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
CAROLUS Secundus Dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae et Hiberniae Rex Fidei Defensor etc. Patriarcha OR THE Natural Power OF KINGS By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Baronet Lucan Lib. 3. Libertas Populi quem regna coercent Libertate perit Claudian Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Principe oredit Servitium nusquam Libertas gratior extat Quam sub Rege pio LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Walter Davis Book-binder in Amen-Corner near Pater-noster-row 1680. The COPY OF A LETTER Written by the Late Learned Dr. PETER HEYLYN to Sir Edward Filmer Son of the Worthy Author concerning this Book and his other Political Discourses SIR HOW great a Loss I had in the death of my most dear and honoured Friend your deceased Father no man is able to conjecture but he that hath suffered in the like So affable was his Conversation his Discourse so rational his Judgment so exact in most parts of Learning and his Affections to the Church so Exemplary in him that I never enjoyed a greater Felicity in the company of any Man living than I did in his In which respects I may affirm both with Safety and Modesty that we did not only take sweet Counsel together but walked in the House of God as Friends I must needs say I was prepared for that great Blow by the loss of my Preferment in the Church of Westminster which gave me the opportunity of so dear and beloved a Neighbourhood so that I lost him partly before he died which made the Misery the more supportable when I was deprived of him for altogether But I was never more sensible of the infelicity than I am at this present in reference to that satisfaction which I am sure he could have given the Gentleman whom I am to deal with His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his Judicious Observations upon Aristotles Politiques as also in some passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling And had he pleased to have suffered his Excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in Publick it would have given such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Politie that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary Vide Certamen Epistolare 386. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of the People New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine and some Contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The Dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 And from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and of their Agreement CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or Chose Governours 1 ARistotle examined about the Fredom of the People and justisied 2 Suarez disputes against the Regality of Adam 3 Families diversly defined by Aristotle Bodin and others 4 Suarez contradicting Bellarmine 5 Of Election of Kings 6 By the major part of the People 7 By Proxie and by Silent Acceptation 8 No example in Scripture of the Peoples Choosing their King Mr. Hookers judgement therein 9 God governed alwayes by Monarchy 10 Bellarmine and Aristotles judgement of Monarchy 11 Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12 Rome began her Empire under Kings and perfected it under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13 VVhether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or whether they crept in by stealth 14 Democraties vilified by their own Historians 15 Popular Government more Bloody than Tyranny 16 Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17 The People may not judge nor correct their King 18 No Tyrants in England since the Conquest CHAP. III. Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings 1 REgal Authority not subject to Positive Laws Kings were before Laws The Kings of Judah and Israel not tyed to Laws 2 Of Samuel's Description of a King 3 The Power ascribed to Kings in the New Testament 4 VVhether Laws were invented to bridle Tyrants 5 The Benefit of Laws 6 Kings keep the Laws though not bound by the Laws 7 Of the Oaths of Kings 8 Of the Benefit of the Kings Prerogative over Laws 9 The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10 The King Iudge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11 The King and his Councel anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12 Of Parliaments 13 VVhen the People were first called to Parliaments 14 The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from the Grace of Princes 15 The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16 He Governs Both Houses by himselfe 17 Or by His Councel 18 Or by His Iudges ERRATA Page 4. line 3. for Calume read Calvin CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of Mankind New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine Some Contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 and from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and their Agreement SInce the time that School-Divinity began to flourish there hath been a common Opinion maintained as well by Divines as by divers other Learned Men which affirms Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection and at liberty to choose what Form of Government it please And that the Power which any one Man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to Flesh and Blood for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude who magnifie Liberty as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath
answered by some That if either the Greatest part of a Kingdom or if a smaller part only by Themselves and all the Rest by Proxy or if the part not concurring in Election do after by a Tacit Assent ratifie the Act of Others That in all these Cases it may be said to be the Work of the whole Multitude As to the Acts of the Major part of a Multitude it is true that by Politick Humane Constitutions it is oft ordained that the Voices of the most shall over-rule the Rest and such Ordinances bind because where Men are Assembled by an Humane Power that power that doth Assemble them can also Limit and Direct the manner of the Execution of that Power and by such Derivative Power made known by Law or Custom either the greater part or two Thirds or Three parts of Five or the like have power to oversway the Liberty of their Opposits But in Assemblies that take their Authority from the Law of Nature it cannot be so for what Freedom or Liberty is due to any Man by the Law of Nature no Inferiour Power can alter limit or diminish no One Man nor a Multitude can give away the Natural Right of another The Law of Nature is unchangeable and howsoever One Man may hinder Another in the Use or Exercise of his Natural Right yet thereby No Man loseth the Right of it self for the Right and the Use of the Right may be distinguished as Right and Possession are oft distinct Therefore unless it can be proved by the Law of Nature that the Major or some other part have Power to over-rule the Rest of the Multitude It must follow that the Acts of Multitudes not Entire are not Binding to All but only to such as Consent unto them 7. As to the point of Proxy it cannot be shewed or proved That all those that have been Absent from Popular Elections did ever give their Voices to some of their Fellows I ask but one Example out of the History of the whole World let the Commonweal be but named wherever the Multitude or so much as the Greatest part of it consented either by Voice or by Procuration to the Election of a Prince The Ambition sometimes of One Man sometimes of Many or the Faction of a City or Citizens or the Mutiny of an Army hath set up or put down Princes but they have never tarried for this pretended Order by proceeding of the whole Multitude Lastly if the silent Acceptation of a Governour by part of the People be an Argument of their Concurring in the Election of him by the same Reason the Tacit Assent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained From whence it follows that every Prince that comes to a Crown either by Succession Conquest or Vsurpation may be said to be Elected by the People which Inference is too ridiculous for in such Cases the People are so far from the Liberty of Specification that they want even that of Contradiction 8. But it is in vain to argue against the Liberty of the People in the Election of Kings as long as men are perswaded that Examples of it are to be found in Scripture It is fit therefore to discover the Grounds of this Errour It is plain by an Evident Text that it is one thing to choose a King and another thing to set up a King over the People this latter power the Children of Israel had but not the former This Distinction is found most evident in Deut. 17. 15. where the Law of God saith Him shalt thou set King over thee whom the Lord shall choose so God must Eligere and the People only do Constituere Mr. Hooker in his Eighth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy clearly expounds this Distinction the words are worthy the citing Heaps of Scripture saith he are alledged concerning the Solemn Coronation or Inauguration of Saul David Solomon and others by Nobles Ancients and the people of the Commonwealth of Israel as if these Solemnities were a kind of Deed whereby the Right of Dominion is given which strange untrue and unnatural conceits are set abroad by Seed-men of Rebellion only to animate unquiet Spirits and to feed them with possibilities of Aspiring unto the Thrones if they can win the Hearts of the People whatsoever Hereditary Title any other before them may have I say these unjust and insolent Positions I would not mention were it not thereby to make the Countenance of Truth more Orient For unless we will openly proclaim Defiance unto all Law Equity and Reason we must for there is no other Remedy acknowledg that in Kingdoms Hereditary Birth-right giveth Right unto Sovereign Dominion and the Death of the Predecessor putteth the Successor by Blood in Seisin Those publick Solemnities before-mentioned do either serve for an open Testification of the Inheritor's Right or belong to the Form of inducing of him into possession of that thing he hath Right unto This is Mr. Hooker's Judgment of the Israelites Power to set a King over themselves No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King they would never have made Choice of Ioas a Child but of Seven years old nor of Manasses a Boy of Twelve since as Solomon saith Wo to the Land whose King is a Child Nor is it probable they would have elected Iosias but a very Child and a Son to so Wicked and Idolatrous a Father as that his own Servants murthered him and yet all the people set up this young Iosias and flew the Conspirators of the Death of Ammon his Father which Justice of the People God rewarded by making this Iosias the most Religious King that ever that Nation enjoyed 9. Because it is affirmed that the People have power to choose as well what Form of Government as what Governours they please of which mind is Bellarmine in those places we cited at first Therefore it is necessary to Examine the Strength of what is said in Defence of popular Commonweals against this Natural Form of Kingdoms which I maintain'd Here I must first put the Cardinal in mind of what he affirms in Cold Blood in other places where he saith God when he made all Mankind of One Man did seem openly to signifie that he rather approved the Government of One Man than of Many Again God shewed his Opinion when he endued not only Men but all Creatures with a Natural Propensity to Monarchy neither can it be doubted but a Natural Propensity is to be referred to God who is Author of Nature And again in a Third place What Form of Government God confirmed by his Authority may be gathered by that Common-weal which he instituted amongst the Hebrews which was not Aristocratical as Calvin saith but plainly Monarchichal 10. Now if God as Bellarmine saith hath taught us by Natural Instinct signified to us by the Creation and confirmed by his own Example the Excellency of Monarchy why should Bellarmine or We doubt but that it is Natural Do
But the vanity of this Fancy is too evident it is a meer Impossibility or Contradiction for if a King but once admit the People to be his Companions he leaves to be a King and the State becomes a Democracy at least he is but a Titular and no Real King that hath not the Soveraignty to Himself for the having of this alone and nothing but this makes a King to be a King As for that Shew of Popularity which is found in such Kingdoms as have General Assemblies for Consultation about making Publick Laws It must be remembred that such Meetings do not Share or divide the Soveraignty with the Prince but do only deliberate and advise their Supreme Head who still reserves the Absolute power in himself for if in such Assemblies the King the Nobility and People have equal Shares in the Soveraignty then the King hath but one Voice the Nobility likewise one and the People one and then any two of these Voices should have Power to over-rule the third thus the Nobility and Commons together should have Power to make a Law to bind the King which was never yet seen in any Kingdom but if it could the State must needs be Popular and not Regal 17 If it be Unnatural for the Multitude to chuse their Governours or to Govern or to partake in the Government what can be thought of that damnable Conclusion which is made by too many that the Multitude may Correct or Depose their Prince if need be Surely the Unnaturalness and Injustice of this Position cannot sufficiently be expressed For admit that a King make a Contract or Paction with his people either Originally in his Ancestors or personally at his Coronation for both these Pactions some dream of but cannot offer any proof for either yet by no Law of any Nation can a Contract be thought broken except that first a Lawful Tryal be had by the Ordinary Judge of the Breakers thereof or else every Man may be both Party and Judge in his own case which is absur'd once to be thought for then it will lye in the hands of the headless Multitude when they please to cast off the Yoke of Government that God hath laid upon them to judge and punish him by whom they should be Judged and punished themselves Aristotle can tell us what Judges the Multitude are in their own case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Judgment of the Multitude in Disposing of the Soveraignty may be seen in the Roman History where we may find many good Emperours Murthered by the People and many bad Elected by them Nero Heliogabalus Otho Vitellius and such other Monsters of Nature were the Minions of the Multitude and set up by them Pertinax Alexander Severus Gordianus Gallus Emilianus Quintilius Aurelianus Tacitus Probus and Numerianus all of them good Emperours in the Judgment of all Historians yet Murthered by the Multitude 18 Whereas many out of an imaginary Fear pretend the power of the people to be necessary for the repressing of the Insolencies of Tyrants wherein they propound a Remedy far worse than the Disease neither is the Disease indeed so frequent as they would have us think Let us be jugded by the History even of our own Nation We have enjoyed a Succession of Kings from the Conquest now for above 600 years a time far longer than ever yet any Popular State could continue we reckon to the Number of twenty six of these Princes since the Norman Race and yet not one of these is taxed by our Historians for Tyrannical Government It is true two of these Kings have been Deposed by the people and barbarously Murthered but neither of them for Tyranny For as a learned Historian of our Age saith Edward the Second and Richard the Second were not insupportable either in their Nature or Rule and yet the people more upon Wantonness than for any Want did take an unbridled Course against them Edward the second by many of our Historians is reported to be of a Good and Vertuous Nature and not Unlearned they impute his defects rather to Fortune than either to Council or Carriage of his Afsairs the Deposition of him was a violent Fury led by a Wife both Cruel and unchast and can with no better Countenance of Right be justifyed than may his lamentable both Indignities and Death it self Likewise the Deposition of King Richard II was a tempestuous Rage neither Led or Restrained by any Rules of Reason or of State Examin his Actions without a distempered Judgment and you will not Condemne him to be exceeding either Insufficient or Evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any Truth or of great moment Hollingshed writeth That he was most Unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his Youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his Estate yet in no Kings Days were the Commons in greater Wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the Evil guided Strength of their will took head against him to their own headlong destruction afterwards partly during the Reign of Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own People in Executing those who Conspired with him against King Richard But more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this Disorder more English Blood was spent than was in all the Foreign Wars together which have been since the Conquest Twice hath this Kingdom been miserably wasted with Civil War but neither of them occasioned by the Tyranny of any Prince The Cause of the Baron's Wars is by good Historians attributed to the stubbornness of the Nobility as the Bloody variance of the Houses of York and Lancaster and the late Rebellion sprung from the Wantonness of the People These three Unnatural Wars have dishonoured our Nation amongst Strangers so that in the Censures of Kingdoms the King of Spain is said to be the King of Men because of his Subjects willing Obedience the King of France King of Asses because of their infinite Taxes and Impositions but the King of England is said to be the King of Devils because of his Subjects often Insurrections against and Depositions of their Princes CHAP. III Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings 1. REgal Authority not subject to the Positive Laws Kings before Laws the King of Judah and Israel not tyed to Laws 2. Of Samuel 's Description of a King 1 Sam. 8. 3. The Power ascribed unto Kings in the New Testament 4. Whether Laws were invented to bridle Tyrants 5. The Benefit of Laws 6. Kings keep the Laws though not bound by the Laws 7. Of the Oathes of Kings 8. Of the Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King Iudge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11. The King and his
Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Iacob even until the Egyptian Bondage so we find it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau. It is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their families their places by their nations 7 Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but some petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories could be but small and not worthy the Title of Kingdoms but they must consider that at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find in the time of Abraham which was about 300 years after the Flood that in a little corner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Batail most of which were but Kings of Cities apiece with the adjacent Territories as of Sodom Gomorrah Shinar c. In the same Chapter is mention of Melchisedeck King of Salem which was but the City of Ierusalem And in the Catalogue of the Kings of Edom the Names of each King's City is recorded as the only Mark to distinguish their Dominions In the Land of Canaan which was but a small circuit Ioshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings and about the same time Adonibeseck had 70 Kings whose Hands and Toes he had cut off and made them feed under his Table A few years after this 32 Kings came to Benhadad King of Syria and about Seventy Kings of Greece went to the Wars of Troy Caesar found more Kings in France than there be now Princes there and at his Sailing over into this Island he found four Kings in our County of Kent These heaps of Kings in each Nation are an Argument their Territories were but small and strongly confirms our Assertion that Erection of Kingdoms came at first only by Distinction of Families By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Israelites coming into AEgypt where the Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites out of Bondage God out of a special Care of them chose Moses and Iosuah successively to govern as Princes in the Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time he raised up Iudges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gave the Israelites Kings he reestablished the Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special Person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently in the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Graunt 8. It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Iurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers And therefore we find that God told Cain of his Brother Abel His Desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Iacob bought his Brother's Birth-right Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy Brethren and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more Significant to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy by this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae 9. It may be demanded what becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in Case the Crown does escheate for want of an Heir Whether doth it not then Devolve to the People The Answer is It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir for an Heir there always is If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is One Man and but One in the World who is next Heir although the Knowledge who should be that one One Man be quite lost 2. This Ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supreme Power is devolved to the Multitude and that they have Power to Rule and Chose what Rulers they please No the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the Uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected and into such again as into their first Matter many times they return again And because the dependencie of ancient Families is oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge therefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought sit to adopt many times those for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or made them fit and capable of such Regal Favours All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign Authority on whom they please And he that is so Elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Vniversal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People If it please God for the Correction of the Prince or punishment of the People to suffer Princes to be removed and others to be placed in their rooms either by the Factions of the Nobility or Rebellion of the People in all such cases the Judgment of God who hath power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgments without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and turn mens Vnrighteous Acts to the performance of his Righteous Decrees 10. In all Kingdoms or Common-wealths in the World whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People or but the true Heir of such a Father or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation or by Election of the Nobles or
we not find that in every Family the Government of One Alone is most Natural God did always Govern his own People by Monarchy only The Patriarchs Dukes Iudges and Kings were all Monarchs There is not in all the Scripture Mention or Approbation of any other Form of Government At the time when Scripture saith There was No King in Israel but that every Man did that which was Right in his Own Eyes Even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Benjamitical War for providing Wives for the Benjamites we find the Elders of the Congregation bare only Sway. Iudges 21. 16. To them also were Complaints to be made as appears by Verse 22. And though mention be made of All the Children of Israel All the Congregation and All the People yet by the Term of All the Scripture means only All the Fathers and not All the Whole Multitude as the Text plainly expounds it self in 2. Chron. 1. 2. where Solomon speaks unto all Israel to the Captains the Iudges and to Every Governour the Chief of the Fathers so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 Kings 8. 12. 2 Chron. 5. 2. At that time also when the People of Israel beg'd a King of Samuel they were Governed by Kingly Power God out of a special Love and Care to the House of Israel did choose to be their King himself and did govern them at that time by his Viceroy Samuel and his Sons and therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected Thee but Me that I should not Reign over them It seems they did not like a King by Deputation but desired one by Succession like all the Nations All Nations belike had Kings then and those by Inheritance not by Election for we do not find the Israelites prayed that they themselves might choose their Own King they dream of no such Liberty and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together If other Nations had Elected their own Kings no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated Other Nations as well in the Electing as in the Having of a King Aristotle in his Book of Politicks when he comes to compare the several Kinds of Government he is very reserved in discoursing what Form he thinks Best he disputes subtilely to and fro of many Points and Judiciously of many Errours but concludes nothing himself In all those Books I find little Commendation of Monarchy It was his Hap to live in those Times when the Grecians abounded with several Commonwealths who had then Learning enough to make them seditious Yet in his Ethicks he hath so much good Manners as to confess in right down words That Monarchy is the Best Form of Government and a Popular Estate the Worst And though he be not so free in his Politicks yet the Necessity of Truth hath here and there extorted from him that which amounts no less to the Dignity of Monarchy he confesseth it to be First the Natural and the Divinest Form of Government and that the Gods themselves did live under a Monarchy What can a Heathen say more Indeed the World for a long time knew no other sort of Government but only Monarchy The Best Order the Greatest Strength the Most Stability and Easiest Government are to be found all in Monarchy and in no other Form of Government The New Platforms of Commonweals were first hatched in a Corner of the World amongst a few Cities of Greece which have been imitated by very few other laces Those very Cities were first for many years governed by Kings untill Wantonness Ambition or Faction of the People made them attempt New kinds of Regiment all which Mutations proved most Bloody and Miserable to the Authors of them happy in nothing but that they continued but a small time 11. A little to manifest the Imperfection of Popular Government let us but examine the most Flourishing Democratie that the World hath ever known I mean that of Rome First for the Durability at the most it lasted but 480 Years for so long it was from the Expulsion of Tarquin to Iulius Caesar. Whereas both the Assyrian Monarchy lasted without Interruption at the least twelve hundred years and the Empire of the East continued 1495 Years 2. For the Order of it during these 480 years there was not any One settled Form of Government in Rome for after they had once lost the Natural Power of Kings they could not find upon what Form of Government to rest their Fickleness is an Evidence that they found things amiss in every Change At the First they chose two Annual Consuls instead of Kings Secondly those did not please them long but they must have Tribunes of the People to defend their Liberty Thirdly they leave Tribunes and Consuls and choose them Ten Men to make them Laws Fourthly they call for Consuls and Tribunes again sometimes they choose Dictators which were Temporary Kings and sometimes Military Tribunes who had Consular Power All these shiftings caused such notable Alteration in the Government as it passeth Historians to find out any Perfect Form of Regiment in so much Confusion One while the Senate made Laws another while the People The Dissentions which were daily between the Nobles and the Commons bred those memorable Seditions about Vsury about Marriages and about Magistracy Also the Graecian the Apulian and the Drusian Seditions filled the Market-places the Temples and the Capitol it self with Blood of the Citizens the Social War was plainly Civil the Wars of the Slaves and the other of the Fencers the Civil Wars of Marius and Sylla of Cataline of Caesar and Pompey the Triumvirate of Augustus Lepidus and Antonius All these shed an Ocean of Blood within Italy and the Streets of Rome Thirdly for their Government let it be allowed that for some part of this time it was Popular yet it was Popular as to the City of Rome only and not as to the Dominions or whole Empire of Rome for no Democratie can extend further than to One City It is impossible to Govern a Kingdom much less many Kingdoms by the whole People or by the Greatest Part of them 12. But you will say yet the Roman Empire grew all up under this kind of Popular Government and the City became Mistress of the World It is not so for Rome began her Empire under Kings and did perfect it under Emperours it did only encrease under that Popularity Her greatest Exaltation was under Trajan as her longest Peace had been under Augustus Even at those times when the Roman Victories abroad did amaze the World then the Tragical Slaughter of Citizens at home deserved Commiseration from their vanquished Enemies What though in that Age of her Popularity she bred many admired Captains and Commanders each of which was able to lead an Army though many of them were but ill requited by the
Ordinance then it follows that the Governours were Supreme and not the King Or if it be said that both King and Governours are sent by God then they are both equal and so neither of them Supreme Therefore St. Peter's meaning is in short obey the Laws of the King or of his Ministers By which it is evident that neither St. Peter nor S. Paul intended other-Form of Government than only Monarchical much less any Subjecton of Princes to Humane Laws That familiar distinction of the Schoolmen whereby they Subject Kings to the Directive but not to the Coactive Power of Laws is a Confession that Kings are not bound by the Positive Laws of any Nation Since the Compulsory Power of Laws is that which properly makes Laws to be Laws by binding men by Rewards or Punishment to Obedience whereas the Direction of the Law is but like the advice and direction which the Kings Council gives the King which no man says is a Law to the King 4 There want not those who Believe that the first invention of Laws was to Bridle and moderate the over-great Power of Kings but the truth is the Original of Laws was for the keeping of the Multitude in Order Popular Estates could not Subsist at all without Laws whereas Kingdoms were Govern'd many Ages without them The People of Athens as soon as they gave over Kings were forced to give Power to Draco first then to Solon to make them Laws not to bridle Kings but themselves and though many of their Laws were very Severe and Bloody yet for the Reverence they bare to their Law-makers they willingly submitted to them Nor did the People give any Limited Power to Solon but an Absolute Jurisdiction at his pleasure to Abrogate and Confirm what he thought fit the People never challenging any such Power to themselves So the People of Rome gave to the Ten Men who were to chuse and correct their Laws for the Twelve Tables an Absolute Power without any Appeal to the people 5. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busyed with Wars or distracted with Publick Cares so that every private man could not have accesse to their persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then of necessity were Laws invented that so every particular Subject might find his Prince's Pleasure decyphered unto him in the Tables of his Laws that so there might be no need to resort to the King but either for the Interpretation or Mitigation of Obscure or Rigorous Laws or else in new Cases for a Supplement where the Law was Defective By this means both King and People were in many things eased First The King by giving Laws doth free himself of great and intolerable Troubles as Moses did himself by chusing Elders Secondly The people have the Law as a Familiar Admonisher and Interpreter of the King's pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the Presence and Majesty of the King Also the Judges and Magistrates whose help in giving Judgment in many Causes Kings have need to use are restrained by the Common Rules of the Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judge according to the Laws and not follow their own Opinions 6. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King Iames teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws Rigorous or Doubtful he may mitigate and interpret General Laws made in Parliament may upon known Respects to the King by his Authority be Mitigated or Suspended upon Causes only known to him And although a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weale doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positive Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the Best or Only Means for the Preservation of the Common-Wealth By this means are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerours bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipial Law of the Land so much as the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-Fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the Publick Good of their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm That although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Iudgments indifferent and upright Iustice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Iudgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience join'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of a Judge and if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the State But let it be supposed for truth that Kings do swear to observe