slaughters were made on both sides You may remember Damasus and Vrsicinus who were Contemporaries with Ambrose It would be too long to relate the Tumultuary Insurrections of the Inhabitants of Constantinople Antiach and Alexandria especially those under the Conduct and Management of Cyrillus whom you extol as a Preacher up of Obedience when the Monks in that fight within the City had almost slain Orestes Theodosius's Deputy Now who can sufficiently wonder at your Impudence or Carelessness and Neglect Till St. Austin's time say you and lower down than the age that he lived in there is not any mention extant in History of any private person of any Commander or of any number of Conspirators that have put their Prince to death or taken up Arms against him I have named to you out of known and approved Histories both private persons and Magistrates that with their own hands have slain not only bad but very good Princes Whole Armies of Christians many Bishops amongst them that have fought against their own Emperors You produce some of the Fathers that with a great flourish of words persuade or boast of Obedience to Princes And I on the other side produce both those same Fathers and others besides them that by their actions have declined Obedience to their Princes even in lawful things have defended themselves with a Military Force against them others that have opposed forcibly and wounded their Deputies others that being Competitors for Bishopricks have maintained Civil Wars against one another As if it were lawful for Christians to wage War with Christians for a Bishoprick and Citizens with Citizens but unlawful to fight against a Tyrant in defence of our Liberty of our Wives and Children and of our Lives themselves Who would own such Fathers as these You produce St. Austin who you say asserts that the Power of a Master over his Servants and a Prince over his Subjects is one and the same thing But I answer If St. Austin assert any such thing he asserts what neither our Saviour nor any of his Apostles ever asserted tho for the confirmation of that assertion than which nothing can be more false he pretends to rely wholly upon their Authority The three or four last Pages of this Fourth Chapter are stuffed with meer Lies or things carelessly and loosely put together that are little to the purpose And that every one that reads them will discover by what has been said already For what concerns the Pope against whom you declaim so loudly I am content you should bawl at him till you are hoarse But whereas you endeavour to persuade the ignorant That all that called themselves Christians yielded an entire obedience to Princes whether good or bad till the Papal Power grew to that height that it was acknowledged superior to that of the Civil Magistrate and till he took upon him to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance I have sufficiently proved by many Examples before and since the age that St. Augustin lived in that nothing can be more false Neither does that seem to have much more truth in it which you say in the last place viz. That Pope Zachary absolved the French-men from their Oath of Allegiance to their King For Francis Hottoman who was both a French-man and a Lawyer and a very Learned man in the 13th Chapter of his Francogallia denies that either Chilperic was deposed or the Kingdom translated to Pepin by the Pope's Authority and he proves out of very Ancient Chronicles of that Nation That the whole affair was transacted in the great Council of the Kingdom according to the Original Censtitution of that Government Which being once done the French Histories and Pope Zachary himself deny that there was any necessity of absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance For not only Hottoman but Guicciard a very eminent Historian of that Nation informs us That the Ancient Records of the Kingdom of France testifie That the Subjects of that Nation upon the first institution of Kingship amongst them reserved a power to themselves both of Chusing their Princes and of Deposing them again if they thought fit And that the Oath of Allegiance which they took was upon this express condition to wit That the King should likewise perform what at his Coronation he swore to do So that if Kings by mis-governing the people committed to their charge first broke their own Oath to their Subjects there needs no Pope to dispense with the people's Oaths the Kings themselves by their own perfidiousness having absolved their Subjects And finally Pope Zachary himself in a Letter of his to the French which you your self quote renounces and ascribes to the people that Authority which you say he assumes to himself For if a Prince be accountable to the People being beholden to them for his Royalty if the people since they make Kings have the same Right to depose them as the very words of that Pope are it is not likely that the French men would by any Oath depart in the least from that Ancient Right or ever tye up their own hands so as not to have the same Right that their Ancestors always had to depose bad Princes as well as to honour and obey good ones nor is it likely that they thought themselves obliged to yield that Obedience to Tyrants which they swore to yield only to good Princes A people obliged to Obedience by such an Oath is discharged of that obligation when a Lawful Prince becomes a Tyrant or gives himself over to Sloth and Veluptuousness the rule of Justice the very Law of Nature dispenseth with such a people's Allegiance So that even by the Pope's own opinion the people were under no obligation to yield Obedience to Chilperic and consequently had no need of a Dispensation CHAP. V. THO I am of opinion Salmasius and always was That the Law of God does exactly agree with the Law of Nature so that having shown what the Law of God is with respect to Princes and what the practice has been of the people of God both Jews and Christians I have at the same time and by the same Discourse made to appear what is most agreeable to the Law of Nature yet because you pretend to confute us most powerfully by the Law of Nature I will be content to admit that to be necessary which before I had thought would be superfluous that in this Chapter I may demonstrate That nothing is more suitable to the Law of Nature than that Punishment be inflicted upon Tyrants Which if I do not evince I will then agree with you that likewise by the Law of God they are exempt I do not purpose to frame a long Discourse of Nature in general and the original of Civil Societies that Argument has been largely handled by many Learned men both Greek and Latin but I shall endeavour to be as short as may be and my design is not so much to confute you my self who would willingly have spared this
pains as to show that you confute your self and destroy your own Positions I 'll begin with that first Position which you lay down as a Fundamental and that shall be the Groundwork of my ensuing Discourse The Law of Nature say you is a Principle imprinted on all mens minds to regard the good of all mankind considering men as united together in Societies But this innate Principle cannot procure that common good unless as there are people that must be governed so that very Principle ascertain who shall govern them To wit lest the stronger oppress the weaker and those persons who for their mutual Safety and Protection have united themselves together should be disunited and divided by Injury and Violence and reduced to a bestial savage life again This I suppose is what you mean Out of the number of those that united into one body you say there must needs have been same chosen who excelled the rest in Wisdom and Valour that they either by force or by persuasion might restrain those that were refractory and keep them within due bounds sometimes it would so fall out that one single Person whose Conduct and Valour was extraordinary might be able to do this and sometimes more assisted one another with their Advice and Counsel But since it is impossible that any one manshould order all things himself there was a necessity of his consulting with others and taking some into part of the Government with himself So that whether a single person reign or whether the Supreme Power reside in the body of the People since it is impossible that all should administer the affairs of the Common-wealth or that one man should do all the Government does always lye upon the shoulders of many And afterwards you say Both Forms of Government whether by many or a few or by a single person are equally according to the Law of Nature for both proceed from the same Principle of Nature viz. That it is impossible for any single person so to govern alone as not to admit others into a share of the Government with himself Tho I might have taken all this out of the Third Book of Aristotle's Politicks I chose rather to transcribe it out of your own Book for you stole it from him as Prometheus did Fire from Jupiter to the ruin of Monarchy and overthrow of your self and your own opinion For enquire as diligently as you can for your life into the Law of Nature as you have described it you will not find the least footstep in it of Kingly Power as you explain it The Law of Nature say you in ordering who should govern others respected the universal good of all mankind It did not then regard the private good of any particular person not of a Prince so that the King is for the People and consequently the People superior to him which being allowed it is impossible that Princes should have any right to oppress or enslave the people that the inferior should have right to tyrannize over the superior So that since Kings cannot pretend to any right to do mischief the right of the people must be acknowledged according to the Law of Nature to be superior to that of Princes so that by the same right that before King hip was known men united their Strength and Counsels for their mutual Safety and Defence by the same right that for the preservation of all mens Liberty Peace and Safety they appointed one or more to govern the rest by the same right they may depose those very persons whom for their Valour or Wisdom they advanced to the Government or any others that rule disorderly if they find them by reason of their slothfulness folly or impiety unfit for Government since Nature does not regard the good of one or of a few but of all in general For what sort of persons were they whom you suppose to have been chosen You say they were such as excelled in Courage and Conduct to wit such as by Nature seemed fittest for Government who by reason of their excellent Wisdom and Valour were enabled to undertake so great a Charge The consequence of this I take to be That right of Succession is not by the Law of Nature that no man by the Law of Nature has right to be King unless he excel all others in Wisdom and Courage that all such as Reign and want these qualifications are advanced to the Government by Force or Faction have no right by the Law of Nature to be what they are but ought rather to be Slaves than Princes For Nature appoints that Wise men should govern Fools not that Wicked men should rule over Good men Fools over wise men And consequently they that take the Government out of such mens hands act according to the Law of Nature To what end Nature directs Wise men should bear the Rule you shall hear in your own words viz. That by Force or by Persuasion they may keep such as are unruly within due bounds But how should he keep others within the bounds of their duty that neglects or is ignorant of or wilfully acts contrary to his own Alledg now if you can any dictate of Nature by which we are enjoyned to neglect the Wise Institutions of the Law of Nature and have no regard to them in Civil and Publick Concerns when we see what great and admirable things Nature her self effects in things that are inanimate and void of sense rather than lose her end Produce any Rule of Nature or Natural Justice by which inferior Criminals ought to be punished but Kings and Princes to go unpunished and not only so but tho guilty of the greatest Crimes imaginable be had in Reverence and almost adored You agree That all Forms of Government whether by many or a few or by a single person are equally agreeable to the Law of Nature So that the person of a King is not by the Law of Nature more sacred than a Senate of Nobles or Magistrates chosen from amongst the common people who you grant may be punished and ought to be if they offend and consequently Kings ought to be so too who are appointed to rule for the very same end and purpose that other Magistrates are For say you Nature does not allow any single person to bear rule so entirely as not to have Partners in the Government It does not therefore allow of a Monarch it does not allow one single person to rule so as that all others should be in a slavish subjection to his Commands only You that give Princes such Partners in the Government as in whom to use your own words the Government always resides do at the same time make others Colleagues with them and equal to them nay and consequently you settle a power in those Colleagues of punishing and of deposing them So that while you your self go about not to extol a Kingly Government but to establish it by the Law of Nature you destroy it no greater
the Law of Nature to oppress their Subjects and go unpunished because as circumstances may fall out it may sometimes be a less mischief to bear with them than to remove them Remember what your self once wrote concerning Bishops against a Jesuit you were then of another opinion than you are now I have quoted your words formerly you there affirm that seditious Civil dissentions and discords of the Nobles and Common people against and amongst one another are much more tolerable and less mischievous than certain misery and destruction under the Government of a single person that plays the Tyrant And you said very true For you had not then run mad you had not then been bribed with Charles his Jacobusses You had not got the King's-Evil I should tell you perhaps if I did not know you that you might be ashamed thus to prevaricate But you can sooner burst than blush who have cast off all shame for a little profit Did you not remember that the Commonwealth of the people of Rome flourished and became glorious when they had banished their Kings Could you possibly forget that of the Low-Countries which after it had shook off the yoke of the King of Spain after long and tedious Wars but Crown'd with success obtained its Liberty and feeds such a pitiful Grammarian as your self with a Pension not that their youth might be so infatuated by your Sophistry as to chuse rather to return to their former Slavery than inherit the Glorious Liberty which their Ancestors purchased for them May those pernicious principles of yours be banished with your self into the most remote and barbarous corners of the World And last of all the Commonwealth of England might have afforded you an example in which Charles who had been their King after he had been taken captive in War and was found incurable was put to death But they have defaced and impoverished the Island with Civil broils and discords which under its Kings was happy and swam in Luxury Yea when it was almost buried in Luxury and Voluptuousness and the more inured thereto that it might be enthralled the more easily when its Laws were abolished and its Religion agreed to be sold they delivered it from Slavery You are like him that published Simplicius in the same Volume with Epictetus a very grave Stoick Who call an Island happy because it swims in Luxury I 'm sure no such Doctrine ever came out of Zeno's School But why should not you who would give Kings a power of doing what they list have liberty your self to broach what new Philosophy you please Now begin again to act your part There never was in any King's Reign so much blood spilt so many Families ruined All this is to be imputed to Charles not to us who first raised an Army of Irishmen against us who by his own Warrant Authorized the Irish Nation to conspire against the English who by their means slew Two hundred Thousand of his English Subjects in the Province of Uâ—… besides what Numbers were sâ—ain in other parts of that Kingdom who sollicited two Armies towards the destruction of the Parliament of England and the City of London and did many other actions of Hostility before the Parliament and people had Listed one Soldier for the preservation and defence of the Government What Principles what Law what Religion ever taught men rather to consult their ease to save their money their blood nay their lives themselves than to oppose an enemy with force for I make no difference betwixt a Foreign Enemy and another since both are equally dangerous and destructive to the good of the whole Nation The People of Israel saw very well that they could not possibly punish the Benjamites forSpanâ— Murthering the Levite's Wife without the loss of many Men's lives And did that induce them to sit still Was that accounted a sufficient Argument why they should abstain from War from a very Bloody Civil War Did they therefore suffer the Death of one poor Woman to be unrevenged Certainly if Nature teacheth us rather to endure the Government of a King though he be never so bad than to endanger the lives of a great many Men in the recovery of our Liberty it must teach us likewise not only to endure a Kingly Government which is the only one that you argue ought to be submitted to but an Aristocracy and a Democracy Nay and sometimes it will persuade us to submit to a Multitude of Highway-men and to Slaves that Mutiny Fulvius and Rupilius if your Principles had been received in their days must not have engaged in the Servile War as their Writers call it after the Praetorian Armies were Slain Crassus must not have Marched against Spartacus after the Rebels had destroyed one Roman Army and spoil'd their Tents Nor must â—â—mpâ—y have undertaken the Piratick War But the State of Rome must have pursued the dictates of Nature and must have submitted to their own Slaves or to the Pyrates rather than run the hazard of losing some Mens lives You do not prove at all that Nature has imprinted any such notion as this of yours on the minds of Men And yet you cannot forbear boding us ill luck and denouncing the Wrath of God against us which may Heaven divert and inflict it upon your self and all such Prognosticators as you who have punished as he deserved one that had the name of our King but was in Fact our implacable Enemy and we have made Atonement for the Death of so many of our Countreymen as our Civil Wars have occasion'd by shedding his Blood that was the Author and Cause of them Then you tell us that a Kingly Government appears to be more according to the Laws of Nature because more Nations both in our days and of old have submitted to that Form of Government than ever did to any other I answer If that be so it was neither the effect of any Dictate of the Law of Nature nor was it in Obedience to any Command from God God would not suffer his own People to be under a King he consented at last but unwillingly what Nature and right Reason dictates we are not to gather from the practice of most Nations but of the wisest and most prudent The Grecians the Romans the Italians and Carthagenians with many other have of their own accord out of choice preferr'd a Commonwealth to a Kingly Government and these Nations that I have named are better instances than all the rest Hence Sulpitius Severus says That the very Name of a King was always very odious among freeborn People But these things concern not our present purpose nor many other Impertinences that follow over and over again I 'll make haste to prove that by Examples which I have proved already by Reason viz. That it is very agreeable to the Law of Nature that Tyrants should be punished and that all Nations by the instinct of Nature have punished them which will expose your Impudence and