Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the Law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause If the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and is the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by Nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmine deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent who is Lord-Paramout over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself It follows that Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents which quite takes away that New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation For Dominion of Life and Death we find that Iudah the Father pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth saith he that she may be burnt Touching War we see that Abram commanded an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family And Esau met his Brother Iacob with 400 Men at Arms. For matter of Peace Abraham made a League with Abimelech and ratified the Articles with an Oath These Acts of Judging in Capital Crimes of making War and concluding Peace are the chiefest Marks of Sovereignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but after it this Patriarchal Power did continue as the very name Patriarch doth in part prove The three Sons of Noah had the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them was the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him and his Sons Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth Most of the Civilest Nations of the Earth labour to fetch their Original from some One of the Sons or Nephews of Noah which were scattered abroad after the Confusion of Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Regal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World It is a common Opinion that at the Confusion of Tongues there were 72 distinct Nations erected all which were not Confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at Liberty to choose what Governours or Government they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even in the Confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Sons of Iaphet the Conclusion is By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so it is said These are the Sons of Ham after their Families after their Tongues in their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of Shem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he sayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the Number of his Sons the Limits of which Three Parts are all found in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who no doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did he enlarge his Empire by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families And in this sense he may be said to be the Author and first Founder of Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyranny or Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude or by any Faction with them As this
the same because by Nature no Barbarian is fit to Govern It is fit the Grecians should rule over the Barbarians for by Nature a Servant and a Barbarian is all one their Family consists only of an Ox for a Man-Servant and a Wife for a Maid so they are fit only to rule their Wives and their Beasts Lastly Aristotle if it had pleased him might have remembred That Nature doth not always make one Thing but for one Use he knows the Tongue serves both to Speak and to Taste 4. But to leave Aristotle and return to Suarez he saith that Adam had Fatherly Power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free Here I could wish that the Jesuite had taught us how and when Sons become Free I know no means by the Law of Nature It is the Favour I think of the Parents only who when their Children are of Age and Discretion to ease their Parents of part of their Fatherly Care are then content to remit some part of their Fatherly authority therefore the Custom of some Countreys doth in some Cases Enfranchise the Children of Inferiour Parents but many Nations have no such Custome but on the contrary have strict Laws for the Obedience of Children the Judicial Law of Moses giveth full power to the Father to stone his disobedient Son so it be done in presence of a Magistrate And yet it did not belong to the Magistrate to enquire and examine the justness of the Cause But it was so decreed lest the Father should in his Anger suddenly or secretly kill his Son Also by the Laws of the Persians and of the People of the Upper Asia and of the Gaules and by the Laws of the West-Indies the Parents have power of Life and Death over their Children The Romans even in their most Popular Estate had this Law in force and this Power of Parents was ratified and amplified by the Laws of the Twelve Tables to the enabling of Parents to sell their Children two or three times over By the help of the Fatherly Power Rome long flourished and oftentimes was freed from great Dangers The Fathers have drawn out of the very Assemblies their own Sons when being Tribunes they have published Laws tending to Sedition Memorable is the Example of Cassius who threw his Son headlong out of the Consistory publishing the Law Agraria for the Division of Lands in the behoof of the people and afterwards by his own private Judgment put him to Death by throwing him down from the Tarpeian Rock the Magistrates and People standing thereat amazed and not daring to resist his Fatherly Authority although they would with all their Hearts have had that Law for the Division of Land by which it appears it was lawful for the Father to dispose of the Life of his Child contrary to the Will of the Magistrates or People The Romans also had a Law that what the Children got was not their own but their Fathers although Solon made a Law which acquitted the Son from Nourishing of his Father if his Father had taught him no Trade whereby to get his Living Suarez proceeds and tells us That in Process of Time Adam had compleat Oeconomical Power I know not what this compleat Oeconomical Power is nor how or what it doth really and essentially differ from Political If Adam did or might exercise the same Jurisdiction which a King doth now in a Commonwealth then the Kinds of Power are not distinct and though they may receive an Accidental Difference by the Amplitude or Extent of the Bounds of the One beyond the Other yet since the like Difference is also found in Political Estates It follows that Oeconomical and Political Power differ no otherwise than a Little Commonweal differs from a Great One. Next saith Suarez Commnnity did not begin at the Creation of Adam It is true because he had no body to Communicate with yet Community did presently follow his Creation and that by his Will alone for it was in his power only who was Lord of All to appoint what his Sons should have in Proper and what in Common so that Propriety and Community of Goods did follow Originally from Him and it is the Duty of a Father to provide as well for the Common Good of his Children as the Particular Lastly Suarez Concludes That by the Law of Nature alone it is not due unto any Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity This Assertion is confuted point-blank by Bellarmine who expresly affirmeth That the First Parents ought to have been Princes of their posterity And untill Suarez bring some Reason for what he saith I shall trust more to Bellarmine's Proofs than to his Denials 5. But let us Condescend a while to the Opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez and all those who place Supreme power in the Whole People and ask them if their meaning be That there is but one and the same power in All the people of the World so that no power can be granted except All the Men upon the Earth meet and agree to choose a Governour An Answer is here given by Suarez That it is scarce possible nor yet expedient that All Men in the World should be gathered together into One Community It is likelier that either never or for a very short time that this power was in this manner in the whole Multitude of Men collected but a little after the Creation men began to be divided into several Commonwealths and this distinct power was in Each of them This Answer of Scarce possible nor yet Expedient It is likelier begets a new doubt how this Distinct power comes to each particular Community when God gave it to the whole Multitude only and not to any particular Assembly of Men. Can they shew or prove that ever the whole Multitude met and divided this power which God gave them in Gross by breaking into parcels and by appointing a distinct power to each several Common-wealth Without such a Compact I cannot see according to their own Principles how there can be any Election of a Magistrate by any Commonwealth but by a meer Usurpation upon the privilege of the whole World If any think that particular Multitudes at their own Discretion had power to divide themselves into several Commonwealths those that think so have neither Reason nor Proof for so thinking and thereby a Gap is opened for every petty Factious Multitude to raise a New Commonwealth and to make more Commonweals than there be Families in the World But let this also be yielded them That in each particular Commonwealth there is a Distinct Power in the Multitude Was a General Meeting of a Whole Kingdom ever known for the Election of a Prince Is there any Example of it ever found in the Whole World To conceit such a thing is to imagine little less than an Impossibility And so by Consequence no one Form of Government or King was ever established according to this supposed Law of Nature 6. It may be
Council have anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12. Of Parliaments 13. When the People were first called to Parliament 14. The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from Grace of the Princes 15. The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16. Governs both Houses as Head by himself 17. By his Council 18. By his Iudges 1. HItherto I have endeavour'd to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the people do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws But in this also they Erre for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his Chief Law He must remember That the profit of every man in particular and of all together in general is not always One and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private And that the force of Laws must not be so great as Natural Equity it self which cannot fully be comprised in any Laws whatsoever but is to be left to the Religious Atchievement of those who know how to manage the Affaires of State and wisely to Ballance the particular profit with the Counterpoize of the Publick according to the infinite Variety of Times Places Persons a proof unanswerable for the Superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were Kings long before there were any Laws For a long time the Word of a King was the only Law and if Practice as saith Sir Walter Raleigh declare the greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Iudah and Israel were not tyed to any Law but they did what-soever they pleased in the greatest matters 2 The Unlimitted Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to Imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future Ill Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy Wherein it is evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must Suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both no Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in Crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckoned by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and Inferior Lords To serve the King in his Wars and to till his ground is not only agreeable to the Nature of Subjects but much desired by them according to their several Births and Conditions The like may be said for the Offices of Women-Servants Confectioners Cooks and Bakers for we cannot think that the King would use their Labours without giving them Wages since the Text it self mentions a Liberal reward of his Servants As for the taking of the Tenth of their Seed of their Vines and of their Sheep it might be a necessary Provision for their Kings Household and so belong to the Right of Tribute For whereas is mentioned the taking of the Tenth it cannot agree well to a Tyrant who observes no Proportion in fleecing his People Lastly The taking of their Fields Vineyards and Olive-trees if it be by Force or Fraud or without just Recompence to the Dammage of Private Persons only it is not to be defended but if it be upon the publick Charge and General Consent it might be justifyed as necessary at the first Erection of a Kingdome For those who will have a King are bound to allow him Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it is both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in Riches besides we all know the Lands and Goods of many Subjects may be oft-times Legally taken by the King either by Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Outlawry Confiscation or the like Thus we see Samuel's Character of a King may literally well bear a mild Sense for greater probability there is that Samuel so meant and the Israelites so understood it to which this may be added that Samuel tells the Israelites this will be the manner of the King that shall Reign over you And Ye shall cry because of your King which Ye shall have chosen you that is to say Thus shall be the common Custom or Fashion or Proceeding of Saul your King Or as the Vulgar Latine renders it this shall be the Right or Law of your King not meaning as some expound it the Casual Event or Act of some individuum vagum or indefinite King that might happen one day to Tyrannise over them So that Saul and the Constant practice of Saul doth best agree with the Liteteral Sense of the Text. Now that Saul was no Tyrant we may note that the People asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King had not been to hear their Voice in all things but rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had
Tyrants Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much as Blamed for committing any of those Acts which Samuel describes and if Samuel's drift had been only to terrifie the People he would not have forgotten to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty in Murthering 85 innocent Priests and smiteing with the Edge of the Sword the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites never shrank at these Conditions proposed by Samuel but accepted of them as such as all other Nations were bound unto For their Conclusion is Nay but we will have a King over Vs that We also may be like all the Nations and that Our King may Iudge us and go out before us to fight our Battels Meaning he should earn his Privileges by doing the work for them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument of their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to Rehoboam is Make thou the grievous Service of thy Father Solomon and his heavy Yoke which he put upon us lighter and we will serve thee To conclude it is true Saul lost his Kingdom but not for being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his Subjects but by being too Merciful to his Enemies his sparing Agag when he should have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal Power By giving to Caesar those things that were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatfoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Dei si omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Caesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Caesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferre The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and All that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the King Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo c. All are under him and he under none but God only If he offend since no Writ can go against him their Remedy is by Petitioning him to amend his Fault which if he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as a Revenger Let none presume to Search into his Deeds much less to Oppose them When the Iews asked our Blessed Saviour whether they should pay Tribute he did not first demand what the Law of the Land was or whether there was any Statute against it nor enquired whether the Tribute were given by Consent of the people nor advised them to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar. Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Iews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Vsurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these words to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood a Monarch that carryed a Sword Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power that is the Ruler that carryeth the Sword for he is the Minister of God to thee for he beareth not the Sword in vain It is not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Ruler or Magistrate so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between Supreme and Sent proves plainly that the Governours were sent by Kings for if the Governours were sent by God and the King be an Humane