contulit ac regnum quod liberum à majoribus populo traditum accepit alienae ditioni mancipavit Nam tunc quamvis forte non eâ mente id agit populo plane ut incommodet tamen quia quod praecipuum est regiae dignitatis amisit ut summus scilicet in regno secundum Deum sit solo Deo inferior atque populum etiam totum ignorantem vel invitum cujus libertatem sartam tectam conservare debuit in alterius gentis ditionem potestatem dedidit hác velut quadam regni abalienatione effecit ut nec quod ipse in regno imperium habuit râ—tineat nec in eum cui collatum voluit juris quicquam transeraâ— atque ita eo facto liberum jam suae potestatis populum relinquit cujus rei exemplum unum annales Scotici suppeditant Barclay contra Monarchom l. 3. c. 16. which may be thus Englished 237. What then Can there no Case happen wherein the people may of right and by their own Authority help themselves take Arms and set upon their King imperiously domineering over them None at all whilst he remains a King Honour the King and he that resists the Power resists the Ordinance of God are divine Oracles that will never permit it The People therefore can never come by a Power over him unless he does something that makes him cease to be a King For then he divests himself of his Crown and Dignity and returns to the state of a private Man and the People become free and superiour the Power which they had in the Interregnum before they Crown'd him King devolving to them again But there are but few miscarriages which bring the matter to this state After considering it well on all sides I can find but two Two Cases there are I say whereby a King ipso facto becomes no King and loses all Power and Regal Authority over his People which are also taken notice of by Winzerus The first is if he indeavour to overturn the Government that is if he have a purpose and design to ruin the Kingdom and Commonwealth as it is recorded of Nero that he resolved to cut off the Senate and People of Rome lay the City wast with Fire and Sword and then remove to some other place And of Caligula that he openly declar'd that he would be no longer a head to the People or Senate and that he had it in his thoughts to cut off the worthiest Men of both Ranks and then retire to Alexandria and he wisht that the People had but one Neck that he might dispatch them all at a blow Such designs as these when any King harbours in his thoughts and seriously promotes he immediately gives up all care and thought of the Commonwealth and consequently forfeits the Power of Governing his Subjects as a Master does the dominion over his Slaves whom he hath abandon'd 238. The other Case is When a King makes himself the dependent of another and subjects his Kingdom which his Ancestors left him and the People put free into his hands to the Dominion of another For however perhaps it may not be his intention to prejudice the People yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of Regal Dignity viz. to be next and immediately under God Supream in his Kingdom and also because he betray'd or forced his People whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved into the Power and Dominion of a Foreign Nation By this as it were alienation of his Kingdom he himself loses the Power he had in it before without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it and so by this act sets the People free and leaves them at their own disposal One Example of this is to be found in the Scotch Annals 239. In these Cases Barclay the great Champion of Absolute Monarchy is forced to allow That a King may be resisted and ceases to be a King That is in short not to multiply Cases In whatsoever he has no Authority there he is no King and may be resisted For wheresoever the Authority ceases the King ceases too and becomes like other Men who have no Authority And these two Cases he instances in differ little from those above mention'd to be destructive to Governments only that he has omitted the Principle from which his Doctrine flows and that is The breach of trust in not preserving the Form of Government agreed on and in not intending the end of Government it self which is the publick good and preservation of Property When a King has Dethron'd himself and put himself in a state of War with his People what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no King as they would any other Man who has put himself into a state of War with them Barclay and those of his Opinion would do well to tell us Bilson a Bishop of our Church and a great Stickler for the Power and Prerogative of Princes does if I mistake not in his Treatise of Christian Subjection acknowledge That Princes may forfeit their Power and their title to the Obedience of their Subjects and if there needed authority in a Case where reason is so plain I could send my Reader to Bracton Fortescue and the Author of the Mirror and others Writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our Government or Enemies to it But I thought Hooker alone might be enough to satisfie those Men who relying on him for their Ecclesiastical Polity are by a strange fate carried to deny those Principles upon which he builds it Whether they are herein made the Tools of Cunninger Workmen to pull down their own Fabrick they were best look This I am sure their civil Policy is so new so dangerous and so destructive to both Rulers and People that as former Ages never could bear the broaching of it so it may be hoped those to come redeem'd from the Impositions of these Egyptian Under-Taskmasters will abhor the Memory of such servile Platterers who whilst it seem'd to serve their turn resolv'd all Government into absolute Tyranny and would have all Men born to what their mean Souls fitted them Slavery 240. Here 't is like the common Question will be made who shall be Judge whether the Prince or Legislative act contrary to their Trust This perhaps ill-affected and factious Men may spread amongst the People when the Prince only makes use of his due Prerogative To this I reply The People shall be Judge for who shall be Judge whether his Trustee or Deputy acts well and according to the Trust reposed in him but he who deputes him and must by having deputed him have still a Power to discard him when he fails in his Trust If this be reasonable in particular Cases of private Men why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment where the Welfare of Millions is concerned and also where the evil if not prevented is greater and the Redress
then ask the World being divided amongst them which of the three was Adams Heir If Adams Lordship Adams Monarchy by Right descended only to the Eldest then the other two could be but his Subjects his Slaves If by Riâ—ht it descended to all three Brothers by the same Right it will descend to all Mankind and then it will be impossible what he says p. 19. that Heirs are Lords of their Brethren should be true but all Brothers and consequently all Men will be equal and independent all Heirs to Adams Monarchy and consequently all Monarchs too one as much as another But 't will be said Noah their Father divided the World amongst them so that our A will allow more to Noah then he will to God Almighty for O. 211. he thought it hard that God himself should give the World to Noah and his Sons to the prejudice of Noah's Birth-right his words are Noah was left Sole Heir to the World why should it be thought that God would disinherit him of his Birth-right and make him of all Men in the World the only Tenant in Common with his Children and yet here he thinks it fit that Noah should disinherit Shem of his Birth-right and divide the World betwixt him and his Brethren so that this Birth-right when our A pleases must and when he pleases must not be sacred and inviolable 140. If Noah did divide the World between his Sons and his Assignment of Dominions to them were good there is an end of Divine Institution and all our A s discourse of Adams Heir with whatsoever he builds on it is quite out of doors The natural Power of Kings falls to the ground and then the form of the Power governing and the Person having that Power will be all Ordinances of Man and not of God as our A says O. 254 For if the Right of the Heir be the Ordinance of God a Divine Right no Man Father or not Father can alter it If it be not a Divine Right it is only Humane depending on the Will of Man and so where Humane Institution gives it not the first Born has no Right at all above his Brethren and Men may put Government into what hands and under what form they please 141. He goes on most of the civillest Nations of the Earth labour to fetch their Original from some of the Sons or Nephews of Noah p. 14. How many do most of the civillest Nations amount to and who are they I fear the Chineses a very great and civil People as well as several other People of the East West North and South trouble not themselves much about this matter All that believe the Bible which I believe are our A s most of the civillest Nation must necessarily derive themselves from Noah but for the rest of the World they think little of his Sons or Nephews But if the Heralds and Antiquaries of all Nations for 't is these Men generally that Labour to find out the Originals of Nations or all the Nations themselves should Labour to fetch their Original from some of the Sons or Nephews of Noah what would this be to prove that the Lordship which Adam had over the whole World by right descended to the Patriarchs who ever Nations or Races of Men labour to fetch their Original from may be concluded to be thought by them Men of renown famous to Posterity for the greatness of their Vertues and Actions but beyond these they look not nor consider who they were Heirs to but look on them as such as raised themselves by their own Vertue to a Degree that would give a Lustre to those who in future Ages could pretend to derive themselves from them But if it were Ogygis Hercules Brama Tamberlain Pharamond nay Iupiter and Saturn be Names from whence divers Races of Men both ancient and modern have labour'd to derive their Original will that prove that those Men enjoyed the Lordship of Adam by right descending to them If not this is but a Flourish of our A s to mislead his Reader that in it self signifies nothing 142. And therefore to as much purpose is what he tells us p. 15. concerning this Division of the World that some say it was by Lot and others that Noah sail'd round the Mediterranean in ten years and divided the World into Asia Africk and Europe Portions for his three Sons America then it seems was left to be his that could catch it why our A takes such pains to prove the Division of the World by Noah to his Sons and will not leave out an imagination though no better then a Dream that he can find any where to favour it is hard to guess since such a Division if it prove any thing must necessarily take away the Title of Adams Heir unless three Brothers can altogether be Heirs of Adam And therefore the following words Howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes p. 15. If allow'd him to be true and of any force to prove that all the Power in the World is nothing but the Lordship of Adams descending by Right they will only prove that the Fathers of the Children are all Heirs to this Lordship of Adam for if in those days Cham and Iaphet and other Parents besides the Eldest Son were Heads and Princes over their Families and had a right to divide the Earth by Families what hinders Younger Brothers being Fathâ—rs of Families from having the same Right how Cham or Iaphet were Princes by Right descending to him notwithstanding any Title of Heir in his Eldest Brother Younger Brothers by the same Right descending to them are Princes now and so all our A s natural Power of Kings will reach no farther then their own Children and no Kingdom by this natural right can be bigger then a Family For either this Lordship of Adam over the whole World by right descends only to the Eldest Son and then there can be but one Heir as our A says p. 19. or else it by right descends to all the Sons equally and then every Father of a Family will have it as well as the three Sons of Noah take which you will it destroys the present Governments and Kingdoms that are now in the World since whoever haâ— this natural Power of a King by right descending to him must have it either as our A tells us Cain had it and be Lord over his Brethren and so be alone King of the whole World or else as he tells us here Shem Cham and Iaphet had it three Brothers and so be only Prince of his own Family and all Families independent one of another All the World must be only one Empire by the Right of the next Heir or else every Family be a distinct Government of it self by the Lordship of Adams descending to Parents of Families And to this only tends all
the Proofs he here gives us of the descent of Adams Lordship For continuing his Story of this descent he says 143. In the dispersion of Babel we must certainly find the Establishment of Royal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World p. 14. If you must find it pray do and you will help us to a new piece of History But you must shew it us before we shall be bound to believe that Regal Power was Established in the World upon your Principles for that Regal Power was Established in the Kingdoms of the World I think no body will dispute but that there should be Kingdoms in the World whose several Kings enjoy'd their Crowns by right descending to them from Adam that we think not only Apocrypha but also utterly impossible and if our A has no better Foundation for his Monarchy then a supposition of what was done at the dispersion of Babel The Monarchy he erects thereon whose top is to reach to Heaven to unite Mankind will serve only to divide and scatter them as that Tower did will produce nothing but confusion 144. For he tells us the Nations they were divided into were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even in the confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the Diversity of Languages according to the Diversity of Families p. 14. it would have been a hard matter for any one but our A to have found out so plainly in the Text he here brings that all the Nations in that dispersion were governed by Fathers and that God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority The words of the Text are These are the Sons of Shem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations and the same thing is said of Cham and Iaphet after an Enumeration of their Posterities in all which there is not one word said of their Governors or Forms of Governmentâ— of Fathers or Fatherly Authority But our A â— who is very quick sighted to spye out Fatherhood where no body else could see any the least glimpses of it tells us positivâ—ly their Ruler were Fathers and God was carâ—fâ—l to preserve the Fatherly Authority and why because those of the same Family spoke the same Language and so of necessity in the division kept together just as if one should argue thus Hanibal in his Army consisting of divers Nations kept those of the same Language togegether therefore Fathers were Captains of each Band and Hanibal was careful of the Fatherly Authority or in Peopling of Carolina the English French Scotch and Welâ—h that are there Plant themselves together and by them the Country is divided in their Lands after their Tongues after their Families after their Nations that therefore care was taken of the Fatherly Authority or because in many parts of America every little Tribe was a distinct People with a different Language one should infer that therefore God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority or that therefore their Rulers enjoy'd Adams Lordship by right descending to them though we know not who were their Governors nor what their Form of Government but only that they were divided into little Independent Societies speaking different Languages 145. The Scripture says not a word of their Rulers or Forms of Government but only gives an account how Mankind came to be divided into distinct Languages and Nations and therefore 't is not to argue from the Authority of Scripture to tell us positively Fathers were their Rulers when the Scripture says no such thing but to set up Phansies of ones own Brain when we confidently aver Matter of Fact where records are utterly silent and therefore the same ground has the rest that he says that they were not confused Multitudes without Heads and Governors and at liberty to choose what Governors or Governments they pleased 146. For I demand when Mankind were all yet of one Language all congregated in the plain of Shinar were they then all under one Monarch who enjoyed the Lordship of Adam by right descending to him If they were not there was then no thoughts 't is plain of Adams Heir no right to Government known then upon that Title no care taken by God or Man of Adams Fatherly Authority If when Mankind were but one People dwelt altogether and were of one Language and were upon Building a City together and when 't was plain they could not but know the Right Heir for Shem lived till Isaacs time a long while after the Division at Babel If then I say they were not under the Monarchical Government of Adams Fatherhood by right descending to the Heir 't is plain there was no regard had to the Fatherhood no Monarchy acknowledg'd due to Adams Heir no Empire of Shems in Asia and consequently no such Division of the World by Noah as our A has talked of And as far as we can conclude any thing from Scripture in this matter it seems from this place that if they had any Government it was rather a Common wealth then an Absolute Monarchy For the Scripture tells us Gen. 11. they said 't was not a Prince commanded the Building of this City and Tower 't was not by the command of one Monarch but by the consultation of many a Free People let us build us a City They built it for themselves as Free-men not as Slaves for their Lord and Master that we be not scattered abroad and for having a City once built fixed Habitations to settle their Bodies and Families This was the consultation and design of a People that were at liberty to part asunder but desired to keep in one Body and could not have been either necessary or likely in Men tyed together under the Government of one Monarch who if they had been as our A tells us all Slaves under the Absolute Dominion of a Monarch needed not have taken such care to hinder themselves from wandering out of the reach of his Dominion I demand whether this be not plainer in Scripture then any thing of Adams Heir or Fatherly Authority 147. But if being as God says Gen. 11. 6. one People they had one Ruler one King by natural Right Absolute and Supream over them what care had God to preserve the Paternal Authority of the Supream Fatherhood if on a suddain he suffers 72 for so many our A talks of distinct Nations to be erected out of it under distinct Governors and at once to withdraw themselves from the Obedidience of their Soveriegn This is to entitle Gods care how and to what we please can it be Sense to say that God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority in those who had it not For if these were Subjects under a Supream Prince what Authority had they when at the same time he takes away the true Supream Fatherhood of the natural Monarch can it be reason to say that God for the Preservation of Fatherly Authority lets several new
that he states the Question or rallies up any Arguments to make good his Opinion but rather tells us the Story as he thinks fit of this strange kind of domineering Phantom called the Fatherhood which whoever could catch presently got Empire and unlimited absolute Power He assures us how this Fatherhood began in Adam continued it's course and kept the World in order all the time of the Patriarchs till the Flood got out of the Arch with Noah and his Sons made and supported all the Kings of the Earth till the Captivity of the Israelites in Egypt and then the poor Fatherhood was under hatches till God by giving the Israelites Kings Re-established the Ancient and prime Right of the lineal Succession in paternal Government This is his business from p. 12 to 19. And then obviating an Objection and clearing a Difficulty or two with one half reason p. 23. to confirm the Natural Right of Regal Power he ends the first Chapter I hope 't is no Injury to call an half Quotation an half Reason for God says Honour thy Father and Mother but our Author contents himself with half leaves out thy Mother quite as little serviceable to his purpose but of that more in an other place 7 I do not think our Author so little skill'd in the way of Writing Discourses of this Nature nor so careless of the Point in hand that he by oversight commits the fault that he himself in his Anarchy of a mix'd Monarchy p. 239. Objects to Mr. Hunton in these words Where first I charge the A that he hath not given us any Definitionâ— or Discription of Monarchy in general for by the Rules of Method he should have first defin'd And by the like Rule of Method Sr. Rob. should have told us what his Fatherhood or Fatherly Authority is before he had told us in whom it was to be found and talked so much of it But perhaps Sr. Rob. found that this Fatherly Authority this Power of Fathers and of Kings for he makes them both the same p. 24. would make a very odd and frightful Figure and very disagreeing with what either Children imagin of their Parents or Subjects of their Kings if he should have given us the whole dâ—aught together in that Gigantic Form he had Painted it in his own Phancy and therefore like a wary Physician when he would have his Patient swallow some harsh or Corrosive Liquor he mingles it with a large quantity of that which may delute it that the scatter'd Parts may go down with less feeling and cause less Aversion 8. Let us then endeavour to find what account he gives us of this Fatherly Authority as it lies scatter'd in the several Parts of his Writings And first as it was vested in Adam he says not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Fatherhood Royal Authority over their Children p. 12. This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by right descending from him the Patriarchs did injoy was as large and ample as the Absolute Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation p. 13. Dominion of Life and Death making War and concluding Peace p. 13. Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute Power of Life and Death p. 35. Kings in the right of Parents succeed to the Exercise of supream jurisdiction p. 19. As Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferior Law to Limit it Adam was Lord of all p. 40. The Father of a Family governs by no other Law then by his own will p. 78. The Superiority of Princes is above Laws p. 79. The unlimited jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel p. 80. Kings are above the Laws p. 93. And to this purpose see a great deal more which our A delivers in Bodins's words It is certain that all Laws Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no Force but during their Life if they be not ratified by the express Consent or by sufferance of the Prince following especially Priviledges O. p. 279. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busied with Wars or distracted with Public Cares so that every private Man could not have Accâ—ss to their Persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then were Laws of necessity invented that so every particular Subject might find his Princes Pleasure Decypher'd unto him in the Tables of his Laws p. 92. In a Monarchy the King must by necessity be above the Laws p. 100. A perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King Rules all things according to his own Will p. 100. Neither Common nor Statute Laws are or can be any Diminution of that General Power which Kings have over their People by right of Fatherhood p. 115. Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or Slave were one and the same thing at first The Father had Power to dispose or sell his Children or Servants whence we find that at the first reckoning up of Goods in Scripture the Man-servant and the Maid-servant are numbred among the Possessions and substance of the Owner as other Goods were O pref God also hath given to the Father a Right or Liberty to alien his Power over his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in use in in the Beginning of the World when Men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other Goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating and making Eunâ—chsâ— much in use in Old times O. p. 155. Law is nothing else but the will of him that hath the Power of the Supream Father O. p. 223. It was Gods Ordinance that Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as all the Acts of his Will and as in him so in all others that have Supream Power O. p. 245. 9. I have been fain to trouble by Reader with these several Quotations in our A s own words that in them might be seen his own Discription of his Fatherly Authority as it lies scatter'd up and down in his Writings which he supposes was first vested in Adam and by Right belongs to all Princes ever since This Fatherly Authority then or Right of Fatherhood in our A s sence is a Divine unalterable Right of Sovereignty whereby a Father or a Prince hath an Absolute Arbitrary unlimited and unlimitable Power over the Lives Libertys and Estates of his Children or Subjects so that he may take or alienate their Estates sell castrate or use their Persons as he pleases they being all his slaves and he Lord and Proprietor of every thing and his unbounded Will their Law 10. Our A having placed such a mighty Power in Adam and upon that supposition founded all Government and all Power of Princes it is reasonable to expect that he should have proved this with Arguments clear and evident suitable to the weightiness of
gave not only to David but his Seed also And however our A assures us that God intends that the Issue should have the benefit of it when he chooses any Person to be King yet we see that the Kingdom he gave to Saul without mentioning his Seed after him never came to any of his Issue and why when God chose a Person to be King he should intend that his Issue should have the benefit of it more then when he chose one to be Judg in Israel I would fain know a reason or why does a Grant of Fatherly Authority to a King more comprehend the Issue then when a like Grant is made to a Judge Is Paternal Authority by Right to descend to the Issue of one and not of the other there will need some Reason to be shewn of this difference more then the name when the thing given is the same Fatherly Authority and the manner of giving it Gods choice of the Person for I suppose our A when he says God raised up Iudges will by no means allow they were chosen by the People 168. But since our A has so confidently assured us of the care of God to preserve the Fatherhood and pretends to build all he says upon the Authority of the Scripture we may well expect that that People whose Law Constitution and History is chiefly contain'd in the Scripture should furnish him with the clearest Instances of Gods care of preserving of the Fatherly Authority in that People who 't is agreed he had a most peculiar care of let us see then what State this Paternal Authority or Government was in amongst the Iews from their beginning to be a People It was omitted by our A s confession from their coming into Egypt till their return out of that Bondage above 200 Years From thence till God gave the Israelites a King about 400 Years more our A gives but a very slender account of it nor indeed all that time are there the least Footsteps of Paternal or Regal Government amongst them But then says our A God Re-establish'd the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government 169. What a Lineal Succession to Paternal Government was then Establish'd we have already seen I only now consider how long this lasted and that was to their Captivity about 500 Years From whence to their Destruction by the Romans above 650 Years after the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government was again lost and they continued a People in the promised Land without it so that of 1750 Years that they were Gods peculiar People they had Hereditary Kingly Government amongst them not one third of the time and of that time there is not the leaft Footsteps of one moment of Paternal Government nor the Re-establishment of the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to it whether we suppose it to be derived as from its Fountain from David Saul Abraham or which upon our A s Principles is the only true From Adam **** AN ESSAY Concerning the True Oringinal Extent and End OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT BOOK II. CHAP. I. 1. IT having been shewn in the foregoing Discourse 1 o. That Adam had not either by natural Right of Fatherhood or by positive Donation from God any such Authority over his Children nor Dominion over the World as is pretended 2 o. That if he had his Heirs yet had no Right to it 3 o. That if his Heirs had there being no Law of Nature nor positive Law of God that determins which is the Right Heir in all Cases that may arise the Right of Succession and consequently of bearing Rule could not have been certainly determined 4 o. That if even that had been determined yet the knowledge of which is the Eldest Line of Adams Posterity being so long since utterly lost that in the Races of Mankind and Families of the World there remains not to one above another the least pretence to be the Eldest House and to have the Right of Inheritance All these premises having as I think been clearly made out it is impossible that the Rulers now on Earth should make any benefit or derive any the least shadow of Authority from that which is held to be the Fountain of all Power Adams Private Dominion and Paternal Iurisdiction so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all Government in the World is the product only of Force and Violence and that Men live together by no other Rules but that of Beasts where the strongest carries it and so lay a Foundation for perpetual Disorder and Mischeif Tumult Sedition and Rebellion things that the followers of that Hipothesis so loudly cry out against must of necessity find out another rise of Government another Original of Political Power and another way of designing and knowing the Persons that have it then what Sr. Robt. E. hath taught us 2. To this purpose I think it may not be amiss to set down what I take to be Political Power That the Power of a Magistrate over a Subject may be distinguished from that of a Father over his Children a Master over his Servant a Husband over his Wife and a Lord over his Slave All which distinct Powers happening sometimes together in the same Man if he be considered under these different Relations it may help us to distinguish these Powers one from another and shew the difference betwixt a Ruler of a Common-wealth a Father of a Family and a Captain of a Gally 3. Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of death and consequently all less Penalties for the Regulating and Preserving of Property and of employing the force of the Community in the Execution of such Laws and in the defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury and all this only for the Public Good CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature 4. TO understand Political Power a right and derive it from its Original we must consider what Estate all Men are naturally in and that is a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit within the bounds of the Law of Nature without asking leave or depending upon the Will of any other Man A State also of Equality wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal no one having more then another there being nothing more evident then that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature and the use of the same faculties should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection unless the Lord and Master of them all should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty 5. This equality of Men by Nature the Judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in it self and beyond all question that he makes
Pattern of the first Ages in Asia and Europe whilst the Inhabitants were too few for the Countrey and want of People and Money gave Men no temptation to enlarge their Possessions of Land or contest for wider extent of Ground are little more than Generals of their Armies and though they command absolutely in War yet at home and in time of Peace they exercise very little Dominion and have but a very moderate Sovereignty the Resolutions of Peace and War being ordinarily either in the People or in a Council Though the War it self which admits not of Pluralities of Governours naturally devolves the Command into the King's sole Authority 109. And thus in Israel it self the chief Business of their Judges and first Kings seems to have been to be Captains in War and Leaders of their Armies which besides what is signified by going out and in before the People which was to march forth to War and home again in the Heads of their Forces appears plainly in the story of Iephtha The Ammonites making War upon Israel the Gileadites in fear send to Iephtha a Bastard of their Family whom they had cast off and article with him if he will assist them against the Ammonites to make him their Ruler which they do in these Words And the People made him head and captain over them Iudg. 11. 11. which was as it seems all one as to be Judge And he judged Israel Iudg. 12. 7. that is was their Captain-general six Years So when Iotham upbraids the Shechemites with the Obligation they had to Gideon who had been their Judge and Ruler he tells them He fought for you and adventured his life far and delivered you out of the hands of Midian Iudg. 9.17 Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as a General and indeed that is all is found in his History or in any of the rest of the Judges And Abimelech particularly is called King though at most he was but their General And when being weary of the ill Conduct of Samuel's Sons the Children of Israel desired a King like all the nations to judge them and to go out before them and to fight their battels 1 Sam. 8. 20. God granting their Desire says to Samuel I will send thee a man and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel that he may save my peole out of the hands of the Philistines c. 9. v. 16. As if the only business of a King had been to lead out their Armies and fight in their Defence and accordingly at his Inauguration pouring a Vial of Oyl upon him declares to Saul that the Lord had anointed him to be Captain over his inheritance c. 10. v. 1. And therefore those who after Saul's being solemnly chosen and saluted King by the Tribes at Mispah were unwilling to have him their King make no other Objection but this How shall this man save us v. 27. as if they should have said This Man is unfit to be our King not having Skill and Conduct enough in War to be able to defend us And when God resolved to transfer the Government to David it is in these Words But now thy Kingdom shall not continue the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people c. 13. v. 14. As if the whole Kingly Authority were nothing else but to be their General and therefore the Tribes who had stuck to Saul's Family and opposed David's Reign when they came to Hebron with terms of Submission to him they tell him amongst other Arguments they had to submit to him as to their King That he was in effect their King in Saul's time and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their King now Also say they in time past when Saul was King over us thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel and the Lord said unto thee thou shalt feed my People Israel and thou shalt be a Captain over Israel 110. Thus whether a Family by degrees grew up into a Commonwealth and the Fatherly Authority being continued on to the elder Son every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one every one acquiesced till time seemed to have confirmed it and setled a right of Succession by Prescription or whether several Families or the Descendants of several Families whom Chance Neighbourhood or Business brought together united into Society the need of a General whose Conduct might defend them against their Enemies in War and the great confidence the Innocence and Sincerity of that poor but vertuous Age such as are almost all those which begin Governments that ever come to last in the World gave Men one of another made the first Beginners of Commonwealths generally put the Rule into one Man's hand without any other express Limitation or Restraint but what the Nature of the thing and the End of Government required It was given them for the publick Good and Safety and to those Ends in the Infancies of Common-wealths they commonly used it and unless they had done so young Societies could not have subsisted without such nursing Fathers without this care of the Governours all Governments would have sunk under the Weakness and Infirmities of their Infancy the Prince and the People had soon perished together 111. But the golden Age tho' before vain Ambition and amor sceleratus habendi evil Concupiscence had corrupted Mens minds into a Mistake of true Power and Honour had more Virtue and consequently better Governours as well as less vicious Subjects and there was then no stretching Prerogative on the one side to oppress the People nor consequently on the other any Dispute about Priviledge to lessen or restrain the Power of the Magistrate and so no contest betwixt Rulers and People about Governours or Government Yet when Ambition and Luxury in future Ages would retain and increase the Power without doing the Business for which it was given and aided by Flattery taught Princes to have distinct and separate Interests from their People Men found it necessary to examine more carefully the Original and Rights of Government and to find out ways to restrain the Exorbitances and prevent the Abuses of that Power which they having intrusted in another's hands only for their own good they found was made use of to hurt them 112. Thus we may see how probable it is that People that were naturally free and by their own consent either submitted to the Government of their Father or united together out of different Families to make a Government should generally put the Rule into one Man's hands and chuse to be under the Conduct of a single Person without so much as by express Conditions limiting or regulating his Power which they thought safe enough in his Honesty and Prudence Though they never dream'd of Monarchy being Iure Divino which we never heard
the whole Commonwealth in making of good Laws and Constitutions to any particular and private Ends of mine Thinking ever the Wealth and Weale of the Commonwealth to be my greatest Weale and worldly Felicity a Point wherein a lawful King doth directly differ from a Tyrant For I do acknowledge that the special and greatest point of Difference that is between a rightful King and an usurping Tyrant is this That whereas the proud and ambitious Tyrant doth think his Kingdom and People are only ordained for satisfaction of his Desires and unreasonable Appetites the righteous and just King doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and Property of his People And again in his Speech to the Parliament 1609 he hath these Words The KING binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom Tacitly as by being a King and so bound to protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation so as every just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereunto according to that Paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge Hereafter Seed-time and Harvest and Cold and Heat and Summer and Winter and Day and Night shall not cease while the Earth remaineth And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his Laws And a little after Therefore all Kings that are not Tyrants or perjured will be glad to bound themselves within the Limits of their Laws And they that perswade them the contrary are Vipers Pests both against them and the Commonwealth Thus that learned King who well understood the Notions of things makes the difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant to consist only in this That one makes the Laws the Bounds of his Power and the Good of the publick the End of his Government The other makes all give way to his own Will and Appetite 201. 'T is a Mistake to think this Fault is proper only to Monarchies other Forms of Government are liable to it as well as that for where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People and the Preservation of their Properties is applied to other ends and made use of to impoverish harass or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it There it presently becomes Tyranny whether those that thus use it are one or many Thus we read of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens as well as one at Syracuse and the intolerable Dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better 202. Where-ever Law ends Tyranny begins if the Law be transgressed to another's harm And whosoever in Authority exceeds the Power given him by the Law and makes use of the Force he has under his Command to compass that upon the Subject which the Law allows not ceases in that to be a Magistrate and acting without Authority may be opposed as any other Man who by force invades the Right of another This is acknowledged in subordinate Magistrates He that hath Authority to seize my Person in the street may be opposed as a Thief and a Robber if he indeavours to break into my House to execute a Writ notwithstanding that I know he has such a Warrant and such a legal Authority as will impower him to arrest me abroad And why this should not hold in the highest as well as in the most inferiour Magistrate I would gladly be informed Is it reasonable that the eldest Brother because he has the greatest part of his Father's Estate should thereby have a Right to take away any of his younger Brothers Portions Or that a rich Man who possessed a whole Countrey should from thence have a Right to seize when he pleased the Cottage and Garden of his poor Neighbour The being rightfully possessed of great Power and Riches exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the Son of Adam is so far from being an excuse much less a reason for Rapine and Oppression which the endamaging another without Authority is that it is a great Aggravation of it For the exceeding the Bounds of Authority is no more a Right in a great than a petty Officer no more justifiable in a King than a Constable But so much the worse in him as that he has more trust put in him is supposed from the advantage of Education and Counsellours to have better Knowledge and less reason to do it having already a greater share than the rest of his Brethren 203. May the Commands then of a Prince be opposed May he be resisted as often as any one shall find himself aggrieved and but imagine he has not Right done him This will unhinge and overturn all Politiâ—s and instead of Government and Order leave nothing but Anarchy and Confusion 204. To this I answer That Force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful Force who ever makes any opposition in any other Case draws on himself a just Condemation both from God and Man and so no such Danger or Confusion will follow as is often suggested For 205. First As in some Countries the Person of the Prince by the Law is Sacred and so what-ever he commands or does his Person is still free from all Question or Violence not liable to Force or any judicial Censure or Condemnation But yet opposition may be made to the illegal Acts of any inferiour Officer or other commissioned by him unless he will by actually putting himself into a State of War with his People dissolve the Government and leave them to that defence which belongs to every one in the state of Nature For of such things who can tell what the end will be And a Neighbour Kingdom has shewed the World an odd Example In all other Cases the Sacredness of the Person exempts him from all Inconveniencies whereby he is secure whilst the Government stands from all violence and harm whatsoever Than which there cannot be a wiser Constitution For the harm he can do in his own Person not being likely to happen often nor to extend it self far nor being able by his single strength to subvert the Laws nor oppress the Body of the People should any Prince have so much Weakness and ill Nature as to be willing to do it The Inconveniency of some particular mischiefs that may happen sometimes when a heady Prince comes to the Throne are well recompenced by the peace of the Publick and security of the Government in the Person of the chief Magistrate thus set out of the reach of danger It being safer for the Body that some few private Men should be sometimes in danger to suffer than that the Head of the Republick should be easily and upon slight occasions exposed 206. Secondly