POLITICAL DISCOURSES OF Sir Robert Filmer Baronet VIZ. Patriarcha or the Natural Power of Kings The Free-holders Grand-Inquest Observations upon Aristotles Politicks Directions for Obedience to Government ALSO Observations upon Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan Mr. Milton against Salmatius Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy WITH An ADVERTISEMENT to the Jurymen of England touching WITCHES LONDON Printed in the Year M DC LXXX Patriarcha OR THE Natural Power OF KINGS By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Baronet Lucan Lib. â— 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 Usurpers 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 Usurpers 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
Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the â—tate But let it be supposed for truth that Kings do swear to observe all the Laws â—f their Kingdoms yet no man can â—hink it reason that Kings should be â—ore bound by their Voluntary Oaths â—han Common Persons are by theirs Now if a private person make a Conâ—ract either with Oath or without Oath he is no further bound than the â—quity and Justice of the Contract ties â—im for a man may have Relief against â—n unreasonable and unjust promise if â—ther Deceit or Errour or Force or â—ear induced him thereunto Or if it be â—urtful or grievous in the performance â—ince the Laws in many Cases give the â—ing a Prerogative above Common Perâ—ons I see no Reason why he should be â—enyed the Priviledge which the meanst of his Subjects doth enjoy Here is a fit place to examine a Question which some have moved Wheâ—â—er it be a sin for a Subject to disobey â—e King if he Command any thing contrary to his Laws For satisfaction in this point we must resolve that not only in Human Laws but even in Divine aâ— thing may be commanded contrary to Law and yet Obedience to such a Command is necessary The sanctifying of the Sabbath is a Divine Law yet if a Master Command his Servant not to go to Church upon a Sabbath-day that Best Divines teach us That the Servant must obey this Command though it may be Sinful and Unlawful in the Master because the Servant hath no Authority or Liberty to Examine and Judge whether his Master Sin or no in so Commanding for there may be a just Cause for a Master to keep his Servant from Church as appears Luke 14. 5. yet it iâ— not fit to tye the Master to acquaint hiâ— Servant with his Secret Counsels or present Necessity And in such Cases thâ— Servants not going to Church become the Sin of the Master and not of thâ— Servant The like may be said of thâ— King's Commanding a man to serve his in the Wars he may not Examine whether the War be Just or Unjust but muâ—â— Obey since he hath no Commission â— Judge of the Titles of Kingdoms Cauâ—es of War nor hath any Subjeâ—â— Power to Condemn his King for breach of his own Laws 8. Many will be ready to say It is a Slavish and Dangerous Condition to be subject to the Will of any One Man who is not subject to the Laws But â—uch men consider not 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws â—or the good only of them that are under the Laws and to defend the Peoples Liberties as His Majesty graciously affirmed in His Speech after His last Answer to the Petition of Right Howsoever some â—re afraid of the Name of Prerogative â—et they may assure themselves the Case â—f Subjects would be desperately miserable without it The Court of Chancery â—t self is but a Branch of the Kings Prerogative to Relieve men against the inâ—xorable rigour of the Law which without it is no better than a Tyrant since â—ummum Jus is Summa Injuria General â—ardons at the Coronation and in Parliaments are but the Bounty of the Prerogative 2. There can be no Laws without a Supreme Power to command or â—ake them In all Aristocraties the Noâ—es are above the Laws and in all Democraties the People By the like Reason in a Monarchy the King must of necessity be above the Laws there can be no Soveraign Majesty in him that is under them that which giveth the very Being to a King is the Power to give Laws without this Power He is but anâ— Equivocal King It skills not which way Kings come by their Power whether by Election Donation Succession or by any other means for it is still the manner of the Government by Supreme Power that makes them properly Kings and not the means of obtaining their Crowns Neither doth the Diversity of Laws nor contrary Customs whereby each Kingdom differs from another make the Forms of Common-Weal different unless the Power of making Laws be in several Subjects For the Confirmation of this point Aristotle saith That a perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all thing according to his Own Will for he that is called a King according to the Lawâ— makes no kind of Kingdom at all Thâ—â— it seems also the Romans well understood to be most necessary in a Monarchy for though they were a People most greedy of Liberty yet the Senate did free Augustus from all Necessity of Laws that he might be free of his own Authority and of absolute Power over himself and over the Laws to do what he pleased and â—eave undone what he list and this Decree was made while Augustus was yet absent Accordingly we find that Ulpian the great Lawyer delivers it for a Rule of the Civil Law Princeps Leâ—ibus solutus est The Prince is not bound â—y the Laws 9 If the Nature of Laws be adviâ—edly weighed the Necessity of the Princes being above them may more manifest it self we all know that a Law in General is the command of a Superior â—ower Laws are divided as Bellermine â—ivides the Word of God into written and unwritten not for that it is not Written at all but because it was not Written by the first Devisers or Makers of it The Common Law as the Lord Chancellor Egerton teacheth us is the Common Custom of the Realm Now concerning Customs this must be considered â—hat for every Custom there was a time â—hen it was no Custom and the first President we now have had no President when it began when every Custom began there was something else than Custom that made it lawful or else the beginning of all Customs were unlawful Customs at first became Lawful only by some Superiour which did either Command or Consent unto their beginning And the first Power which we find as it is confessed by all men is the Kingly Power which was both in this and in all other Nations of the World long before any Laws or any other kind of Government was thought of from whence we must necessarily infer that the Common Law it self or Common Customs of this Land were Originally the Laws and Commands oâ— Kings at first unwritten Nor must we think the Commen Customs which are the Principles oâ— the Common Law and are but few to be such or so many as are able to give special Rules to determine every particular Cause Diversity of Cases are infinite and impossible to be regulated by any Law and therefore we find even in the Divine Laws which are delivereâ— by Moses there be only certain Principal Laws which did not determine but only direct the High-priest or Magistrate whose Judgment in special Cases â—id determine what the General Law intended It is so with the Common Law for when there is no perfect Rule â—udges do resort to those Principles or Common Law Axiomes whereupon former Judgments in
to ordain over themselves a King or Consul or other Magistrates and if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy Thus far Bellarmine in which passages are comprised the strength of all that ever I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the Law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause â—f the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and â—s the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by Nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmie deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent whâ— is Lord-Paramout over his Children Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself It follows that Civil Power not only in general iâ— by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents which quite takes away thaâ— New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Comâ—â—nd had over the whole World and Right descending from him the Paâ—â—â—archs did enjoy was as large and â—ple as the Absolutest Dominion of â—y Monarch which hath been since the â—eation For Dominion of Life and â—eath we find that Judah the Father â—onounced Sentence of Death against â—amar his Daughter-in-law for playâ—â—g the Harlot Bring her forth saith 〈◊〉 that she may be burnt Touching â—ar we see that Abram commanded an â—rmy of 318 Souldiers of his own Faâ—ily And Esau met his Brother Jacob â—ith 400 Men at Arms. For matter of â—eace Abraham made a League with â—â—imelech and ratified the Articles with â— Oath These Acts of Judging in Caâ—al Crimes of making War and conâ—â—uding Peace are the chiefest Marks of â—overeignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but â—fter it this Patriarchal Power did conâ—â—nue as the very name Patriarch doth â—â— part prove The three Sons of Noah â—ad the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them â—â— the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him aâ— his Sons Be fruitful and multiply aâ— replenish the Earth Most of the Civilâ— Nations of the Earth labour to fetâ— their Original from some One of tâ—â— Sons or Nephews of Noah which weâ— scattered abroad after the Confusion Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Regâ— Power throughout the Kingdoms of tâ—â— World It is a common Opinion that at thâ— Confusion of Tongues there were â—â— distinct Nations erected all which weâ— not Confused Multitudes without Heaâ—â— or Governours and at Liberty to chooâ—â— what Governours or Government theâ— pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even iâ— the Confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Sonâ— of Japhet the Conclusion is By these â—ere the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so â—t is said These are the Sons of Ham â—fter their Families after their Tongues â—â— their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of â—hem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he â—ayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the Number of his Sons â—he Limits of which Three Parts are all â—ound in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who nâ— doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did hâ— enlarge his Empire by seizing violentlâ— on the Rights of other Lords of Families And
not Govern yet they may partake and joyn with a King in the Government and so make a State mixed of Popular and Regal power which they take to be the best tempered and equallest Form of Government 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 â—s have General Assemblies for Consultation about making Publick Laws It must be remembred that such Meetings â—o not Share or divide the Soveraignty with the Prince but do only deliberate and advise their Supreme Head who â—ill reserves the Absolute power in â—imself for if in such Assemblies the â—ing the Nobility and People have â—ual Shares in the Soveraignty then â—e King hath but one Voice the Noâ—lity likewise one and the People one â—â—d 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 iâ— 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 judged 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 Affairs 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 â—â—ither 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
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 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 â—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 James 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 â—lthough Laws of themselves do not â—ind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at â—heir Coronations tye them to keep all â—he Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of â—he Kings of England at their Coronation â—he words whereof are these Art thou â—leased to cause to be administred in all thy â—udgments indifferent and upright Justice â—nd to use Discretion with Mercy and Veâ—ity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected â—nd maintained by thee These two are â—he 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 â—ou to confirm and observe the Laws and â—ustoms of Ancient Times granted from â—od 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 â—y 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 oâ— as Bracton hath it oequitatem proecipiaâ— misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Judgment 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 Judge and if a King did strictly sweat to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Stâ—tute by
in this sense he may be saiâ— to be the Author and first Founder oâ— Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyranny oâ— Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude oâ— by any Faction with them As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Jacob even until the Egyptian Bondage so we find it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau Iâ— 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 â—ome petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories â—ould be but small and not worthy the Tiâ—e of Kingdoms but they must consider â—hat at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find â— the time of Abraham which was about â—00 years after the Flood that in a little â—orner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Baâ—â—il most of which were but Kings of â—ities apiece with the adjacent Territoâ—es as of Sodom Gomorrah Shinar c. In â—he same Chapter is mention of Melchiseâ—ck King of Salem which was but the Ciâ—â— of Jerusalem And in the Catalogue of â—â—e Kings of Edom the Names of each â—ing's City is recorded as the only Mark â— distinguish their Dominions In the â—and of Canaan which was but a small cirâ—it Joshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings â—nd about the same time Adonibeseck had â—o Kings whose Hands and Toes he had â—t off and made them feed under his Taâ—â—e A few years after this 32 Kings came â— 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 thâ— Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites ouâ— of Bondage God out of a special Caâ— of them chose Moses and Josuah successively to govern as Princes in thâ— Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time hâ— raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gavâ— the Israelites Kings he reestablished thâ— 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 â—n 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 Jurisdiction 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 â—nto thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy Brethren and â—et the Sons of thy Mother how 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 Heirâ— 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 â—oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge â—herefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought fit to adopt many times â—hose for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or Made them fit and capable of such Reâ—al Favours All such prime Heads and â—athers 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 Universal 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 sucâ— cases the Judgement of God who haâ—â— power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgment without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and
Calvin saith but plainly Monarchichal 10. Now if God as Bellarmie 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 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 Judges and Kings weâ—â— all Monarchs There is not in all the Scripture Mention or Approbation oâ— any other Form of Government Aâ— the time when Scripture saith Thâ— was No King in Israel but that eveâ— Man did that which was Right in â—â— Own Eyes Even then the Israelitâ—â— were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Beâ— jamitical War for providing Wives fâ—â— the Benjamites we find the Elders â—â— the Congregation bare only Swaâ—â— Judges 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 â—nto all Israel to the Captains the Judges 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 â—ons and therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected Thee but Me that â— should not Reign over them It seems â—hey 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 hâ— 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 â—new no other sort of Government out only Monarchy The Best Order the Greatest Strength the Most Stability and Easiest Government are to be found all in Monarchy and in to 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 â—ew 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 Julius 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 Usury 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 â—reatest Exaltation was under Trajan â—s her longest Peace had been under Augustus Even at those times when the Roman Victories abroad did amaze the World then the
by Sedition so it is nourished by Arms It can never stand without Wars either with an Enemy abroad or with Friends at Home The only Means to preserve it is to have some powerful Enemies near who maâ— serve instead of a King to Govern it that so though they have not King amongst them yet they may have as good as a King Over them For the Common Danger of an Enemâ— keeps them in better Unity thaâ— the Laws they make themselves 15 Many have exercised their Wits in parallelling the Inconveniences â—f Regal and Popular Government but we will trust Experience before Speculations Philosophical it cannot be â—nyed but this one Mischief of Sedition â—hich necessarily waits upon all Populariâ—â— weighes down all the Inconveniences â—â—at can be found in Monarchy though â—â—ey were never so many It is said â—â—in for Skin yea all that a man hath â—ill he give for his Life and a man â—ill give his Riches for the ransome of â—s Life The way then to examine what â—roportion the mischiefs of Sedition â—nd Tyranny have one to another is â—â— enquire in what kind of Government â—ost Subjects have lost their Lives â—et Rome which is magnified for her Popularity and vilified for the Tyrannical Monsters the Emperours furnish us with Examples Consider-whether the â—ruelty of all the Tyrannical Emperours â—â—at ever ruled in this City did ever â—ill a quarter of the Blood that was pourâ— out in the last hundred years of her â—orious Common wealth The Murthers by Tyberius Domitian and Commodus â—ut all together cannot match that Civil Tragedy which was acted in that one Sedition between Marius and Sylla nay even by Sylla's part alone not to mention the Acts of Marius were fourscore and ten Senators put to death fifteen Consuls two thousand and six hundred Gentlemen and a hundred thousand others This was the Heighth of the Roman Liberty Any Man might be killed that would A favour not fit to be granted under a Royal Government The Miseries of those Licentious Times are briefly touched by Plutarch in these Words Sylla saith he fell to sheding of Bloud and filled all Rome with infinite and unspeakable Murthers This was not only done in Rome but in all the Cities of Italy throughout there was no Temple of any God whatsoever nâ— Altar in any bodies House no Liberty of Hospital no Fathers House which was not embrewed with Blood and horrible Murthers the Husbands were slain in the Wives Armes and the Children iâ— the Mothers Laps and yet they thaâ— were Slain for private Malice were no nothing in respect of those that were Murthered only for their Goods â—e openly Sold their Goods by the â—ryer sitting so proudly in his Chair of â—ate that it grieved the People more see their goods packt up by them to â—hom he gave or disposed them than see them taken away Sometimes he â—ould give a whole Countrey or the â—hole Revenues of certain Cities unto â—omen for their Beauties or to pleaâ—t Jeasters Minstrels or wicked â—ves made free And to some he â—ould give other mens VVives by force â—d make them be Married against their â—lls Now let Tacitus and Suetonius be â—rched and see if all their Cruel Emâ—rours can match this Popular Villaâ—â— in such an Universal Slaughter of Ciâ—ens or Civil Butchery God only â—s able to match him and over-matchâ—him by fitting him with a most reâ—â—rkable Death just answerable to his â—â—e for as he had been the Death of â—ny thousands of his Country-men so many thousands of his own Kindred the flesh were the Death of him for â—died of an Impostume which corruptâ—â— his Flesh in such sort that it turned to Lice he had many about him to Shift him continually Night and Day yet the Lice they wiped from him were nothing to them that multiplied upon him there was neither Apparel Linnen Bathes VVashings nor meat it self but was presently filled with Swarms of this vile Vermine I cite not this to extenuate the Bloody Acts of any Tyrannical Princes nor will I plead in Defence of their Cruelties Only in the Comparative I maintain the Mischiefs to a State to be less Universal under a Tyrant King for the Cruelty of such Tyrants extends ordinarily no further then to some Particular Men that offend him and not to the whole Kingdome It is truly said by his late Majesty King James a King can never be so notoriously Vitious but he will generally favour Justice and maintain some Order except in the particulars wherein his iâ— ordinate Lust carries him away Eveâ— cruel Domitian Dionysius the Tyrant anâ— many others are commended by Historians for great Observers of Justice â— natural Reason is to be rendered for iâ— It is the Multitude of People and the abundance of their Riches which are thâ—â— only Strength and Glory of eveâ— Prince The Bodies of his Subjects do him Service in VVar and their Goods supply his present wants therefore if not out of Affection to his people yet out of Natural Love to Himself every Tyrant desires to preserve the Lives and protect the Goods of his Subjects which cannot be done but by Justice and if it be not done the Princes Loss is the greatest on the contrary in a Popular State every man knows the publick good doth not depend wholly on his Care but the Common-wealth may well enough be governed by others though he tend only his Private Benefit â—he never takes the Publick to be his Own Business thus as in a Family where one Office is to be done by many Servants one looks upon another and every one leaves the Business for his Fellow until it is quite neglected by all nor are they much to be blamed for their Negligence since it is an even Wager their Ignorance is as great For Magistrates among the People being for the most part Annual do always lay down their Office before they understand it so that a Prince of a Duller understanding by Use and Experience must needs excell them again there is no Tyrant so barbarously Wicked but his own reason and sense will tell him that though he be a God yet he must dye like a Man and that there is not the Meanest of his Subjects but may find a means to revenge himself of the Injustice that is offered him hence it is that great Tyrants live continually in base fears as did Dionysius the Elder Tiberius Caligula and Nero are noted by Suetonius to have been frighted with Panick fears But it is not so where wrong is done to any Particular Person by a Multitude he knows not who hurt him or who to complain of or to whom to address himself for reparation Any man may boldly exercise his Malice and Cruelty in all Popular Assemblies There is no Tyranny to be compared to the Tyranny of a Multitude 16 What though the Government of the People be a thing not to be endured much less defended yet many men please themselves with an Opininion that though the People may