right of Succession So have Pyrates against Merchants so have Murtherers and Thieves against true meaning Travellers And this disloyalty of the people hath moved divers Kings to cause their Sons to be crowned during their own lives because the unsetled state of succeeding Kings doth give opportunity to boldest attempts and not as you dream because admission is of more importance than succession I will examine your Examples in the Chapters following In the mean time where you write that King Henry and King Edward both called the Fourth had no better way to appease their minds at the time of their death but by founding their Title upon consent of the people the Authors which you cite do plainly charge you with unexcusable untruth King Edward never made question of his right King Henry did as some other Authors report but applied no such deceitful comfort this false skin would not then serve to cover his wound An Answer to the Seventh Chapter which beareth title How the next in Succession by propinquity of Blood have oftentimes been put back by the Commonwealth and others further off admitted in their places even in those Kingdoms where Succession prevaileth with many Examples of the Kingdom of Israel and Spain HEre you present your self very pensive to your audience as though you had so over-strained your wits with store of Examples of the next in Succession not admitted to the State that you had cracked the credit of them for ever But you are worthy of blame either for endangering or troubling your self in matters of so small advantage I have shewed before that Examples suffice not to make any proof and yet herein doth consist the greatest shew of your strength It is dangerous for men to be governed by Examples though good except they can assure themselves of the same concurrence of reasons not onely in general but in particularities of the same direction also and carriage in Counsel and lastly of the same favourable fortune but in actions which are evil the imitation is commonly worse than the example Your puffie discourse then is a heap of words without any weight you make mountains not for Mole-hills but of Moats long harvest of a small deal not of Corn but of Cockle and as one said at the shearing of Hogs great cry for a little and that not very fine Wool Yea but of necessity something you must say yea but this something is no more than nothing You suppose that either your opinion will be accepted more for authority of your Person than weight of your Proofs or else that any words will slide easily into the minds of those who are lulled in the humour of the same inclination because partiality will not suffer men to discern truth being easily beguiled in things they desire Besides whatsoever countenance you carry that all your Examples are free from exception yet if you had cast out those which are impertinent or unjust or else untrue you could not have been overcharged with the rest Your first example that none of the Children of Saul did succeed him in the Crown is altogether impertinent because by particular and express appointment of God the Kingdom was broken from his posterity We acknowledge that God is the onely superiour Judge of Supream Kings having absolute both Right and Power to dispose and transpose their Estates as he please Neither must we examine his actions by any course of Law because his Will is above all Law He hath enjoyned the people to be obedient to their Kings he hath not made them equal in authority to himself And whereas out of this example you deduce that the fault of the father may prejudicate the sons right although he had no part in the fault to speak moderately of you your judgement is either deceitful or weak God in his high Justice doth punish indeed the sins of Parents upon their Posterity but for the ordinary course of Humane Justice he hath given a Law that the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father The equity whereof is regularly followed both by the Civil and Canon Law and by the Interpreters of them both Your second example is of King Solomon who succeeded in the State of David his Father notwithstanding he was his youngest Son But this example in many respects falleth not within the compass of your case First because he was not appointed Successour by the people and we speak what the people may do to direct Succession Secondly for that the Kingdom was not then stablished in Succession Lastly for that the action was led by two Prophets David and Nathan according to the express choise and direction of God whereby it is no rule for ordinary right Here many points do challenge you of indiscretion â—â— the least You write that David made a promise to Bathsheba in his youth That Solomon should succeed in his estate but if you had considered at what years Solomon began to Reign you should have found that David could not make any such promise but he must be a youth about threescore years of age You write also that David adored his Son Solomon from his bed but the words wherewith David worshipped were these Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath made one to sit on my Throne this day even in my sight whereby it is evident that David adored God and not his Son This I note rather for observation of the loosness of your Judgment than for any thing it maketh to the purpose You are so accustomed to untruths that you fall into them without either advantage or end The like answer may be given to your example of Rehoboam because God declared his sentence therein by two Prophets Ahijah Shemaiah But for that the ten Tribes revolted from Rehoboam upon discontentment at his rough answer and with dispite against David and his House and not in obedience to Gods Decree we cannot excuse them from offence for which it turned to their destruction For hereupon first they were separated both from the place and manner of the true Worship of God then there arose unappeasable War between them and the Tribe of Iudah then insolencies following disorders they were never long time free from Conspiracies Divisions and Tumults by which means being drained both of Wealth and Inhabitants and reduced to a naked weakness they were lastly carried captive into divers far Countries and strangers were sent to inhabit their Cities I must here also observe a few of your interpretations wherein your boldness is not limited with any bounds It is to be noted you say that before Rehoboam went to Shechem to be admitted by the people he was not accounted true King I desire therefore that you would satisfie us in these places following Before Rehoboam went to Shechem the Scripture saith that Solomon died was buried and Rehoboam his Son reigned in his stead Again after the defection of
interpreters of both Laws as namely the Glossographer Iohan. Andreas Hostiensis Collect. Pet. Anchoranus Antonius Imola Card. Florentinus Abb. Panormitanus Oldradus Albericus Angelus Felinus Paul Castrensis Alexander Barbatius Franc. Curtius Guido Pape Card. Alexander Philip. Francus Iason Philippus Decius Carol. Ruinus Anto. Corsetta Ripa Calderine Alciate and many other of somwhat more ordinary name Who all with full voice do agree that in Kingdoms and other dignities â—hich cannot be either valued or divided but they are dismembred the eldest Son doth entirely succeed And this many of them do call the Law of all Nations derived from the order of nature and from the institution of God and confirmed by the Canon civil and other positive Laws For the Succession of Children is one of the primary precepts of nature whereby his mortality is in some sort repaired and his continuance perpetuated by his posterity But among all the Children nature seemeth to prefer the first born by imprinting in the mind of parents the greatest love and inclination towards them as divers of the authors before alleaged do affirm and as it may appear by that of the prophet Zacharie and they shall lament over him as men use to lament in the death of their first born and likewise by that which is said of David that he would not grieve his Son Ammon for that he loved him because he was his first born Hereupon Lyra and before him Saint Augustin and Saint Chrysostom do affirm that the last plague of the Egyptians which was the death of their first born was the most sharp and heavy unto them For nothing saith Saint Augustin is more dear than the first born Aristotle Plinie Aelian and Tzetzes do write that the same affection is also found in certain beasts And to this purpose is that which Herodotus reporteth that when the Lacedaemonians had received an oracle â—hat they should take for Kings the two sons of Aristodemus and Aegina but give most honor unto the eldest and they were ignorant which was eldest because the Mother and the Nurse refused to declare it they observed which of the children the mother did wash and feed first and thereby found out that Eristhenes was the eldest Lucian citeth the love of the first born as grown into a proverb Gregorie Nazianzene saith that all men have a sense thereof Saint Ambrose writeth that in this respect God called the People of Israel his first born for that they were not most ancient but best beloved Lastly S. Chrysostome affirmeth that the first born were to be esteemed more honorable than the rest And this natural precedence both in honor and in favor seemeth to be expresly ratified by God first where he said unto Cain of his brother Abel His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt have dominion over him according to which institution when Iacob had bought his brothers right of birth Isaac blessed him in these words Be Lord over thy Brethren and lâ—t the sons of thy mother bow before thee Secondly where he forbiddeth the Father to disinherit the first Son of his double portion because by right of birth it is his due Thirdly where he maketh choice of the first born to be sanctified to himself And whereas God hath often preferred the youngest as Abel Isaac Iacob Iuda Phares Ephraim Moses David Solomon and others it was no other than that which Christ said that many that were last should be first and that which Saint Paul hath delivered that God hath chosen the weak and base and contemptible things of this world least any flesh should glory in his sight So hath Herodotus written how Artabanus the Persian in a complaining manner did confess that God delighted to depress those things that were high But if the first born dye before succession fall or if being possessed of the Kingdom he dye without issue his right of birth devolveth unto the next in blood and if he dyeth in like manner then unto the third and so likewise to the rest in order This is affirmed by Albericus and may be confirmed by that which Baldus saith that succession hath reference to the time of death and respecteth the priority which is then extant And again He is not said the first born in Law who dyeth before the fee openeth but he who at that time is eldest in life And this opinion is embraced by Alciate because as Celsus saith Primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit He is first who hath none before him Iaco. Aretinus Cinus Albericus and Baldus do form this case There is a custom that the first born of the first marriage should succeed in a baronny a certain baron had three Wives by the first he had no Children by the other too many the first son of the second marriage shall succeed Because as the glossographer there saith the second marriage in regard of the third is accompted first Baldus doth extend it further that if he hath a son by the first marriage and he refuse the barony the first son by the second marriage shall succeed in his right and so he saith it was determined in the Kingdom of Apulia when Lewes the Kings eldest son was professed a friar And this decision is allowed by Alexander Oldradus and Antonius Corsetta and is proved by plain text of the Canon Law both where the second born is called first born when the first born hath given place and also where he is called the only son whose brother is dead But because it is a notorious custom that the nearest in blood doth succâ—ed altho perhaps removed in degree I will labor no more to load it with proof for who will proclaim that the sun doth shine But if we should now grant unto you which is a greater courtesie than with modesty you can require that no particular form of Government is natural what will you conclude thereof what inference can you hereupon enforce That thâ—re is no doubt but the People have power to choose and to change the fashion of Government and to limit the same with what conditions they please What Sir can you find no third But that either one form of Government is natural or that the People must always retain such liberty of power Have they no power to relinquish their power Is there no possibility that they may loose it Whether are you so ignorant to think as you speak or so deceitful to speak otherwise then you think There is no Authority which the People hath in matters of state but it may be either bound or streightned by three means The first is by cession or grant for so the Romans by the Law of royalty yeelded all their Authority in Government to the Prince Of this Law Vlpian maketh mention and Bodin reporteth that it is yet extant in Rome graven in stone So the People of Cyrene of Pergame and of Bithynia did submit themselves
about to please men If I should please men I were not then the servant of Christ. I will give you an example of another time Nebuchadnezzer King of Assyria wasted all Palestina took Hierusalem slew the King burnt the Temple took away the holy Vessels and Treasure the residue he permitted to the cruelty and syoyl of his unmerciful Souldiers who defiled all places with rape ruine and blood After the glut of this butchery the people which remained he led captive into Chaldaea and there commanded that whosoever refused to worship his golden Image should be cast into a fiery furnace What cruelty what impiety is comparable to this and yet the Prophets Ieremiah and Baruch did write to those captive Jews to pray for the prosperity and life of him and of Baltazar his Son that their days might be upon Earth as the days of Heaven and Ezekiel both blameth and threatneth Zedechia for his disloyalty in revolting from Nebuchadnezzar whose homager and tributary he was What answer will you make to this example I am wisely busied to cast forth this question what answer can you make which your own knowledge will not convince Many other places there are in holy Scripture whereby not onely our actions are tied to obedience He that doth presumptuously against the Ruler of the people shall die but also our words Thou shalt not speak evil against the Ruler of the people yea our secret thoughts Detract not from the King no not in thy thought for the fowls of the air shall carry thy voice The reason hereof is not obscure Because Princes are the immediate Ministers of God and therefore he called Nebuchadnezzar his servant and promised him also hire and wages for the service which he did And the Prophet Esay calleth Cyrus a prophane and heathen King the Lords Anointed For as Solomon saith The Hearts of Kings are in the hands of the Lord and he stirreth up the spirit even of wicked Princes to do his will and as Iehoshaphat said to his Rulers they execute not the will of man but of the Lord. In regard hereof David calleth them Gods whereof Plato also had some sense when he said A King is instead of God And if they do abuse their Power they are not to be judged by their Subjects as being both inferiour and naked of Authority because all Jurisdiction within their Realm is derived from them which their presence onely doth silence and suspend but God reserveth them to the sorest tryal Horribly and suddainly saith the wise man will the Lord appear unto them and a hard judgment shall they have You Jesuits do yield a blindfold obedience to your Superiours not once examining either what he is or what he doth Command and although the Pope should swerve from Justice yet by the Canons men are bound to perform obedience unto him and God only may â—udge his doings and may a King the Lords Lieutenant the Lords Anointed in the view of his Subjects nay by the hands of his Subjects be cast out of State May he as was Actaeon be chased and worried by his own hounds Will you make him of worse condition than the Lord of a Mannor than a Parish-Priest than a poor Schoolmaster who cannot be removed by those that are under their authority and charge The Law of God commandeth that the child should die for any contumely done unto the Parents But what if the Father be a Robber if a Murtherer if for all excess of villanies odious and execrable both to God and Man Surely he deserveth the highest degree of punishment and yet must not the Son lift up his hand against him For as Quintilian saith No offence is so great as to be punished by parricide But our Country is dearer to us than our selves and the Prince is the Father of our Country whose Authority as Baldus noteth 〈◊〉 greater than of Parents and therefore he must not be violated how impious how imperious soever he be If he commandeth those things that are lawful we must manifest our obedience by ready performing If he enjoyn us those actions that are evil we must shew our subjection by patient enduring It is God onely who seateth Kings in their State it is he only who may remove them The Lord will set a wise King over the people which he loveth as himself doth testifie And again For the sins of the land the Kings are changed Aâ— therefore we endure with patience unseasonable weather unfruitful years and other like punishments of God so must we tolerate the imperfections of Princes and quietly expect either reformation or else a change This was the Doctrine of the ancient Christians even against their most mortal persecutors Tertullian saith For what war are we not both serviceable and ready although unequal in number who do so willingly endure to be slain neither want we strength of number but God forbid that Religion should be maintained with humane fire From him also St. Cyprian a most studious reader of Tertullian as St. Hierom noteth in like manner writeth Although our people be exceeding copious yet it doth not revenge it self against violence it suffereth St. Augustin saith It is a general paction of humane society to obey Kings Which sentence is assumed into the body of the Canon-Law In a word the current of the ancient Fathers is in this point concurrent insomuch as among them all there is not one found not any one one is a small number and yet I say confidently again there is not any one who hath let fall so loose a speech as may be strained to a contrary sense How then are you of late become both so active and resolute to cut in sunder the reins of Obedience the very sinews of Government and Order Whence had Benedâ—tto Palmio a Jesuit his Warrant to incite William Parry to undertake the parricide of our Queen whence did Annibal Codretto another Jesuit assure him that the true Church made no question but that the fact was lawful Whence did Guignard a Jesuit term the Butchery of Henry late King of France an heroical act and a gift of the Holy Ghost Whence did he write of the King who now there reigneth If without Arms he cannot be deposed let men take Arms against him if by War it cannot be accomplished let him be murthered Whence did Ambrose Verade Rector of the Colledge of the Jesuits in Paris animate Barriers as he confessed to sheath his Knife in the Kings breast assuring him by the living God that he could not execute any act more meritorious Whence did the Commenter upon the Epitome of Confessions otherwise the seventh book of Decretals commend all the Jesuits in these terms They set upon Tyrants they pull the Cockle out of the Lords field It is a Rule in Nature that one contrary is manifested by
secret Counsels unknown to the Angels and to justifie upon this event the Parricide of any Prince For my part I know not whether you shew your self more presumptuous in entering into this observation or in pursuing it more idle and impure I will pass over your protestation of Respect and Obedience due unto Princes Protest what you please we will take you for no other than a vile kind of vermine which if it be permitted to creep into the bowels of any State will gnaw the Heart-strings thereof in sunder This you manifest by the coarse comparison which presently you annex that as a natural Body hath authority to cure the Head if it be out of tune and reason to cut it off oftentimes if it were able to take another so a body Politick hath power to cure or cut off the Head if it be unsound But what either Will or Power hath any part of the Body in it self What either Sense for the one or Motion for the other which proceedeth not altogether from the Head Where is the Reason seated which you attribute to the Body both in judging and curing the infirmities of the Head Certain it is that in your cutting-cure you deal like a foolish Physician who finding a Body half taken and benumb'd with a Palsie cutteth off that part to cure the other and so make sure to destroy both You suppose belike that to enter into greater perils is the onely remedy of present Dangers I omit to press many points of this Comparison against you because Comparisons do serve rather to illustrate than enforce and I know not what assertion you might not easily make good if such senceless prating might go for proof I come now to your particular Examples whereof the first is of King Saul whom you affirm to be deprived and put to death for his disobedience Saul deprived and put to death I never heard that any of his Subjects did ever lift up one thought against him Dreamer you will say he was slain by the Philistines Good but who deprived him It was God you say who did deprive him You must pardon us if upon the suddain we do not conceive the mystery of your meaning Your words of deprivation and putting to death do rather import a judicial proceeding against him than that God delivered him to be vanquished by his Enemies in the Field But what is this to dispossessing by Subjects Yes you say because whatsoever God hath put in ure in his Commonwealth may be practised by others Why but then also good Princes may be deposed by their Subjects because God delivered Iosiah to be slain by the Egyptians You Firebrands of Strife you Trumpets of Sedition you Red Horses whose sitters have taken peace from the Earth how impudently do you abuse the Scriptures how do you defile them with your filthy Fingers It is most certain that David knew both because Samuel told him and because he had the Spirit of Prophesie that God had rejected Saul and designed him to be King in his place yet his Doctrine was always not to touch the Lords Anointed whereto his Actions were also answerable For when Saul did most violently persecute him he defended himself no otherwise than by Flight During this pursuit Saul fell twice into his power once he did not onely spare but protect him and rebuke the Pretorian Soldiers for their negligent watch The other time his Heart did smite him for that he had cut away the lap of his garment Lastly he caused the Messenger to be slain who upon request and for pity had furthered as he said the death of that sacred King We have a Precept of Obedience which is the mould wherein we ought to fashion our actions God onely is superiour to Princes who useth many instruments in the execution of his justice but his authority he hath committed unto none Your second Example is of King Amon who was slain as you write by his own people because he walked not in the ways of the Lord. This is somewhat indeed if it be true let us turn to the Text Amon was twenty two years old when be began to reign c. and he did evil in the sight of the Lord c. and his servants conspired against him and slew him in his house and the people smote all those who conspired against King Amon and made Josiah his son King in his stead But this is very different from that which you report Amon was slain by his Servants and not by the people who were so far from working that they severely revenged his death And although Amon was evil yet the Scripture layeth not his evil for the motive whereupon his Servants slew him The Devil himself in alleadging the Scripture used more honesty and sincerity if I may so term it than you For he cited the very words wresting them onely to a crooked sence but you change the words of the Scripture you counterfeit God's coyn you corrupt the Records which he hath left us I will now shake off all respect of civility towards you and tell you in flat and open terms that as one part of your Assertion is true that good Kings succeeded Saul and Amon so the other part that either they were or in right could have been deprived and put to death by their Subjects it is a sacrilegious a loggerheaded lye Of your Example of Romulus I have spoken before I have declared also how the Romans presently after the expelling of their Kings and for that cause were almost overwhelmed with the weight of War being beaten home to the very Gates of their City And had not Chocles by a miracle of Manhood sustained the shock of the Enemies whilst a Bridg was broken behind him the Town had been entred and their State ruined And whereas you attribute the inlargement of the Empire which hapned many Ages after to this expelling of their Kings you might as well have said that the rebellion against King Iohn was the cause of the Victories which we have since had in France I have before declared that the state of the Romans under their Consuls was popular rather in shew than in deed This shew began also to end when by the Law Valeria L. Sylla was established Dictator for four and twenty years After this the Empire did mightily increase until the reign of Trajane at which time all Authors agree that it was most large and yet far short of your wandring Survey not half Fifteen thousand miles in compass In your Example of Caesar I never saw more untruths crowded together in fewer words you say he broke all Laws both Humane and Divine that is one his greatest Enemies did give of him a most honourable testimony You say he took all Government into his hands alone that is two the people by the Law Servia elected him perpetual Dictator You make his death to be an act of the State that is three for they who slew him
they were kept under before the more insolently will they then insult I observe that Saint Paul alleadgeth two reasons wherefore we should be obedient even to wicked and cruel Princes one is for conscience sake Because they are the ministers of God and in their Royalty do bear his Image Another for the safety and tranquillity of our selves that we may lead under them a quiet and peaceable life Whereupon the Prophet Ieremiah also exhorted the Jews to seek the peace of the City whither they should be transported because in the pâ—ace thereof their quiet should consist For by obedience a few particulars remain in danger by Rebellion all by Obedience we can be under the Tyranny but of one by Rebellion we are exposed to the Rapine and Cruelty of many by the one nothing by the other all things are permitted Upon this ground Saint Augustine said It is a general covenant of humane Society to obey Kings And likewise St. Ambrose It is a great and special point of doctrine whereby Christians are taught to be subject unto higher powers Three ways a cruel Prince may work violence against his Subjects upon their Goods upon their Persons and upon their Consciences by commanding them to commit that which is evil Of the first St. Ambrose saith If the Emperour demandeth tribute we do not deny him If he desireth Fields let him take them if he please I do not give them to the Emperour but therewith also I do not deny them Of the second Tertullian writeth as I have alleadged him before For what War are we unserviceable or unfit although unequal in number who do so willingly suffer death Yea he was so far from judging it lawful to resist that he thought it scarce allowable to fly In the third case not your rule of Law but the rule of the Apostles taketh place It is better to obey GOD than man whereby the Subject is not bound to yield obedience But how he is not bound to obey by doing but by suffering he is He is not bound to obey in doing that onely which is evil but he is not thereby freed from doing any other thing which is lawfully commanded St. Augustine saith Iulian was an Infidel Emperour an Apostata an Idolater Christian Souldiers did serve this Infidel Emperour when he would have them worship Idols and offer Frankincense unto them they preferred God before him but when he said Bring forth the Army march against such a Nation they did presently obey All this seemeth to be confirmed by God himself who after he had forewarned the people of Israel by the mouth of Samuel what heavie what open injustice they should endure under some of their Kings he concludeth in these words And ye shall cry out in that day because of your King and the Lord will not hear you As if he had said you shall grudge at this burthen you shall groan under it but you shall not have power either to shrink from it or to shake it off Surely if you had been advisied you would privily have blown your Blasphemies into the ears of those Ideots who adore you for the great Penitentiaries of the See of Rome and esteem your idle imaginations as the Articles of their Faith and not so publickly have poured forth your self into these Paradoxes both impious and absurd not so boisterously have stepped like Hercules Furens upon the open stage of the world to denounce deprivation against all Princes You would not thus confidently have opposed your hot-headed assertion against all the ancient Fathers of the Church You would not thus ignorantly have troubled the Waters of true humane Wisdom by corrupting the sence of the Civil Laws you would not thus profanely have abused the Scriptures in maintaining Rebellion as Conjurers do in invocating the Devil For first you are thereby discovered to be neither religious modest nor wise Secondly you have run your self into the compass of a Canon in the Council of Chalcedon Wherein it is thus decreed against you If Clerks shall be found to be contrivers of Conspiracies or raisers of Factions let them be degraded After this you declare who is a Tyrant and that is a King you say if once he doth decline from his duty which is a large description and fit to set all Christian Countries on float with Bloud Comines saith that he is to be esteemed a good King whose vertues are not overballanced by vice I omit your thick errour in putting no difference between a Magistrate and a King with many other of like quality and do come now to a principal point of your strength That Christian Princes at this day are admitted upon conditions and likewise with protestations that if they do not perform the same their Subjects are free from all alleageance This you will prove by the particular Oaths of all Princes if the over-running of your tongue may have the full course without encounter An Answer to the fifth Chapter which is intituled Of the Coronation of Princes and manner of admitting to their Authority and the Oaths which they do make in the same unto the Commonwealth for their good Government FIrst I will preface that no Prince is soveraign who acknowledgeth himself either subject or accountable to any but to God even as Marcus Aurelius said That Magistrates were Judges of private men and the Prince of Magistrates and God of the Prince In regard of this immediate subjection Princes are most especially obliged to the Laws of God and of Nature for Baldus Alexander Speculator all Interpreters the Law it self do affirm that Princes are more strictly bound to these Laws than any of their Subjects Whereof Dionysius the Tyrant had some sence when he said unto his Mother That he was able to dispence with the Laws of Syracusa but against the Laws of Nature he had no power If therefore a Prince doth profess that he will bear himself râ—gardful of the accomplishment of these Laws he doth not condition or restrain himself but 〈…〉 honourable promise of endeavour 〈◊〉 discharge his Duty being tyed thereby to no scanter scope than he was before The reason hereof is Quia expressio ejus quod tacitè inest nihil operatur The expressing of that which is secretly understood worketh nothing Again when the Promise is not annexed to the Authority but voluntarily and freely made by the Prince his Estate is not thereby made conditional For the Interpreters of the Civil Law do consent in this Rule Pacta conventa quae contractibus non insunt non formant actionem Covenants which are not inherent in Contracts do not form an Action And therefore although by all Laws both of Conscience and State a Prince is bound to perform his Promise because as the Master of Sentences saith God himself will stand obliged to his word yet is not the authority but the person of