Election of a Prince Is there any Example of it ever found in the Whole World To conceit such a thing is to â—magine little less than an Impossibility And so by Consequence no one Form of Government or King was ever established according to this supposed Law of Nature 6. It may be answered by some That if either the Greatest part of a Kingdom or if a smaller part only by Themselves and all the Rest by Proxy or if the part not concurring in Election do after by a Tacit Assent ratifie the Act of Others That in all thesâ— Cases it may be said to be the World of the whole Multitude As to the Acts of the Major part oâ— a Multitude it is true that by Politicâ— Humane Constitutions it is oft ordained that the Voices of the most shall over-rule the Bâ—est and such Ordinances bind because where Men are Assembled by an Humane Power that power that doth Assemble them can also Limit and Direct the manner of the Execution of that Power and by such Derivative Power made known by Law or Custom either the greater part or two Thirds or Three parts of Five or the like have power to oversway the Liberty of their Opposits But in Assemblies that take their Authority from the Law of Nature it cannot be so for what Freedom or Liberty is due to any Man by the Law of Nature no Inferiour Power can alter limit or diminishâ— no One Man nor a Multitude can give away the Natural Right of another The Law of Nature is unchangeable and howsoever One Man may hinder Another in the Use or Exercise of his Natural Right yet thereby No Man â—oseth the Right of it self for the Right â—nd the Use of the Right may be distinguished as Right and Possession are â—oft distinct Therefore unless it can be proved by the Law of Nature that the Major or some other part have Power â—o over-rule the Rest of the Multitude â—t must follow that the Acts of Multitudes not Entire are not Binding to All but only to such as Consent unto them 7. As to the point of Proxy it cannot be shewed or proved That all those that have been Absent from Popular Elections did ever give their Voices to some of their Fellows I ask but one Example out of the History of the whole World let the Commonweal be but named wherever the Multitude or so much as the Greatest part of it consented either by Voice or by Procuration to the Election of a Prince The Ambition sometimes of One Man sometimes of Many or the Faction of a City or Citizens or the Mutiny of an Army hath set up or put down Princes but they have never tarried for this pretended Order by proceeding of the whole Multitude Lastly if the silent Acceptation oâ— a Governour by part of the People be an Argument of their Concurring iâ— the Election of him by the same Reason the Tacit Assent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained From whence it follows that every Prince that comes to a Crown either by Succession Conquest or Usurpation may be said to be Elected by the People which Inference is too ridiculous for in such Cases the People are so far from the Liberty of Specification that they want even that of Contradiction 8. But it is in vain to argue against the Liberty of the People in the Election of Kings as long as men are perswaded that Examples of it are to be found in Scripture It is fit therefore to discover the Grounds of this Errour It is plain by an Evident Text that it is one thing to choose a King and another thing to set up a King over the People this latter power the Children of Israel had but not the former This Distinction is found most evidenâ— in Deut. 17. 15. where the Law of God saith Him shalt thou set King over thee whom â—â—e Lord shall choose so God must Eliâ—e and the People only do Constituâ—e Mr. Hooker in his Eighth Book â—f Ecclesiastical Policy clearly expounds â—is Distinction the words are worthy â—â—e citing Heaps of Scripture saith he â—e alledged concerning the Solemn Coroâ—â—tion or Inauguration of Saul David Soâ—mon and others by Nobles Ancients and the people of the Commonwealth of Isrâ—el as if these Solemnities were a kind of Deed whereby the Right of Dominion is given which strange untrue and unnatural conceits are set abroad by â—ed-men of Rebellion only to animate â—nquiet Spirits and to feed them with â—ossibilities of Aspiring unto the Thrones they can win the Hearts of the People whatsoever Hereditary Title any other before them may have I say these â—njust and insolent Positions I would â—ot mention were it not thereby to make the Countenance of â—ruth more Orient For unless we will openly proclaim Defiance unto all â—aw Equity and Reason we must for â—here is no other Remedy acknowledg that in Kingdoms Hereditary Birth-right giveth Right unto Sovereign Dominion and the Death of the Predecessoâ— putteth the Successor by Blood in Sâ—sin Those publick Solemnities before mentioned do either serve for an open Testification of the Inheritor's Right or belong to the Form of induciâ—â— of him into possession of that thing â—â— hath Right unto This is Mr. Hooker Judgment of the Israelites Power tâ— set a King over themselves No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King they would never have made Choice of Joas a Child but of Seven years old nor of Manases a Boy of Twelve since as Solomon saith Wo to the Land whose King a Child Nor is it probable they would have elected Josias but a very Child and a Son to so Wicked and Idoâ—trous a Father as that his own Servants murthered him and yet all thâ— people set up this young Josias anâ— slew the Conspirators of the Death oâ— Ammon his Father which Justice of the People God rewarded by making this Josias the most Religious King thaâ— ever that Nation enjoyed 9. Because it is affirmed that â—e People have power to choose as â—ell what Form of Government as â—hat Governours they please of which mind is Bellarmine in those â—aces we cited at first Therefore it necessary to Examine the Strength â— what is said in Defence of popular Commonweals against this Natural Form of Kingdoms which I maintain'd Here I must first put the â—ardinal in mind of what he affirms Cold Blood in other places where saith God when he made all Manâ—d of One Man did seem openly to â—â—nifie that he rather approved the Goâ—â—rnment of One Man than of Many â—â—ain God shewed his Opinion â—â—en he endued not only Men but Creatures with a Natural Propensiâ—â— to Monarchy neither can it be â—â—ubted but a Natural Propensity is be referred to God who is Auâ—â—or of Nature And again in a â—â—ird place What Form of Government God confirmed by his Authoriâ—â— may be gathered by that Commonâ—al which he instituted amongst the Hebrews which was not Aristocratical as
Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. The King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King Judge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11. The King and his Council have anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12. Of Parliaments 13. When the People were first called to Parliament 14. The Liberty of Parliaments not from Nature but from Grace of the Princes 15. The King alone makes Laws in Parliament 16. Governs both Houses as Head by himself 17. By his Council 18. By his Judges 1. HItherto I have endeavour'd to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the people do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws But in this also they Erre for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet or all this every Father is bound by the â—aw of Nature to do his best for the preâ—ervation of his Family but much more â— a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his â—hief Law He must remember That he profit of every man in particular and of all together in general is not always One and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private â—nd that the force of Laws must not be â— great as Natural Equity it self which â—nnot fully be comprised in any Laws â—hatsoever but is to be left to the Reâ—â—gious Atchievement of those who â—â—ow how to manage the Affaires of â—tate and wisely to Ballance the particular profit with the Counterpoize of â—e Publick according to the infinite Vaâ—ety of Times Places Persons a proof â—nanswerable for the Superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were â—ings long before there were any Laws or a long time the Word of a King â—as the only Law and if Practice as â—â—th Sir Walter Raleigh declare the â—eatness of Authority even the best Kings of Judah and Israel were not tyed to any Law but they did what-soever they pleased in the greatest matters 2 The Unlimitted Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to Imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future III Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy Wherein it is evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must Suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both â—ho Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in Crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckonâ—ed by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and â—nferior Lords To serve the King in his Wars and to till his ground is not only agreeable to the Nature of Subjects but much desired by them according to their several Births and Conditions The like may be said for the Offices of Women-Servants Confectioners Cooks and Bakers for we cannot think that the King would use their Labours without giving them Wages since the Text it self mentions a Liberal reward of his Servants As for the taking of the Tenth of their Seed of their Vines and of their Sheep it might be a necessary Provision for their Kings Household and so belong to the Right of Tribute For whereas is mentioned the taking of the Tenth it cannot agree well to a Tyrant who observes no Proportion in fleecing his People Lastly The taking of their Fields Vineyards and Olive-trees if it be by Force or Fraud or without just Recompence to the Dammage of Private Persons only it is not to be defended but if it be upon the publick Charge and General Consent it might be justifyed as necessary at the first Erects on of a Kingdome For those who wiâ—â— have a King are bound to allow hiâ— Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in â—iches besides we all know the Lands â—nd Goods of many Subjects may be oftâ—mes Legally taken by the King either â—y Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Outâ—wry Confiscation or the like â—hus we see Samuel's Character of a â—ng may literally well bear a mild â—nse for greater probability there is at Samuel so meant and the Israelites understood it to which this may be â—ded that Samuel tells the Israelites â—s will be the manner of the King that â—ll Reign over you And Ye shall â—â— because of your King which Ye shall â—e chosen you that is to say Thus â—â—ll be the common Custom or Fashiâ— or Proceeding of Saul your King as the Vulgar Latine renders it this â—l be the Right or Law of your King â— meaning as some expound it the â—â—al Event or Act of some individuâ—â—agum or indefinite King that might â—en one day to Tyrannise over them â—hat Saul and the Constant practice Saul doth best agree with the Liteâ— Sense of the Text. Now that Saul â—no Tyrant we may note that the â—le asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King
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
turn men Unrighteous Acts to the performance oâ— his Righteous Decrees 10. In all Kingdoms or Common wealths in the World whether thâ— Prince be the Supreme Father of the People or but the true Heir of such Father or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation or by Election 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 only Right and Natural Authority of a Supreme Father There is and always shall be continued to the End of the World a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude although by the secret Will of God many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it To confirm this Natural Right of Regal Power we find in the Decalogue That the Law which enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the terms of Honour thy Father as if all power were originally in the Father If Obedience to Parents be immediately due â—y a Natural Law and Subjection to â—rinces but by the Mediation of an â—umane Ordinance what reason is there â—hat the Laws of Nature should give â—ace to the Laws of Men as we see he power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King we find them all one without any difference at all but only 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 cloth instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth His War his Peace his Courts of Justice and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father and to their Children their Rights and Privileges so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or Chose Governours 1. ARistotle examined about the Freedom of the People and justified 2. Suarez disputing 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 Proxy and by silent Acceptation 8. No Example in Scripture of the Peoples chosing their King Mr. Hooker's Judgment therein 9. God governed always by Monarchy 10. Bellarmine and Aristotle's Judgment of Monarchy 11. Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12. Rome began her Empire under Kings and perfected under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13. Whether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or rather that they came 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 or correct their King 18. No Tyrants in England since the Conquest 1. BY conferring these Proofs and Reasons drawn from the Authority of the Scripture it appears little less than a Paradox which Bellarmine and others affirm of the Freedom of the Multitude to chose what Rulers they please Had the Patriarchs their Power given them by their own Children Bellarmine does not say it but the Contrary If then the Fatherhood enjoyed this Authority for so many Ages by the Law of Nature when was it lost or when forfeited or how is it devolved to the Liberty of the Multitude Because the Scripture is not favourable to the Liberty of the People therefore many fly to Natural Reason and to the Authority of Aristotle I must crave Liberty to examine or explain the Opinion of this great Philosopher but briefly I find this Sentence in the Third of his Politiques Cap. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to some not to be natural for one man to be Lord of all the Citizens since a City consists of Equals D. Lambine in his Latine Interpretation of this Text hath omitted the Translation of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this means he maketh that to be the Opinion of Aristotle which Aristotle alleadgeth to be the Opinion but of some This Negligence or Wilful Escape of Lambine â—n not translating a word so Material hath been an occasion to deceive many who looking no farther than this Latine Translation have concluded and made the World now of late believe that Aristotle here maintains a Natural Equality of Men and not only our English Translator of Aristotle Politiques is in this place misled by following Lambine but even the Learned Monsieur Duvall in his Synopsis beaâ— them company and yet this Version of Lambine's is esteemed the best and Printed at Paris with Causabon's corrected Greek Copy though in the rendring of this place the Elder Translations have been more faithful and he that shall compare the Greek Text with the Latine shall find that Causabon had just cause in his Preface to Aristotle Works to complain that the best Translations of Aristotle did need Correction To prove that in these words which seem to favour the Equality of Mankind Aristotle doth not speak according to his own Judgment but recites only the Opinion of others we find him clearly deliver his own Opinion that the Power of Government did originally arise from the Right of Fatherhood which cannot possibly consist with that Natural Equality which Men dream of for in the First of his Politiques he agrees exactly with the Scripture and lays this Foundation of Government The first Society saith he made of Many Houses is a Village which seems most naturally to be a Colony of Families or foster-Brethren of Children and Childrens Children And therefore at he beginning Cities were under the Government of Kings for the eldest in very house is King And so for Kindredâ—ke it is in Colonies And in the fourth of his Politiques cap. 2 He gives the Title of the first and Divinest sort of Government to the Institution of Kings by Defining Tyranny to be a Digression â—â—om the First and Divinest Whosoever weighs advisedly these â—assages will find little hope of Natural Reason in Aristotle to prove the Natural â—iberty of the Multitude Also before â—im the Divine Plato concludes a Commonweal to be nothing else but a large â—amily I know for this Position Aristotle quarrels with his Master but most â—njustly for therein he contradicts his own Principles for they both agree â—o fetch the Original of Civil Government from the prime Government No doubt but Moses's History of the Creation guided these two Philosophers in finding out of this Lineal Subjection deduced from the Laws of the First Parents according to that Rule oâ— St. Chrysostom God made all Mankind of One Man that he might teach the World to be Governed by a King and not by a Multitude The Ignorance of the Creation occasioned several
Errors amongst the Heathen Philosophers Polybius though otherwise a most profound Philosopher and Judicious Historian yet here he stumbles for in searching out the Original of Civil Societies he conceited That Multitudes of Men after a Deluge a Famine or a Pestilence met together like Herds of Cattel without any Dependency untill the strongest Bodies and boldest Minds got the Mastery of their Fellows even as it is saith he among Bulls Bears and Cocks And Aristotle himself forgetting his first Doctrine tells us the first Heroicaâ— Kings were chosen by the People for their deserving well of the Multitude either by teaching them some New Arts or by Warring for them or by Gathering them together or by Dividing Land amongst them also Aristotle had another â—ancy that those Men who prove wise of Mind were by Nature intended to be Lords and Govern and those which were Strong of Body were ordained to obey and to be Servants But this is a dangerous and uncertain Rule and not without some Folly for if a man prove both Wise and Strong what will Aristotle have done with him as he was Wise he could be no â—ervant and as he had Strength he could not be a Master besides to speak like a Philosopher Nature intends all things to be perfect both in Wit and strength The Folly or Imbecillity proceeds from some Errour in Generation â—r Education for Nature aims at Perfection in all her Works 2 Suarez the Jesuite riseth up against the Royal Authority of Adam â—â— defence of the Freedom and Liberty of the people and thus argues By â—ight of Creation saith he Adam had only Oeconomical power but not Political he had a power over his Wife and a Fatherly power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free he might also in process of Time have Servants and a Compleat Family and in that Family he might have compleat Oeconomical Power But after that Families began to be multiplied and Men to be separated and become the Head of several Families they had the same power over their Families But Political Power did not begin until Families began to be gathered together into one perfect Community wherefore aâ— the Community did not begin by the Creation of Adam nor by his Will alone but of all them which did agree in this Community So we cannot say that Adam Naturally had Political Primacy in that Community for that cannot be gathered by any Natural Principles because by the Force of the Law oâ— Nature alone it is not due unto anâ— Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity And if this be not gathered out of the Principles of Nature wâ— cannot say God by a special Gift oâ— Providence gave him this Power Foâ— there is no Revelation of this nor Testimony of Scripture Hitherto Suarez Whereas he makes Adam to have a Fatherly power over his Sons and yet shuts up this power within One Family â—he seems either to imagine that all Adam's Children lived within one House and under one Roof with their Father or else as soon as any of his Children â—ived out of his House they ceased to be Subject and did thereby become Free For my part I cannot believe that Adam although he were sole Monarch of the World had any such spacious Palace as might contain any such Considerable part of his Children It is â—ikelier that some mean Cottage or Tent â—id serve him to keep his Court in It were hard he should lose part of his Authority because his Children lay not within the Walls of his House But if Suarez will allow all Adam's Children to be of his Family howsoever they were separate in Dwellings if their Haâ—itations were either Contiguous or â—t such Distance as might easily receive â—is Fatherly Commands And that all â—hat were under his Commands were â—f his Family although they had many Children or Servants married having temselves also Children Then I see no reason but that we may call Adam's Family a Commonwealth except we will wrangle about Words For Adam living 930 years and seeing 7 or 8 Descents from himself he might live to command of his Children and their Posterity a Multitude far bigger than many Commonwealths and Kingdoms 3. I know the Politicians and Civil Lawyers do not agree well about the Definition of a Family and Bodin doth seem in one place to confine it to a House yet in his Definition he doth enlarge his meaning to all Persons under the Obedience of One and the Same Head of the Family and he approves better of the propriety of the Hebrew Word for a Family which is derived from a Word that signifies a Head a Prince or Lord than the Greek Word for a Family which is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a House Noâ— doth Aristotle confine a Family to One House but esteems it to be made of those that daily converse together whereas before him Charondas called Family Homosypioi those that feed together out of one common Pannier And Epimenides the Cretian terms a Family Homocapnoi those that sit by a Common Fire or Smoak But let Suarez understand what he please by Adam's Family if he will but confess as he needs must that Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute power of Life and Death of Peace and War and the like within their Houses or Families he must give us leave at least to call them Kings of their Houses or Families and if they be so by the Law of Nature what Liberty will be left to their Children to dispose of Aristotle gives the Lie to Plato and â—hose that say Political and Oeconomical â—ocieties are all one and do not differ â—pecie but only Multitudine Pauciâ—te as if there were no difference betwixt a Great House and a Little City All the Argument I find he brings against them in this The Community of Man and Wise â—iffers from the Community of Master and Servant because they have several Ends. The Intention of Nature by Conjunction of Male and Female is Generation but the Scope of Master and Servant is Preservation so that a Wife and a Servant are by Nature distinguished because Nature does not work like the Cutlers of Delphos for she makes but one thing for one Use If we allow this Argument to be sound nothing doth follow but only this That Conjugal and Despotical communities do differ But it is no consequence That therefore Oeconomical and Political Societies do the like For though it prove a Family to consist of two distinct Communities yet it follows not that a Family and a Commonwealth are distinct because as well in the Commonwealth as in the Families both these Communities are found And as this Argument comes not home to our Point so it is not able to prove that Title which it shews forâ— for if it should be granted which yeâ— is false that Generation and Preservation differ about the Individuum yeâ— they agree in the General and servâ— both for the Conservation
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
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
had not been to hear their Voice in all things but rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had Tyrantâ— Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much aâ— Blamed for committing any of thoâ—â— Acts which Samuel describes and if Sâ—muel's drift had been only to terrifie thâ— People he would not have forgottâ— to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty â—â— Murthering 85 innocent Priests aâ— smiteing with the Edge of the Swoâ— the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites neâ— shrank at these Conditions proposed bâ— Samuel but accepted of them as such â—â— all other Nations were bound uâ—â— For their Conclusion is Nay but we â—â— have a King over Us that We also may â—â— like all the Nations and that Our Kâ—â—â— may Judge us and go out before us to â—â— our Battels Meaning he should â—â— his Privileges by doing the work â—â— them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument â—f their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to â—ehoboam is Make thou the grievous Serâ—ice of thy Father Solomon and his heaâ—y Yoke which he put upon us lighter and â—e will serve thee To conclude it is â—rue Saul lost his Kingdom but not â—or being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his â—ubjects but by being too Merciful to â—is Enemies his sparing Agag when he â—hould have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal â—ower By giving to Caesar those things â—at were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatsoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Deisi omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Coesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Coesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legâ— bus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferrâ— The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and All that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the â—ing Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo â—â—si tantum sub Deo c. All are under â—m and he under none but God onâ—â— If he offend since no Writ can go â—ainst him their Remedy is by Petiâ—ning him to amend his Fault which he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as Revenger Let none presume to Search to his Deeds much less to Oppose â—â—em When the Jews asked our Blessed Saâ—ur whether they should pay Triâ—e he did not first demand what the â—w of the Land was or whether there â—â— any Statute against it nor enquired â—ether the Tribute were given by â—â—nsent of the people nor advised â—â— to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Jews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Usurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these word to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood Monarch that carryed a Sword Wiâ—â— thou not be afraid of the Power that iâ— the Ruler that carryeth the Sword foâ— he is the Minister of God to thee â—â— he beareth not the Sword in vain It not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Râ—ler or Magistrate so they that say thâ—â— Law governs the Kingdom may as weâ—â— say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between
Supreme and Sent proves plainly that the Governours were sent by Kings for if the Governours were sent by God and the King be an Humane 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
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
Cases some-what â—ike have been delivered by former â—udges who all receive Authority from the King in his Right and Name to give sentence according to the Rules and Presidents of Antient Times And where Presidents have failed the Judges have resorted to the General Law of Reason and accordingly given Judgment without any Common Law to direct them Nay many times where â—here have been Presidents to direct â—hey upon better Reason only have Changed the Law both in Causes Crimical and Civil and have not insisted so much on the Examples of former Judges as examined and corrected their â—easons thence it is that some Laws are â—ow obsolete and out of use and the â—ractice quite contrary to what it was in Former Times as the Lord Chancellor Egerton proves by several Instances Nor is this spoken to Derogate from the Common Law for the Case standeth so with the Laws of all Nations although some of them have their Laws and Principles Written and Established for witnesse to this we have Aristotle his Testimony in his Ethiques and in several places in his Politiques I will cite some of them Every Law saith he is in the General but of some things there can be no General Law when therefore the Law sqeaks in General and something falls out after besides the General Rule Then it is fit that what the Law-maker hath omitted or where he hath Erred by speaking Generally it should be corrected or supplyed as if the Law-maker himself were Present to Ordain it The Governour whether hâ— be one Man or more ought to be Lord â—ver all those things whereof it was impossible the Law should exactly speak because it is not easie to comprehend all things under General Rules whatsoever the Law cannot Determine it leaves to the Governours to give Judgment therein and permits them to rectifie whatsoever upon Tryal they find to be better than the Written Laws Besides all Laws are of themselves Dumb and some or other must be trusted with the Application of them to Particulars by examining all Circumstances to pronounce when they are broken or by whom This work of right Application of Laws is not a thing easie or obvious for ordinary capacities but requires profound Abilities of Nature for the beating out of the truth witness the Diversity and sometimes the contrariety of Opinions of the learned Judges in some difficult Points 10 Since this is the common Condition of Laws it is also most reasonable that the Law-maker should be trusted with the Application or Interpretation of the Laws and for this Cause anciently the Kings of this Land have sitten personally in Courts of Judicature and are still Representatively present in all Courts the Judges are but substituted and called the Kings Justices and their Power ceaseth when the King is in place To this purpose Bracton that learned Chief Justice in the Reign of Henry the Third saith in express terms In doubtful and obscure points the Interpretation and Will of our Lord the King is to be expected since it is his part to interpret who made the Law for as he saith in another place Rex non Alius debet Judicare si Solus ad id sufficere possit c. The King and no body else ought to give Judgment if He were able since by vertue of his Oath he is Bound to it therefore the King ought to exercise Power as the Vicar or Minister of God but if our Lord the King be not able to determine every cause to ease part of his Pains by distributing the Burthen to more Persons he ought to chuse Wise men fearing God c and make Justices of them Much to the same purpose are the words of Edward the First in the beginning of his Book of Laws written by his appointment by John Briton Bishop of Hereford We will saith he that our own Jurisdiction be above all the Jurisdictions of our Realm so as in all manner of Felonies Trespasses Contracts and in all other Actions Personal or Real We have power to yield such Judgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right truth as Judges Neither may this be taken to be meant of an imaginary Presence of the King's Person in His Courts because he doth immediately after in the same place severally set forth by themselves the Jurisdictions of his Ordinary Courts but must necessarily be understood of a Jurisdiction remaining in the King 's Royal Person And that this then was no New-made Law or first brought in by the Norman Conquests appears by a Saxon Law made by King Edgar in these words as I find them in Mr. Lambert Nemo in lite Regem appellato nisi quidem domi Justitiam consequi aut impetrare non poterit sin summo jure domi urgeatur ad Regem ut is Onus aliqua ex parte Allevet provocato Let no man in Suit appeal to the King unless he may not get Right at home but if the Right be too heavy for him then let him go to the King to have it eased As the Judicial Power of Kings was exercised before the Conquest so in those setled times after the Conquest wherein Parliaments were much in use there was a High-Court following the King which was the place of Soveraign Justice both for matter of Law and Conscience as may appear by a Parliament in Edward the First 's time taking Order That the Chancellour and the Justices of the Bench should follow the King to the end that He might have always at hand able men for His Direction in Suits that came before Him And this was after the time that the Court of Common-Pleas was made Stationary which is an Evidence that the King reserved a Soveraign Power by which he did supply the Want or correct the Rigour of the Common Law because the Positive Law being grounded upon that which happens for the most part cannot foresee every particular which Time and Experience brings forth 12. Therefore though the Common Law be generally Good and Just yet in some special Case it may need Correction by reason of some considerable Circumstance falling out which at the time of the Law-making was not thought of Also sundry things do fall out both in War and Peace that require extraordinary help and cannot wait for the Usual Care of Common Law the which is not performed but altogether after one sort and that not without delay of help and expence of time so that although all Causes are and ought to be referred to the Ordinary Processe of common Law yet rare matters from time to time do grow up meet for just Reasons to be referred to the aid of the absolute Authority of the Prince and the Statute of Magna Charta hath been understood of the Institution then made of the ordinary Jurisdiction in Common Causes and not for restraint of the Absolute Authority serving only in a few rare and singular Cases for though the Subjects were put to great dammage by False
Accusations and Malitious Suggestions made to the King and His Council especially during the time of King Edward the Third whilst he was absent in the Wars in France insomuch as in His Reign divers Statutes were made That provided none should be put to answer before the King and His Council without due Processe yet it is apparent the necessity of such Proceedings was so great that both before Edward the Third's days and in his time and after his Death several Statutes were made to help and order the Proceedings of the King and his Council As the Parliament in 28. Edw. 1. Cap. 5. did provide That the Chancellour and Justices of the King's Bench should follow the King that so he might have near unto him some that be learned in the Laws which be able to order all such matters as shall come unto the Court at all times when need shall require By the Statute of 37. Edw. 3. Cap. 18. Taliation was ordained in case the Suggestion to the King proved untrue Then 38. Edw. 3. Cap. 9. takes away Taliation and appoints Imprisonment till the King and Party grieved be satisfied In the Statutes of 17. Ric. 2. Cap. 6. and 15. Hen. 6. Cap. 4. Dammages and Expences are awarded in such Cases In all these Statutes it is necessarily implyed that Complaints upon just Causes might be moved before the King and His Council At a Parliament at Glocester 2. Ric. 2. when the Commons made Petition That none might be forced by Writ out of Chancery or by Privy Seal to appear before the King and His Council to answer touching Free-hold The King's Answer was He thought it not reasonable that He should be constrained to send for His Leiges upon Causes reasonable And albeit He did not purpose that such as were sent for should answer Finalment peremptorily touching their Free-hold but should be remanded for Tryal thereof as Law required Provided always saith he that at the Suit of the Party where the King and His Council shall be credibly informed that because of Maintenance Oppression or other Out-rages the Common Law cannot have duly her Course in such case the Council for the Party Also in the 13th year of his Reign when the Commons did pray that upon pain of Forfeiture the Chancellour or Council of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Common Law the King answered Let it le used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regaâ—lity of the King be saved for the King will save His Regalities as His Progeniâ—tors have done Again in the 4th year of Henry the Fourth when the Commons complained against Subpoena's and other Writs grounded upon false Suggestions the King answered That He would give in Charge to His Officers that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for His Subjects in that manner But yet saith He it is not Our Intention that Our Officers shall so abstain that they may not send for Our Subjects in Matters and Causes necessary as it hath been used in the time of Our Good Progenitors Likewise when for the same Cause Complaint was made by the Commons Anno 3. Hen. 5. the King's Answer was Le Roy s'advisera The King will be advised which amounts to a Denyal for the present by a Phrase peculiar for the Kings denying to pass any Bill that hath passed the Lords and Commons These Complaints of the Commons and the Answers of the King discover That such moderation should be used that the course of the common Law be ordinarily maintained lest Subjects be convented before the King and His Council without just cause that the Proceedings of the Council-Table be not upon every slight Suggestion nor to determine finally concerning Free â—old of Inheritance And yet that upon â—ause reasonable upon credible Information in matters of weight the King's â—egallity or Prerogative in sending for â—is Subjects be maintain'd as of Right ought and in former times hath been â—onstantly used King Edward the First finding that â—ogo de Clare was discharged of an Acâ—usation brought against him in Parliament for that some formal Imperfections â—ere found in the Complaint commanded him nevertheless to appear before Him and His Council ad faciendum â—cipiendum quod per Regem ejus Conciâ—â—m fuerit faciendum and so proceeded â—â— an Examination of the whole Cause â—â— Edw. 1. Edward the Third In the Star-Chamâ—â—r which was the Ancient Council-Chamâ—â—r at Westminster upon the Complaint â—â— Elizabeth Audley commanded James â—udley to appear before Him and His â—ouncil and determin'd a Controversie between them touching Lands contain'd the Covenants of her Joynture Rot â—aus de an 41. Ed. 3 Henry the Fifth in a Suit before Him and His Council for the Titles of the Mannors of Seere and S. Laurence in the Isle of Thenet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tryed as well for avoiding the breach of the Peace as for prevention of waste and spoil Rot. Patin Anno 6 Hen. 5. Henry the Sixth commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney of London till they had other commandment from Him anâ— His Council because Verney being indebted to the King and others practised tâ— be Indicted of Felony wherein he might have his Clergy and make his Purgation of intent to defraud his Creditors 3. Hen. 6. Rot. 37. in Banco Regis Edward the Fourth and His Council 〈◊〉 the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and Poor Brethren of S. Leonard in York complaining that Sir Hugh Haâ—ings and others withdrew from them great part of their living which consisted chiefly upon the having of Thrave of Corn of every Pâ—ough-Land within the Counties of York Westmerâ—nd Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. â—aten de Anno 8. Ed. 4. Part 3. Memb. 14. Henry the Seventh and His Council in â—â—e Star-Chamber decreed That Margery â—nd Florence Becket should Sue no further in their Cause against Alice Radley â—idow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumâ—ad in Kent for as much as the Matter â—d been heardfirst before the Council of â—ng Ed. 4. after that before the Presiâ—â—nt of the Requests of that King Hen. and then lastly before the Council of said King 1. Hen. 7. What is hitherto affirmed of the Deâ—dency and Subjection of the Comâ—on Law to the Soveraign Prince the â—e may be said as well of all Statute â—â—ws for the King is the sole immediâ— Author Corrector and Moderator them also so that neither of these â— kinds of Laws are or can be any â—inution of that Natural Power â—â—ch Kings have over their People by â—t of Father-hood but rather are an â—ument to strengthen the truth of it for Evidence whereof we may in some points consider the nature of Parliaments because in them only all Statutes are made 12. Though the Name of Parliament as Mr. Cambden saith be of no great Antiquity but brought in
it Whereas the Liberties of Favour and Grace which are Claimed in Parliaments are restrained both for Time Place Persons and other Circumstances to the Sole Pleasure of the King The People can not Assemble themselves but the King by his Writs calls them to what place he pleases and then again Scatters them with his Breath at an instant without any other Cause shewed than his Will Neither is the whole Summoned but only so many as the Kings Writs appoint The prudent King Edward the First summoned always those Barons of ancient Families that were most wise to his Parliament but omited their Sons after their Death if they were not answerable to their Parents in Understanding Nor have the whole people Voices in the Election of Knights of the Shire or Burgesses but only Free-holders in the Counties and Freemen in the Cities and Burroughs yet in the City of Westminster all the House-holders though they be neither Free-men nor Free-holders have Voices in their Election of Burgesses Also during the time of Parliament those priviledges of the House of Commons of freedom of Speech Power to punish their own Members to examine the Proceedings and Demeanour of Courts of Justice and Officers to have access to the King's Person and the like are not due by any Natural Right but are derived from the Bounty or Indulgence of the King as appears by a solemn Recognition of the House for at the opening of the Parliament when the Speaker is presented to the King he in the behalf and name of the whole House of Commons humbly craves of His Majesty That He would be pleased to grant them their Accustomed Liberties of freedom of Speech of access to his Person and the rest These Priviledges are granted with a Condition implyed That they keep themselves within the Bounds and Limits of Loyalty and Obedience for else why do the House of Commons inflict punishment themselves upon their own Members for transgressing in some of these points and the King as Head hath many times punished the Members for the like Offences The Power which the King giveth in all his Courts to his Judges or others to punish doth not exclude Him from doing the like by way of Prevention Concurrence or Evocation even in the same point which he hath given in charge by a delegated Power for they who give Authority by Commission do always retain more than they grant Neither of the two Houses claim an Infallibility of not Erring no more than a General Council can It is not impossible but that the greatest may be in Fault or at least Interested or Engaged in the Delinquency of one particular Member In such Cases it is most proper for the Head to correct and not to expect the Consent of the Members or for the Parties peccant to be their own Judges Nor is it needful to confine the King in such Cases within the Circle of any one Court of Justice who is Supreme Judge in all Courts And in rare and new Cases rare and new Remedies must be sought out for it is a Rule of the Common Law In novo Casu novum Remedium est apponendum and the Statute of Westminst 2. cap. 24. giveth Power even to the Clarks of the Chancery to make New Forms of Writs in New Cases lest any man that came to the King's Court of Chancery for help should be sent away without Remedy A President cannot be found in every Case and of things that happen seldom and are not common there cannot be a Common Custom Though Crimes Exorbitant do pose the King and Council in finding a President for a Condigne Punishment yet they must not therefore pass unpunished I have not heard that the people by whose Voices the Knights and Burgesses are chosen did ever call to an account those whom they had Elected they neither give them Instructions or Directions what to say or what to do in Parliament therefore they cannot punish them when they come home for doing amiss If the people had any such power over their Burgesses then we might call it The Natural Liberty of the people with a mischief But they are so far from punishing that they may be punished themselves for intermedling with Parliamentary Business they must only chuse and trust those whom they chuse to do what they list and that is as much liberty as many of us deserve for our irregular Elections of Burgesses 15 A fourth point to be consider'd is that in Parliament all Statutes or Laws are made properly by the King alone at the Rogation of the people as His Majesty King James of happy memory affirms in His true Law of free Monarchy and as Hooker teacheth us That Laws do not take their constraining force from the Quality of such as devise them but from the Power that doth give them the Strength of Laws Le Roy le Veult the King will have it so is the Interpretive Phrase pronounced at the King 's passing of every Act of Parliament And it was the ancient Custom for a long time till the days of Henry the Fifth that the Kings when any Bill was brought unto them that had passed both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was Enacted for a Law but the Custom of the later Kings hath been so gracious as to allow always of the entire Bill as it hath passed both Houses 16 The Parliament is the King's Court for so all the oldest Statutes call it the King in his Parliament But neither of the two Houses are that Supreme Court nor yet both of them together they are only Members and a part of the Body whereof the King is the Head and Ruler The King 's Governing of this Body of the Parliament we may find most significantly proved both by the Statutes themselves as also by such Presidents as expresly shew us how the King sometimes by himself sometimes by his Council and othertimes by his Judges hath over-ruled and directed the Judgments of the Houses of Parliament for the King we find that Magna Charta and the Charter of Forrests and many other Statutes about those times had only the Form of the Kings Letters-Patents or Grants under the Great Seal testifying those Great Liberties to be the sole Act and Bounty of the King The words of Magna Charta begin thus Henry by the Grace of God c. To all Our Arch-Bishops c. and Our Faithful Subjects Greeting Know ye that We of Our meer free-Will have granted to all Free-men these Liberties In the same style goeth the Charter of Forrests and other Statutes Statutum Hibernioe made at Westminster 9. Februarii 14. Hen. 3. is but a Letter of the King to Gerrard Son of Maurice Justice of Ireland The Statute de anno Bissextili begins thus The King to His Justices of the Bench Greeting c. Explanationes Statuti Glocestrioe made by the King and his Justices only were received always as Statutes and
Flesh and Blood for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude who magnifie Liberty as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath of late obtained a great Reputation yet it is not to be found in the Ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church 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 It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in Divinity or dangerous in Policy Yet upon the ground of this Doctrine both Jesuites and some other zealous favourers of the Geneva Discipline have built a perillous Conclusion which is That the People or Multitude have Power to punish or deprive the Prince if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom witness Parsons and Buchanan the first under the name of Dolman in the Third Chapter of his First Book labours to prove that Kings have been lawfully chastised by their Commonwealths The â—atter in his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos maintains A Liberty of the People to depose their Prince Cardinal Bellarmine and Calume both look asquint this way This desperate Assertion whereby Kings are made subject to the Censures and Deprivations of their Subjects follows as the Authors of it conceive as a necessary Consequence of that former Position of the supposed Natural Equality and Freedom of Mankind and Liberty to choose what form of Government it please And though Sir John Heyward Adam Blackwood John Barclay and some others have Learnedly Confuted both Buchanan and Parsons and bravely vindicated the Right of Kings in most Points yet all of them when they come to the Argument drawn from the Natural Liberty and Equality of Mankind do with one consent admit it for a Truth unquestionable not so much as once denying or opposing it whereas if they did but confute this first erroneous Principle the whole Fabrick of this vast Engine of Popular Sedition would drop down of it self The Rebellious Consequence which follows this prime Article of the Natural Freedom of Mankind may be my Sufficient Warrant for a modest Examination of the original Truth of it much hath been said and by many for the Affirmative Equity requires that an Ear be reserved a little for the Negative In this DISCOURSE I shall give my self these Cautions First I have nothing to do to medle with Mysteries of State such Arcana Imperii or Cabinet-Councels the Vulgar may not pry into An implicite Faith is given to the meanest Artificer in his own Craft how much more is it then due to a Prince in the profound Secrets of Government The Causes and Ends of the greatest politique Actions and Motions of State dazle the Eyes and exceed the Capacities of all men save only those that are hourly versed in the managing Publique Affairs yet since the Rule for each men to know in what to obey his Prince cannot be learnt without a relative Knowledge of those Points wherein a Sovereign may Command it is necessary when the Commands and Pleasures of Superiours come abroad and call for an Obedience that every man himself know how to regulate his Actions or his Sufferings for according to the Quality of the Thing commanded an Active or Passive Obedience is to be yielded and this is not to limit the Princes Power but the extent of the Subjects Obedience by giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's c. Secondly I am not to question or quarrel â—â— the Rights or Liberties of this or any other Nation my task is chiefly to enquire from whom these first came not to dispute what or how many these are but whether they were derived from the Laws of Natural Liberty or from the Grace and Bounty of Princes My desire and Hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample Privileges as any Nation under Heaven the greatest Liberty in the World if it be duely considered is for a people to live under a Monarch It is the Magna Charta of this Kingdom all other shews or pretexts of Liberty are but several degrees of Slavery and a Liberty only to destroy Liberty If such as Maintain the Natural Liberty of Mankind take Offence at the Liberty I take to Examine it they must take heed that they do not deny by Retail that Liberty which they affirm by Whole-sale For if the Thesis be true the Hypothesis will follow that all men may Examine their own Charters Deeds or Evidences by which they claim and hold the Inheritance or Freehold of their Liberties Thirdly I must not detract from the Worth of all those Learned Men who are of a contrary Opinion in the Point of Natural Liberty the profoundest Scholar that ever was known hath not been able to search out every Truth that is discoverable neither Aristotle in Philosophy nor Hooker in Divinity They are but Men yet I reverence their Judgements in most Points and confess my self beholding to their Errors too in this something that I found amiss in their Opinions guided me in the discovery of that Truth which I perswade my self they missed A Dwarf sometimes may see that which a Giant looks over for whilest one Truth is curiously searched after another must necessarily be neglected Late Writers have taken up too much upon Trust from the subtile School-men who to be sure to thrust down the King below the Pope thought it the safest course to advance the People above the King that so the Papal Power might take place of the Regal Thus many an Ignorant Subject hath been fooled into this Faith that a man may become a Martyr for his Countrey by being a Traytor to his Prince whereas the New-coyned distinction of Subjects into Royallists and Patriots is most unnatural since the relation between King and People is so great that their well-being is so Reciprocal 2 To make evident the Grounds of this Question about the Natural Liberty of Mankind I will lay down some passages of Cardinal Bellarmine that may best unfold the State of this Controversie Secular or Civil Power saith he is instituted by Men It is in the People unless they bestow it on a Prince This Power is immediately in the whole Multitude as in the Subject of it for this Power is in the Divine Law but the Divine Law hath given this Power to no particular Man If the Positive Law be taken away there is left no Reason why amongst a Multitude who are Equal one rather than another should bear Rule over the rest Power is given by the Multitude to one man or to more by the same Law of Nature for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One Man or some Few It depends upon the Consent of the Multitude
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
of Mankind Even as several Servants differ in the particular Ends or Offices as one tâ— Brew and another to Bake yet they agree in the general Preservation of thâ— Family Besides Aristotle confesses that amongst the Barbarians as he calls all them that are not Grecians a Wife and a Servant are the same because by Nature no Barbarian is fit to Govern It is fit the Grecians should rule over the Barbarians for by Nature a Servant and a Barbarian is all one their Family consists only of an Ox for a Man-Servant and a Wife for a Maid so they are fit only to rule their Wives and their Beasts Lastly Aristotle if it had pleased him might have remembred That Nature doth not always make one Thing but for one Use he knows the Tongue serves both to Speak and to Taste 4. But to leave Aristotle and return to Suarez he saith that Adam had Fatherly Power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free Here I could wish that the Jesuite had taught as how and when Sons become Free â— know no means by the Law of Nature It is the Favour I think of the Parents only who when their Children are of Age and Discretion to ease their Parents of part of their Fatherly Care are then content to remit some part of their Fatherly authority therefore the Custom of some Countreys doth in some Cases Enfranchise the Children of Inferiour Parents but many Nations have no such Custome but on the contrary have strict Laws for the Obedience of Children the Judicial Law of Moses giveth full power to the Father to stone his disobedient Son so it be done in presence of a Magistrate And yet it did not belong to the Magistrate to enquire and examine the justness of the Cause But it was so decreed lest the Father should in his Anger suddenly or secretly kill his Son Also by the Laws of the Persians and of the People of the Upper Asia and of the Gaules and by the Laws of the West-Indies the Parents have power of Life and Death over their Children The Romans even in their most Popular Estate had this Law in force and this Power of Parents was ratified and amplified by the Laws of the Twelve Tables to the enabling of Parents to sell their Children two or three times over By the help of the Fatherly Power Rome long flourished and oftentimes was freed from great Dangers The Fathers have drawn out of the very Assemblies their own Sons when being Tribunes they have published Laws tending to Sedition Memorable is the Example of Cassius who threw his Son headlong out of the Consistory publishing the Law Agraria for the Division of Lands in the behoof of the people and afterwards by his own private Judgment put him to Death by throwing him down from the Tarpeian Rock the Magistrates and People standing thereat amazed and not daring to resist his Fatherly Authority although they would with all their Hearts have had that Law for the Division of Land by which it appears it was lawful for the Father to dispose of the Life of his Child contrary to the Will of the Magistrates or People The Romans also had a Law that what the Children got was not their own but their Fathers although Solon made a Law which acquitted the Son from Nourishing of his Father if his Father had taught him no Trade whereby to get his Living Suarez proceeds and tells us That in Process of Time Adam had compleat Oeconomical Power I know not what this compleat Oeconomical Power is nor how or what it doth really and essentially differ from Political If Adam did or might exercise the same Jurisdiction which a King doth now in a Commonwealth then the Kinds of Power are not distinct and though they may receive an Accidental Difference by the Amplitude or Extent of the Bounds of the One beyond the Other yet since the like Difference is also found in Political Estates It follows that Oeconomical and Political Power differ no otherwise than a Little Commonweal differs from a Great One. Next saith Suarez Commnnity did not begin at the Creation of Adam It is true because he had no body to Communicate with yet Community did presently follow his Creation and that by his Will alone for it was in his power only who was Lord of All to appoint what his Sons should have in Proper and what in Common so that Propriety and Community of Goods did follow Originally from Him and it is the Duty of a Father to provide as well for the Common Good of his Children as the Particular Lastly Suarez Concludes That by the Law of Nature alone it is not due unto any Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity This Assertion is confuted point-blank by Bellarmine who expresly affirmeth That the First Patents ought to have been Princes of their posterity And untill Suarez bring some Reason for what he saith I shall trust more to Bellarmine's Proofs than to his Denials 5. But let us Condescend a while to the Opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez and all those who place Supreme power in the Whole People and ask them of their meaning be That there is but one and the same power in All the people of the World so that no power can be granted except All the Men upon the Earth meet and agree to choose a Governour An Answer is here given by Suarez That it is scarce possible nor yet expedient that All Men in the World should be gathered together into One Community It is likelier that either never oâ— for a very short time that this power was in this manner in the whole Multitude of Men collected but a little after the Creation men began to be divided into several Commonwealths and this distinct power was in Each oâ— them This Answer of Scarce possible noâ— yet Expedient It is likelier begeâ—â— a new doubt how this Distinct power comes to each particular Community when God gave it to the whole Multitude only and not to any particular Assembly of Men. Can they shew oâ— prove that ever the whole Multitude met and divided this power which God gave them in Gross by breaking into parcels and by appointing a distinct power to each several Common-wealth Without such a Compact I cannot see according to their own Principles how there can be any Election of a Magistrate by any Commonwealth but by a meer Usurpation upon the privilege of the whole World If any thinkâ—s that particular Multitudes at their own Discretion had power to divide themselves into several Commonwealths â—hose that think so have neither Reason nor Proof for so thinking and â—hereby a Gap is opened for every petty Factious Multitude to raise a New Commonwealth and to make more Commonweals than there be Families in the World But let this also be yielded them That in each particular Commonwealth there is a Distinct Power in the Multitude Was a General Meeting of a Whole Kingdom ever known for the
out of France yet our Ancestors the English Saxons had a Meeting which they called The Assembly of the Wise termed in Latine Conventum Magnatum or Proesentia Regis Procerumque Prelaterumque collectorâ—â— The Meeting of the Nobility or the Presence of the King Prelates anâ— Peers Assembled or in General Magnuâ— Concilium or Commune Concilium anâ— many of our Kings in elder times madâ— use of such great Assemblies for to Consult of important Affaires of State aâ— which Meetings in a General sense maâ— be termed Parliaments Great are the Advantages which bâ—â— the King and People may receive by well-ordered Parliament there is nâ—thing more expresseth the Majesty a Supreme Power of a King than such Assembly wherein all his People knowledge him for Soveraign Lord and make all their Addresses to him by humble Petition and Supplication and by their Consent and Approbation do strengthen all the Laws which the King â—â—at their Request and by their Advice and Ministry shall ordain Thus they facilitate the Government of the King by making the Laws unquestionable either to the Subordinate Magistrates or â—refractory Multitude The benefit which â—â—crews to the Subject by Parliaments is That by their Prayers and Petitions Kings are drawn many times to redress their Just grievances and are overcome by their importunity to grant many â—hings which otherwise they would not â—ield unto for the Voice of a Multitude is easilier heard Many Vexations of the People are without the knowledge of the King who in Parliament seeth â—nd heareth his People himself whereas â— other times he commonly useth the â—yes and Ears of other men Against the Antiquity of Parliaments â—e need not dispute since the more anâ—ent they be the more they make for â—e Honour of Monarchy yet there be certain Circumstances touching the Forms of Parliaments which are fit to be considered First we are to remember that until about the time of the Conquest there could be no Parliaments assembled of the General States of the whole Kingdom of England because till those days we cannot learn it was entirely united into one Kingdom but it was either divided into several Kingdoms or Governed by several Laws When Julius Coesar landed he found 4 Kings in Kent and the British Names of Dammonii Durotriges Belgaeâ— Attrebatii Trinobantes Iceni Silures and the rest are plentiful Testimonies oâ— the several Kingdoms of Brittains wheâ— the Romans left us The Saxons divide us into 7 Kingdoms when these Saxonâ— were united all into a Monarchy they had always the Danes their Companions or their Masters in the Empire tiâ— Edward the Confessors Days since whoâ— time the Kingdom of England hath continued United as now it doth But for a Thousand years before we cannot finâ— it was entirely setled during the Timâ— of any one Kings Reign As under thâ— Mercian Law The West Saxons were confined to the Saxon Laws Essex Norfolk Suffolk and some other Places were vexed with Danish Laws The Northumbrians also had their Laws apart And until Edward the Confessors Reign who was next but one before the Conquerour the Laws of the Kingdom were so several and Uncertain that he was forced to Cull a few of the most indifferent and best of them which were from him called St. Edwards Laws Yet some say that Eadgar made those Laws and that the Confessor did but restore and mend them Alfred also gathered out of Mulmutius laws such as he translated into the Saxon Tongue Thus during the time of the Saxons the Laws were so variable that there is little or no likelihood to find any constant Form of Parliaments of the whole Kingdom 13 A second Point considerable is whether in such Parliaments as was â—n the Saxon's times the Nobility â—nd Clergy only were of those Assemâ—lies or whether the Commons were also called some are of Opinion that â—hough none of the Saxon Laws do mention the Commons yet it may be gathered by the word Wisemen the Commons are intended to be of those Assemblies and they bring as they conceive probable arguments to prove it from the Antiquity of some Burroughs that do yet send Burgesses and from the Proscription of those in Antient Demesne not to send Burgesses to Parliament If it be true that the West-Saxons had a Custom to assemble Burgesses out of some of their Towns yet it may be doubted whether other Kingdoms had the same usage but sure it is that during the Heptarchy the People could not Elect any Knights of the Shire because England was not then divided into Shires On the contrary there be of our Historians who do affirm that Henry the First caused the Commons first to be Assembled by Knights and Burgesses of their own Appointment for before his Time only certain of the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm were called to Consultation about the most Important Affairs of State If this Assertion be true it seems a meer matter of Grace of this King and proves not any Natural Right of the People Originally to be admitted to chuse their Knights and Burgesses of Parliament though it had been more for the Honour of Parliaments if a King whose Title to the Crown had been better had been Author of the Form of it because he made use of it for his unjust Ends. For thereby he secured himself against his Competitor and Elder Brother by taking the Oaths of the Nobility in Parliament and getting the Crown to be setled upon his Children And as the King made use of the People so they by Colour of Parliament served their own turns for after the Establishment of Parliaments by strong hand and by the Sword they drew from him the Great Charter which he granted the rather to flatter the Nobility and People as Sir Walter Raleigh in his Dialogue of Parliaments doth affirm in these words The great Charter was not Originally granted Legally and Freely for Henry the First did but Usurp the Kingdom and therefore the better to assure himself against Robert his Elder Brother he flattered the Nobility and People with their Charters yea King John that Confirmed them had the like respect for Arthur Duke of Brittain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom King John Usurped and so to conclude these Charters had their Original from Kings de facto but not de jure the Great Charter had first an obscure Birth by Usurpation and was Secondly sostered and shewed to the World by Rebellion 15. A third consideration must be that in the former Parliaments instituted and continued since King Henry the First 's time is not to be found the Usage of any Natural Liberty of the People for all those Liberties that are claimed in Parliament are the liberties of Grace from the King and not the Liberties of Nature to the People for if the liberty were Natural it would give Power to the Multitude to assemble themselves When and Where they please to bestow Soveraignty and by Pactions to limit and direct the Exercise of
â—re still Printed amongst them The Statute made for Correction â—f the 12 th Chapter of the Statute of â—locester was Signed under the Great â—eal and sent to the Justices of the â—ench after the manner of a Writ Paâ—â—nt with a certain Writ closed dated â—y the Kings Hand at Westminster reâ—iring that they should do and Execute â—â— and every thing contained in it although the same do not accord with the â—atute of Glocester in all things The Statute of Rutland is the Kings â—tters to his Treasurer and Barons of his â—cchequer and to his Chamberlain The Statute of Circumspecte Agis â—â—s The King to his Judges sendeth â—eeting There are many other Statutes of the â—he Form and some of them which â— only in the Majestique Terms of The â—g Commands or The King Wills or â— Lord the King hath established or Our Lord the King hath ordained or His Especial Grace hath granted Without mention of Consent of the Commons or People insomuch that some Statutes rather resemble Proclamations than Acts of Parliament And indeed some of them were no other than meeâ— Proclamations as the Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly oâ— the Prelates and Nobility for the Cornation of the King and his Queen Eleanoâ— which begins Provisum est in Câ—ria Domini Regis apud Merton Also a Provision was made 19. Hen. 3. de Assisa ultimoe Prâ—sentationis which was continued and allowed for Law until Tit. West 2. an 13. Eâ—â— 1. cap. 5. which provides the contrary iâ— express words This Provision begins Prâ—visum fuit coram Dom. Rege Archiepiscopiâ— Episcopis Baronibus quod c. It seeâ— Originally the difference was not greâ—â— between a Proclamation and a Statutâ— this latter the King made by Commâ—â— Council of the Kingdom In the form he had but the advice only of his greâ—â— Council of the Peers or of his Privâ—â—â— Council only For that the King had great Council besides his Parliament aâ—pears by a Record of 5. Hen. 4. aboâ—â— an Exchange between the King and the Earl of Northumberland Whereby the King promiseth to deliver to the Earl Lands to the value by the advice of Parliament or otherwise by the Advice of his Grand Council and other Estates of the Realm which the King will Assemble in case the Parliament do not meet We may find what Judgment in later times Parliaments have had of Proclamations by the Statute of 31. of Hen. Cap. 8. in these Words Forasmuch as the King by the advice of his Council hath set forth Proclamations which obstinate Persons have contemned not considering what a King by his Royal Power may do Considering that sudden Causes and Occasions fortune many times which do require speedy Remedies and that by abiding for a Parliament in the mean time might happen great prejudice to ensue to the Realm And weighing also that his Majesty which by the Kingly and Reâ—al Power given him by God may do many things in such Cases should not be driâ—en to extend the Liberties and Supreâ—ity of his Regal Power and Dignity by willfulness of froward Subjects It is therefore thought fit that the King with the Advice of his Honourable Council should set forth Proclamations for the good of the People and defence of his Royal Dignity as necessity shall require This Opinion of a House of Parliament was confirmed afterwards by a Second Parliament and the Statute made Proclamations of as great validity as if they had been made in Parliament This Law continued until the Government of the State came to be under aâ— Protector during the Minority of Edward the Sixth and in his first year it was Repealed I find also that a Parliament in the 11th year of Henry the Seventh did so great Reverence to the Actions or Ordinances of the King that by Statutâ— they provided a Remedy or Means to levy a Benevolence granted to the King although by a Statute made not long before all Benevolences were Damneâ— and Annulled for ever Mr. Fuller in his Arguments against the proceedings of the High-Commission Court affirms that the Statute of 2. H. 4. cap. 15. which giveth Power to Ordinaries to Imprison and set Fines on Subjects was made without the Assent of the Commons because they are not mentioned in the Act. If this Argument be good we shall find very many Statutes of the same kind for the Assent of the Commons was seldom mentioned in the Elder Parliaments The most usual Title of Parliaments in Edward the 3d Rich. 2. the three Henries 4. 5. 6. in Edw. 4. and Rich. 3. days was The King and his Parliament with the Assent of the Prelates Earles and Barons and at the Petition or at the special Instance of the Commons doth Ordain The same Mr. Fuller saith that the Statute made against Lollards was without the Assent of the Commons as appears by their Petition in these Words The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented nor Granted â—y the Commons but that which was done â—herein was done without their Assent 17. How far the Kings Council hath directed and swayed in Parliament hath in part appeared by what hath been already produced For further Evidence we may add the Statute of Westminster The first which saith These be the Acts of King Edward 1. made at His First Parliament General by His Council and by the assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm c. The Statute of Bygamy saith In presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Council for as much as all the King's Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in Writing and observed The Statute of Acton Burnell saith The King for Himself and by His Council hath Ordained and Established In Articuli super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of his Prelates Earls and Barons we find these Passages 1. Nevertheless the King and His Council do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the King Right c. 2. And notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Council and all they that were present at the making of this Ordinance will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved to him in all things Here we may see in the same Parliament the Charter of the Liberties of the Subjects confirmed and a saving of the Kings Prerogative Those times neither stumbled at the Name nor conceived any such Antipathy between the Terms as should make them incompatible The Statute of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Soveraign Lord the King by his Council it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded And the Ordinance of Inquest goeth thus It is agreed and Ordained by the King himself and all his Council The Statute made at York