer that all defence terminates in force and if a private man dos not prepare to defend his Estate with his own Force 't is because he lives under the protection of the Law and expects the force of the Magistrate should be a security to him but Kingdoms and Commonwealths acknowledging no Superior except God alone can reasonably hope to be protected
had a power like to that of the Sanhedrin and by them Kings were condemned to fines imprisonment banishment and death as appears by the examples of Pausanias Clonymus Leonidas Agis and others The Hebrew Discipline was the same Reges Davidicae stirpis says Maimonides judicabant judicabantur They gave testimony in judgment when they were called and testimony was given against them Whereas the Kings of Israel as the same Author says were superbi corde elati spretores legis nec judicabant nec judicabantur proud insolent and contemners of the Law who would neither judg nor submit to judgment as the Law commanded The Fruits they gathered were sutable to the Seed they had sown their Crimes were not left unpunish'd they who despised the Law were destroy'd without Law and when no ordinary course could be taken against them for their excesses they were overthrown by force and the Crown within the space of sew years transported into nine several Families with the utter extirpation of those that had possess'd it On the other hand there never was any Sedition against the Spartan Kings and after the moderate Discipline according to which they liv'd was established none of them died by the hands of their Subjects except only two who were put to death in a way of Justice the Kingdom continued in the same races till Cleomenes was defeated by Antigonus and the Government overthrown by the insolence of the Macedonians This gave occasion to those bestial Tyrants Nabis and Machanidas to set up such a Government as our Author recommends to the World which immediately brought destruction upon themselves and the whole City The Germans who pretended to be descended from the Spartans had the like Government Their Princes according to their merit had the credit of perswading not the power of commanding and the question was not what part of the Government their Kings would allow to the Nobility and People but what they would give to their Kings and 't is not much material to our present dispute whether they learnt this from some obscure knowledg of the Law which God gave to his People or whether led by the light of reason which is also from God they discovered what was altogether conformable to that Law Whoever understands the affairs of Germany knows that the present Emperors notwithstanding their haughty Title have a power limited as in the days of Tacitus If they are good and wise they may perswade but they can command no farther than the Law allows They do not admit the Princes Noblemen and Cities to the power which they all exercise in their general Diets and each of them within their own Precincts but they exercise that which has bin by publick consent bestow'd upon them All the Kingdoms peopled from the North observed the same rules In all of them the powers were divided between the Kings the Nobility Clergy and Commons and by the Decrees of Councils Diets Parliaments Cortez and Assemblies of Estates Authority and Liberty were so balanced that such Princes as assumed to themselves more than the Law did permit were severely punished and those who did by force or fraud invade Thrones were by force thrown down from them This was equally beneficial to Kings and People The Powers as Theopompus King of Sparta said were most safe when they were least envied and hated Lewis the 11th of France was one of the first that broke this Golden Chain and by more subtil Arts than had bin formerly known subverted the Laws by which the fury of those Kings had bin restrain'd and taught others to do the like tho all of them have not so well saved themselves from punishment James the third of Scotland was one of his most apt Scholars and Buchanan in his life says That he was precipitated into all manner of Infamy by men of the most abject condition that the corruption of those times and the ill Example of neighbouring Princes were considerable motives to pervert him for Edward the fourth of England Charles of Burgundy Lewis the 11th of France and John the second of Portugal had already laid the Foundations of Tyranny in those Countries and Richard the third was then most cruelly exercising the same in the Kingdom of England This could not have bin if all the Power had always bin in Kings and neither the People nor the Nobility had ever had any For no man can be said to gain that which he and his Predecessors always possessed or to take from others that which they never had nor to set up any sort of Government if it had bin always the same But the foresaid Lewis the 11th did assume to himself a Power above that of his Predecessors and Philip de Commines shews the ways by which he acquir'd it with the miserable effects of his Acquisition both to himself and to his people Modern Authors observe that the change was made by him and for that reason he is said by Mezeray and others to have brought those Kings out of Guardianship they were not therefore so till he did emancipate them Nevertheless this Emancipation had no resemblance to the unlimited Power of which our Author dreams The General Assemblies of Estates were often held long after his death and continued in the exercise of the Sovereign Power of the Nation Davila speaking of the General Assembly held at Orleans in the time of Francis the second asserts the whole Power of the Nation to have bin in them Monsieur de Thou says the same thing and adds that the King dying suddenly the Assembly continued even at the desire of the Council in the exercise of that Power till they had setled the Regency and other Affairs of the highest importance according to their own judgment Hottoman a Lawyer of that Time and Nation famous for his Learning Judgment and Integrity having diligently examin'd the antient Laws and Histories of that Kingdom distinctly proves that the French Nation never had any Kings but of their own chusing that their Kings had no Power except what was conferr'd upon them and that they had bin removed when they excessively abused or readred themselves unworthy of that Trust. This is sufficiently clear by the forecited examples of Pharamond's Grandchildren and the degenerated Races of Meroveus and Pepin of which many were deposed some of the nearest in Blood excluded and when their Vices seemed to be incorrigible they were wholly rejected All this was done by virtue of that Rule which they call the Salique Law And tho some of our Princes pretending to the Inheritance of that Crown by marrying the Heirs General denied that there was any such thing no man can say that for the space of above twelve hundred years Females or their Descendents who are by that Law excluded have ever bin thought to have any right to the Crown And no Law unless it be explicitly given by God can be of greater Authority than one which
and will govern you as I please But I doubt whether he would have succeeded till that Kingdom was joined to others of far greater strength from whence a power might be drawn to force them out of their usual method That which has bin said of the Governments of England France and other Countries shows them to be of the same nature and if they do not deserve the name of Kingdoms and that their Princes will by our Author's Arguments be perswaded to leave them those Nations perhaps will be so humble to content themselves without that magnificent Title rather than resign their own Liberties to purchase it and if this will not please him he may seek his glorious soveraign Monarchy among the wild Arabs or in the Island of Ceylon for it will not be found among civiliz'd Nations However more ignorance cannot be express'd than by giving the name of Democracy to those Governments that are composed of the three simple species as we have proved that all the good ones have ever bin for in a strict sense it can only sute with those where the People retain to themselves the administration of the supreme Power and more largely when the popular part as in Athens greatly overbalances the other two and that the denomination is taken from the prevailing part But our Author if I mistake not is the first that ever took the antient Governments of Israel Sparta and Rome or those of England France Germany and Spain to be Democracies only because every one of them had Senats and Assemblies of the People who in their Persons or by their Deputies did join with their chief Magistrates in the exercise of the supreme Power That of Israel to the time of Saul is called by Josephus an Aristocracy The same name is given to that of Sparta by all the Greek Authors and the great contest in the Peloponnesian War was between the two kinds of Government the Cities that were governed Aristocratically or desired to be so following the Lacedemonians and such as delighted in Democracy taking part with the Athenians In like manner Rome England and France were said to be under Monarchies not that their Kings might do what they pleased but because one man had a preheminence above any other Yet if the Romans could take Romulus the Son of a man that was never known Numa a Sabin Hostilius and Aneus Martius private men and Tarquinius Priscus the Son of a banished Corinthian who had no Title to a preference before others till it was bestowed upon them 't is ridiculous to think that they who gave them what they had could not set what limits they pleased to their own gift But says our Author The Nobility will then have one Voice and the People another and they joining may overrule the third which was never seen in any Kingdom This may perhaps be a way of regulating the Monarchical Power but it is not necessary nor the only one There may be a Senate tho the People be excluded that Senate may be composed of men chosen for their Virtue as well as for the Nobility of their Birth The Government may consist of King and People without a Senate or the Senate may be composed only of the Peoples Delegates But if I should grant his assertion to be true the reasonableness of such a Constitution cannot be destroy'd by the consequences he endeavours to draw from it for he who would instruct the world in matters of State must show what is or ought to be not what he fancies may thereupon ensue Besides it dos not follow that where there are three equal Votes Laws should be always made by the plurality for the consent of all the three is in many places required and 't is certain that in England and other parts the King and one of the Estates cannot make a Law without the concurrence of the other But to please Filmer I will avow that where the Nobles and Commons have an equal Vote they may join and over-rule or limit the power of the King and I leave any reasonable man to judg whether it be more safe and fit that those two Estates comprehending the whole body of the Nation in their Persons or by Representation should have a right to over-rule or limit the power of that man woman or child who sits in the Throne or that he or she young or old wise or foolish good or bad should over-rule them and by their vices weakness folly impertinence incapacity or malice put a stop to their proceedings and whether the chief concernments of a Nation may more fasely and prudently be made to depend upon the votes of so many eminent Persons amongst whom many wise and good men will always be found if there be any in the Nation and who in all respects have the same interest with them or upon the will of one who may be and often is as vile ignorant and wretched as the meanest Slave and either has or is for the most part made to believe he has an interest so contrary to them that their suppression is his Advancement Common sense so naturally leads us to the decision of this Question that I should not think it possible for Mankind to have mistaken tho we had no examples of it in History and 't is in vain to say that all Princes are not such as I represent for if a right were annexed to the being of a Prince and that his single judgment should over-balance that of a whole Nation it must belong to him as a Prince and be enjoy'd by the worst and basest as well as by the wisest and best which would inevitably draw on the absurdities above-mention'd But that many are and have bin such no man can deny or reasonably hope that they will not often prove to be such as long as any preference is granted to those who have nothing to recommend them but the Families from whence they derive a continual succession of those who excel in virtue wisdom and experience being promised to none nor reasonably to be expected from any Such a Right therefore cannot be claimed by all and if not by all then not by any unless it proceed from a particular grant in consideration of personal Virtue Ability and Integrity which must be proved and when any one goes about to do it I will either acknowledg him to be in the right or give the reasons of my denial However this is nothing to the general Proposition nay if a man were to be found who had more of the qualities requir'd for making a right judgment in matters of the greatest importance than a whole Nation or an Assembly of the best men chosen out of it which I have never heard to have bin unless in the Persons of Moses Joshua or Samuel who had the Spirit of God for their guide it would be nothing to our purpose for even he might be biassed by his personal Interests which Governments are not established principally to
from a foreign Country was immediately made King of a fierce People that had already conquer'd many of their Neighbours and was grown too boisterous even for Romulus himself The like may be said of the first Tarquin and of Servius they were Strangers and tho Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Martius were Romans they had as little title to a Dominion over their Fellow-Citizens or means of attaining to it as if they had come from the farthest parts of the Earth This must be in all places unless one man could prove by a perfect and uninterrupted Genealogy that he is the eldest Son of the eldest Line of Noah and that Line to have continued perpetually in the Government of the World for if the Power has bin divided it may be subdivided into infinity if interrupted the chain is broken and can never be made whole But if our Author can perform this for the service of any man I willingly surrender my Arms and yield up the Cause I defend If he fail 't is ridiculous to pretend a Right that belongs to no man or to go about to retrieve a Right which for the space of four thousand years has lain dorment and much more to create that which never had a subsistence This leads us necessarily to a conclusion That all Kingdoms are at the first erected by the consent of Nations and given to whom they please or else all are set up by force or some by force and some by consent If any are set up by the consent of Nations those Kings do not confer Liberties upon those Nations but receive all from them and the general Proposition is false If our Author therefore or his Followers would confute me they must prove that all the Kingdoms of the World have their beginning from force and that Force doth always create a Right or if they recede from the general Proposition and attribute a peculiar right to one or more Princes vvho are so absolute Lords of their People that those under them have neither Liberty Privilege Property or Part in the Government but by their Concessions they must prove that those Princes did by force gain the Power they have and that their Right is derived from it This force also must have bin perpetually continued for if that force be the root of the Right that is pretended another force by the same rule may overturn extinguish or transfer it to another hand If Contracts have interven'd the force ceases and the Right that afterwards doth accrue to the persons must proceed from and be regulated according to those Contracts This may be sufficient to my purpose For as it has bin already proved that the Kingdoms of Israel Judah Rome Sparta France Spain England and all that we are concerned in or that deserve to be examples to us did arise from the Consent of the respective Nations and were frequently reduced to their first Principles when the Princes have endeavour'd to transgress the Laws of their Institution it could be nothing to us tho Attila or Tamerlan had by force gained the Dominions they possess'd But I dare go a step further and boldly assert that there never was or can be a man in the world that did or can subdue a Nation and that the right of one grounded upon force is a meer whimsey It was not Agathocles Dionysius Nabis Marius Sylla or Cesar but the mercenary Soldiers and other Villains that joined with them who subdued the Syracusans Spartans or Romans And as the work was not performed by those Tyrants alone if a right had bin gained by the violence they used it must have bin common to all those that gained it and he that commanded them could have had no more than they thought fit to confer upon him When Miltiades desired leave to wear an Olive Garland in commemoration of the Victory obtained at Marathon and Athenian did in my opinion rightly say If you alone did fight against the Persians it is just that you only should be crowned but if others did participate in the Victory they ought also to have a part in the Honour And the principal difference that I have observ'd between the most regular proceedings of the wisest Senats or Assemblies of the people in their Persons or Delegates and the fury of the most dissolute Villains has bin that the first seeking the publick good do usually set up such a Man and invest him with such Powers as seem most conducing to that Good whereas the others following the impulse of a bestial rage and aiming at nothing but the satisfaction of their own lusts always advance one from whom they expect the greatest advantages to themselves and give him such Powers as most conduce to the accomplishment of their own ends but as to the Person 't is the same thing Cesar and Nero did no more make themselves what they were than Numa and could no more confer any Right Liberty or Privilege upon the Army that gave them all they had than the most regular Magistrate can upon the Senat or People that chose them This also is common to the worst as well as the best that they who set up either do as into a publick Treasury confer upon the Person they chuse a Power of distributing to particular men or numbers of men such Honors Privileges and Advantages as they may seem according to the Principles of the Government to deserve But there is this difference that the ends of the one being good and those of the other evil the first do for the most part limit the Powers that something may remain to reward Services done to the Publick in a manner proportion'd to the merit of every one placing other Magistrates to see it really performed so as they may not by the weakness or vices of the Governor be turned to the publick detriment the others think they never give enough that the Prince having all in his power may be able to gratify their most exorbitant desires if by any ways they can get his favour and his infirmities and vices being most beneficial to them they seldom allow to any other Magistrate a power of opposing his Will or suffer those who for the publick good would assume it The World affords many examples of both sorts and every one of them have had their progress sutable to their Constitution The regular Kingdoms of England France Spain Poland Bohemia Denmark Sweden and others whether elective or hereditary have had High Stewards Constables Mayors of the Palace Rixhofmeisters Parliaments Diets Assemblies of Estates Cortez and the like by which those have bin admitted to succeed who seemed most fit for the publick Service the unworthy have bin rejected the infirmities of the weak supplied the malice of the unjust restrained and when necessity required the Crown transferr'd from one Line or Family to another But in the furious Tyrannies that have bin set up by the violence of a corrupted Soldiery as in the antient Roman Empire the
doing the like unless they have made municipal Laws of their own to the contrary which our Author and his Followers may produce when they can find them His next work is to go back again to the Tribute paid by Christ to Cesar and judiciously to infer that all Nations must pay the same Duty to their Magistrates as the Jews did to the Romans who had subdued them Christ did not says he ask what the Law of the Land was nor inquire whether there was a Statute against it nor whether the Tribute were given by the consent of the People but upon sight of the superscription concluded c. It had bin strange if Christ had inquired after their Laws Statutes or Consent when he knew that their Commonwealth with all the Laws by which it had subsisted was abolished and that Israel was become a Servant to those who exercised a most violent domination over them which being a peculiar punishment for their peculiar sins can have no influence upon Nations that are not under the same circumstances But of all that he says nothing is more incomprehensible than what he can mean by lawful Kings to whom all is due that was due to the Roman Usurpers For lawful Kings are Kings by the Law In being Kings by the Law they are such Kings as the Law makes them and that Law only must tell us what is due to them or by a universal Patriarchical Right to which no man can have a title as is said before till he prove himself to be the right Heir of Noah If neither of these are to be regarded but that Right follows Possession there is no such thing as a Usurper he who has the Power has the Right as indeed Filmer says and his Wisdom as well as his Integrity is sufficiently declared by the Assertion This wicked extravagancy is followed by an attempt of as singular ignorance and stupidity to shuffle together Usurpers and Conquerors as if they were the same whereas there have bin many Usurpers who were not Conquerors and Conquerors that deserved not the name of Usurpers No wife man ever said that Agathocles or Dionysius conquer'd Syracuse Tarquin Galba or Otho Rome Cromwel England or that the Magi who seiz'd the Government of Persia after the death of Cambyses conquer'd that Country When Moses and Joshua had overthrown the Kingdoms of the Amorites Moabites and Cananites or when David subdued the Ammonites Edomites and others none as I suppose but such Divines as Filmer will say they usurped a Dominion over them There is such a thing amongst men as just War or else true Valour would not be a Virtue but a Crime and instead of glory the utmost infamy would always be the companion of Victory There are says Grotius Laws of War as well as of Peace He who for a just Cause and by just Means carries on a just War has as clear a right to what is acquired as can be enjoy'd by Man but all usurpation is detestable and abominable SECT X. The words of St. Paul enjoying obedience to higher Powers favour all sorts of Governments no less than Monarchy OUR Author's next quarrel is with St. Paul who did not as he says in enjoyning subjection to the higher Powers signify the Laws of the Land or mean the highest Powers as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal but a Monarch that carries the Sword c. But what if there be no Monarch in the place or what if he do not carry the Sword Had the Apostle spoken in vain if the liberty of the Romans had not bin overthrown by the fraud and violence of Cesar Was no obedience to be exacted whilst that people enjoy'd the benefit of their own Laws and Virtue flourished under the moderate Government of a legal and just Magistracy established for the common good by the common consent of all Had God no Minister amongst them till Law and Justice was overthrown the best part of the people destroy'd by the fury of a corrupt mercenary Souldiery and the world subdued under the Tyranny of the worst Monsters that it had ever produced Are these the ways of establishing God's Vicegerents and will he patronize no Governors or Governments but such as these Do's God uphold evil and that only If the world has bin hitherto mistaken in giving the name of evil to that which is good and calling that good which is evil I desire to know what can be call'd good amongst men if the Government of the Romans till they entred Greece and Asia and were corrupted by the Luxury of both do not deserve that name or what is to be esteemed evil if the establishment and exercise of the Cesars Power were not so But says he Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power And was there no Power in the Governments that had no Monarchs Were the Carthaginians Romans Grecians Gauls Germans and Spaniards without Power Was there no Sword in that Nation and their Magistrates who overthrew the Kingdoms of Armenia Egypt Numidia Macedon and many others whom none of the Monarchs were able to resist Are the Venetians Switzers Grisons and Hollanders now lest in the same weakness and no obedience at all due to their Magistrates If this be so how comes it to pass that justice is so well administred amongst them Who is it that defends the Hollanders in such a manner that the greatest Monarchs with all their Swords have had no great reason to boast of any advantages gained against them at least till we whom they could not resist when we had no Monarch tho we have bin disgracefully beaten by them since we had one by making Leagues against them and sowing divisions amongst them instigated and assisted the greatest Power now in the world to their destruction and our own But our Author is so accustom'd to fraud that he never cites a passage of Scripture which he does not abuse or vitiate and that he may do the same in this place he leaves out the following words For there is no power but of God that he might intitle one sort only to his protection If therefore the People and popular Magistrates of Athens the two Kings Ephori and Senate of Sparta the Sanhedrims amongst the Hebrews the Consuls Tribuns Pretors and Senate of Rome the Magistrates of Holland Switzerland and Venice have or had power we may conclude that they also were ordained by God and that according to the precept of the Apostle the same obedience sor the same reason is due to them as to any Monarch The Apostle farther explaining himself and shewing who may be accounted a Magistrate and what the duty of such a one is informs us when we should fear and on what account Rulers says he are not a terror to good works but to the evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath
his hands it would neither bring inconvenience or danger on the present King He can with patience expect that nature should take her course and would neither anticipate nor secure his entrance into the possession of the power by taking one day from the life of his Brother Tho the Papists know that like a true Son of their Church he would prefer the advancement of their Religion before all other considerations and that one stab with a Dagger or a dose of Poison would put all under his feet not one man would be found among them to give it The Assassins were Mahometans not pupils of the honest Jesuits nor ever employ'd by them These things being certain all our concernments would be secure if instead of the foolish Statutes and antiquated Customs on which our Ancestors and we have hitherto doted we may be troubled with no Law but the King's will and a Proclamation may be taken for a sufficient declaration of it We shall by this means be delivered from that Liberty with a mischief in which our mistaken Nation seems so much to delight This phrase is so new and so peculiar to our Author that it deserves to be written upon his Tomb. We have heard of Tyranny with a mischief Slavery and Bondage with a mischief and they have bin denounced by God against wicked and perverse Nations as mischiefs comprehending all that is most to be abhorr'd and dreaded in the world But Filmer informs us that Liberty which all wise and good men have in all ages esteemed to be the most valuable and glorious privilege of mankind is a mischief If he deserve credit Moses Joshua Gideon Sampson and Samuel with others like them were enemies to their Country in depriving the people of the advantages they enjoy'd under the paternal care of Pharaoh Adonibezek Eglon Jabin and other Kings of the neighbouring Nations and restoring them to that Liberty with a mischief which he had promised to them The Israelites were happy under the power of Tyrants whose Proclamations were Laws and they ought to have bin thankful to God for that condition and not for the deliverances he wrought by the hands of his Servants Subjection to the will of a man is happiness Liberty is a mischief But this is so abominably wicked and detestable that it can deserve no answer SECT XLIV No People that is not free can substitute Delegates HOW full soever the Power of any person or people may be he or they are obliged to give only so much to their Delegates as seems convenient to themselves or conducing to the ends they desire to attain but the Delegate can have none except what is conferred upon him by his Principal If theresore the Knights Citizens and Burgesses sent by the People of England to serve in Parliament have a Power it must be more perfectly and fully in those that send them But as was proved in the last Section Proclamations and other significations of the King's pleasure are not Laws to us They are to be regulated by the Law not the Law by them They are to be considered only so far as they are conformable to the Law srom which they receive all the strength that is in them and can confer none upon it We know no Laws but our own Statutes and those immemorial Customs established by the consent of the Nation which may be and often are changed by us The Legislative Power therefore that is exercised by the Parliament cannot be conferred by the Writ of Summons but must be essentially and radically in the People from whom their Delegates and Representatives have all that they have But says our Author 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 This is ingeniously concluded I take what Servant I please and when I have taken him I must suffer him to do what he pleases But from whence should this necessity arise Why may not I take one to be my Groom another to be my Cook and keep them both to the Offices for which I took them What Law dos herein restrain my Right And if I am free in my private capacity to regulate my particular affairs according to my own discretion and to allot to each Servant his proper work why have not I with my Associates the Freemen of England the like liberty of directing and limiting the Powers of the Servants we employ in our publick Affairs Our Author gives us reasons proportionable to his judgment This were liberty with a mischief and that of chusing only is as much as many of us deserve I have already proved that as far as our Histories reach we have had no Princes or Magistrates but such as we have made and they have had no other power than what we have conferred upon them They cannot be the judges of our merit who have no power but what we gave them thrô an opinion they did or might deserve it They may distribute in parcels to particulars that with which they are entrusted in the gross But 't is impossible that the Publick should depend absolutely upon those who are nothing above other men except what they are made to be for and by the Publick The restrictions therefore of the peoples Liberty must be from themselves or there can be none Nevertheless I believe that the Powers of every County City and Borough of England are regulated by the general Law to which they have all consented and by which they are all made Members of one political Body This obliges them to proceed with their Delegates in a manner different from that which is used in the United Netherlands or in Switserland Amongst these every Province City or Canton making a distinct body independent from any other and exercising the sovereign Power within it self looks upon the rest as Allies to whom they are bound only by such Acts as they themselves have made and when any new thing not comprehended in them happens to arise they oblige their Delegates to give them an account of it and retain the power of determining those matters in themselves 'T is not so amongst us Every County dos not make a distinct Body having in it self a sovereign Power but is a Member of that great Body which comprehends the whole Nation 'T is not therefore for Kent or Sussex Lewis or Maidstone but for the whole Nation that the Members chosen in those places are sent to serve in Parliament and tho it be fit for them as Friends and Neighbours so far as may be to hearken to the opinions of the Electors for the information of their Judgments and to the end that what they shall say may be of more weight when every one is known not to speak his own thoughts only but those of a great number of men yet they are not strictly and properly obliged to give account of their actions to any