in the Fatherhood Vid. Mezeray Abregé Chron. An. 1318. and that the first Kings were Fathers of Families which if granted yet will not prove that this proceeded from that natural perpetual subjection which Children owe their Parents or that because they are Parents they are therefore Lords and Kings over them So that this being the Groundwork of whatever he says in this Discourse p. 67. if this be faulty as I hope I have proved it to be all that he builds upon this foundation signifies nothing Secondly he assumes that this Paternal power cannot be lost it may be transferr'd or usurped but never lost or ceaseth But as the power of the Father may be lawfully transferred or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped and in Vsurpation the Title of the Vsurper is before and better than the Title of any other than him that had a former Right for he hath a possession by the permissive Will of God which permission how long it will last no man ordinarily knows every man is to preserve his own life for the service of God and of his King or Father and is so far to obey an Vsurper as may tend not onely to the preservation of his King and Father but sometimes even of the Vsurper himself when probably he may he thereby preserved to the correction or mercy of his true Superiour And though by humane Law a long Prescription may take away a Right yet divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away The same he says p. 70. That in Grants and Gifts that have their original from God or Nature as the power of the Father hath no inferiour power of man can limit nor make any Prescription against them Vpon this ground is built that Maxime That Nullum tempus occurrit Regi no time bars a King Which second assumption is likewise false for I have already proved that all Fatherly power ceases with the life of the Father as Motherly power with the life of the Mother or else in the state of Nature a man must be left like other Cattle to be pickt up and markt by whoever can first seize him And secondly that it is false that this power and authority of a Father can be transferred to or usurped by another or that the Son owes the person to whom his Father transfers or sells him any other duty than as his Assignee performs the Office of a Father towards him Much less that an Usurper acquires any Right over the person of the Son in the state of Nature for otherwise if a Thief should procure strength enough to drive a Master of a separate Family out of doors and so this Rogue could subdue the whole House and set up for Lord and Master of it that then the Wife and Children and Servants were immediately bound to obey him because he hath a possession and is in by the permissive Will of God and so hath a better Right than any body else but the Master himself It is true indeed in this case every Member of this Family is bound to preserve his own life and may yield a passive Obedience to this Rogue for fear of his power and as far as he thinks it will conduce to his preservation but I do not see any obligation he hath from Conscience or Reason to obey this Robber farther than as he cannot help it but may take the first opportunity to drive him out of the House and call in his true Father or Master unless he hath made him any promise to be quiet and not assault him for then he is in the same state with a Prisoner upon parol for all Writers on this subject hold that nothing but a lawful War can give any man a Right over the person of another unless he become his Servant by some voluntary act of his own or otherwise the Slaves taken by the Argter-Pyrates were in a sad case for they were bound in Conscience never to escape without the consent of their Masters Nor upon the Authors principles is there any difference between a Father of a Family in the state of Nature and a Prince since he tells us more than once that a Kingdom is but a large Family And consequently no difference between an Usurper of the Fatherly power and that of a Monarch onely the Rogue that usurped the one could call himself but Master of the Family but the other would stile himself King Emperour o◠Protector Nor will the place of St. Paul Rom. 13. v. 1. oblige any man in this case for though it is said that St. Paul wrote this Epistle Nero an Usurper being Emperour of Rome I deny that Nero was an Usurper for though it is true that Claudius left a Son yet since by the Roman Law a man might make whom he pleased his Son by Adoption which Son so adopted was in all respects looked upon as the true Heir of the adopting Father and Nero was so adopted by Claudius and so being elder than his own Son Germanicus would succeed before him Tacit Annal. 12. c. 25 26. And besides the Adoption being confirmed and passed into a Law by the Senate Nero was as truly Claudius's Son by the Roman Law as Britannicus himself So that an Usurper hath at first no better Right than another For Gods permitting a wicked act to be done as a Banditi or Pyrate to take a man Prisoner does not therefore confer on this Thief or Pyrate any Right over a mans person So that the instance the Author gives p. 73. will not hold That Vsurpers have such a qualified Right to govern as is in Thieves who have stolen Goods and during the time they are possessed of them have a Title in Law against all others but the true Owners and so such Vsurpers to divers intents and purposes may be obeyed For first this is no Law of Nature or Reason but onely a positive Law of England where for the avoiding of perpetual violence and strife and for the better securing of Property they have made possession even in Thieves to confer a Temporary Right against all but the true Proprietor Whereas in the state of Nature a Thief by invading another mans Goods unjustly and taking them away by violence becomes an Enemy to all Mankind and so may lawfully be killed or have what he hath so possessed taken from him by any other Secondly Neither does the parallel between the possession of Goods and that of a Kingdom hold for Goods may be possessed by the first Occupant but Government which is an Authority over the person of a man can never be seized since a man without his own act or consent can never lawfully fall into the power or possession of another as I have already proved So that I know not to what purpose this Treatise of the Authors could serve but to make all men obliged in Conscience to yield not onely a passive but an active Obedience to all the Commands of Cromwel and the
own Consent as a Slave by Compact or without his fault as a Slave taken in a just War and that no Master of a Family hath such Right in the person of one of these but that he may do him injury if he take away his life or punish him without cause and that such even such a Slave may lawfully set himself free if the Master do not perform his part of the Bargain And having in the last place shewn what power a Husband hath over his Wife in the state of Nature and from whence it takes its Original it is now time to answer those Arguments and Objections made by this Author and others That the Prince or Governour so elected by the Fathers of Families or Frcemen at their own dispose which I hold to be equivalent to the whole People hath not onely his Nomination from them but that it is from God alone that he derives his Soveraign Power and Authority with which he is endued upon his first acceptance of the Supreme Power and if he should accept it with any limitation it were to restrain that Power which God hath conferred upon him by his being made the Supreme Magistrate and would hinder him from performing that great Duty as he ought In answer to which I have already proved that no such unlimited Power was conferred by God to any private man in the state of Nature as a Father Husband or Master and therefore could not be given to any Civil Soveraign who is supposed to have no more power than the Father of the Family had before A second Objection is That no particular man hath in the state of Nature any power over his own life and therefore cannot have any over the life of another man and if one man hath not this power neither have the People which is but a universal consisting of singulars any such power and consequently cannot confer it on any other man therefore every Prince must have this Soveraign Power of life and death not from the People but from God In answer to which I shall first of all deny the consequence that because God hath not given a man a power over his own life therefore he can have none over the person of another For God gave man a Right to preserve but not to destroy himself and so cannot dispose of his own life whenever he is weary of it Therefore since the first Law of Nature is Self-preservation it is lawful for a man to use all means conducing to this end that do not prejudice another mans Right in his particular life or happiness so that if any man assault me in the state of Nature I may defend my self and consequently kill the Assailant if I cannot otherwise escape But perhaps it will be replyed that the intention here is not principally to kill the man if it may be otherwise avoided and that this Right is given men onely to preserve their lives from being taken away at another mans pleasure but that no private man hath power to revenge an injury done to another or ones self in the state of Nature with death but God or him to whom God hath committed this power according to St. Paul Rom. 12.19 Dearly beloved avenge not your selves c. I shall prove that this place does not destroy that which I maintain for I grant that all Revenge taken as the satisfaction some men take in the very doing evil or prejudice to another is unlawful even by the light of Nature Secondly Likewise where Magistracy is instituted who is to bear the Sword for the punishment of evil doers I grant all return of like for like to be unlawful since he is appointed as a publick Judge to right those that are injured and maintain the common Peace But no Text forbids men to punish injuries done either to themselves or those they have a concern for in the state of Nature for this is not Revenge but a natural Punishment to deter men from committing violent and unjust actions that disturb the peace of humane Society since the wrong doer declares himself thereby a publick Enemy to all Mankind And on this account Cain feared that not his Father onely hut every one that met him would slay him that is punish him for the death of their Brother or Kinsman And if this were unlawful then all War must be so in the state of Nature and Princes being always in that state in respect of each other could never make any War for the gaining of Rights usurped or to punish for Injuries received So that this power which a man in some cases hath over the life of another is onely given him by God for the common good and preservation of Mankind of which every particular person is a part and so this power conferred upon the supreme Magistrate is no more nor extends higher than that though there are more things requisite to the publick peace and safety of a Civil Government than are to humane Society in the state of Nature And from hence do supreme Powers derive their Right of making positive Laws and ordaining higher Punishments for Offences than the Laws of God or Nature do expresly appoint as for Thest Coining and the like Nor is the Antecedent true that no man in the state of Nature hath a power to dispose of his own life For though it may be true that no man hath a Right to make away himself whenever he dislikes his being here yet it does not therefore follow but that for a greater good to the publick any man nay a Prince himself may lay down his life for his Peoples good And therefore I doubt not but the Example of Codrus the Athenian King was not onely lawful but highly commendable in facrificing his life for the good and safety of his People supposing that all their Estates and Liberties depended upon that one Battel much more for a private man to lay down his life to save some publick person highly useful to humane Society And this much does the Apostle Paul himself seem to admit Rom. 5.7 when he says For scarcely for a righteous man will one die yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die Where by a righteous man Expositors understand one who had sufficiently done his duty in an ordinary private capacity yet contributed little to the publick good whereas by a good man is understood some person highly useful and beneficial to others and for such a one a man may not onely dare to die but actually lay down his life if occasion be A second Objection is That if the supreme Magistrates Authority be derived from the People then this Authority must be either inferiour or superiour to it If inferiour how can the People be commanded or governed by that which is inferiour to its self If superiour how can the Effect be more noble than the Gause since neither any particular Person nor the whole Multitude had Soveraign Authority and therefore
onely was named in the Grant P. 19. The Author proceeds to obviate an Objection that he sees may be made to his Hypothesis That it may seem absurd that Kings now are Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true says he all Kings are 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 so in their right succeed to the exercise of Supream Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not onely Lords of their own Children but of their Brethren and all others that were Subjects to their Fathers And therefore we finde that God told Cain of his brother Abel His desires shall be toward thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Jacob bought his brothers Birthright Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy brethren and let the sons of thy mother bow before thee P. 20. As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarch did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and onely the right of the Father descended upon the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more significant to express the power of him who succeeds onely to the right of Fatherhood which his Ancestors did naturally enjoy By this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath a right of a Father over many a gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae It may be demanded What becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in case the Crown does escheat 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 is always 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 man be quite lost P. 21. This ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supream Power is devolved to the Multitude or that they have power to rule and chuse what Rulers they please No the Kingly power in such cases escheats 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 finde the greater Monarchies were at first erected and into such again as into their first matter many times they return again And because the dependancy of ancient Families is oft an obsure and worn-out knowledge there the wisdom of many Princes have thought fit to adopt those for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enabled them or made them fit and capable of such Royal Favours All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Soveraign 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 by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Vniversal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People P. 22. In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the world whether the Prince be the Supreame Father of the People or but the true Heir of such a Father p. 23. or whether he come to the Crown by usurpation of the Nobles or of the People or by any other way whatsoever or whether some few or a multitude govern the Commonwealth yet still the Authority that is in any one or in many or in all these is the onely Right and natural Authority of a Supream Father There is and always shall be continued to the end of the world a natural Right of a Supream Father over a multitude although by the secret Will of God many do at first most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it To confirm this natural Right of Regal Power we finde in the Decalogue that the Law which enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the Terms of Honour thy Father and thy Mother as if all Power were originally in the Father If Obedience to Parents be due immediately by a natural Law and Subjection to Princes but by the mediation of an humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men as we see the power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate P. 24. If we compare Rights of a Father with those of a King we finde them all one without any difference at all but onely in the latitude or extent of them As the Father over one Family so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve feed clothe instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth His War his Peace his Courts of Justice and all his Acts of Soveraignty tend onely to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father and to their Children their Rights and Priviledges so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Vniversal Fatherly Care of his People I have been so just to the Author as to transcribe as much of his first Chapter as tends to prove the original power of Kings as well that you might see the Hypothesis which he builds his Divine Right of Absolute Monarchy in his own words and so be the better able to judge whether I understand and answer him or not as because it contains the substance and strength of all that the Author had to say in defence of it So that I shall now fall to examine whether his Foundations will bear so weighty a Structure as he hath raised upon it His first Argument against the natural Freedom of Mankinde is drawn from Scripture and from Bellarmine's own Concession That Adam was and consequently every other Father ought to be a Prince over his Posterity And as Adam was Lord over his Children so his Children under him had a power over their own Children suberdinately to the first Parent who was Lord Paramount over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grandfather of his People So that neither the Children of Adam or any else can be free from subjection to their Parents and this subjection to Parents being the foundation of all Legal Authority by the Ordination of God himself therefore no man can be born in a state of Freedom or Equality In answer to which I shall not concern my self what Bellarmine or any other have granted but would be glad to know where and how God hath given this Absolute power to Fathers over their Children and by what Law Children are tyed to an Absolute Subjection or Servitude to
and he shall find them managed much after the same rate Nor hath these differences onely divided these Monarchies where the Succession was never well settled at first but even those that have been better constituted and where one would belieev the Discent of the Crown had been sufficiently settled by a long Discent of Kings for many hundreds of years And of this Scotland hath been a famous Example where after the death of King Alexander III and his Grandaughter Margaret of Norway two or three several Competitors claimed a Right to succeed But omitting others it was agreed that it lay between John Baylliol and Robert Bruce Earl of Carick both of them drawing their Discent from David Earl of Huntingdon Great Uncle to the last King in whom they all agreed the Right to the Crown would have been had he survived Baylliol claimed as eldest Son to Dornagilla Grandaughter to Margaret the eldest Daughter of the said Earl David Robert Bruce claimed as eldest Son of Isabel the second Daughter of the said David So that if Baylliol alledged his Discent from the eldest Daughter Bruce was not behind-hand but pleaded though it was true he was descended but from the second Daughter yet he being a Grandson and a degree neerer ought to succeed whereas Baylliol was but great Grandson to Earl David And though Dornagilla Baylliol's Mother was in the same degree with himself yet he being a man ought to be preferred before a woman in the same Line and that if the Laws of Scotland would have given it to Dornagilla if it had been an ordinary Inheritance yet Discent of the Crown was not to be ruled by the Common Laws of other Inheritances In short this Dispute did so divide the Nobility into Factions and puzzle the Estates of the Kingdom that not being able to decide it they and all the Competitors agreed to refer the Controversie to Edward I. King of England one of the wisest and most powerful Princes of his time who upon long advice and debate with twelve of the learnedest men of both Kingdoms at last adjudged the Crown to Baylliol or as the Scotch Historians relate because he would do him Homage for it which Bruce being of a higher spirit refused Yet this did not put an end to this great Controversie for though Baylliol was thereupon admitted King yet falling out not long after with King Edward to whom he owed all his greatness and having the worst of it the Nobility and States of Scotland revived Bruce's Title and declared him King who after a long War with England enjoy'd the Crown quietly at last and left it to his Issue whose Posterity in our present King enjoy it to this day To this I shall adde one Example more from Portugal within these hundred years King Henry called the Cardinal dying without Issue there was a great Controversie who should succeed for he died suddenly just as the States of the Kingdom were assembled to settle the Succession for he declared himself unable to decide it So that he onely left by his Will twelve Governours of the Kingdom who should govern during the interregnum but that the Crown should descend to him that should appear to them to have the best Title Four eminent Competitors put in their claims 1. Antonio called the Bastard who nevertheless pretended that he was lawful Son to Don Lewis second Brother to Henry the last King So that he had no more to do but to prove himself Legitimate 2. Alexander Duke of Parma who claimed as Grandson to Mary eldest Daughter to Don Duarte youngest Brother to the last King Henry and Son to King Emanuel 3. The Duke of Braganza who claimed as Son to Katherine second Daughter of the said Don Duarte yet alledged his Title to be best because he was the next of the Bloud-Royal who was a Native of Portugal as the Heir of the Crown as he pretended ought to be by a Fundamental Law of that Kingdom yet it seems that Law was not then so well known or otherwise there was no reason why these Governors should not have admitted him King as soon as ever they met 4. Philip the second King of Spain who claimed as Son to Isabella Daughter of Emanuel King of Portugal and so a degree nearer than the rest to Henry the last King The States and Governours differing the States were dissolved and during their recess the Governours not agreeing among themselves the King of Spain raised an Army and entering Portugal seiz'd the City of Lisbon and consequently all the rest of the Kingdom submitted to him and so made himself King by force And yet we have seen in his Grandson's time the Estates of Portugal declare this Title void and the Crown setled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza who still enjoy it by vertue of this Fundamental Law And that this Fundamental Law could not be altered but by the consent of the Cortes or States appears by the late Alteration of this Constitution upon the Treaty of Marriage of the present Prince Regents Daughter with the Duke of Savoy And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of their Estates appears by the League made between Philip the Long King of France and David King of Scots wherein this Condition was exprest That if there should happen any difference about the Succession in either of these Realms he of the two Kings which remained alive should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne but him who should have the Judgment of the Estates of his side and then he should with all his power oppose him who would after this contest for the Crown So that our Author without cause lays the fault upon the wilful ignorance of the People in not remembring or acknowledging the right Heir of the Crown when the ablest and wisest men of the Age they lived in could not by the meer Laws of Nature and Reason determine which was he And our Author should have done well to have set down some certain Rules how the People might be assured without a positive Law before made that they acknowledge the right Heir and not an Usurper to his prejudice CHAP. II. Observations on the Directions for Obedience in doubtful times and other places of his Patriarcha and other Treatises BUT since this Author rather than the disposal of a Crown shall fall to the decision of the People or States of the Kingdom will give an Usurper a good Right to it against all persons but him that hath the Right we will now examine how much of that is true which he lays down in his Directions for Obedience to Governours in doubtful times and how far men are bound in Conscience to obey an Usurper whilst he that hath Right is kept out by him First he takes it for granted that all those that so eagerly strive for an original Power to be in the People do with one accord acknowledge that originally the Supream Power was
being so far from a Commonwealths-man that for my own part I reverence Monarchy above all other forms of Government and should be as willing to have it unmixt it being that by which God Almighty governs the Vniverse could humane nature be long trusted with it and could we be as certain that his Vicegerents on Earth would as easily imitate those divine Attributes of wisdom and goodness as they are prone to lay claim to his absolute Power For as where those Perfections direct the Scepter a Prince is to be loved and reverenced as the best Representative of the divine nature so the exercise of an absolute unlimited Power without these can create no other Idea in mens minds than what the barbarous Indians have of those terrible Gods they worship to whom though they often make Oblations of what is dearest to them yet it is upon no higher motive of Devotion than that they thereby hope to cajole them not to do them any mischief and would soon cast them off if they knew how to get rid of them Therefore the fault is not in the Government as absolute but in humane Nature which is not often found sufficient at least for above one or two Successions to support and manage so unlimited a Power in one single person as it ought to be And for this I desire the Reader to look over the Catalogue of all the Persian Roman and Turkish Monarchs that have ever succeeded in so many hundreds of years and see how many good ones they will finde among them and who truly considered the good and prosperity of that Empire which God had trusted them withal the effects of which absolute Power being very well known to the Satyrist who lived under it when he thus shrewdly observes Nihil est quod credere de se Non possit cum laudatur Diis aequa potestas Juven Sat. 4. And how much Christian Religion hath altered the case I desire all observing Readers to consult the late Histories of France and Muscovy and other despotick Governments in Europe But since the Government of this Nation as now establisht I conceive the best in its kind as most equal and beneficial both to the Prince and People so that it is onely their faults who would go off from it if they are not both Prince and People the happiest in the World I hope I may without sin wish those accursed from God who would remove our ancient Land-marks and pull up all Limits between Prerogative and Law and who as it may justly be feared would mis-lead Princes enslave Mankind and if occasion were sacrifice both to their own private Interests and Ambition The like I may say of those who would destroy this ancient Government and set up a Democracy amongst us since I know not which is worst to be knawn to death by Rats or devoured by a Lion Nor is it that I am conscious to my self of having writ any thing in these ensuing sheets contrary to Law destructive to Government or that Obedience which all good Subjects owe their Prince and his Laws which hath made me forbear prefixing my Name to this Treatise since perhaps some of those Motives which might perswade this Author to forbear it in the Treatises he published might likewise have the same effect upon me especially since I doubt not but what I have here written will provoke those Craftsmen who esteem this Notion of our Authors by which they expect to get both Riches and Honour as the Diana that fell down from Jupiter And therefore it is no wonder if they are angry with any man that should go about to pull off the specious Vails with which they have covered it and shew it as it really is a wooden Idol of their own making and if they knew the man would according to the usual course of those who abound more in Malice than Reason quit the matter and fall upon the person of their Antagonist and endeavour to stir up both the great Vulgar and the small Vulgar as Mr. Cowley ingeniously terms men of Title without Sense Besides all which joyn'd with the small opinion I have of my own performances or that I think these Papers capable to transmit my Name to Posterity yet if I were sure I could do it however writing against an ingenious Gentleman long since deceased and whose good Name upon all accounts I designe not to diminish yet I should not think it generous to raise my self a Fame to the prejudice of another mans And therefore my Request to you is That you would believe I write these Obscrvations for no other end than for the Truth and in defence of the Government as it is establisht and the just Rights and Liberties of all true English-men All which I pray God preserve as long as the Sun and Moon endure I am your Friend Philalethes Observations UPON A TREATISE CALLED PATRIARCHA And several other Miscellanies Lately Published Under the Name of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet CHAP. I. THE reason why I chuse to begin these Observations with this Treatise of the natural Right of Kings rather than with any of the rest though published long before it is because being as I suppose writ after the rest and on purpose to assert Monarchy to be Jure Divino is likely to contain the Authors most mature thoughts and being written with better connection than his other Tracts contains the substance of them all which were designed not so much to establish an Hypothesis as to observe the weakness of other mens and being published at several times and on divers occasions give us but the same Notions repeated according as the Tenets in the Authors he writ against needed as he thought a Confutation Which how far they do deserve it I leave to the Reader to judge and therefore shall not take upon me to defend any mans Opinions though never so great or learned farther than I conceive them agreeable to right Reason Nor shall I trouble my self to criticize on every small Errour or Mistake in this Author's Writings but onely set my self to consider such main Arguments as appear to be founded on false or meer precarious Principles not concerning my self with his other Treatises but as they contain some other Reasons or newer Matter than I finde here Page 2. The designe of this Treatise is against an Opinion maintained by some Divines and several learned men That Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from Subjection and at liberty to chuse 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 Page 3. This Opinion he says is not to be found in the Fathers of the Primitive Church that it contradicts the Doctrine and History of the Holy Scriptures the constant practice of all ancient Monarchies and the very Principles of the Law of Nature And upon this Doctrine the Jesuits and favourers of the
HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE CAROLUS SECUNDUS Dei Gratia Angl Scotiae Franciae Et Hiberniae Rex Fide Defensor etc. F. H. Van Houe Sculp Patriarcha non Monarcha THE Patriarch Unmonarch'd BEING OBSERVATIONS ON A late Treatise and divers other Miscellanies Published under the Name of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet IN WHICH The falseness of those Opinions that would make Monarchy Jure Divino are laid open AND The true Principles of Government and Property especially in our Kingdom asserted By a Lover of Truth and of his Country LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens-head-Alley in Pater-Noster-Row 1681. THE PREFACE To the READER IT may not be unknown to those that have been conversant in Books and Pamphlets published during the late unhappy times that all the Treatises except the Patriarcha which are the subject of the ensuing Observations were published at first in single Tracts without Name though they have since come out under that of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet deceased All which though I hope they might be written with an honest designe and in defence of Kingly Government and of his then Majesties lawful and just Rights then trampled upon by a domineering Faction and may contain some things useful enough to confute divers levelling Notions then too much in fashion yet whilst this Gentleman as violent men commonly do ran into the other extream and must needs assert an Absolute Monarchy Jure Divino so that no other Government can be lawfully exercised nor the least Limitations set to it without Sacriledge and diminution of that Soveraignty which is derived from no less an Original than God himself and by denying that Princes can ever be obliged by any Fundamental or after-Contracts or Concessions or by any Coronation-Oaths to abstain from the Lives Liberties or Properties of their Subjects farther than as they themselves shall think it convenient so that there can be no such thing in nature as a Tyrant I leave it to the judgment of the impartial Reader whether what this Author might designe as Physick hath not served rather to inflame the Distemper and whether he hath not by such rash and ill-grounded Assertions given too much advantage to the Enemies of Kingship to retort That since all Government was ordained by God for the good of Mankind that could never be of divine institution which would render all things to be so much the Princes Right that the Subjects can claim a Property in nothing which he shall please to take from them and that however they use them yet they still exercise but their own Royal Rights and Prerogatives So that by thus taking away all distinctions between Kings and Tyrants and between Slaves and Subjects I fear that like Rehoboam's harsh Answer to his Peoples Complaints he hath not given many of his Readers a prejudice against that Government which temper'd by known Laws I take to be the best in the World For as Superstition can never serve to advance the true Worship of God but by creating false Notions of the divine nature in mens minds or render it not as it ought to be the Object of their Love and Reverence but servile Fear so I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Power in all Monarchs and such an entire Subjection as this Author exacts from Subjects can produce nothing but a Slavish Dread without that Reverence Esteem and Affection for their Princes Person and Government which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes and which they will have whilst they believe he thinks himself obliged in Conscience and Honour to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and Oppression according to just and known Laws And that contrary Notions of this Supreme Power are so far from setling mens minds in a sober and rational Obedience to Government that they rather make them desperate and careless who is their Master since let what change will come they are sure to be no better than Slaves as may be seen in all the Absolute Monarchies from France to China You may also consider whether most of the Arguments this Author makes use of for absolute Obedience to Vsurpers as representing the lawful Prince and Father of the People might not serve for the establishing of Oliver and the Rump-Parliament as well as a lawful Soveraign since I am sure Milton makes use of the same places of Scripture for this purpose which this Author and Salmasius do for another So that most moderate men nay the Author 's own Friends may wish that either these Treatises had never been published or at least have been left in private Studies and Book-sellers shops amongst those heaps of Pamphlets condemned to dust and oblivion since no man can imagine to what end this Patriarcha and other Tracts should come out at such a Time as they did unless the Publishers thought that these Pieces which printed apart could onely serve to ensnare the Vnderstandings of some unthinking Country-Gentleman or Windblown-Theologue could do no less being twisted into one Volume than bind the Consciences and enslave the Reasons of all his unwary Readers Since therefore short Treatises of this kind written in a gentile stile and a formal appearance of Law and Reason do more mischief among young men and those that have not leisure to look much into the grounds of this Controversie than tedious Volumes And that this Notion of the Divine and Patriarchal Right of absolute Monarchy hath obtain'd so much among some modern Church-men who cry it up as their Diana and consequently hath so much infected our Vniversities that are the Seminaries where the Youth of this Nation do commonly receive Principles both in Religion and Politicks which if they have not a mind large enough to overcome the prejudices of Education will mis-lead them as long as they live and so make them desire at least to alter that Government and give up those Priviledges which their Ancestors were so careful to preserve and deliver down to Posterity I thought my self obliged having perhaps more leisure though less parts and learning than a great many others to do God my King and Country this service as to lay open the weakness of the Reasons and the dangerous consequences of this Author's Principles And though men of greater abilities may either dispise such weak Arguments as this Author makes use of or else think it below them to spend so much time from their more useful and beneficial Employments and that indeed his Reasons are not so knotty or intricate that they require any more than honest sence and plain English to lay them open to the unprejudiced Reader yet since the Poyson hath spread so far among the men of Letters and in the Country among divers of the Gentry and Clergie I thought it not amiss to do my weak endeavour to undeceive them And in so doing I desire to be thought no other than what I really am a zealous assertor and defender of the Government establisht by Law