to Kings not only the Example of such Jurisdiction but the Prerogative also Of Privilege of Parliaments WHat need all this ado will some say to sift out what is comprised in the Writ for the Election of the Commons to Parliament since it is certain though the Writ doth not yet Privilege of Parliament gives sufficient Power for all Proceedings of the Two Houses It is answered that what slight Esteem soever be made of the Writ yet in all other cases the Original Writ is the Foundation of the whole business or action and to vary in Substance from the Writ makes a Nullity in the Cause and the Proceedings thereupon and where a Commissioner exerciseth more Power than is warranted by his Commission every such Act is void and in many Cases punishable yet we will lay aside the Writ and apply our selves to consider the Nature of Privilege of Parliament The Task is the more difficult for that we are not told what the number of Privileges are or which they be some do think that as there be dormant Articles of Faith in the Roman Church which are not yet declared so there be likewise Privileges dormant in the House of Commons not yet revealed we must therefore be content in a generality to discourse of the Quality or Condition of Privilege of Parliament and to confine our selves to these three points 1. That Privilege of Parliament gives no Power but only helps to the execution of the Power given by the Writ 2. That the Free-holders by their Elections give no Privilege 3. That Privilege of Parliament is the Gift of the King First The End or Scope of Privilege of Parliament is not to give any Power to do any Publick Act not warranted by the Writ but they are intended as Helps only to enable to the Performance of the Duty enjoyned and so are subservient to the Power comprised in the Writ For Instance the grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests doth not give any Power at all to the House of Commons to do any Act but by taking away from the Free-holders and other Subjects the Power of Arrests the Commons are the better inabled to attend the Service to which they are called by the King In many other Cases the Servants or Ministers of the King are privileged and protected much in the same Nature The Servants in Houshold to the King may not be arrested without special Licence Also the Officers of the Kings Courts of Justice having a Privilege not to be sued in any other Court but where they serve and attend and to this Purpose they are allowed a Writ of Privilege Likewise all such as serve the King in his Wars as are imployed on Foreign Affairs for him are protected from Actions and Sutes Nay the King's Protection descends to the privileging even of Laundresses Nurses and Midwives if they attend upon the Camp as Sir Edward Coke saith quia Lotrix seu Nutrix seu obstetrix Besides the King protects his Debtors from Arrests of the Subject till his own Debts be paid These sorts of Protections are Privileges the Common Law takes Notice of and allows and hath several Distinctions of them and some are Protections quia profecturus and others are quia moraturus some are with a Clause of Volumus for Stay of Suits others with a Clause of Nolumus for the Safety of mens Persons Servants and Goods and the King's Writs do vary herein according to the Nature of the Business But none of these Privileges or Protections do give any Power they are not positive but privative they take away and deprive the Subject of the Power or Liberty to arrest or sue in some cases only no Protection or Privilege doth defend in point of Treason Felony or Breach of the Peace Privileges are directly contrary to the Law for otherwise they should not be Privileges and they are to be interpreted in the strictest manner as being odious and contrary to Law we see the Use of Privileges they do but serve as a Dispensation against Law intended originally and principally for the expediting of the Kings Business though secondarily and by accident there do sometimes redound a Benefit by them to the Parties themselves that are protected Strictly and properly every Privilege must be against a publick or common Law for there is no Use or Need of a private Law to protect where there is no publick Law to the contrary Favours and Graces which are only besides and not against the Law do not properly go under the name of Privileges though common Use do not distinguish them I know no other Privilege that can be truly so called and to belong to the House of Commons which is so vast and great as this Privilege of their Persons Servants and Goods this being indeed against the Common Law and doth concern the whole Kingdom to take notice of it if they must be bound by it Touching this grand Privilege of Freedom from Arrests I read that in the 33 Hen. 8. the Commons did not proceed to the Punishment of Offenders for the breach of it until the Lords referred the Punishment thereof to the Lower House The Case is thus reported George Ferrers Gentleman Servant to the King and Burgess for Plymouth going to the Parliament-House was arrested in London by Process out of the Kings Bench for Debt wherein he had before been condemned as Surety for one Welden at the Sute of one White which Arrest signified to Sir Thomas Moyl Speaker and to the rest the Serjeant called Saint-Johns was sent to the Counter in Breadstreet to demand Ferrers The Officer of the Counter refused to deliver him and gave the Serjeant such ill Language that they fall to an Affray the Sheriff coming taketh the Officers part the Serjeant returned without the Prisoner This being related to the Speaker and Burgesses they would sit no more without their Burgess and rising repaired to the Upper House where the Case was declared by the Speaker before Sir Thomas Audley Chancellor and the Lords and Judges there assembled who judging the Contempt to be very great referred the Punishment thereof to the House of Commons it self This Privilege of Freedom from Arrests is the only Privilege which Sir Edward Coke finds to belong to the House of Commons he cannot or at least he doth not so much as name any other in his Section of the Privileges of Parliament neither doth he bring so much as one Precedent for the Proof of this one Privilege for the House of Commons which may cause a Doubt that this sole Privilege is not so clear as many do imagine For in a Parliament in the 27 Eliz. Richard Coke a Member being served with a Subpoena of Chancery the Lord Chancellor thought the House had no such Privilege for Subpoena's as they pretended neither would he allow of any Precedents of the House committed unto them formerly used in that Behalf unless the House of Commons could also prove the same to have
also to study always to please their Parents But since this Duty is not by force of any moral faculty as those former are but only of Piety Observance and Duty of repaying Thanks it doth not make any thing void which is done against it as neither a gift of any thing is void being made by any Owner whatsoever against the rules of Parsimony In both these times the Right of Ruling and Compelling is as Grotius acknowledgeth comprehended so far forth as Children are to be compelled to their Duty or amended although the power of a Parent doth so follow the person of a Father that it cannot be pulled away and transferred upon another yet the Father may naturally pawn or also sell his Son if there be need In the third time he saith The Son is in all things Free and of his own Authority always that Duty remaining of Piety and Observance the cause of which is perpetual In this triple distinction though Grotius allow Children in some cases during the second and in all cases during the third time to be free and of their own Power by a moral Faculty yet in that he confesseth in all cases Children are bound to study always to please their Parents out of Piety and Duty the cause of which as he saith is perpetual I cannot conceive how in any case Children can naturally have any Power or moral Faculty of doing what they please without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please their Parents And though by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of Discretion have Power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by Positive and Humane Laws only which are made by the Supreme Fatherly Power of Princes who Regulate Limit or Assume the Authority of inferiour Fathers for the publick Benefit of the Commonwealth so that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceaseth by any Separation but only by the permission of the transcendent Fatherly Power of the Supreme Prince Children may be dispensed with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents Touching the Point of dissolving the Vows of Children Grotius in his last Edition of his Book hath corrected his first for in the first he teacheth That the power of the Father was greater over the Daughter dwelling with him than over the Son for her Vow he might make void but not his But instead of these words in his last Edition he saith That the power over the Son or Daughter to dissolve Vows was not perpetual but did endure as long as the Children were a part of their Fathers Family About the meaning of the Text out of which he draws this Conclusion I have already spoken Three ways Grotius propoundeth whereby Supreme Power may be had First By full Right of Propriety Secondly By an Vsufructuary Right Thirdly By a Temporary Right The Roman Dictators saith he had Supreme Power by a Temporary Right as well those Kings who are first Elected as those that in a lawful Right succeed to Kings elected have Supreme Power by an usufructuary Right some Kings that have got Supreme Power by a just War or into whose Power some People for avoiding a greater Evil have so yielded themselves as that they have excepted nothing have a full Right of Propriety Thus we find but two means acknowledged by Grotius whereby a King may obtain a full Right of Propriety in a Kingdom That is either by a just War or by Donation of the People How a War can be just without a precedent Title in the Conquerour Grotius doth not shew and if the Title only make the War just then no other Right can be obtained by War than what the Title bringeth for a just War doth only put the Conquerour in possession of his old Right but not create a new The like which Grotius saith of Succession may be said of War Succession saith he is no Title of a Kingdom which gives a Form to the Kingdom but a Continuation of the old for the Right which began by the Election of the Family is continued by Succession wherefore so much as the first Election gave so much the Succession brings So to a Conquerour that hath a Title War doth not give but put him in possession of a Right and except the Conquerour had a full Right of Propriety at first his Conquest cannot give it him for if originally he and his Ancestors had but an usufructuary Right and were outed of the possession of the Kingdom by an Usurper here though the Re-conquest be a most just War yet shall not the Conquerour in this case gain any full Right of Propriety but must be remitted to his usufructuary Right only for what Justice can it be that the Injustice of a third Person an Usurper should prejudice the People to the devesting of them of that Right of Propriety which was reserved in their first Donation to their Elected King to whom they gave but an usufructuary Right as Grotius conceiveth Wherefore it seems impossible that there can be a just War whereby a full Right of Propriety may be gained according to Grotius's Principles For if a King come in by Conquest he must either conquer them that have a Governour or those People that have none if they have no Governour then they are a free People and so the War will be unjust to conquer those that are free especially if the Freedom of the People be by the primary Law of Nature as Grotius teacheth But if the People conquered have a Governour that Governour hath either a Title or not If he hath a Title it is an unjust War that takes the Kingdom from him If he hath no Title but only the Possession of a Kingdom yet it is unjust for any other man that wants a Title also to conquer him that is but in possession for it is a just Rule That where the Cases are alike he that is in Possession is in the better condition In pari causa possidentis melior conditio Lib. 2. c. 23. And this by the Law of Nature even in the Judgment of Grotius But if it be admitted that he that attempts to conquer hath a Title and he that is in possession hath none here the Conquest is but in nature of a possessory Action to put the Conquerour in possession of a primer Right and not to raise a new Title for War begins where the Law fails Vbi Judicia deficiunt incipit Bellum Lib. 2. cap. 1. And thus upon the matter I cannot find in Grotius's Book De Jure Belli how that any Case can be put wherein by a just War a man may become a King pleno Jure Proprietatis All Government and Supreme Power is founded upon publick Subjection which is thus defined by Grotius Publica Subjectio est quâ se Populus homini alicui aut pluribus hominibus aut etiam populo alteri in ditionem dat Lib. 2.
none can deny That they differed in their degrees of punishments is possible there are but three sorts that can be proved were to be put to death viz. the Witch the Familiar Spirit the Wisard As for the Witch there hath been some doubt made of it The Hebrew Doctors that were skill'd in the Laws of Moses observe that wheresoever one was to dye by their Law the Law always did run in an affirmative Precept as the man shall be stoned shall dye shall be put to death or the like but in this Text and no where else in Scripture the sentence is only a Prohibition negative Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live and not Thou shalt put her to death or stone her or the like Hence some have been of opinion that not to suffer a Witch to live was meant not to relieve or maintain her by running after her and rewarding her The Hebrews seem to have two sorts of Witches some that did hurt others that did hold the eyes that is by jugling and slights deceived mens senses The first they say was to be stoned the other which according to the proper notation of the word was the true Witch was only to be beaten The Septuagint have translated a Witch an Apothecary a Druggister one that compounds poisons and so the Latin word for a Witch is Venefica a maker of poisons if any such there ever were or be that by the help of the Devil do poison such a one is to be put to death though there be no Covenant with the Devil because she is an Actor and Principal her self not by any wonder wrought by the Devil but by the natural or occult property of the Poyson For the time of Christ saith Mr. Perkins though there be no particular mention made of any such Witch yet thence it followeth not that there were none for all things that then happened are not recorded and I would fain know of the chief Patrons of them whether those persons possessed with the Devil and troubled with strange Diseases whom Christ healed were not bewitched with some such people as our Witches are If they say no let them if they can prove the contrary Here it may be thought that Mr. Perkins puts his Adversaries to a great pinch but it doth not prove so for the Question being only whether those that were possessed in our Saviour's Time were bewitched The Opposers of Mr. Perkins say they were not bewitched but if he or any other say they were the Proof will rest wholly on him or them to make good their Affirmative it cannot in reason be expected that his Adversaries should prove the Negative it is against the Rules of Disputation to require it FINIS Patriarcha OR THE Natural Power OF KINGS· By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Baronet Lucan Lib. 3. Libertas Populi quem regna coercent Libertate perit Claudian Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Poincipe oredit Servitium nusquam Libertas gratior extat Quam sub Rege pio LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell in St. Paul's Church-Yard Matthew Gillyflower and William Henchman in Westminster Hall 1680. The COPY OF A LETTER Written by the Late Learned Dr. PETER HEYLYN to Sir Edward Fylmer Son of the Worthy Author concerning this Book and his other Political Discourses SIR HOW great a Loss I had in the death of my most dear and honoured Friend your deceased Father no man is able to conjecture but he that hath suffered in the like So affable was his Conversation his Discourse so rational his Judgment so exact in most parts of Learning and his Affections to the Church so exemplary in him that I never enjoyed a greater Felicity in the company of any Man living than I did in his In which Respects I may affirm both with Safety and Modesty that we did not only take sweet Counsel together but walked in the House of God as Friends I must needs say I was prepared for that great Blow by the Loss of my Preferment in the Church of Westminster which gave me the Opportunity of so dear and beloved a Neighbourhood so that I lost him partly before he died which made the Misery the more supportable when I was deprived of him for altogether But I was never more sensible of the Infelicity than I am at this present in reference to that Satisfaction which I am sure he could have given the Gentleman whom I am to deal with His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his Judicious Observations upon Aristotles Politiques as also in some passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling And had he pleased to have suffered his Excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in Publick it would have given such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Politie that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary Vide Certamen Epistolare 386. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of the People New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine and some contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The Dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 And from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and of their Agreement CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or chose Governours 1 ARistotle examined about the Freedom of the People and justified 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 for the Peoples chosing their King Mr. Hooker's Judgment therein 9 God governed always by Monarchy 10 Bellarmine and Aristotles judgment of Monarchy 11 Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12 Rome legan her Empire under Kings and perfected it under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13 Whether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or whether they crept in by stealth 14 Democraties vilified by their own Hystorians 15 Popular Government more Bloody than Tyranny 16 Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17 The People may not judg not 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 tied to Laws 2 Of Samuel's Description of a King 3 The Power ascribed
or Free-hold 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 Judgments 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 to ordain over themselves a King or Consul or other Magistrates and if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy Thus far Bellarmine in which passages are comprised the strength of all that ever I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democrasy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judg of this lawful Cause If the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and is the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmine deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testify for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent who is Lord-Paramout over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself It follows that Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it Specifically to the eldest Parents which quite takes away that New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation For Dominion of Life and Death we find that Judah the Father pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth saith he that she may be burnt Touching War we see that Abraham commanded an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family And Esau met his Brother Jacob with 400 Men at Arms. For matter of Peace Abraham made a League with Abimilech and ratify'd the Articles with an Oath These Acts of Judging in Capital Crimes of making War and concluding Peace are the chiefest Marks of Sovereignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but after it this Patriarchal Power did continue as the very Name Patriarch doth in part prove The three Sons of Noah had the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them was the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him and his Sons Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth
by any Rules of Reason or of State Examine his Actions without a distempered Judgment and you will not Condemn him to be exceeding either Insufficient or Evil weigh the Imputations that were objected against him and you shall find nothing either of any Truth or of great moment Hollingshed writeth That he was most Unthankfully used by his Subjects for although through the frailty of his Youth he demeaned himself more dissolutely than was agreeable to the Royalty of his Estate yet in no Kings Days were the Commons in greater Wealth the Nobility more honoured and the Clergy less wronged who notwithstanding in the Evil-guided Strength of their will took head against him to their own headlong destruction afterwards partly during the Reign of Henry his next Successor whose greatest Atchievements were against his own People in Executing those who Conspired with him against King Richard But more especially in succeeding times when upon occasion of this Disorder more English Blood was spent than was in all the Foreign Wars together which have been since the Conquest Twice hath this Kingdom been miserably wasted with Civil War but neither of them occasioned by the Tyranny of any Prince The Cause of the Barons 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 Oaths of Kings 8. Of the Benefit of the King's Prerogative over Laws 9. the King the Author the Interpreter and Corrector of the Common Laws 10. The King 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 endeavoured 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 err for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it The Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground That the safety of the Kingdom be his Chief Law He must remember That the Profit of every Man in particular and of all together in general is not always one and the same and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private And that the force of Laws must not be so great as natural Equity it self which cannot fully be comprised in any Laws whatsoever but is to be left to the Religious Atchievement of those who know how to manage the Affairs of State and wisely to Ballance the particular Profit with the Counterpoize of the Publick according to the infinite variety of Times Places Persons a Proof unanswerable for the superiority of Princes above Laws is this That there were Kings long before there were any Laws For a long time the Word of a King was the only Law and if Practice as saith Sir Walter Raleigh declare the Greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Judah and Israel were not tied to any Law but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest Matters 2. The Unlimited Jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel that it hath given Occasion to some to imagine that it was but either a Plot or Trick of Samuel to keep the Government himself and Family by frighting the Israelites with the Mischiefs in Monarchy or else a prophetical Description only of the future ill Government of Saul But the Vanity of these Conjectures are judiciously discovered in that Majestical Discourse of the true Law of free Monarchy wherein it is evidently shewed that the Scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient for by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must suffer yet not so that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go Unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this Point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for Patient Obedience is due to both no Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in crying and praying unto God in that Day But howsoever in a Rigorous Construction Samuel's description be applyed to a Tyrant yet the Words by a Benigne Interpretation may agree with the manners of a Just King and the Scope and Coherence of the Text doth best imply the more Moderate or Qualified Sense of the Words for as Sir W. Raleigh confesses all those Inconveniences and Miseries which are reckoned by Samuel as belonging to Kingly Government were not Intollerable but such as have been born and are still born by free Consent of Subjects towards their Princes Nay at this day and in this Land many Tenants by their Tenures and Services are tyed to the same Subjection even to Subordinate and Inferiour 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
Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Vsurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these Words to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems St. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood a Monarch that carried a Sword Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power that is the Ruler that carrieth the Sword for he is the Minister of God to thee for he beareth not the Sword in vain It is not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the Ruler or Magistrate so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And St. Paul concludes for this Cause pay you Tribute also for they are God's 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 God's 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 Lord's 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 conjoyneth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to manifest 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 humane 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 humane 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 Grammatical 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 St. Paul intended other Form of Government than only Monarchical much less any Subjection of Princes to humane Laws That familiar Distinction of the School-men 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 assoon 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 tho 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 busied with Wars or distracted with publick Cares so that every private Man could not have Access 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 to him in the Tables of his Laws that so there might be no need to resort unto the King but either for the Interpretation or Mitigation of Obscure or Rigorous Laws or else in new Cases for a Supplement where the Law was Defective By this means both King and People were in many things eased First The King by giving Laws doth free himself of great and intolerable Troubles as Moses did himself by chusing Elders Secondly The People have the Law as a Familiar Admonisher and Interpreter of the King's Pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the Presence and Majesty of the King Also the Judges and Magistrates whose help in giving Judgment in many Causes Kings have need to use are restrained by the Common Rules of the Law from using their own Liberty to the Injury of others since they are to judge according to the Laws and not follow their own Opinions 6. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King 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-weal 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
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 Process 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 Malicious 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 Process 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 Outrages the Common Law cannot have duly her Course in such case the Counsel for the Party Also in the 13 th 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 be used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regality of the King be saved for the King will save His Regalities as His Progenitors have done Again in the 4 th year of Henry the Fourth when the Commons complained against Subpaena's 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 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 Denial for the present by a Phrase peculiar for the King 's 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 Freehold of Inheritance And yet that upon cause reasonable upon credible Information in matters of weight the King's Regality or Prerogative in sending for His Subjects be maintain'd as of Right it ought and in former times hath been constantly used King Edward the First finding that Bogo de Clare was discharged of an Accusation brought against him in Parliament for that some formal Imperfections were found in the Complaint commanded him nevertheless to appear before Him and His Council ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus Concilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to an Examination of the whole Cause 8. Edw. 1. Edward the Third In the Star-Chamber which was the Ancient Council-Chamber at Westminster upon the Complaint of Elizabeth Audley commanded James Audley to
and the Bishop of Rochester were restored to the Possession of Detling and other Lands which Odo had withholden There is mention of a Parliament held under the same King William the Conquerour wherein all the Bishops of the Land Earls and Barons made an Ordinance touching the Exemption of the Abby of Bury from the Bishops of Norwich In the tenth year of the Conquerour Episcopi Comites Barones regni regià potestate ad universalem Synodum pro causis audiendis tractandis convocati saith the Book of Westminster In the 2 year of William 2. there was a Parliament de cunctis regni Principibus another w ch had quosque regni Proceres All the Peers of the Kingdom In the seventh year was a Parliament at Rockingham-Castle in Northamptonshire Episcopis Abbatibus cunctisque regni Principibus una coeuntibus A year or two after the same King de statu regni acturus c. called thither by the Command of his Writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Kingdom At the Coronation of Hen. 1. All the People of the Kingdom of England were called and Laws were then made but it was Per Commune Concilium Baronum meorum by the Common Councel of my Barons In his 3 d. year the Peers of the Kingdom were called without any mention of the Commons and another a while after consensu Comitum Baronum by the consent of Earls and Barons Florentius Wigorniensis saith these are Statutes which Anselme and all the other Bishops in the Presence of King Henry by the assent of his Barons ordained and in his tenth year of Earls and Peers and in his 23. of Earls and Barons In the year following the same King held a Parliament or great Councel with His Barons Spiritual and Temporal King Hen. 2. in his tenth year had a great Councel or Parliament at Clarendon which was an Assembly of Prelates and Peers 22 Hen. 2. saith Hovenden was a great Councel at Nottingham and by the Common Councel of the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls and Barons the Kingdom was divided into six parts And again Hovenden saith that the same King at Windsor apud Windeshores Communi Concilio of Bishops Earls and Barons divided England into four Parts And in his 21 Year a Parliament at Windsor of Bishops Earls and Barons And another of like Persons at Northampton King Richard 1. had a Parliament at Nottingham in his fifth year of Bishops Earls and Barons This Parliament lasted but four days yet much was done in it the first day the King disseiseth Gerard de Canvil of the Sherifwick of Lincoln and Hugh Bardolph of the Castle and Sherifwick of York The second day he required Judgment against his Brother John who was afterwards King and Hugh de Novant Bishop of Coventry The third day was granted to the King of every Plow-land in England 2 s. He required also the third part of the Service of every Knights Fee for his Attendance into Normandy and all the Wool that year of the Monks Cisteaux which for that it was grievous and unsupportable they sine for Money The last day was for Hearing of Grievances and so the Parliament brake up And the same year held another at Northampton of the Nobles of the Realm King John in his fifth year He and his Great men met Rex Magnates convenerunt and the Roll of that year hath Commune Concilium Baronum Meorum the Common Councel of my Barons at Winchester In the sixth year of King Henry 3. the Nobles granted to the King of every Knights Fee two Marks in Silver In the seventh year he had a Parliament at London an Assembly of Barons In his thirteenth year an Assembly of the Lords at Westminster In his fifteenth year of Nobles both Spiritual and Temporal M. Par. saith that 20 H. 3. Congregati sunt Magnates ad colloquium de negotiis regni tractaturi the Great men were called to confer and treat of the Business of the Kingdom And at Merton Our Lord the King granted by the Consent of his Great men That hereafter Vsury should not run against a Ward from the Death of his Ancestor 21 Hen. 3. The King sent his Royal Writs commanding all belonging to His Kingdom that is to say Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots and Priors installed Earls and Barons that they should all meet at London to treat of the King's Business touching the whole Kingdom and at the day prefixed the whole multitude of the Nobles of the Kingdom met at London saith Matt. Westminster In his 21 year At the Request and by the Councel of the Lords the Charters were confirmed 22 Hen. 3. At Winchester the King sent his Royal Writs to Arch-bishops Bishops Priors Earls and Barons to treat of Business concerning the whole Kingdom 32 Hen. 3. The King commanded all the Nobility of the whole Kingdom to be called to treat of the State of His Kingdom Matt. Westm ' 49 Hen. 3. The King had a Treaty at Oxford with the Peers of the Kingdom Matt. Westminster At a Parliament at Marlborough 55. Hen. 3. Statutes were made by the Assent of Earls and Barons Here the Place of Bracton Chief Justice in this Kings time is worth the observing and the rather for that it is much insisted on of late to make for Parliaments being above the King The words in Bracton are The King hath a Superiour God also the Law by which he is made King also his Court viz. the Earls and Barons The Court that was said in those days to be above the King was a Court of Earls and Barons not a word of the Commons or the representative Body of the Kingdom being any part of the Superiour Court Now for the true Sense of Bractons words how the Law and the Court of Earls and Barons are the Kings Superiours they must of Necessity be understood to be Superiours so far only as to advise and direct the King out of his own Grace and Good Will only which appears plainly by the Words of Bracton himself where speaking of the King he resolves thus Nec potest ei necessitatem aliquis imponere quod injuriam suam corrigat emendat cum superiorem non habeat nisi Deum satis ei erat ad poenam quod Dominum expectat ultorem Nor can any man put a necessity upon him to correct and amend his Injury unless he will himself since he hath no Superiour but God it will be sufficient Punishment for him to expect the Lord an Avenger Here the same man who speaking according to some mens Opinion saith the Law and Court of Earls and Barons are superiour to the King in this place tells us himself the King hath no Superiour but God the Difference is easily reconciled according to the Distinction of the School-men the King is free from the Coactive Power of Laws or Counsellors but may be subject to their Directive Power according to his own Will
that he was a Gentleman and Bannaret and had served the late King He should be beheaded and for that our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Judgment the Execution thereof shall be respited until our Lord the King shall be informed It is commanded to the Constable of the Tower safely to keep the said John until he hath other commandment from our Lord the King In the case of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Ric. 2. who was accused for complying with the French and other Failings the Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that The Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of common Right and ancient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholly belong to our Lord the King and no other Le Cognisance Punissement de commune droit auntienne custome de Royalme de Engleterre seul per tout apperteine au Roy nostre Seignieur a nul autre In the case of the Lord de la Ware the Judgment of the Lords was that he should have place next after the Lord Willoughby of Erisby by consent of all except the Lord Windsor and the Lord Keeper was required to acquaint her Majesty with the Determination of the Peers and to know her Pleasure concerning the same The Inference from these Precedents is that the Decisive or Judicial Power exercised in the Chamber of Peers is meerly derivative and subservient to the Supreme Power which resides in the King and is grounded solely upon his grace and favour for howsoever the House of Commons do alledge their Power to be founded on the Principles of Nature in that they are the Representative Body of the Kingdom as they say and so being the whole may take care and have power by Nature to preserve themselves yet the House of Peers do not nor cannot make any such the least Pretence since there is no reason in Nature why amongst a company of men who are all equal some few should be picked out to be exalted above their Fellows and have power to Govern those who by Nature are their Companions The difference between a Peer and a Commoner is not by Nature but by the grace of the Prince who creates Honours and makes those Honours to be hereditary whereas he might have given them for life only or during pleasure or good behaviour and also annexeth to those Honours the power of having Votes in Parliament as hereditary Counsellors furnished with ampler privileges than the Commons All these Graces conferred upon the Peers are so far from being derived from the Law of Nature that they are contradictory and destructive of that natural Equality and Freedom of Mankind which many conceive to be the Foundation of the privileges and Liberties of the House of Commons There is so strong an opposition between the Liberties of Grace and Nature that it had never been possible for the two Houses of Parliament to have stood together without mortal Enmity and eternal Jarring had they been raised upon such opposite Foundations But the Truth is the Liberties and Privileges of both Houses have but one and the self-same Foundation which is nothing else but the meer and sole Grace of Kings Thus much may serve to shew the Nature and Original of the deliberative and decisive Power of the Peers of the Kingdom The matter about which the deliberative power is conversant is generally the Consulting and Advising upon any urgent Business which concerns the King or Defence of the Kingdom and more especially sometimes in preparing new Laws and this Power is grounded upon the Writ The decisive Power is exercised in giving Judgment in some difficult Cases but for this Power of the Peers I find no Warrant in their Writ Whereas the Parliament is styled the Supreme Court it must be understood properly of the King sitting in the House of Peers in Person and but improperly of the Lords without him Every Supreme Court must have the Supreme Power and the Supreme Power is always Arbitrary for that is Arbitrary which hath no Superiour on Earth to controll it The last Appeal in all Government must still be to an Arbitrary Power or else Appeals will be in Infinitum never at an end The Legislative Power is an Arbitrary Power for they are termini convertibiles The main Question in these our days is Where this Power Legislative remains or is placed upon conference of the Writs of Summons for both Houses with the Bodies and Titles of our Ancient Acts of Parliament we shall find the Power of making Laws rests solely in the King Some affirm that a part of the Legislative Power is in either of the Houses but besides invincible reason from the Nature of Monarchy it self which must have the Supreme Power Alone the constant Antient Declaration of this Kingdom is against it For howsoever of later years in the Titles and Bodies of our Acts of Parliament it be not so particularly expressed who is the Author and Maker of our Laws yet in almost all our elder Statutes it is precisely expressed that they are made by the King Himself The general words used of later times that Laws are made by Authority of Parliament are particularly explained in former Statutes to mean That the King Ordains the Lords Advise the Commons Consent as by comparing the Writs with the Statutes that expound the Writs will evidently appear Magna Charta begins thus Henry by the Grace of God Know ye that WE of Our Meer and Free Will have given these Liberties In the self-same style runs Charta de Foresta and tells us the Author of it The Statute de Scaccario 41 H. 3. begins in these words The King Commandeth that all Bailiffs Sheriffs and other Officers c. And concerning the Justices of Chester the King Willeth c. and again He Commandeth the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer upon their Allegiance The Stat. of Marlborough 52 Hen. 3. goeth thus The King hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes which He Willeth to be observed of all his Subjects high and low 3 Edw. 1. The Title of this Statute is These are the ACTS of King EDWARD and after it follows The KING hath Ordained these ACTS and in the first Chapter The King Forbiddeth and Commandeth That none do Hurt Damage or Grievance to any Religious Man or Person of the Church and in the thirteenth Chapter The King prohibiteth that none do Ravish or take away by Force any Maid within Age. 6 Edw. 1. It is said Our Sovereign Lord the King hath established these Acts commanding they be observed within his Realm and in the fourteenth Chap. the words are The King of his special Grace granteth that the City of London shall recover in an Assise Damage with the Land The Stat. of West 2. saith Our Lord the King hath ordained that the Will of the Giver be observed
and in the 3. Chap. Our Lord the King hath ordained that a Woman after the death of her Husband shall recover by a Writ of Entry The Stat. of Quo Warranto saith Our Lord the King at his Parliament of his special Grace and for Affection which he beareth to his Prelates Earls and Barons and others hath granted that they that have Liberties by Prescription shall enjoy them In the Stat. de finibus Levatis the Kings words are We intending to provide Remedy in our Parliament have ordained c. 28 Edw. 1. c. 5. The King wills that the Chancellor and the Justices of the Bench shall follow Him so that he may have at all times some near unto him that be learned in the Laws and in Chap. 24. the words are Our Lord the King after full Conference and Debate had with his Earls Barons Nobles and other Great men by their whole Consent hath ordained c. The Stat. de Tallagio if any such Statute there be speaks in the Kings Person No Officer of Ours No Tallage shall be taken by Us We will and Grant 1 Edw. 2. begins thus Our Lord the King willeth and Commandeth The Stat. of 9. the same King saith Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and other great States hath Ordained 10 Edw. 2. It is provided by our Lord the King and his Justices The Stat. of Carlile saith We have sent our Command in writing firmly to be observed 1 Edw. 3. begins thus King Edw. 3. at his Parliament at the request of the Commonalty by their Petition before him and his Councel in Parliament hath granted c. and in the 5th Chap. The King willeth that no man be charged to arm himself otherwise than he was wont 5 Ed. 3. Our Lord the King at the Request of his People hath established these things which He Wills to be kept 9. Of the same King there is this Title Our Lord the King by the Assent c. and by the Advice of his Councel being there hath ordained c. In his 10. year it is said Because Our Lord King Edw. 3. hath received by the Complaint of the Prelates Earls Barons also at the shewing of the Knights of the Shires and his Commons by their Petition put in his Parliament c. Hath ordained by the Assent c. at the Request of the said Knights and Commons c. The same year in another Parliament you may find these be our Articles accorded by Our Lord the King with the Assent c. at the Request of the Knights of the Shires and the Commons by their Petition put in the said Parliament In the year-book 22 Edw. 3.3 pl. 25. It is said The King makes the Laws by the Assent of the Peers and Commons and not the Peers and Commons The Stat. of 1 Ric. 2. hath this Beginning Richard the 2. by the Assent of the Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons and at the Instance and special Request of the Commons Ordained There being a Statute made 5 Ric. 2. c. 5. against Lollards in the next year the Commons Petition Him Supplient les Commons que come un estatute fuit fait c. The Commons beseech that whereas a Statute was made in the last Parliament c. which was never Assented to or Granted by the Commons but that which was done therein was done without their Assent In this Petition the Commons acknowledge it a Statute and so call it though they assented not to it 17 Rich. 2. nu 44. The Commons desire some pursuing to make a Law which they conceive hurtful to the Commonwealth that His Majesty will not pass it As for the Parliaments in Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Edw. 4. and Rich. 3. Reigns the most of them do agree in this one Title Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of his Lords and at the special Instance and Request of the Commons hath ordained The Precedents in this Point are so numerous that it were endless to cite them The Statutes in Hen. 7. days do for the most part agree both in the Titles and Bodies of the Acts in these words Our Lord the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament Assembled and by the Authority of the same hath ordained Unto this King's time we find the Commons very often petitioning but not petitioned unto The first Petition made to the Commons that I meet with among the Statutes is but in the middle of this King Hen. 7. Reign which was so well approved that the Petition it self is turned into a Statute It begins thus To the Right Worshipful Commons in this present Parliament Assembled Sheweth to your Discreet Wisdoms the Wardens of the Fellowship of the Craft of Vpholsters within London c. This Petition though it be directed to the Commons in the Title yet the Prayer of the Petition is turned to the King and not to the Commons for it Concludes Therefore it may please the Kings Highness by the Advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and his Commons in Parliament c. Next for the Statutes of Hen. 8. they do most part agree both in their Titles and the Bodies of the Acts with those of his Father King Hen. 7. Lastly in the Statutes of Edw. the 6. Qu. Mary Qu. Elizabeth K. James and of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is there is no mention made in their Titles of any Assent of Lords and Commons or of any Ordaining by the King but only in general Terms it is said Acts made in Parliament or thus At the Parliament were Enacted yet in the Bodies of many of these Acts of these last Princes there is sometimes Mention made of Consent of Lords and Commons in these or the like words It is Enacted by the King with the Assent of the Lords and Commons Except only in the Statutes of our Lord King Charles wherein there is no mention that I can find of any Consent of the Lords and Commons or Ordaining by the King But the words are Be it Enacted by Authority of Parliament or else Be it Enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons as if they were all Fellow-Commissioners Thus it appears that even till the time of K. Ed. 6. who lived but in our Fathers days it was punctually expressed in every Kings Laws that the Statutes and Ordinances were made by the King And withal we may see by what degrees the Styles and Titles of Acts of Parliament have been varied and to whose disadvantage The higher we look the more absolute we find the Power of Kings in Ordaining nor do we meet with at first so much as the Assent or Advice of the Lords mentioned Nay if we cast our eye upon many Statutes of those that be of most Antiquity they will appear as if they were no Laws at all but as if they had been made only to teach us that the punishments
and Florence Becket should sue no further in their cause against Alice Radley Widow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumsted in Kent forasmuch as the matter had been heard first before the Councel of Edw. 4. after that before the President of the Requests of that King Hen. 7. and then lastly before the Councel of the said King 1 H. 7. In the time of Hen. 3. an Order or Provision was made by the Kings Councel and it was pleaded at the Common Law in Bar to a Writ of Dower the Plaintiffs Attorney could not deny it and thereupon the Judgment was ideo sine die It seems in those days an Order of the Kings Councel was either parcel of the Common Law or above it Also we may find the Judges have had Regard that before they would resolve or give Judgment in new Cases they consulted with the King 's Privy Councel In the case of Adam Brabson who was assaulted by R. W. in the Presence of the Justices of Assise at Westminster the Judges would have the Advice of the Kings Councel for in a like Case because R. C. did strike a Juror at Westminster which passed against one of his Friends It was adjudged by all the Councel that his right hand should be cut off and his Lands and Goods forfeited to the King Green and Thorp were sent by the Judges to the Kings Councel to demand of them whether by the Stat. of 14 Edw. 3.16 a word may be amended in a Writ and it was answered that a word may be well amended although the Stat. speaks but of a Letter or Syllable In the Case of Sir Thomas Ogthred who brought a Formedon against a poor man and his Wife they came and yielded to the Demandant which seemed suspitious to the Court whereupon Judgment was staid and Thorp said that in the like Case of Giles Blacket it was spoken of in Parliament and we were commanded that when any like should come we should not go to Judgment without good Advice therefore the Judges Conclusion was Sues au counsell comment ils voilent que nous devomus faire nous volums faire autrement ment en cest case sue to the Councel and as they will have us to do we will do and otherwise not in this Case 39 Edw. 3. Thus we see the Judges themselves were guided by the Kings Councel and yet the Opinions of Judges have guided the Lords in Parliament in Point of Law All the Judges of the Realm Barons of Exchequer of the Quoif the Kings learned Councel and the Civilians Masters of Chancery are called Temporal Assistants by Sir Edw. Coke and though he deny them Voices in Parliament yet he confesseth that by their Writ they have power both to treat and to give Counsel I cannot find that the Lords have any other Power by their Writ the Words of the Lords Writ are That you be present with us the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your Counsel The Words of the Judges Writ are That you be present with Vs and others of the Councel and sometimes with Vs only to treat and give your Counsel The Judges usually joined in Committees with the Lords in all Parliaments even in Queen Eliz. Reign until her 39th Year and then upon the 7th of November the Judges were appointed to attend the Lords And whereas the Judges have liberty in the upper House it self upon leave given them by the L. Keeper to cover themselves now at Committees they sit always uncovered The Power of Judges in Parliament is best understood if we consider how the judicial Power of Peers hath been exercised in matter of Judicature we may find it hath been the Practice that though the Lords in the Kings Absence give Judgment in Point of Law yet they are to be directed and regulated by the Kings Judges who are best able to give Direction in the difficult Points of the Law which ordinarily are unknown to the Lords And therefore if any Errour be committed in the Kings Bench which is the highest ordinary Court of Common Law in the Kingdom that Errour must be redressed in Parliament And the manner is saith the Lord Chancellor Egerton If a Writ of Errour be sued in Parl. upon a Judgment given by the Judges in the Kings Bench the Lords of the higher House alone without the Commons are to examine the Errours The Lords are to proceed according to the Law and for their Judgments therein they are to be informed by the Advice and Councel of the Judges who are to inform them what the Law is and to direct them in their Judgment for the Lords are not to follow their own Discretion or Opinion otherwise 28 Hen. 6. the Commons made Sute that W. de la Pool D. of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many Treasons and other Crimes the Lords of the higher House were doubtful what Answer to give the Opinion of the Judges was demanded their Opinion was that he ought not to be committed for that the Commons did not charge him with any particular Offence but with general Reports and Slanders this Opinion was allowed 31 Hen. 6. A Parliament being prorogued in the Vacation the Speaker of the House of Commons was condemned in a thousand Pounds Damages in an Action of Trespass and committed to Prison in Execution for the same when the Parliament was re-assembled the Commons made Sute to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered The Lords demanded the Opinion of the Judges whether he might be delivered out of Prison by Privilege of Parliament upon the Judges Answer it was concluded that the Speaker should remain in Prison according to the Law notwithstanding the Privilege of Parliament and that he was Speaker which Resolution was declared to the Commons by Moyle the Kings Serjeant at Law and the Commons were commanded in the Kings name by the Bishop of Lincoln in the absence of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury then Chancellor to chuse another Speaker 7 Hen. 8. A Question was moved in Parliament Whether Spiritual Persons might be convented before Temporal Judges for Criminal Causes there Sir John Fineux and the other Judges delivered their Opinion that they might and ought to be and their Opinion allowed and maintained by the King and Lords and Dr. Standish who before had holden the same Opinion was delivered from the Bishops I find it affirmed that in Causes which receive Determination in the House of Lords the King hath no Vote at all no more than in other Courts of ministerial Jurisdiction True it is the King hath no Vote at all if we understand by Vote a Voice among others for he hath no partners with him in giving Judgement But if by no Vote is meant He hath no Power to judge we despoil him of his Sovereignty It is the chief Mark of Supremacy to judge in the highest Causes and last Appeals This the Children of Israel full well understood when they petitioned for a King
to judge them if the dernier resort be to the Lords alone then they have the Supremacy But as Moses by chusing Elders to judge in small Causes did not thereby lose his Authority to be Judge himself when he pleased even in the smallest Matters much less in the greatest which he reserved to himself so Kings by delegating others to judg under them do not hereby denude themselves of a Power to judge when they think good There is a Distinction of these times that Kings themselves may not judge but they may see and look to the Judges that they give Judgment according to Law and for this Purpose only as some say Kings may sometimes sit in the Courts of Justice But it is not possible for Kings to see the Laws executed except there be a Power in Kings both to judge when the Laws are duly executed and when not as also to compel the Judges if they do not their Duty Without such Power a King sitting in Courts is but a Mockery and a Scorn to the Judges And if this Power be allowed to Kings then their Judgments are supream in all Courts And indeed our Common Law to this purpose doth presume that the King hath all Laws within the Cabinet of His Breast in Scrinio pectoris saith Campton's Jurisdiction 108. When several of our Statutes leave many things to the Pleasure of the King for us to interpret all those Statutes of the Will and Pleasure of the Kings Justices only is to give an absolute Arbitrary Power to the Justices in those Cases wherein we deny it to the King The Statute of 5 Hen. 4. c. 2. makes a Difference between the King and the Kings Justices in these words Divers notorious Felons be indicted of divers Felonies Murders Rapes and as well before the Kings Justices as before the King himself arraigned of the same Felonies I read that in An. 1256. Hen. 3. sate in the Exchequer and there set down Order for the Appearance of Sheriffs and bringing in their Accounts there was five Marks set on every Sheriffs Head for a Fine because they had not distrained every Person that might dispend fifteen pounds Lands by the Year to receive the Order of Knighthood according as the same Sheriffs were commanded In Michaelmas Term 1462. Edw. 4. sate three days together in open Court in the Kings Bench. For this Point there needs no further Proofs because Mr. Pryn doth confess that Kings themselves have sate in Person in the Kings Bench and other Courts and there given Judgment p. 32. Treachery and Disloyalty c. Notwithstanding all that hath been said for the Legislative and Judicial Power of Kings Mr. Pryn is so far from yielding the King a Power to make Laws that he will not grant the King a Power to hinder a Law from being made that is he allows Him not a Negative Voice in most Cases which is due to every other even to the meanest Member of the House of Commons in his Judgment To prove the King hath not a Negative Voice his main and in Truth his only Argument insisted on is a Coronation-Oath which is said anciently some of our Kings of England have taken wherein they grant to defend and protect the just Laws and Customs which the Vulgar hath or shall chuse Justas Leges Consuetudines quas Vulgus elegerit hence Mr. Pryn concludes that the King cannot deny any Law which the Lords and Commons shall make Choice of for so he will have vulgus to signifie Though neither our King nor many of his Predecessors ever took this Oath nor were bound to take it for ought appears yet we may admit that our King hath taken it and answer we may be confident that neither the Bishops nor Privy Councel nor Parliament nor any other whosoever they were that framed or penn'd this Oath ever intended in this word Vulgus the Commons in Parliament much less the Lords they would never so much disparage the Members of Parliament as to disgrace them with a Title both base and false it had been enough if not too much to have called them Populus the People but Vulgus the Vulgar the rude multitude which hath the Epithet of Ignobile Vulgus is a word as dishonourable to the Composers of the Oath to give or for the King to use as for the Members of the Parliament to receive it being most false for the Peers cannot be Vulgus because they are the prime Persons of the Kingdom next the Knights of the Shires are or ought to be notable Knights or notable Esquires or Gentlemen born in the Counties as shall be able to be Knights then the Citizens and Burgesses are to be most sufficient none of these can be Vulgus even those Free-holders that chuse Knights are the best and ablest men of their Counties there being for every Free-holder above ten of the Common People to be found to be termed the Vulgar Therefore it rests that Vulgus must signifie the vulgar or common People and not the Lords and Commons But now the Doubt will be what the Common People or Vulgus out of Parliament have to do to chuse Laws The Answer is easie and ready there goeth before quas vulgus the Antecedent Consuetudines that is the Customs which the Vulgar hath or shall chuse Do but observe the Nature of Custom and it is the Vulgus or Common People only who chuse Customs Common Usage time out of mind creates a Custom and the commoner an Usage is the stronger and the better is the Custom no where can so common an Usage be found as among the Vulgar who are still the far greatest part of every Multitude if a Custom be common through the whole Kingdom it is all one with the Common Law in England which is said to be Common Custom Thus in plain terms to protect the Customs which the Vulgar chuse is to swear to protect the Common Laws of England But grant that Vulgus in the Oath signifies Lords and Commons and that Consuetudines doth not signifie Customs but Statutes as Mr. Pryn for a desperate Shift affirms and let elegerit be the Future or Preterperfect Tense even which Mr. Pryn please yet it cannot exclude the Kings Negative Voice for as Consuetudines goeth before quas vulgus so doth justas stand before leges consuetudines so that not all Laws but only all just Laws are meant If the sole Choice of the Lords and Commons did oblige the King to protect their Choice without Power of Denial what Need or why is the Word justas put in to raise a Scruple that some Laws may be unjust Mr. Pryn will not say that a Decree of a General Councel or of a Pope is infallible nor I think a Bill of the Lords and Commons is infallible just and impossible to erre if he do Sir Edward Coke will tell him that Parliaments have been utterly deceived and that in cases of greatest Moment even in case of High
Treason and he calls the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. an unjust and strange Act. But it may be Mr. Pryn will confess that Laws chosen by the Lords and Commons may be unjust so that the Lords and Commons themselves may be the Judges of what is just or unjust But where the King by Oath binds his Conscience to protect just Laws it concerns him to be satisfied in his own Conscience that they be just and not by an implicit Faith or blind Obedience no man can be so proper a Judge of the Justness of Laws as he whose Soul must lye at the Stake for the Defence and Safeguard of them Besides in this very Oath the King doth swear to do equal and right Justice and Discretion in Mercy and Truth in all His Judgments facies fieri in omnibus judiciis tuis aequam rectam justitiam discretionem in Misericordia Veritate if we allow the King Discretion and Mercy in his Judgments of Necessity he must judge of the Justness of the Laws Again the clause of the Oath quas vulgus elegerit doth not mention the Assenting unto or granting any new Laws but of holding protecting and strengthening with all his Might the just Laws that were already in Being there were no need of Might or Strength if assenting to new Laws were there meant Some may wonder why there should be such Labouring to deny the King a negative Voice since a negative Voice is in it self so poor a thing that if a man had all the Negative Voices in the Kingdom it would not make him a King nor give him Power to make one Law a Negative Voice is but a privative Power that is no Power at all to do or act any thing but a Power only to hinder the Power of another Negatives are of such a malignant or destructive Nature that if they have nothing else to destroy they will when they meet destroy one another which is the reason why two Negatives make an Affirmative by destroying the Negation which did hinder the Affirmation A King with a Negative Voice only is but like a Syllogism of pure negative Propositions which can conclude nothing It must be an Affirmative Voice that makes both a King and a Law and without it there can be no imaginable Government The Reason is plain why the Kings Negative Voice is so eagerly opposed for though it give the King no Power to do any thing yet it gives him a Power to hinder others though it cannot make him a King yet it can help him to keep others from being Kings For Conclusion of this Discourse of the negative Voice of the King I shall oppose the Judgment of a Chief Justice of England to the Opinion of him that calls himself an utter Barrister of Lincolns Inn and let others judge who is the better Lawyer of the two the words are Bracton's but concern Mr. Pryn to lay them to heart Concerning the Charters and Deeds of Kings the Justices nor private men neither ought nor can dispute nor yet if there rise a Doubt in the Kings Charter can they interpret it and in doubtful and obscure Points or if a word contain two Senses the Interpretation and Will of our Lord the King is to be expected seeing it is His part to interpret who makes the Charter full well Mr. Pryn knows that when Bracton writ the Laws that were then made and strived for were called the Kings Charters as Magna Charta Charta de Foresta and others so that in Bracton's Judgment the King hath not only a Negative Voice to hinder but an Affirmative to make a Law which is a great deal more than Master Pryn will allow him Not only the Law-maker but also the sole Judge of the People is the King in the Judgment of Bracton these are his words Rex non alius debet judicare si solus ad id sufficere possit the King and no other ought to judge if He alone were able Much like the words of Bracton speaketh Briton where after that he had shewed that the King is the Vice-roy of God and that he hath distributed his Charge into sundry portions because He alone is not sufficient to hear all Complaints of his People then he addeth these words in the Person of the King Nous volons que nostre jurisdiction soit sur touts Jurisdictions c. We Will that Our 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 or cause to be yielded such Judgments as do appertain without other Process wheresoever we know the right Truth as Judges Neither was this to be taken saith Mr. Lambard to be meant of the Kings Bench where there is only an imaginary presence of His Person but it must necessarily be understood of a Jurisdiction remaining and left in the Kings Royal Body and Breast distinct from that of His Bench and other ordinary Courts because he doth immediately after severally set forth by themselves as well the Authority of the Kings Bench as of the other Courts And that this was no new-made Law Mr. Lambard puts us in mind of a Saxon Law of King Edgar's Nemo in lite Regem appellato c. Let no man in Suit appeal unto the King unless he cannot get Right at home but if that Right be too Heavy for him then let him go to the King to have it eased By which it may evidently appear that even so many years ago there might be Appellation made to the Kings Person whensoever the Cause should enforce it The very like Law in Effect is to be seen in the Laws of Canutus the Dane sometimes King of this Realm out of which Law Master Lambard gathers that the King himself had a High Court of Justice wherein it seemeth He sate in Person for the words be Let him not seek to the King and the same Court of the King did judge not only according to meer Right and Law but also after Equity and good Conscience For the Close I shall end with the Suffrage of our late Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary he saith Omnis Regni Justitia solius Regis est c. All Justice of the Kingdom is only the King 's and He alone if He were able should administer it but that being impossible He is forced to delegate it to Ministers whom he bounds by the limits of the Laws the positive Laws are only about Generals in particular Cases they are sometimes too strict sometimes too remiss and so oft Wrong instead of Right will be done if we stand to strict Law also Causes hard and difficult daily arise which are comprehended in no Law-books in those there is a necessity of running back to the King the Fountain of Justice and the Vicegerent of God himself who in the Commonwealth of the Jews took such Causes to His own cognisance and left
Religion we find presently after the Building of the City by Romulus the next King Numa most devoutly established a Religion and began his Kingdom with the Service of the Gods he forbad the Romans to make any Images of God which Law lasted and was observed 170 Years there being in all that time no Image or Picture of God in any Temple or Chappel of Rome also he erected the Pontifical Colledge and was himself the first Bishop or Pontifex These Bishops were to render no Account either to the Senate or Commonalty They determined all Questions concerning Religion as well between Priests as between private men They punished inferiour Priests if they either added or detracted from the established Rites or Ceremonies or brought in any new thing into Religion The chief Bishop Pontifex Maximus taught every man how to honour and serve the Gods This Care had Monarchy of Religion But after the Expulsion of Kings we do not find during the Power of the People any one Law made for the Benefit or Exercise of Religion there be two Tribunitian Laws concerning Religion but they are meerly for the Benefit of the Power of the People and not of Religion L. Papirius a Tribune made a Law called Lex Papiria that it should not belawful for any to consecrate either Houses Grounds Altars or any other things without the Determination of the People Domitius Aenobarbus another Tribune Enacted a Law called Domitia Lex that the Pontifical Colledge should not as they were wont admit whom they would into the Order of Priesthood but it should be in the Power of the People and because it was contrary to their Religion that Church-Dignities should be bestowed by the Common People hence for very Shame he ordained that the lesser part of the People namely seventeen Tribes should elect whom they thought fit and afterwards the Party elected should have his Confirmation or Admission from the Colledge Thus by a Committee of Seven Tribes taken out of Thirtyfive the Ancient Form of Religion was altered and reduced to the Power of the lesser part of the People This was the great Care of the People to bring Ordination and Consecration to the Laity The Religion in Venice and the Low-Countries is sufficiently known much need not be said of them they admirably agree under a seeming contrariety it is commonly said that one of them hath all Religions and the other no Religion the Atheist of Venice may shake hands with the Sectary of Amsterdam This is the Liberty that a Popular Estate can brag of every man may be of any Religion or no Religion if he please their main Devotion is exercised only in opposing and suppressing Monarchy They both agree to exclude the Clergy from medling in Government whereas in all Monarchies both before the Law of Moses and under it and ever since all Barbarians Graecians Romans Infidels Turks and Indians have with one Consent given such Respect and Reverence to their Priests as to trust them with their Laws and in this our Nation the first Priests we read of before Christianity were the Druides who as Caesar saith decided and determined Controversies in Murder in Case of Inheritance of Bounds of Lands as they in their Discretion judged meet they grant Rewards and Punishments It is a Wonder to see what high Respect even the great Turk giveth to his Mufti or Chief Bishop so necessary is Religion to strengthen and direct Laws To consider of the Point of Peace It is well known that no People ever enjoyed it without Monarchy Aristotle saith the Lacedemonians preserved themselves by Warring and after they had gotten to themselves the Empire then were they presently undone for that they could not live at Rest nor do any better Exercise than the Exercise of War lib. 2. c. 7. After Rome had expelled Kings it was in perpetual War till the time of the Emperours once only was the Temple of Janus shut after the end of the first Punick War but not so long as for one year but for some Months It is true as Orosius saith that for almost 700 years that is from Tullus Hostilius to Augustus Caesar only for one Summer the Bowels of Rome did not sweat Blood On the Behalf of the Romans it may be said that though the Bowels of Rome did always sweat Blood yet they did obtain most glorious Victories abroad But it may be truly answered if all the Roman Conquests had no other Foundation but Injustice this alone foils all the Glory of her warlike Actions The most glorious War that ever Rome had was with Carthage the Beginning of which War Sir Walter Raleigh proves to have been most unjustly undertaken by the Romans in confederating with the Mamertines and Aiding of Rebels under the Title of protecting their Confederates whereas Kings many times may have just Cause of War for recovering and preserving their Rights to such Dominions as fall to them by Inheritance or Marriage a Popular Estate that can neither marry nor be Heir to another can have no such Title to a War in a Foreign Kingdom and to speak the Truth if it be rightly considered the whole time of the Popularity of Rome the Romans were no other than the only prosperous and glorious Thieves and Robbers of the World If we look more narrowly into the Roman Government it will appear that in that very Age wherein Rome was most victorious and seemed to be most popular she owed most of her Glory to an apparent kind of Monarchy For it was the Kingly Power of the Consuls who as Livy saith had the same Royal Jurisdiction or absolute Power that the Kings had not any whit diminished or abated and held all the same Regal Ensigns of supreme Dignity which helpt Rome to all her Conquests whiles the Tribunes of the People were strugling at home with the Senate about Election of Magistrates enacting of Laws and calling to Account or such other popular Affairs the Kingly Consuls gained all the Victories abroad Thus Rome at one and the same time was broken and distracted into two Shews of Government the Popular which served only to raise Seditions and Discords within the Walls whilst the Regal atchieved the Conquests of Foreign Nations and Kingdoms Rome was so sensible of the Benefit and Necessity of Monarchy that in her most desperate Condition and Danger when all other Hopes failed her she had still resort to the Creation of a Dictator who for the time was an Absolute King and from whom no Appeal to the People was granted which is the royallest Evidence for Monarchy in the World for they who were drawn to swear they would suffer no King of Rome found no security but in Perjury and breaking their Oath by admitting the Kingly Power in spight of their Teeth under a new name of a Dictator or Consul a just Reward for their wanton expelling their King for no other Crime they could pretend but Pride which is most tolerable in a King of all
they are necessitated to relinquish that Supreme Power which they think they exercise and to delegate it to a few There are two Parts of the Supreme Power the Legislative and the Executive neither of these can a great Assembly truly act If a new Law be to be made it may in the General receive the Proposal of it from one or more of the General Assembly but the forming penning or framing it into a Law is committed to a few because a great number of Persons cannot without tedious and dilatory Debates examine the Benefits and Mischiefs of a Law Thus in the very first Beginning the Intention of a General Assembly is frustrated then after a Law is penned or framed when it comes to be questioned whether it shall pass or nay though it be Voted in a full Assembly yet by the Rules of the Assembly they are all so tied up and barred from a free and full Debate that when any man hath given the Reasons of his Opinion if those Reasons be argued against he is not permitted to reply in Justification or Explanation of them but when he hath once spoken he must be heard no more which is a main Denial of that Freedom of Debate for which the great Assembly is alledged to be ordained in the high Point of Legislative Power The same may be said touching the Executive Power if a cause be brought before a great Assembly the first thing done is to refer or commit it to some few of the Assembly who are trusted with the examining the Proofs and Witnesses and to make Report to the General Assembly who upon the Report proceed to give their Judgments without any publick hearing or interrogating the Witnesses upon whose Testimonies diligently examined every man that will pass a conscientious Judgment is to rely Thus the Legislative and Executive Power are never truly practised in a great Assembly the true Reason whereof is if Freedom be given to Debate never any thing could be agreed upon without endless Disputes meer Necessity compels to refer main Transactions of Business to particular Congregations and Committees Those Governments that seem to be popular are kinds of petty Monarchies which may thus appear Government is a Relation between the Governours and the governed the one cannot be without the other mutuò se ponunt auferunt where a Command or Law proceeds from a major part there those individual Persons that concurred in the Vote are the Governours because the Law is only their Will in particular the Power of a major Part being a contingent or casual thing expires in the very Act it self of Voting which Power of a major Part is grounded upon a Supposition that they are the stronger Part when the Vote is past these Votes which are the major Part return again and are incorporated into the whole Assembly and are buried as it were in that Lump and no otherwise considered the Act or Law ordained by such a Vote loseth the Makers of it before it comes to be obeyed for when it comes to be put in Execution it becomes the Will of those who enjoyn it and force Obedience to it not by Virtue of any Power derived from the Makers of the Law No man can say that during the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth that King Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth did govern although that many of the Laws that were made in those two former Princes times were observed and executed under her Government but those Laws though made by her Predecessours yet became the Laws of her present Government who willed and commanded the Execution of them and had the same Power to correct interpret or mitigate them which the first Makers of them had every Law must always have some present known Person in Being whose Will it must be to make it a Law for the Present this cannot be said of the major Part of any Assembly because that major part instantly ceaseth as soon as ever it hath voted an infallible Argument whereof is this that the same major part after the Vote given hath no Power to correct alter or mitigate it or to Cause it to be put in Execution so that he that shall act or cause that Law to be executed makes himself the Commander or willer of it which was originally the Will of others It is said by Mr. Hobs in his Leviathan page 141. Nothing is Law where the Legislator cannot be known for there must be manifest Signs that it proceedeth from the Will of the Sovereign there is requisite not only a Declaration of the Law but also sufficient Signs of the Author and the Authority That Senate or great Council wherein it is conceived the Supreme or Legislative Power doth rest consists of those Persons who are actually Subjects at the very same time wherein they exercise their Legislative Power and at the same instant may be guilty of breaking one Law whilst they are making another Law for it is not the whole and entire Will of every particular Person in the Assembly but that part only of his Will which accidentally falls out to concur with the Will of the greater part So that the Sharers of the Legislative Power have each of them perhaps not a hundredth part of the Legislative Power which in it self is indivisible and that not in Act but in Possibility only in one particular Point for that Moment whilst they give their Vote To close this Point which may seem strange and new to some I will produce the Judgment of Bodin in his sixth Book of a Commonweal and the fourth Chapter his words are The chief Point of a Commonweal which is the Right of Sovereignty cannot be nor insist to speak properly but in Monarchy for none can be Sovereign in a Commonweal but one alone if they be two or three or more no one is Sovereign for that no one of them can give or take a Law from his Companion and although we imagine a Body of many Lords or of a whole People to hold the Sovereignty yet hath it no true Ground nor Support if there be not a Head with absolute Power to unite them together which a simple Magistrate without Sovereign Authority cannot do And if it chance that the Lords or Tribes of the People be divided as it often falls out then must they fall to Arms one against another and although the greatest part be of one Opinion yet may it so happen as the lesser part having many Legions and making a Head may oppose it self against the greater Number and get the Victory We see the Difficulties which are and always have been in popular Estates whereas they hold contrary Parts and for divers Magistrates some demand Peace others War some will have this Law others that some will have one Commander others another some will treat a League with the King of France others with the King of Spain corrupted or drawn some one Way some another making open War as hath been
seen in our Age amongst the Grisons c. Upon these Texts of Aristotle fore-cited and from the Mutability of the Roman Popularity which Aristotle lived not to see I leave the Learned to consider whether it be not probable that these or the like Paradoxes may be inferred to be the plain Mind of Aristotle viz. 1. That there is no Form of Government but Monarchy only 2. That there is no Monarchy but Paternal 3. That there is no Paternal Monarchy but Absolute or Arbitrary 4. That there is no such thing as an Aristocraty or Democraty 5. That there is no such Form of Government as a Tyranny 6. That the People are not born Free by Nature DIRECTIONS FOR Obedience to GOVERNMENT IN Dangerous or Doubtful Times ALL those who so eagerly strive for an Original Power to be in the People do with one Consent acknowledge that Originally the Supreme Power was in the Fatherhood and that the first Kings were Fathers of Families This is not only evident and affirmed by Aristotle but yielded unto by Grotius Mr. Selden Mr. Hobbs Mr. Ascam and all others of that Party not one excepted that I know of Now for those that confess an original Subjection in Children to be governed by their Parents to dream of an original Freedom in Mankind is to contradict themselves and to make Subjects to be Free and Kings to be Limited to imagine such Pactions and Contracts between Kings and People as cannot be proved ever to have been made or can ever be described or fancied how it is possible for such Contracts ever to have been is a boldness to be wondred at Mr. Selden confesseth that Adam by donation from God was made the general Lord of all things not without such a private Dominion to himself as without his Grant did exclude his Children And by Donation or Assignation or some kind of Concession before he was dead or left any Heir to succeed him his Children had their distinct Territories by Right of Private Dominion Abel had his Flocks and Pastures for them Cain had his Fields for Corn and the Land of Nod where he built himself a City It is confessed that in the Infancy of the World the Paternal Government was Monarchical but when the World was replenished with multitude of People then the Paternal Government ceased and was lost and an Elective kind of Government by the People was brought into the World To this it may be answered That the Paternal Power cannot be lost it may either be transferr'd or usurped but never lost or ceaseth God who is the giver of Power may transfer it from the Father to some other he gave to Saul a Fatherly Power over his Father Kish God also hath given to the Father a Right or Liberty to alien his Power over his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in Use in the beginning of the World when men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other Goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating and making Eunuchs much in Use in Old Times As the Power of the Father may be lawfully transferr'd or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped And in Usurpation the Title of an Usurper is before and better than the Title of any other than of him that had a former Right for he hath a Possession by the permissive Will of God which Permission how long it may endure no man ordinarily knows Every man is to preserve his own Life for the Service of God and of his King or Father and is so far to obey an Usurper as may tend not only to the preservation of his King and Father but sometimes even to the preservation of the Usurper himself when probably he may thereby be reserved to the Correction or Mercy of his true Superiour though by Humane Laws a long Prescription may take away Right yet Divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away Every man that is born is so far from being Free-born that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject to him that begets him under which Subjection he is always to live unless by immediate Appointment from God or by the Grant or Death of his Father he become possessed of that Power to which he was subject The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God for the preservation of Mankind if it be usurped the Usurper may be so far obeyed as may tend to the preservation of the Subjects who may thereby be enabled to perform their Duty to their true and right Sovereign when time shall serve in such Cases to obey an Usurper is properly to obey the first and right Governour who must be presumed to desire the safety of his Subjects the Command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the destruction of the Person of the Governour whose Being in the first place is to be looked after It hath been said that there have been so many Usurpations by Conquest in all Kingdoms that all Kings are Usurpers or the Heirs or Successors of Usurpers and therefore any Usurper if he can but get the possession of a Kingdom hath as good a Title as any other Answer The first Usurper hath the best Title being as was said in possession by the Permission of God and where an Usurper hath continued so long that the knowledge of the Right Heir be lost by all the Subjects in such a Case an Usurper in possession is to be taken and reputed by such Subjects for the true Heir and is to be obeyed by them as their Father As no man hath an infallible Certitude but only a moral Knowledge which is no other than a probable perswasion grounded upon a peaceable possession which is a warrant for Subjection to Parents and Governours for we may not say because Children have no infallible or necessary certainty who are their true Parents that therefore they need not obey because they are uncertain it is sufficient and as much as Humane Nature is capable of for Children to rely upon a credible perswasion for otherwise the Commandment of Honour thy Father would be a vain Commandment and not possible to be observed By Humane positive Laws a Possession time out of mind takes away or barrs a former Right to avoid a general Mischief of bringing all Right into a Disputation not decideable by proof and consequently to the overthrow of all Civil Government in Grants Gifts and Contracts between man and man But in Grants and Gifts that have their Original from God or Nature as the Power of the Father hath no Inferiour Power of man can limit nor make any Law of Prescription against them upon this ground is built that Common Maxim that Nullum tempus occurrit regi No time bars a King All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power there being no other Original to be found of any Power whatsoever for
the Election of Saul since Saul was chosen by God himself and governed according to God's Laws The Government from Abraham to Saul is no where called the Kingdom of God nor is it said that the Kingdom of God was cast off at the Election of Saul Mr. Hobs allows that Moses alone had next under God the Sovereignty over the Israelites p. 252. but he doth not allow it to Joshua but will have it descend to Eleazar the High-Priest Aaron's Son His Proof is God expresly saith concerning Joshua He shall stand before Eleazar who shall ask Counsel for him before the Lord after the judgment of Vrim is omitted by Mr. Hobs at his word they shall go out c. therefore the Supreme Power of making Peace and War was in the Priest Answ The Work of the High-Priest was only Ministerial not Magisterial he had no power to Command in War or to Judge in Peace only when the Sovereign or Governour did go up to War he enquired of the Lord by the Ministry of the High Priest and as the Hebrews say the Enquirer with a soft voice as one that prayeth for himself asked and forthwith the Holy Ghost came upon the Priest and he beheld the Breast-plate and saw therein by the Vision of Prophecy Go up or go not up in the letters that shewed forth themselves upon the Breast-plate before his face then the Priest answered him Go up or go not up If this Answer gave the Priest Sovereignty then neither King Saul nor King David had the Sovereignty who both asked Counsel of the Lord by the Priest OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Milton Against SALMASIVS I. AMong the many Printed Books and several Discourses touching the Right of Kings and the Liberty of the People I cannot find that as yet the first and chief Point is agreed upon or indeed so much as once disputed The word King and the word People are familiar one would think every simple man could tell what they signified but upon Examination it will be found that the learnedst cannot agree of their meaning Ask Salmasius what a King is and he will teach us that a King is he who hath the Supreme Power of the Kingdom and is accountable to none but God and may do what he please and is free from the Laws This Definition J. M. abominates as being the Definition of a Tyrant And I should be of his Mind if he would have vouchsafed us a better or any other Definition at all that would tell us how any King can have a Supreme Power without being freed from humane Laws To find fault with it without producing any other is to leave us in the Dark but though Mr. Milton brings us neither Definition nor Description of a King yet we may pick out of several Passages of him something like a Definition if we lay them together He teacheth us that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose upon us his own Therefore there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them pag. 155. And again he affirmeth the King cannot Imprison Fine or punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Judges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here the Description of a King He is one to whom the People give Power to see that nothing be done against Law and yet he saith there is no Regal Power but in the Courts of Justice and by them where not the King but the usual Judges give Sentence This Description not only strips the King of all Power whatsoever but puts him in a Condition below the meanest of his Subjects Thus much may shew that all men are not agreed what a King is Next what the word People means is not agreed upon ask Aristotle what the People is and he will not allow any Power to be in any but in free Citizens If we demand who be free Citizens That he cannot resolve us for he confesseth that he that is a free Citizen in one City is not so in another City And he is of Opinion that no Artificer should be a free Citizen or have Voice in a well ordered Commonwealth he accounts a Democratie which word signifies the Government of the People to be a corrupted sort of Government he thinks many men by Nature born to be Servants and not fit to govern as any part of the People Thus doth Aristotle curtail the People and cannot give us any certain Rule to know who be the People Come to our Modern Politicians and ask them who the People is though they talk big of the People yet they take up and are content with a few Representors as they call them of the whole People a Point Aristotle was to seek in neither are these Representors stood upon to be the whole People but the major part of these Representors must be reckoned for the whole People nay J.M. will not allow the major part of the Representors to be the People but the sounder and better part only of them and in right down terms he tells us pag. 126. to determine who is a Tyrant he leaves to Magistrates at least to the uprighter sort of them and of the People pag. 7. though in number less by many to judge as they find cause If the sounder the better and the uprighter Part have the Power of the People how shall we know or who shall judge who they be II. One Text is urged by Mr. Milton for the Peoples Power Deut. 17.14 When thou art come into the Land which thy Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me It is said by the Tenure of Kings these words confirm us that the Right of Choosing yea of Changing their own Government is by the Grant of God himself in the People But can the foretelling or forewarning of the Israelites of a wanton and wicked Desire of theirs which God himself condemned be made an Argument that God gave or granted them a Right to do such a wicked thing or can the Narration and reproving of a Future Fact be a Donation and approving of a present Right or the Permission of a Sin be made a Commission for the doing of it The Author of his Book against Salmasius falls so far from making God the Donor or Grantor that he cites him only for a Witness Teste ipso Deo penes populos arbitrium semper fuisse vel ea quae placeret forma reipub utendi vel hanc in aliam mutandi de Hebraeis hoc disertè dicit Deus de reliquis non abnuit That here in this Text God himself being Witness there was always a Power in
the People either to use what Form of Government they pleased or of changing it into another God saith this expresly of the Hebrews and denies it not of others Can any man find that God in this Text expresly saith that there was always a Right in the People to use what Form of Government they please The Text not warranting this Right of the People the Foundation of the Defence of the People is quite taken away there being no other Grant or proof of it pretended 2. Where it is said that the Israelites desired a King though then under another Form of Government in the next line but one it is confessed they had a King at the time when they desired a King which was God himself and his Vice-roy Samuel and so saith God They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them yet in the next Verse God saith As they have forsaken me so do they also unto thee Here is no Shew of any other Form of Government but Monarchy God by the Mediation of Samuel reigned who made his Sons Judges over Israel when one man constitutes Judges we may call him a King or if the having of Judges do alter the Government then the Government of every Kingdom is altered from Monarchy where Judges are appointed by Kings it is now reckoned one of the Duties of Kings to judge by their Judges only 3. Where it is said He shall not multiply to himself Horses nor Wives nor Riches that he might understand that he had no Power over others who could Decree nothing of himself extra Legem if it had said contra legem Dei it had been true but if it meant extra legem humanam it is false 4. If there had been any Right given to the People it seems it was to the Elders only for it is said it was the Elders of Israel gathered together petitioned for a King it is not said it was all the People nor that the People did choose the Elders who were the Fathers and Heads of Families authorized by the Judges 5. Where it is said I will set a King over me like as all the Nations about me To set a King is not to choose a King but by some solemn publick Act of Coronation or otherwise to acknowledge their Allegiance to the King chosen It is said thou shalt set him King whom the Lord thy God shall choose The Elders did not desire to choose a King like other Nations but they say now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations III. As for Davids Covenant with the Elders when he was anointed it was not to observe any Laws or Conditions made by the People for ought appears but to keep Gods Laws and serve him and to seek the Good of the People as they were to protect him 6. The Reubenites and Gadites promise their Obedience not according to their Laws or Conditions agreed upon but in these words All that thou commandest us we will do and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go as we harkened to Moses in all things so will we harken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses Where is there any Condition of any humane Law expressed Though the rebellious Tribes offered Conditions to Rehoboam where can we find that for like Conditions not performed all Israel deposed Samuel I wonder Mr. Milton should say this when within a few Lines after he professeth that Samuel had governed them uprightly IV. Jus Regni is much stumbled at and the Definition of a King which saith His Power is supreme in the Kingdom and he is accountable to none but to God and that he may do what he please and is not bound by Laws it is said if this Definition be good no man is or ever was who may be said to be a Tyrant p. 14. for when he hath violated all divine and humane Laws nevertheless he is a King and guiltless jure Regio To this may be answered That the Definition confesseth he is accountable to God and therefore not guiltless if he violate Divine Laws Humane Laws must not be shuffled in with Divine they are not of the same Authority if humane Laws bind a King it is impossible for him to have Supreme Power amongst men If any man can find us out such a kind of Government wherein the supreme Power can be without being freed from humane Laws they should first teach us that but if all sorts of popular Government that can be invented cannot be one Minute without an Arbitrary Power freed from all humane Laws what reason can be given why a Royal Government should not have the like Freedom if it be Tyranny for one man to govern arbitrarily why should it not be far greater Tyranny for a multitude of men to govern without being accountable or bound by Laws It would be further enquired how it is possible for any Government at all to be in the World without an arbitrary Power it is not Power except it be arbitrary a legislative Power cannot be without being absolved from humane Laws it cannot be shewed how a King can have any Power at all but an arbitrary Power We are taught that Power was therefore given to a King by the People that he might see by the Authority to him committed that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose upon us his own therefore there is no Royal Power but in the Courts of the Kingdom and by them p. 155. And again it is said the King cannot Imprison Fine or Punish any man except he be first cited into some Court where not the King but the usual Judges give Sentence pag. 168. and before we are told not the King but the Authority of Parliament doth set up and take away all Courts pag. 167. Lo here we have Mr. Milton's perfect Definition of a King He is one to whom the People gave Power to see that nothing be done against Law and that he keep our Laws and not impose his own Whereas all other men have the Faculty of Seeing by Nature the King only hath it by the Gift of the People other Power he hath none he may see the Judges keep the Laws if they will he cannot compel them for he may not Imprison Fine nor punish any man the Courts of Justice may and they are set up and put down by the Parliament yet in this very Definition of a King we may spy an arbitrary Power in the King for he may wink if he will and no other Power doth this Description of a King give but only a Power to see whereas it is said Aristotle doth mention an absolute Kingdom for no other Cause but to shew how absurd unjust and most tyrannical it is There is no such thing said by Aristotle but the contrary where he saith that a King according to Law makes no sort of Government and after
he had reckoned up five sorts of Kings he concludes that there were in a manner but two sorts the Lacedemonian King and the Absolute King whereof the first was but as General in an Army and therefore no King at all and then fixes and rests upon the Absolute King who ruleth according to his own Will V. If it be demanded what is meant by the word People 1. Sometimes it is Populus universus and then every Child must have his Consent asked which is impossible 2. Sometimes it is pars major and sometimes it is pars potior sanior How the major part where all are alike free can bind the minor part is not yet proved But it seems the major part will not carry it nor be allowed except they be the better part and the sounder part We are told the sounder part implored the help of the Army when it saw it self and the Commonwealth betrayed and that the Souldiers judged better than the Great Council and by Arms saved the Commonwealth which the Great Council had almost damned by their Votes page 7. Here we see what the People is to wit the sounder part of which the Army is the Judge thus upon the matter the Souldiers are the People which being so we may discern where the Liberty of the People lieth which we are taught to consist all for the most part in the power of the Peoples choosing what Form of Government they please p. 61. A miserable Liberty which is only to choose to whom we will give our Liberty which we may not keep See more concerning the People in a Book entituled The Anarchy page 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. VI. We are taught that a Father and a King are things most diverse The Father begets us but not the King but we create the King Nature gives a Father to the People the People gives themselves a King If the Father kill his Son he loseth his life why should not the King also page 34. Ans Father and King are not so diverse it is confessed that at first they were all one for there is confessed Paternum imperium haereditarium pag. 141. and this Fatherly Empire as it was of it self hereditary so it was alienable by Patent and seizable by an Usurper as other goods are and thus every King that now is hath a Paternal Empire either by Inheritance or by Translation or Usurpation so a Father and a King may be all one A Father may dye for the Murther of his Son where there is a Superiour Father to them both or the Right of such a Supreme Father but where there are only Father and Sons no Sons can question the Father for the death of their Brother the reason why a King cannot be punished is not because he is excepted from Punishment or doth not deserve it but because there is no Superiour to judge him but God only to whom he is reserved VII It is said thus He that takes away from the People the power of Choosing for themselves what Form of Government they please he doth take away that wherein all Civil Liberty almost consists p. 65. If almost all Liberty be in Choosing of the Kind of Government the People have but a poor Bargain of it who cannot exercise their Liberty but in Chopping and Changing their Government and have liberty only to give away their Liberty than which there is no greater mischief as being the cause of endless Sedition VIII If there be any Statute in our Law by which thou canst find that Tyrannical Power is given to a King that Statute being contrary to Gods Will to Nature and Reason understand that by that general and primary Law of ours that Statute is to be repealed not of force with us p. 153. Here if any man may be judge what Law is contrary to Gods Will or to Nature or to Reason it will soon bring in Confusion Most men that offend if they be to be punished or fined will think that Statute that gives all Fines and Forfeitures to a King to be a Tyrannical Law thus most Statutes would be judged void and all our Fore-fathers taken for Fools or Madmen to make all our Laws to give all Penalties to the King IX The sin of the Children of Israel did lye not in Desiring a King but in desiring such a King like as the Nations round about had they distrusted God Almighty that governed them by the Monarchical Power of Samuel in the time of oppression when God provided a Judge for them but they desired a perpetual and hereditary King that they might never want in Desiring a King they could not sin for it was but Desiring what they enjoyed by God's special Providence X. Men are perswaded that in making of a Covenant something is to be performed on both parts by mutual Stipulation which is not always true for we find God made a Covenant with Noah and his Seed with all the Fowl and the Cattel not to destroy the Earth any more by a flood This Covenant was to be kept on Gods part neither Noah nor the Fowl nor the Cattel were to perform any thing by this Covenant On the other side Gen. 17.9 10. God covenants with Abraham saying Thou shalt keep my Covenant every male-child among you shall be circumcised Here it is called Gods Covenant though it be to be performed only by Abraham so a Covenant may be called the Kings Covenant because it is made to him and yet to be performed only by the People So also 2 King 11.17 Jehojada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King and the People that they should be the Lords People Between the King also and the People which might well be that the People should be the Kings Servants and not for the King 's covenanting to keep any Humane Laws for it is not likely the King should either covenant or take any Oath to the People when he was but seven years of age and that never any King of Israel took a Coronation Oath that can be shewed when Jehojada shewed the King to the Rulers in the House of the Lord he took an Oath of the People he did not Article with them but saith the next Verse Commanded them to keep a Watch of the Kings House and that they should compass the King round about every man with his weapon in his hand and he that cometh within the Ranges let him be slain XI To the Text Where the word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What dost thou J.M. gives this Answer It is apparent enough that the Preacher in this place gives Precepts to every private man not to the great Sanhedrin nor to the Senate shall not the Nobles shall not all the other Magistrates shall not the whole People dare to mutter so oft as the King pleaseth to dote We must here note that the great Council and all other Magistrates or Nobles or the whole People compared
to the King are all but private men if they derive their Power from him they are Magistrates under him and out of his Presence for when he is in place they are but so many private men J. M. asks Who swears to a King unless the King on the other side be sworn to keep Gods Laws and the Laws of the Countrey We find that the Rulers of Israel took an Oath at the Coronation of Jehoash but we find no Oath taken by that King no not so much as to Gods Laws much less to the Laws of the Countrey XII A Tyrant is he who regarding neither Law nor the Common Good reigns only for himself and his Faction p. 19. In his Defence he expresseth himself thus He is a Tyrant who looks after only his own and not his Peoples profit Eth. l. 10. p. 189. 1. If it be Tyranny not to regard the Law then all Courts of Equity and Pardons for any Offences must be taken away there are far more Suits for relief against the Laws than there be for the observation of the Laws there can be no such Tyranny in the World as the Law if there were no Equity to abate the rigour of it Summum Jus is Summa Injuria if the Penalties and Forfeitures of all Laws should still be exacted by all Kings it would be found that the greatest Tyranny would be for a King to govern according to Law the Fines Penalties and Forfeitures of all Laws are due to the Supreme Power only and were they duly paid they would far exceed the Taxes in all places It is the chief happiness of a Kingdom and their chief Liberty not to be governed by the Laws Only 2. Not to regard the Common Good but to reign only for himself is the supposition of an impossibility in the judgment of Aristotle who teacheth us that the despotical Power cannot be preserved except the Servant or he in subjection be also preserved The truth of this strongly proves That it is in Nature impossible to have a Form of Government that can be for the destruction of a People as Tyranny is supposed if we will allow People to be governed we must grant they must in the first place be preserved or else they cannot be governed Kings have been and may be vitious men and the Government of one not so good as the Government of another yet it doth not follow that the Form of Government is or can be in its own nature ill because the Governour is so it is Anarchy or want of Government that can totally destroy a Nation We cannot find any such Government as Tyranny mentioned or named in Scripture or any word in the Hebrew Tongue to express it After such time as the Cities of Greece practised to shake off Monarchy then and not till then which was after Homer's time the name of Tyrant was taken up for a word of Disgrace for such men as by craft or Force wrested the Power of a City from a Multitude to one man only and not for the exercising but for the ill-obtaining of the Government but now every man that is but thought to govern ill or to be an ill man is presently termed a Tyrant and so judged by his Subjects Few remember the Prohibition Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People and fewer understand the reason of it Though we may not one judge another yet we may speak evil or revile one another in that which hath been lawfully judged and upon a Tryal wherein they have been heard and condemned this is not to judge but only to relate the judgment of the Ruler To speak evil or to revile a Supreme Judge cannot be without judging him who hath no Superiour on Earth to judge him and in that regard must always be presumed innocent though never so ill if he cannot lawfully be heard J.M. that will have it Tyranny in a King not to regard the Laws doth himself give as little Regard to them as any man where he reckons that Contesting for Priviledges Customs Forms and that old entanglement of Iniquity their gibrish Laws are the Badges of ancient Slavery Tenure p. 3. a Disputing Presidents Forms and Circumstances page 5. J.M. is also of opinion That If at any time our Fore-fathers out of baseness have lost any thing of their Right that ought not hurt us they might if they would promise Slavery for themselves for us certainly they could not who have always the same Right to free our selves that they had to give themselves to any man in Slavery This Doctrine well practised layeth all open to constant Anarchy Lastly If any desire to know what the liberty of the People is which J. M. pleads for he resolves us saying That he that takes away from the People the Right of Choosing what Form of Government they please takes away truly that in which all Liberty doth almost consist It is well said by J. M. that all liberty doth almost consist in Choosing their Form of Government for there is another liberty exercised by the People which he mentions not which is the liberty of the Peoples Choosing their Religion every man may be of any Religion or of no Religion Greece and Rome have been as famous for Polytheism or multitudes of gods as of Governours and imagining Aristocratie and Democratie in Heaven as on Earth OBSERVATIONS UPON H. Grotius DE JVRE BELLI PACIS IN most Questions of Weight and Difficulty concerning the Right of War or Peace or Supreme Power Grotius hath Recourse to the Law of Nature or of Nations or to the Primitive Will of those men who first joyned in Society It is necessary therefore a little to lay open the Variety or Contrariety in the Civil and Canon Law and in Grotius himself about the Law of Nature and Nations not with a Purpose to raise any Contention about Words or Phrases but with a Desire to reconcile or expound the Sense of different Terms Civilians Canonists Politicians and Divines are not a little perplexed in distinguishing between the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations about Jus Naturae and Jus Gentium there is much Dispute by such as handle the Original of Government and of Property and Community The Civil Law in one Text allows a threefold Division of Law into Jus Naturae Jus Gentium and Jus Civile But in another Text of the same Law we find only a twofold Division into Jus Civile and Jus Gentium This latter Division the Law takes from Gaius the former from Vlpian who will have Jus Naturale to be that which Nature hath taught all Creatures quod Natura omnia animalia docuit but for this he is confuted by Grotius Salmasius and others who restrain the Law of Nature only to men using Reason which makes it all one with the Law of Nations to which the Canon Law consents and saith That Jus Naturale est commune omnium Nationum That
quovis tempore revocabile id est precarium as the Vandals in Africa and the Goths in Spain would depose their Kings as oft as they displeased them horum enim actus irriti possunt reddi ab his qui potestatem revocabiliter dederunt ac proinde non idem est effectus nec jus idem Here he doth teach in plain words the Effect doth depend upon the Will of the People By this we may judge how improperly he useth the instance of a Woman that appoints her self a Husband whom she must always necessarily obey since the necessity of the continuance of the VVife's obedience depends upon the Law of God which hath made the Bond of Matrimony indissolvable Grotius will not say the like for the continuance of the Subjects obedience to the Prince neither will they say that VVomen may chuse Husbands as he tells us the People may chuse Kings by giving their Husbands as little power and for as little a time as they please Next it is objected That Tutors who are set over Pupils may be removed if they abuse their power Grotius answers In Tutore hoc procedit qui superiorem habet at in Imperiis quia progressus non datur in infinitum omnino in aliqua persona aut coetu consistendum est We must stay in some one Person or in a Multitude whose faults because they have no superiour Judge above them God hath witnessed that he will have a particular care of either to revenge them if he judge it needful or to tolerate them either for Punishment or Tryal of the People It is true in Kingdoms we cannot proceed in infinitum yet we may and must go to the highest which by Grotius his Rule is the People because they first made Kings so that there is no need to stay in aliqua persona but in coetu in the People so that by his Doctrine Kings may be punished by the People but the faults of the People must be left to the Judgment of God I have briefly presented here the desperate Inconveniences which attend upon the Doctrine of the natural freedom and community of all things these and many more Absurdities are easily removed if on the contrary we maintain the natural and private Dominion of Adam to be the fountain of all Government and Propriety And if we mark it well we shall find that Grotius doth in part grant as much The ground why those that now live do obey their Governours is the Will of their Forefathers who at the first ordained Princes and in obedience to that Will the Children continue in subjection this is according to the mind of Grotius so that the Question is not Whether Kings have a fatherly Power over their Subjects but how Kings came first by it Grotius will have it that our Forefathers being all free made an Assignment of their Power to Kings the other Opinion denies any such general freedom of our Forefathers but derives the Power of Kings from the Original Dominion of Adam This natural Dominion of Adam may be proved out of Grotius himself who teacheth That generatione jus acquiritur Parentibus in Liberos and that naturally no other can be found but the Parents to whom the Government should belong and the Right of Ruling and Compelling them doth belong to Parents And in another place he hath these words speaking of the fifth Commandment Parentum nomine qui naturales sunt Magistratus etiam alios Rectores par est intelligi quorum authoritas Societatem humanam continet and if Parents be natural Magistrates Children must needs be born natural Subjects But although Grotius acknowledge Parents to be natural Magistrates yet he will have it that Children when they come to full age and are separated from their Parents are free from natural Subjection For this he offers proof out of Aristotle and out of Scripture First for Aristotle we must note he doth not teach that every separation of Children of full age is an Obtaining of liberty as if that men when they come to years might voluntarily separate themselves and cast off their natural Obedience but Aristotle speaks only of a passive Separation for he doth not say that Children are subject to Parents until they do separate but he saith until they be separated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Verb of the Passive Voice That is until by Law they be separated for the Law which is nothing else but the Will of him that hath the Power of the Supreme Father doth in many cases for the publick Benefit of Society free Children from subjection to the subordinate Parent so that the natural Subjection by such Emancipation of Children is not extinguished but only assumed and regulated by the Parent paramount Secondly Grotius cites Numb 30. to prove that the power of the Fathers over the Sons and Daughters to dissolve their Vows was not perpetual but during the time only whilst the Children were part of the Fathers Family But if we turn to the Chapter we may find that Grotius either deceives himself or us for there is not one word in that Chapter concerning the Vows of Sons but of Daughters only being in their Father's Family and the being of the Daughter in the Father's House meaneth only the Daughter 's being a Virgin and not married which may be gathered by the Argument of the whole Chapter which taketh particular order for the Vows of VVomen of all estates First for Virgins in the third Verse Secondly for VVives in general in the sixth Verse Thirdly for VVidows and VVomen divorced in the ninth Verse There is no Law for Virgins out of their Father's Houses we may not think they would have been omitted if they had been free from their Fathers we find no freedom in the Text for VVomen till after Marriage And if they were married though they were in their Father's Houses yet the Fathers had no power of their Vows but their Husbands If by the Law of Nature departure from the Father's House had emancipated Children why doth the Civil Law contrary to the Law of Nature give power and remedy to Fathers for to recover by Action of Law their Children that depart or are taken away from them without their consent Without the consent of Parents the Civil Law allows no emancipation Concerning Subjection of Children to Parents Grotius distinguisheth three several times The first is the time of Imperfect Judgment The second is the time of Perfect Judgment but whilst the Son remains part of the Father's Family The third is the time after he hath departed out of his Father's Family In the first time he saith All the actions of Children are under the dominion of the Parents During the second time when they are of the age of mature Judgment they are under their Father's command in those actions only which are of moment for their Parents Family In other actions the Children have a power or moral faculty of doing but they are bound in those
cap. 5. If Subjection be the Gift of the People how can Supreme Power pleno Jure in full Right be got by a just War As to the other means whereby Kings may get Supreme Power in full Right of Propriety Grotius will have it to be when some People for avoiding a greater Evil do so yield themselves into anothers Power as that they do except nothing It would be considered how without War any People can be brought into such danger of life as that because they can find no other ways to defend themselves or because they are so pressed with poverty as they cannot otherwise have means to sustain themselves they are forced to renounce all Right of Governing themselves and deliver it to a King But if such a Case cannot happen but by a War only which reduceth a People to such terms of extremity as compels them to an absolute Abrenunciation of all Sovereignty then War which causeth that necessity is the prime means of extorting such Soveraignty and not the free Gift of the People who cannot otherwise chuse but give away that Power which they cannot keep Thus upon the reckoning the two ways propounded by Grotius are but one way and that one way in conclusion is no way whereby Supreme Power may be had in full Right of Propriety His two ways are a Just War or a Donation of the People a just War cannot be without a Title no Title without the Donation of the People no Donation without such a Necessity as nothing can bring upon the Donors but a War So that howsoever Grotius in words acknowledges that Kings may have a full Right of Propriety yet by consequence he denies it by such circular Suppositions as by coincidence destroy each other and in effect he leaves all People a Right to plead in Bar against the Right of Propriety of any Prince either per minas or per dures Many times saith Grotius it happens that War is grounded upon Expletive Justice Justitiam Expletricem which is when a man cannot obtain what he ought he takes that which is as much in value which in moral Estimation is the same For in War when the same Province cannot be recovered to the which a man hath a Title he recovers another of the like value This recovery cannot give a full Right of Propriety because the Justice of such a War reacheth no farther than to a compensation for a former Right to another thing and therefore can give no new Right I am bound to take notice of a Case put by Grotius amongst those Causes which he thinks should move the People to renounce all their Right of Governing and give it to another It may also happen saith he that a Father of a Family possessing large Territories will not receive any man to dwell within his Land upon any other condition And in another place he saith That all Kings are not made by the People which may be sufficiently understood by the Example of a Father of a Family receiving Strangers under the Law of Obedience In both these passages we have a close and curt acknowledgment That a Father of a Family may be an absolute King over Strangers without Choice of the People now I would know whether such Fathers of Families have not the same absolute Power over their own Children without the Peoples Choice which he allows them over Strangers if they have I cannot but call them Absolute proprietary Kings though Grotius be not willing to give them that Title in plain terms for indeed to allow such Kings were to condemn his own Principle That Dominion came in by the Will of the People and so consequently to overthrow his Vsufructuary Kings of whom I am next to speak Grotius saith That the Law of Obeying or Resisting Princes depends upon the Will of them who first met in Civil Society from whom Power doth flow to Kings And That men of their own accord came together into Civil Society from whence springs Civil Power and the People may chuse what Form of Government they please Upon these Suppositions he concludes That Kings elected by the People have but an Vsufructuary Right that is a Right to take the profit or fruit of the Kingdom but not a Right of Propriety or Power to alienate it But why doth he call it an Vsufructuary Right It seems to me a term too mean or base to express the Right of any King and is derogatory to the Dignity of Supreme Majesty The word Vsufructuary is used by the Lawyers to signifie him that hath the Use Profit or Fruit of some Corporal thing that may be used without the Property for of fungible things res fungibles the Civilians call them that are spent or consumed in the Use as Corn Wine Oyl Money there cannot be an Vsufructuary Right It is to make a Kingdom all one with a Farm as if it had no other Use but to be let out to him that can make most of it whereas in truth it is the part and Duty of a King to govern and he hath a Right so to do and to that end Supreme Power is given unto him the taking of the profit or making use of the Patrimony of the Crown is but as a means only to enable him to perform that work of Government Besides Grotius will not only have an elected King but also his lawful Successors to have but an Vsufructuary Right so that though a King hath a Crown to him and to his Heirs yet he will allow him no Propriety because he hath no power to alienate it for he supposeth the primary VVill of the People to have been to bestow Supreme Power to go in Succession and not to be alienable but for this he hath no better proof than a naked presumption In Regnis quae Populi voluntate delatâ sunt concedo non esse praesumendum eam fuisse Populi voluntatem aut alienatio Imperii sui Regi permitteretur But though he will not allow Kings a Right of Propriety in their Kingdoms yet a Right of Propriety there must be in some body and in whom but in the People For he saith The Empire which is exercised by Kings doth not cease to be the Empire of the People His meaning is the Use is the King 's but the Property is the Peoples But if the Power to alienate the Kingdom be in him that hath the Property this may prove a comfortable Doctrine to the People but yet to allow a Right of Succession in Kings and still to reserve a Right of Property in the People may make some contradiction for the Succession must either hinder the Right of Alienation which is in the People or the Alienation must destroy that Right of Succession which by Grotius's confession may attend upon elected Kings Though Grotius confess that Supreme Power be Vnum quiddam and in it self indivisible ye he bsaith Sometimes it may be divided either by parts potential or subjunctive I take his meaning to
themselves that alters the Form of Government that is whether one man or more than one make the Laws Since the growth of this new Doctrine Of the Limitation and Mixture of Monarchy it is most apparent that Monarchy hath been crucified as it were between two Thieves the Pope and the People for what Principles the Papists make use of for the Power of the Pope above Kings the very same by blotting out the word Pope and putting in the word People the Plebists take up to use against their Soveraigns If we would truly know what Popery is we shall find by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm that the main and indeed the only Point of Popery is the alienating and withdrawing of Subjects from their Obedience to their Prince to raise Sedition and Rebellion If Popery and Popularity agree in this point the Kings of Christendom that have shaken off the Power of the Pope have made no great bargain of it if in place of one Lord abroad they get many Lords at home within their own Kingdoms I cannot but reverence that Form of Government which was allowed and made use of for God's own People and for all other Nations It were impiety to think that God who was careful to appoint Judicial Laws for his chosen People would not furnish them with the best Form of Government or to imagine that the Rules given in divers places in the Gospel by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles for Obedience to Kings should now like Almanacks out of date be of no use to us because it is pretended We have a Form of Government now not once thought of in those days It is a shame and scandal for us Christians to seek the Original of Government from the Inventions or Fictions of Poets Orators Philosophers and Heathen Historians who all lived thousands of years after the Creation and were in a manner ignorant of it and to neglect the Scriptures which have with more Authority most particularly given us the true Grounds and Principles of Government These Considerations caused me to scruple this Modern piece of Politicks touching Limited and Mixed Monarchy and finding no other that presented us with the nature and means of Limitation and Mixture but an Anonymous Author I have drawn a few brief Observations upon the most considerable part of his Treatise in which I desire to receive satisfaction from the Author himself if it may be according to his promise in his Preface or if not from him from any other for him THE ANARCHY Of a Limited or Mixed MONARCHY THere is scarce the meanest man of the multitude but can now in these days tell us That the Government of the Kingdom of England is a LIMITED and MIXED Monarchy And it is no marvel since all the Disputes and Arguments of these distracted Times both from the Pulpit and Press do tend and end in this Conclusion The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy hath copiously handled the nature and manner of Limited and Mixed Monarchy and is the first and only man that I know hath undertaken the task of describing it others only mention it as taking it for granted Doctor Ferne gives the Author of this Treatise of Monarchy this testimony That the Mixture of Government is more accurately delivered and urged by this Treatise than by the Author of the Fuller Answer And in another place Doctor Ferne saith He allows his distinction of Monarchy into Limited and Mixed I have with some diligence looked over this Treatise but cannot approve of these distinctions which he propounds I submit the reasons of my dislike to others judgments I am somewhat confident that his Doctrine of Limited and Mixed Monarchy is an opinion but of yesterday and of no antiquity a meâ—â— innovation in Policy not so old as New England though calculated properly for that Meridian For in his first part of the Treatise which concerns Monarchy in general there is not one proof text or example in Scripture that he hath produced to justifie his conceit of Limited and Mixed Monarchy Neither doth he afford us so much as one passage or reason out of Aristole whose Books of Politicks and whose natural reasons are of greatest authority and credit with all rational men next to the sacred Scripture Nay I hope I may affirm and be able to prove that Aristotle doth confute both limited and mixed Monarchy howsoever Doctor Ferne think these new opinions to be raised upon Aristotles Principles As for other Politicians or Historians either divine or humane ancient or modern our Author brings not one to confirm his opinions nor doth he nor can he shew that ever any Nation or People were governed by a limited or mixed Monarchy Machiavel is the first in Christendom that I can find that writ of a Mixed Government but not one syllable of a Mixed Monarchy he in his discourses or disputations upon the Decades of Livy falls so enamored with the Roman Commonwealth that he thought he could never sufficiently grace that popular Government unless he said there was something of Monarchy in it yet he was never so impudent as to say it was a mixed Monarchy And what Machiavel hath said for Rome the like hath Contarene for Venice But Bodin hath laid open the errours of both these as also of Polybius and some few others that held the like opinions As for the Kingdom of England if it hath found out a Form of Government as the Treatise layeth it down of such perfection as never any people could it is both a glory to the Nation and also to this Author who hath first decipher'd it I now make my approach to the Book it self The Title is A Treatise of Monarchy The first part of it is Of Monarchy in general Where first I charge the Author that he hath not given us any definition or description of Monarchy in general for by the rules of method he should have first defined and then divided for if there be several sorts of Monarchy then in something they must agree which makes them to be Monarchies and in something they must disagree and differ which makes them to be several sorts of Monarchies In the first place he should have shewed us in what they all agreed which must have been a definition of Monarchy in general which is the foundation of the Treatise and except that be agreed upon we shall argue upon we know not what I press not this main omission of our Author out of any humour of wrangling but because I am confident that had he pitched upon any definition of Monarchy in general his own definition would have confuted his whole Treatise Besides I find him pleased to give us a handsom definition of Absolute Monarchy from whence I may infer that he knew no other definition that would have fitted all his other sorts of Monarchy it concerned him to have produced it lest it might be thought there could be no Monarchy but Absolute What our
a primity of share in the supreme Power is in one but by his own confession he may better call it a mixed Aristocracy or mixed Democracy than a mixed Monarchy since he tells us The Houses of Parliament sure have two parts of the greatest legislative Authority and if the King have but a third part sure their shares are equal The first step our Author makes is this The Soveraign power must be originally in all three next he finds that if there be an equality of shares in three Estates there can be no ground to denominate a Monarch and then his mixed Monarch might be thought but an empty Title Therefore in the third place he resolves us That to salve all a power must be sought out wherewith the Monarch must be invested which is not so great as to destroy the mixture nor so titular as to destroy the Monarchy and therefore he conceives it may be in these particulars First A Monarch in a mixed Monarchy may be said to be a Monarch as he conceives if he be the head and fountain of the power which governs and executes the established Laws that is a man may be a Monarch though he do but give power to others to govern and execute the established Laws thus he brings his Monarch one step or peg lower still than he was before at first he made us believe his Monarch should have the supreme Power which is the legislative then he falls from that and tells us A limited Monarch must govern according to Law only thus he is brought from the legislative to the gubernative or executive Power only nor doth he stay here but is taken a hole lower for now he must not govern but he must constitute Officers to govern by Laws if chusing Officers to govern be governing then our Author will allow his Monarch to be a Governour not else and therefore he that divided Supreme power into Legislative and Gubernative doth now divide it into Legislative and power of constituting Officers for governing by Laws and this he saith is left to the Monarch Indeed you have left him a fair portion of Power but are we sure he may enjoy this It seems our Author is not confident in this neither and some others do deny it him our Author speaking of the Government of this Kingdom saith The choice of the Officers is intrusted to the judgment of the Monarch for ought I know he is not resolute in the point but for ought he knows and for ought I know his Monarch is but titular an empty Title certain of no Power at all The power of chusing Officers only is the basest of all powers Aristotle as I remember saith The common people are fit for nothing but to chuse Officers and to take Accompts and indeed in all popular Governments the multitude perform this work and this work in a King puts him below all his Subjects and makes him the only Subject in a Kingdom or the only man that cannot Govern there is not the poorest man of the multitude but is capable of some Office or other and by that means may some time or other perhaps govern according to the Laws only the King can be no Officer but to chuse Officers his Subjects may all govern but he may not Next I cannot see how in true sense our Author can say his Monarch is the head and fountain of Power since his Doctrine is That in a limited Monarchy the publick Society by original Constitution confer on one man power is not then the publick Society the head and fountain of Power and not the King Again when he tells us of his Monarch That both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworn Subjects and owe obedience to his commands he doth but flout his poor Monarch for why are they called his Subjects and his Commons He without any complement is their Subject for they as Officers may govern and command according to Law but he may not for he must judge by his Judges in Courts of Justice only that is he may not judge or govern at all 2. As for the second particular The sole or chief power in capacitating persons for the supreme Power And 3. As to this third particular The power of Convocating such persons they are both so far from making a Monarch that they are the only way to make him none by chusing and calling others to share in the supreme Power 4. Lastly concerning his Authority being the last and greatest in the establishing every Act it makes him no Monarch except he be sole that hath that Authority neither his primity of share in the supreme Power nor his Authority being last no nor his having the greatest Authority doth make him a Monarch unless he have that Authority alone Besides how can he shew that in his mixed Monarchy the Monarchs power is the greatest The greatest share that our Author allows him in the Legislative power is a Negative voice and the like is allowed to the Nobility and Commons And truly a Negative voice is but a base term to express a Legislative power a Negative voice is but a privative power or indeed no power at all to do any thing only a power to hinder an Act from being done Wherefore I conclude not any of his four nor all of them put into one person make the State Monarchical This mixed Monarchy just like the limited ends in confusion and destruction of all Government you shall hear the Authors confession That one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no constituted legal Authoritative Judge of the Fundamental Controversies arising between the three Estates If such do rise it is the fatal disease of those Governments for which no salve can be applied It is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government of this question there is no legal Judge The accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience The Appeal must be to the Community as if there were no Government and as by evidence Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their assistance The wit of man cannot say more for Anarchy Thus have I picked out the flowers out of his Doctrine about limited Monarchy and presented them with some brief Annotations it were a tedious work to collect all the learned contradictions and ambiguous expressions that occur in every page of his Platonick Monarchy the Book hath so much of fancy that it is a better piece of Poetry than Policy Because many may think that the main Doctrine of limited and mixed Monarchy may in it self be most authentical and grounded upon strong and evident reason although our Author perhaps have failed in some of his expressions and be liable to exceptions Therefore I will be bold to inquire whether Aristotle could find either reason or example of a limited or mixed Monarchy and the rather because
I find our Author altogether insists upon a rational way of justifying his opinion No man I think will deny but that Aristotle was sufficiently curious in searching out the several forms of Commonwealths and Kingdoms yet I do not find that he ever so much as dreamed of either a limited or mixed Monarchy Several other sorts of Monarchies he reckons up in the Third Book of his Politicks he spends three whole Chapters together upon the several kinds of Monarchy First in his fourteenth Chapter he mentions four kinds of Monarchy The Laconick or Lacedemonian The Barbarick The Aesymnetical The Heroick The Laconick or Lacedemonian King saith he had only Supreme Power when he was out of the bounds of the Lacedemonian Territories then he had absolute Power his Kingdom was like to a perpetual Lord General of an Army The Barbarick King saith Aristotle had a Power very near to Tyranny yet they were lawful and Paternal because the Barbarians are of a more servile nature than the Grecians and the Asiaticks than the Europeans they do willingly without repining live under a Masterly Government yet their Government is stable and safe because they are Paternal and lawful Kingdoms and their Guards are Royal and not Tyrannical for Kings are guarded by their own Subjects and Tyrants are guarded by Strangers The Aesymnetical King saith Aristotle in old time in Greece was an Elective Tyrant and differed only from the Barbarian Kings in that he was Elective and not Paternal these sorts of Kings because they were Tyrannical were Masterly but because they were over such as voluntarily Elected them they were Regal The Heroick were those saith Aristotle which flourished in the Heroical times to whom the People did willingly obey and they were Paternal and lawful because these Kings did deserve well of the multitude either by teaching them Arts or by Warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands amongst them these Kings had supreme Power in War in Sacrifices in Judicature These four sorts of Monarchy hath Aristotle thus distinguished and after sums them up together and concludes his Chapter as if he had forgot himself and reckons up a fifth kind of Monarchy which is saith he When one alone hath Supreme power of all the rest for as there is a domestical Kingdom of one House so the Kingdom of a City or of one or many Nations is a Family These are all the sorts of Monarchy that Aristotle hath found out and he hath strained hard to make them so many first for his Lacedemonian King himself confesseth that he was but a kind of Military Commander in War and so in effect no more a King than all Generals of Armies And yet this No-king of his was not limited by any Law nor mixed with any Companions of his Government when he was in the Wars out of the Confines of Lacedaemon he was as Aristotle stiles him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of full and absolute Command no Law no Companion to govern his Army but his own will Next for Aristotle's Aesymnetical King it appears he was out of date in Aristotle's time for he saith he was amongst the ancient Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle might well have spared the naming him if he had not wanted other sorts for the honour of his own Nation for he that but now told us the Barbarians were of a more servile nature than the Grecians comes here and tells us That these old Greek Kings were Elective Tyrants The Barbarians did but suffer Tyrants in shew but the old Grecians chose Tyrants indeed which then must we think were the greater slaves the Greeks or the Barbarians Now if these sorts of Kings were Tyrants we cannot suppose they were limited either by Law or joyned with Companions Indeed Aristotle saith some of these Tyrants were limited to certain times and actions for they had not all their Power for term of life nor could meddle but in certain businesses yet during the time they were Tyrants and in the actions whereto they were limited they had absolute Power to do what they list according to their own will or else they could not have been said to be Tyrants As for Aristotle's Heroick King he gives the like note upon him that he did upon the Aesymnet that he was in old time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Heroick times The thing that made these Heroical Kingdoms differ from other sorts of Kingdoms was only the means by which the first Kings obtained their Kingdoms and not the manner of Government for in that they were as absolute as other Kings were without either limitation by Law or mixture of Companions Lastly as for Aristotle's Barbarick sort of Kings since he reckoned all the World Barbarians except the Grecians his Barbarick King must extend to all other sorts of Kings in the World besides those of Greece and so may go under Aristotle's fifth sort of Kings which in general comprehends all other sorts and is no special form of Monarchy Thus upon a true account it is evident that the five several sorts of Kings mentioned by Aristotle are at the most but different and accidental means of the first obtaining or holding of Monarchies and not real or essential differences of the manner of Government which was always absolute without either limitation or mixture I may be thought perhaps to mistake or wrong Aristotle in questioning his diversities of Kings but it seems Aristotle himself was partly of the same mind for in the very next Chapter when he had better considered of the point he confessed That to speak the truth there were almost but two sorts of Monarchies worth the considering that is his first or Laconick sort and his fifth or last sort where one alone hath supreme Power over all the rest thus he hath brought his five sorts to two Now for the first of these two his Lacedemonian King he hath confessed before that he was no more than a Generalissimo of an Army and so upon the matter no King at all and then there remains only his last sort of Kings where one alone hath the supreme Power And this in substance is the final resolution of Aristotle himself for in his sixteenth Chapter where he delivers his last thoughts touching the kinds of Monarchy he first dischargeth his Laconick King from being any sort of Monarchy and then gives us two exact rules about Monarchy and both these are point blank against limited and mixed Monarchy therefore I shall propose them to be considered of as concluding all Monarchy to be absolute and arbitrary 1. The one Rule is That he that is said to be a King according to Law is no sort of Government or Kingdom at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second Rule is That a true King is he that ruled all according to his own will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This latter frees a Monarch from the mixture of partners or sharers in
Government as the former rule doth from limitation by Laws Thus in brief I have traced Aristotle in his crabbed and broken passages touching diversities of Kings where he first finds but four sorts and then he stumbles upon a fifth and in the next Chapter contents himself only with two sorts of Kings but in the Chapter following concludes with one which is the true perfect Monarch who rules all by his own will in all this we find nothing for a regulated or mixed Monarchy but against it Moreover whereas the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy affirms it as a prime Principle That all Monarchies except that of the Jews depend upon humane designment when the consent of a Society of men and a fundamental Contract of a Nation by original or radical Constitution confers Power he must know that Aristotle searching into the Original of Government shews himself in this point a better Divine than our Author and as if he had studied the Book of Genesis teacheth That Monarchies fetch their Pedigree from the Right of Fathers and not from the Gift or Contract of People his words may thus be Englished At the first Cities were governed by Kings and so even to this day are Nations also for such as were under Kingly Government did come together for every House is governed by a King who is the eldest and so also Colonies are governed for kindred sake And immediately before he tells us That the first Society made of many Houses is a Village which naturally seems to be a Colony of a House which some call Foster-brethren or Children and Childrens Children So in conclusion we have gained Aristotle's judgment in three main and essential points 1. A King according to Law makes no kind of Government 2. A King must rule according to his own will 3. The Original of Kings is from the right of Fatherhood What Aristotle's judgment was two thousand years since is agreeable to the Doctrine of the great modern Politician Bodin Hear him touching limited Monarchy Vnto Majesty or Soveraignty saith he belongeth an absolute power not subject to any Law Chief power given unto a Prince with condition is not properly Soveraignty or power absolute except such conditions annexed to the Soveraignty be directly comprehended within the Laws of God and Nature Albeit by the sufferance of the King of England controversies between the King and his People are sometimes determined by the high Court of Parliament and sometimes by the Lord Chief Justice of England yet all the Estates remain in full subjection to the King who is no ways bound to follow their advice neither to consent to their requests It is certain that the Laws Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no force but during their life if they be not ratified by the express consent or by sufferance of the Prince following especially Privileges Much less should a Prince be bound unto the Laws he maketh himself for a man may well receive a Law from another man but impossible it is in nature for to give a Law unto himself no more than it is to command a mans self in a matter depending of his own will The Law saith Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum capit The Soveraign Prince may derogate unto the Laws that he hath promised and sworn to keep if the equity thereof be ceased and that of himself without the consent of his Subjects The Majesty of a true Soveraign Prince is to be known when the Estates of all the People assembled in all humility present their requests and supplications to their Prince without having power in any thing to command determine or give voice but that that which it pleaseth the King to like or dislike to command or bid is holden for Law wherein they which have written of the duty of Magistrates have deceived themselves in maintaining that the power of the People is greater than the Prince a thing which causeth oft true Subjects to revolt from their obedience to their Prince and ministreth matter of great troubles in Commonwealths of which their opinion there is neither reason nor ground for if the King be subject unto the assemblies and Decrees of the people he should neither be King nor Soveraign and the Commonwealth neither Realm nor Monarchy but a meer Aristocracy So we see the principal point of Soveraign Majesty and absolute power to consist principally in giving Laws unto the Subjects in general without their consent Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. To confound the state of Monarchy with the Popular or Aristocratical estate is a thing impossible and in effect incompatible and such as cannot be imagined for Soveraignty being of it self indivisible how can it at one and the same time be divided betwixt one Prince the Nobility and the people in common The first mark of Soveraign Majesty is to be of power to give Laws and to command over them unto the Subjects and who should those Subjects be that should yield their obedience to the Law if they should have also power to make the Laws who should he be that could give the Law being himself constrained to receive it of them unto whom himself gave it so that of necessity we must conclude That as no one in particular hath the power to make the Law in such a State that then the State must needs be a State popular Never any Commonwealth hath been made of an Aristocracy and popular Estate much less of the three Estates of a Commonweal Such states wherein the rights of Soveraignty are divided are not rightly to be called Commonweals but rather the corruption of Commonweals as Herodotus has most briefly but truly written Commonweals which change their state the Sovereign right power of them being divided find no rest from Civil wars and broils till they again recover some one of the three Forms and the Soveraignty be wholly in one of the states or other Where the rights of the Soveraignty are divided betwixt the Prince his Subjects in that confusion of state there is still endless stirs and quarrels for the superiority until that some one some few or all together have got the Soveraignty Id. lib. 2. c. 1. This Judgment of Bodin's touching Limited and Mixed Monarchy is not according to the mind of our Author nor yet of the Observator who useth the strength of his Wit to overthrow Absolute and Arbitrary Government in this Kingdom and yet in the main body of his discourse le ts fall such Truths from his Pen as give a deadly wound to the Cause he pleads for if they be indifferently weighed and considered I will not pick a line or two here and there to wrest against him but will present a whole Page of his Book or more together that so we may have an entire prospect upon the Observators mind Without Society saith the Observator men could not live without Laws men could not be sociable and without Authority
should bound and limit Monarchy doth in effect acknowledge there is no such Court at all for every Court consists of Jurisdictions Priviledges it is these two that create a Court and are the essentials of it If the admirably composed Court of Parliament have some defects which may receive amendment as he saith and if those defects be such as cause divisions both between the Houses and between the King and both Houses and these divisions be about so main a matter as Jurisdictions and Priviledges and power to create new Priviledges all which are the Fundamentals of every Court for until they be agreed upon the act of every Court may not only be uncertain but invalid and cause of tumults and sedition And if all these doubts and divisions have need to be solemnly solved as our Observator confesseth Then he hath no reason at all to say that Now the conditions of Supream Lords are wisely determined and quietly conserved or that Now most Countries have found out an art and peaceable order for publick affairs whereby the People may resume its own power to do it self right without injury unto Princes for how can the underived Majesty of the people by assuming its own power tell how to do her self right or how to avoid doing injury to the Prince if her Jurisdiction be uncertain and Priviledges undetermined He tells us Now most Countries have found an art and peaceable order for publick Assemblies and to the intent that Princes may not be Now beyond all limits and Laws the whole community in its underived Majesty shall convene to do Justice But he doth not name so much as one Country or Kingdom that hath found out this art where the whole Community in its underived Majesty did ever convene to do Justice I challenge him or any other for him to name but one Kingdom that hath either Now or heretofore found out this art or peaceable order We do hear a great rumor in this age of moderated and limited Kings Poland Sweden and Denmark are talked of for such and in these Kingdoms or no where is such a moderated Government as our Observator means to be found A little enquiry would be made into the manner of the Government of these Kingdoms for these Northern People as Bodin observeth breath after liberty First for Poland Boterus saith that the Government of it is elective altogether and representeth rather an Aristocracie than a Kingdom the Nobility who have great Authority in the Diets chusing the King and limiting his Authority making his Soveraignty but a slavish Royalty these diminutions of Regality began first by default of King Lewis and Jagello who to gain the succession in the Kingdom contrary to the Laws one for his Daughter and the other for his Son departed with many of his Royalties and Prerogatives to buy the voices of the Nobility The French Author of the Book called the Estates of the World doth inform us that the Princes Authority was more free not being subject to any Laws and having absolute power not only of their estates but also of Life and Death Since Christian Religion was received it began to be moderated first by holy admonitions of the Bishops and Clergy and then by services of the Nobility in War Religious Princes gave many Honours and many liberties to the Clergy and Nobility and quit much of their Rights the which their successors have continued The superiour dignity is reduced to two degrees that is the Palatinate and the Chastelleine for that Kings in former times did by little and little call these men to publick consultations notwithstanding that they had Absolute power to do all things of themselves to command dispose recompence and punish of their own motions since they have ordained that these Dignities should make the body of a Senate the King doth not challenge much right and power over his Nobility nor over their estates neither hath he any over the Clergy And though the Kings Authority depends on the Nobility for his election yet in many things it is Absolute after he is chosen He appoints the Diets at what time and place he pleaseth he chooseth Lay-Councellers and nominates the Bishops and whom he will have to be his Privy Council He is absolute disposer of the Revenues of the Crown He is absolute establisher of the Decrees of the Diets It is in his power to advance and reward whom he pleaseth He is Lord immediate of his Subjects but not of his Nobility He is Soveraign Judge of his Nobility in criminal causes The power of the Nobility daily increaseth for that in respect of the Kings election they neither have Law rule nor form to do it neither by writing nor tradition As the King governs his Subjects which are immediately his with absolute Authority so the Nobility dispose immediately of their vassals over whom every one hath more than a Regal power so as they intreat them like slaves There be certain men in Poland who are called EARTHLY MESSENGERS or Nuntio's they are as it were Agents of Jurisdictions or Circles of the Nobility these have a certain Authority and as Boterus saith in the time of their Diets these men assemble in a place near to the Senate-House where they chuse two Marshals by whom but with a Tribune-like authority they signifie unto the Council what their requests are Not long since their Authority and reputation grew so mightily that they now carry themselves as Heads and Governours rather than officers and ministers of the publick decrees of the State One of the Council refused his Senators place to become one of these Officers Every Palatine the King requiring it calls together all the Nobility of his Palatinate where having propounded unto them the matters whereon they are to treat and their will being known they chuse four or six out of the company of the EARTHLY MESSENGERS these Deputies meet and make one body which they call the order of Knights This being of late years the manner and order of the government of Poland it is not possible for the Observator to find among them that the whole Community in its underived Majesty doth ever convene to do Justice nor any election or representation of the Community or that the People assume its own power to do it self right The EARTHLY MESSENGERS though they may be thought to represent the Commons and of late take much upon them yet they are elected and chosen by the Nobility as their agents and officers The Community are either vassals to the King or to the Nobility and enjoy as little freedom or liberty as any Nation But it may be said perhaps that though the Community do not limit the King yet the Nobility do and so he is a limited Monarch The Answer is that in truth though the Nobility at the chusing of their King do limit his power and do give him an Oath yet afterwards they have always a desire to please him and to second his
will and this they are forced to do to avoid discord for by reason of their great power they are subject to great dissentions not only among themselves but between them and the order of Knights which are the Earthly Messengers yea the Provinces are at discord one with another and as for Religion the diversity of Sects in Poland breed perpetual jars and hatred among the People there being as many Sects as in Amsterdam it self or any popular government can desire The danger of sedition is the cause that though the Crown depends on the election of the Nobility yet they have never rejected the Kings successour or transferred the Realm to any other family but once when deposing Ladislaus for his idleness whom yet afterward they restored they elected Wenceslaus King of Bohemia But if the Nobility do agree to hold their King to his conditions which is not to conclude any thing but by the advice of his Council of Nobles nor to choose any Wife without their leaves then it must be said to be a Commonweal not a Royalty and the King but only the mouth of the Kingdom or as Queen Christina complained that Her Husband was but the shadow of a Soveraign Next if it be considered how the Nobility of Poland came to this great power it was not by any original contract or popular convention for it is said they have neither Law Rule nor Form written or unwritten for the election of their King they may thank the Bishops and Clergy for by their holy admonitions and advice good and Religious Princes to shew their piety were first brought to give much of their Rights and Priviledges to their Subjects devout Kings were meerly cheated of some of their Royalties What power soever general Assemblies of the Estates claim or exercise over and above the bare naked act of Counselling they were first beholding to the Popish Clergy for it it is they first brought Parliaments into request and power I cannot find in any Kingdom but only where Popery hath been that Parliaments have been of reputation and in the greatest times of Superstition they are first mentioned As for the Kingdom of Denmark I read that the Senators who are all chosen out of the Nobility and seldom exceed the number of 28 with the chief of the Realm do chuse their King They have always in a manner set the Kings eldest Son upon the Royal Throne The Nobility of Denmark withstood the Coronation of Frederick 1559 till he sware not to put any Noble-man to death until he were judged of the Senate and that all Noble-men should have power of Life and Death over their Subjects without appeal and the King to give no Office without consent of the Council There is a Chancellour of the Realm before whom they do appeal from all the Provinces and Islands and from him to the King himself I hear of nothing in this Kingdom that tends to Popularity no Assembly of the Commons no elections or representation of them Sweden is governed by a King heretofore elective but now made hereditary in Gustavus time it is divided into Provinces an appeal lieth from the Vicount of every territory to a Soveraign Judge called a Lamen from the Lamens to the Kings Council and from this Council to the King himself Now let the Observator bethink himself whether all or any of these three Countries have found out any art at all whereby the People or community may assume its own Power if neither of these Kingdoms have most Countries have not nay none have The People or Community in these three Realms are as absolute Vassals as any in the World the regulating power if any be is in the Nobility Nor is it such in the Nobility as it makes shew for The Election of Kings is rather a Formality than any real power for they dare hardly chuse any but the Heir or one of the blood Royal if they should chuse one among the Nobility it would prove very factious if a stranger odious neither safe For the Government though the Kings be sworn to raign according to the Laws and are not to do any thing without the consent of their Council in publick affairs yet in regard they have power both to advance and reward whom they please the Nobility and Senators do comply with their Kings And Boterus concludes of the Kings of Poland who seem to be most moderated that such as is their valour dexterity and wisdom such is their Power Authority and Government Also Bodin saith that these three Kingdoms are States changeable and uncertain as the Nobility is stronger than the Prince or the Prince than the Nobility and the People are so far from liberty that he saith Divers particular Lords exact not only Customs but Tributes also which are confirmed and grow stronger both by long prescription of time and use of Judgments THE END THE POWER OF KINGS And in Particular OF THE KING OF ENGLAND THE POWER OF KINGS And in Particular Of the KING of ENGLAND TO Majestie or Soveraignty belongeth an Absolute Power not subject to any Law It behoveth him that is a Soveraign not to be in any sort Subject to the Command of Another whose Office is to give Laws unto his Subjects to Abrogate Laws unprofitable and in their stead to Establish other which he cannot do that is himself Subject to Laws or to Others which have Command over him And this is that which the Law saith that The Prince is acquitted from the Power of the Laws The Laws Ordinances Letters-Patents Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no force but during their Life if they be not ratified by the express Consent or at least by Sufferance of the Prince following who had knowledge thereof If the Soveraign Prince be exempted from the Laws of his Predecessors much less shall he be bound unto the Laws he maketh Himself for a man may well receive a Law from Another man but impossible it is in Nature for to give a Law unto Himself no more than it is to Command a man's self in a matter depending of his Own Will There can be no Obligation which taketh State from the meer Will of him that promiseth the same which is a necessary Reason to prove evidently that a King cannot bind his Own Hands albeit that he would We see also in the end of all Laws these words Because it hath so Pleased us to give us to understand that the Laws of a Sovereign Prince although they be grounded upon Reason yet depend upon nothing but his meer and frank good Will But as for the Laws of God all Princes and People are unto them subject neither is it in their power to impugne them if they will not be guilty of High Treason against God under the greatness of whom all Monarchs of the world ought to bow their Heads in all fear and reverence A Question may be Whether a Prince be subject to the Laws of his Countrey that he hath
sworn to keep or not If a Soveraign Prince promise by Oath to his Subjects to keep the Laws he is bound to keep them not for that a Prince is bound to keep his Laws by himself or by his Predecessors but by the just Conventions and Promises which he hath made himself be it by Oath or without any Oath at all as should a private man be and for the same causes that a Private man may be relieved from his unjust and unreasonable Promise as for that it was so grievous or for that he was by deceit or fraud Circumvented or induced thereunto by Errour or Force or just Fear or by some great Hurt even for the same causes the Prince may be restored in that which toucheth the diminishing of his Majesty And so our Maxime resteth That the Prince is not subject to His Laws nor to the Laws of his Predecessors but well to his Own just and reasonable Conventions The Soveraign Prince may derogate from the Laws that he hath promised and sworn to keep if the Equity thereof cease and that of himself without Consent of his Subjects which his Subjects cannot do among Themselves if they be not by the Prince relieved The Foreign Princes well-advised will never take Oath to keep the Laws of their Predecessors for otherwise they are not Sovereigns Notwithstanding all Oaths the Prince may Derogate from the Laws or Frustrate or Disannul the same the Reason and Equity of them ceasing There is not any Bond for the Soveraign Prince to keep the Laws more than so far as Right and Justice requireth Neither is it to be found that the Antient Kings of the Hebrews took any Oaths no not they which were Anointed by Samuel Elias and others As for General and Particular which concern the Right of men in Private they have not used to be otherwise Changed but after General Assemblies of the Three Estates in France not for that it is necessary for the Kings to rest on their Advice or that he may not do the Contrary to that they demand if natural Reason and Justice do so require And in that the Greatness and Majesty of a true Soveraign Prince is to be known when the Estates of all the People assembled together in all Humility present their Requests and Supplications to their Prince without having any Power in any thing to Command or Determine or to give Voice but that that which it pleaseth the King to Like or Dislike to Command or Forbid is holden for Law Wherein they which have written of the Duty of Magistrates have deceived themselves in maintaining that the Power of the People is greater than the Prince a thing which oft-times causeth the true Subjects to revolt from the Obedience which they owe unto their Soveraign Prince and ministreth matter of great Troubles in Commonwealths of which their Opinion there is neither reason nor ground If the King should be Subject unto the Assemblies and Decrees of the People he should neither be King nor Soveraign and the Commonwealth neither Realm nor Monarchy but a meer Aristocracy of many Lords in Power equal where the Greater part commandeth the less and whereon the Laws are not to be published in the Name of him that Ruleth but in the Name and Authority of the Estates as in an Aristocratical Seignory where he that is Chief hath no Power but oweth Obeisance to the Seignory unto whom yet they every one of them feign themselves to owe their Faith and Obedience which are all things so absurd as hard it is to see which is furthest from Reason When Charles the eighth the French King then but Fourteen years old held a Parliament at Tours although the Power of the Parliament was never Before nor After so great as in those Times yet Relli then the Speaker for the People turning himself to the King thus beginneth Most High most Mighty and most Christian King our Natural and Onely Lord we poor humble and obedient Subjects c. which are come hither by your Command in all Humility Reverence and Subjection present our selves before you c. And have given me in charge from all this Noble Assembly to declare unto You the good Will and hearty desire they have with a most fervent Resolution to Serve Obey and Aid You in all your Affairs Commandments and Pleasures All this Speech is nothing else but a Declaration of their good Will towards the King and of their humble Obedience and Loyalty The like Speech was used in the Parliament at Orleans to Charles the 9th when he was scarce Eleven Years old Neither are the Parliaments in Spain otherwise holden but that even a greater Obedience of all the People is given to the King as is to be seen in the Acts of the Parliament at Toledo by King Philip 1552. when he yet was scarce Twenty Five Years old The Answers also of the King of Spain unto the Requests and humble Supplications of his People are given in these words We will or else We Decree or Ordain yea the Subsidies that the Subjects pay unto the King of Spain they call Service In the Parliaments of England which have commonly been holden every Third Year the Estates seem to have a great Liberty as the Northern People almost all breathe thereafter yet so it is that in effect they proceed not but by way of Supplications and Requests to the King As in the Parliament holden in Octob. 1566. when the Estates by a common Consent had resolved as they gave the Queen to understand not to Treat of any thing until She had first Appointed who should Succeed Her in the Crown She gave them no other Answer but That they were not to make her Grave before she were Dead All whose Resolutions were to no purpose without Her good liking neither did She in that any thing that they requested Albeit by the Sufferance of the King of England Controversies between the King and his People are sometimes determined by the High Court of Parliament yet all the Estates remain in full subjection to the King who is no way bound to follow their Advice neither to consent to their Requests The Estates of England are never otherwise Assembled no more than they are in France or Spain than by Parliament-Writs and express Commandments proceeding from the King which sheweth very well that the Estates have no Power of themselves to Determine Command or Decree any thing seeing they cannot so much as Assemble themselves neither being Assembled Depart without express Commandment from the King Yet this may seem one special thing that the Laws made by the King of England at the Request of the Estates cannot be again repealed but by calling a Parliament though we see Henry the eighth to have always used his Soveraign Power and with his only word to have disannulled the Decrees of Parliament We conclude the Majesty of a Prince to be nothing altered or diminished by the Calling together or Presence of the
to 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 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 Judge in all Causes both before the Conquest and since 11 the King and his Council anciently determined Causes in the Star-Chamber 12 Of Parliaments 13 When 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 himself 17 Or by his Council 18 Or by his Judges CHAP I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of Mankind New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine Some Contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 and from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and their agreement SInce the time that School-Divinity began to flourish there hath been a common Opinion maintained as well by Divines as by divers other learned Men which affirms Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection and at liberty to chose what Form of Government it please And that the Power which any one Man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to Flesh and blood for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude who magnifie Liberty as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath 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 latter in his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos maintains A Liberty of the People to depose their Prince Cardinal Bellarmine and Calvin 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 Heywood 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 meddle with Mysteries of State such Arcana Imperii or Cabinet Counsels 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 Superiors 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 at 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 Priviledges as any Nation under Heaven the greatest Liberty in the World if it be duly 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
the Crown does escheat for want of an Heir Whether doth it not then Divolve to the People The Answer is It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir For an Heir there always is If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is One Man and but One in the World who is next Heir although the Knowledge who should be that One Man be quite lost 2. This Ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supreme Power is devolved to the Multitude and that they have Power to Rule and Chose what Rulers they please No the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the Uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected and into such again as into their first Matter many times they return again And because the dependencie of ancient Families is oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge therefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought fit to adopt many times those for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or made them fit and capable of such Regal Favours All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign Authority on whom they please And he that is so Elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Vniversal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People If it please God for the Correction of the Prince or punishment of the People to suffer Princes to be removed and others to be placed in their rooms either by the Factions of the Nobility or Rebellion of the People in all such cases the Judgment of God who hath Power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just Yet the Ministry of Men who Execute Gods Judgments without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and turn mens Vnrighteous Acts to the performance of his Righteous Decrees 10 In all Kingdoms or Common-wealths in the World whether the Prince be the Supream Father of the People or but the true Heir of such a Father or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation or by Election of the Nobles or 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 Supream 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 by a Natural Law and Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men as we see the power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate 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 in 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's Politiques is in this place misled by following Lambine but even the Learned Monsieur Duvall in
his Synopsis bears 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's 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 the beginning Cities were under the Government of Kings for the eldest in every house is King And so for Kindred-sake 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 from the First and Divinest Whosoever weighs advisedly these passages will find little hope of Natural Reason in Aristotle to prove the Natural Liberty of the Multitude Also before him the Divine Plato concludes a Commonweal to be nothing else but a large Family I know for this Position Aristotle quarrels with his Master but most unjustly for therein he contradicts his own Principles for they both agree to fetch the Orignial 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 of 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 until 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 Heroical 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 Fancy 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 Servant 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 or Education for Nature aims at Perfection in all her Works 2. Suarez the Jusuite riseth up against the Royal Authority of Adam in defence of the Freedom and Liberty of the people and thus argues By Right 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 Heads 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 as 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 of Nature alone it is not due unto any Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity And if this be not gathered out of the Principles of Nature we cannot say God by a special Gift or Providence gave him this Power For 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 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 lived 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 likelier that some mean Cottage or Tent did 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 Habitations were either Contiguous or at such Distance as might easily receive his Fatherly Commands And that all that were under his Commands were of his Family although they had many Children or Servants married having themselves 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
not any One setled Form of Government in Rome for after they had once lost the Natural Power of Kings they could not find upon what Form of Government to rest their Fickleness is an Evidence that they found things amiss in every Change At the First they chose two Annual Consuls instead of Kings Secondly those did not please them long but they must have Tribunes of the People to defend their Liberty Thirdly they leave Tribunes and Consuls and choose them Ten Men to make them Laws Fourthly they call for Consuls and Tribunes again sometimes they choose Dictators which were Temporary Kings and sometimes Military Tribunes who had Consular Power All these shiftings caused such notable Alteration in the Government as it passeth Historians to find out any Perfect Form of Regiment in so much Confusion One while the Senate made Laws another while the People The Dissentions which were daily between the Nobles and the Commons bred those memorable Seditions about Vsury about Marriages and about Magistracy Also the Graecian the Apulian and the Drusian Seditions filled the Market-Places the Temples and the Capitol it self with Blood of the Citizens the Social War was plainly Civil the Wars of the Slaves and the other of the Fencers the Civil Wars of Marius and Sylla of Cataline of Caesar and Pompey the Triumvirate of Augustus Lepidus and Antonius All these shed an Ocean of Blood within Italy and the Streets of Rome Thirdly for their Government let it be allowed that for some part of this time it was Popular yet it was Popular as to the City of Rome only and not as to the Dominions or whole Empire of Rome for no Democratie can extend further than to One City It is impossible to Govern a Kingdom much less many Kingdoms by the whole People or by the Greatest Part of them 12. But you will say yet the Roman Empire grew all up under this kind of Popular Government and the City became Mistress of the World It is not so for Rome began her Empire under Kings and did perfect it under Emperours it did only encrease under that Popularity Her greatest Exaltation was under Trajan as her longest Peace had been under Augustus Even at those times when the Roman Victories abroad did amaze the World then the Tragical Slaughter of Citizens at home deserved Commiseration from their vanquished Enemies What though in that Age of her Popularity she bred many admired Captains and Commanders each of which was able to lead an Army though many of them were but ill requited by the People yet all of them were not able to support her in times of Danger but she was forced in her greatest Troubles to create a Dictator who was a King for a time thereby giving this Honourable Testimony of Monarchy that the last Refuge in Perils of States is to fly to Regal Authority And though Romes Popular Estate for a while was miraculously upheld in Glory by a greater Prudence than her own yet in a short time after manifold Alterations she was ruined by her Own Hands Suis ipsa Roma viribus ruit For the Arms she had prepared to conquer other Nations were turned upon her Self and Civil Contentions at last setled the Government again into a Monarchy 13. The Vulgar Opinion is that the first Cause why the Democratical Government was brought in was to curb the Tyranny of Monarchies But the Falshood of this doth best appear by the first Flourishing Popular Estate of Athens which was founded not because of the Vices of their last King but that his Vertuous Deserts were such as the People thought no Man Worthy enough to succeed him a pretty wanton Quarrel to Monarchy For when their King Codrus understood by the Oracle that his Country could not be saved unless the King were slain in the Battel He in Disguise entered his Enemies Camp and provoked a Common Souldier to make him a Sacrifice for his own Kingdom and with his Death ended the Royal Government for after him was never any more Kings of Athens As Athens thus for Love of her Codrus changed the Government so Rome on the contrary out of Hatred to her Tarquin did the like And though these two famous Commonweals did for contrary Causes abolish Monarchy yet they both agreed in this that neither of them thought it fit to change their State into a Democracy but the one chose Archontes and the other Consuls to be their Governours both which did most resemble Kings and continued untill the People by lessening the Authority of these their Magistrates did by degrees and stealth bring in their Popular Government And I verily believe never any Democratical State shewed it self at first fairly to the World by any Elective Entrance but they all secretly crept in by the Back-door of Sedition and Faction 14. If we will listen to the Judgment of those who should best know the Nature of Popular Government we shall find no reason for good men to desire or choose it Xenophon that brave Scholar and Souldier disallowed the Athenian Common-weal for that they followed that Form of Government wherein the Wicked are always in greatest Credit and Vertuous men kept under They expelled Aristides the Just Themistocles died in Banishment Meltiades in Prison Phocion the most virtuous and just man of his Age though he had been chosen forty five times to be their General yet he was put to Death with all his Friends Kindred and Servants by the Fury of the People without Sentence Accusation or any Cause at All. Nor were the People of Rome much more favourable to their Worthies they banished Rutilius Metellus Coriolanus the Two Scipio's and Tully the worst men sped best for as Xenophon saith of Athens so Rome was a Sanctuary for all Turbulent Discontented and Seditious Spirits The Impunity of Wicked men was such that upon pain of Death it was forbidden all Magistrates to Condemn to Death or Banish any Citizen or to deprive him of his Liberty or so much as to whip him for what Offence soever he had committed either against the Gods or Men. The Athenians sold Justice as they did other Merchandise which made Plato call a Popular Estate a Fair where every thing is to be sold The Officers when they entered upon their Charge would brag they went to a Golden Harvest The Corruption of Rome was such that Marius and Pompey durst carry Bushels of Silver into the Assemblies to purchase the Voices of the People Many Citizens under their Grave Gowns came Armed into their Publick Meetings as if they went to War Often contrary Factions fell to Blows sometimes with Stones and sometimes with Swords the Blood hath been suckt up in the Market Places with Spunges the River Tiber hath been filled with the Dead Bodies of the Citizens and the common Privies stuffed full with them If any man think these Disorders in Popular States were but Casual or such as might happen under any kind of Government he must
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 justified as necessary at the first Erection of a Kingdom For those who will have a King are bound to allow him Royal maintenance by providing Revenues for the CROWN Since it is both for the Honour Profit and Safety too of the People to have their King Glorious Powerful and abounding in Riches besides we all know the Lands and Goods of many Subjects may be oft-times Legally taken by the King either by Forfeitures Escheat Attainder Outlawry Confiscation or the like Thus we see Samuel's Character of a King may literally well bear a mild Sense for greater probability there is that Samuel so meant and the Israelites so understood it to which this may be added that Samuel tells the Israelites this will be the manner of the King that shall Reign over you And Ye shall cry because of your King which Ye shall have chosen you that is to say Thus shall be the common Custom or Fashion or Proceeding of Saul your King Or as the Vulgar Latine renders it this shall be the Right or Law of your King not Meaning as some expound it the Casual Event or Act of some individuum vagum or indefinite King that might happen one day to Tyrannize over them So that Saul and the constant Practice of Saul doth best agree with the Literal Sense of the Text. Now that Saul was no Tyrant we may note that the People asked a King as All Nations had God answers and bids Samuel to hear the Voice of the People in all things which they spake and appoint them a King They did not ask a Tyrant and to give them a Tyrant when they asked a King had not been to hear their Voice in all things But rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had Tyrants Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much as Blamed for committing any of those Acts which Samuel describes and if Samuel's drift had been only to terrifie the People he would not have forgotten to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty in Murthering 85 innocent Priests and smiting with the Edge of the Sword the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites never shrank at these Conditions proposed by Samuel but accepted of them as such as all other Nations were bound unto For their Conclusion is Nay but we will have a King over Vs that We also may be like all the Nations and that Our King may Judge us and go out before us to fight our Battels Meaning he should earn his Privileges by doing the work for them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument of their living under a Tyrant No Man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to Rehoboam is Make thou the grievous Service of thy Father Solomon and his heavy Yoke which he put upon us lighter and we will serve thee To conclude it is true Saul lost his Kingdom but not for being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his Subjects but by being too Merciful to his Enemies his sparing Agag when he should have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal Power By giving to Caesar those things that were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but God's 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 Dei si omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Caesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Caesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apology for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Legibus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferre The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and all that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his Words are speaking of the King Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo c. All are under him and he under none but God only If he offend since no Writ can go against him their Remedy is by petitioning him to amend his Fault which if he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as a Revenger let none presume to search into his Deeds much less to oppose them When the Jews asked our Blessed Saviour whether they should pay Tribute he did not first demand what the Law of the Land was or whether there was any Statute against it nor enquired whether the Tribute were given by Consent of the People nor advised them to stay their Payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Jews for in this he gave Direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their
much as the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their ForeFathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the Publick Good of their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm that although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Judgments indifferent and upright Justice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Ancient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward We may observe in these Words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall Judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Judgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience joyn'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of a Judge and if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievable to the State But let it be supposed for Truth that Kings do swear to observe all the Laws of their Kingdom yet no man can think it reason that Kings should be more bound by their Voluntary Oaths than Common Persons are by theirs Now if a private person make a Contract either with Oath or without Oath he is no further bound than the Equity and Justice of the Contract ties him for a Man may have Relief against an unreasonable and unjust Promise if either Deceit or Error or Force or Fear induced him thereunto Or if it be hurtful or grievous in the performance Since the Laws in many Cases give the King a Prerogative above common Persons I see no Reason why he should be denied the Priviledg which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy Here is a fit place to examine a Question which some have moved Whether it be a Sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he Command any thing contrary to his Laws For satisfaction in this point we must resolve that not only in Humane Laws but even in Divine a 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 the best Divines teach us That the Servant must obey this Command though it may be Sinful and Unlawfull 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 is not fit to tie the Master to acquaint his Servant with his secret Counsels or present Necessity And in such Cases the Servant 's not going to Church becomes the Sin of the Master and not of the Servant The like may be said of the King 's commanding a Man to serve him in the Wars he may not examine whether the War be Just or Unjust but must Obey since he hath no Commission to Judge of the Titles of Kingdoms or Causes of War nor hath any Subject 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 such Men consider not 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws for 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 are afraid of the Name of Prerogative yet they may assure themselves the Case of Subjects would be desperately miserable without it The Court of Chancery it self is but a Branch of the King's Prerogative to Relieve men against the inexorable rigour of the Law which without it is no better than a Tyrant since Summum Jus is Summa Injuria General Pardons 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 make them In all Aristocraties the Nobles 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 an 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 things according to his Own Will for he that is called a King according to the Law makes no kind of Kingdom at all This 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 leave undone what he list and this Decree was made while Augustus was yet absent Accordingly we find that Vlpian the great Lawyer delivers it for a Rule of the Civil Law Princeps Legibus solutus est The Prince is not bound by the Laws 9. If the Nature of Laws be advisedly 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 Power Laws are divided as Bellarmine divides 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 that for every Custom there was a time when 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 of Kings at first unwritten Nor must we think the Common Customs which are the Principles of 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 delivered 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 did determine what the General Law intended It is so with the Common Law for when there is no perfect Rule Judges do resort to those Principles or Common-Law Axiomes whereupon former Judgments in Cases somewhat like have been delivered by former Judges 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 there have been Presidents to direct they upon better Reason only have changed the Law both in Causes Criminal and Civil and have not insisted so much on the Examples of former Judges as examined and corrected their Reasons thence it is that some Laws are now obsolete and out of use and the Practice quite contrary to what it was in Former Times as the Lord Chancellour 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 witness 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 speaks 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 supplied as if the Law-maker himself were present to Ordain it The Governour whether he be one Man or more ought to be Lord over 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 rectify whatsoever upon Tryal thy find to be better than the Written Laws Besids 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 King's 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 virtue 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 Judgements 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
appear before Him and His Council and determin'd a Controversy between them touching Lands contain'd in the Covenants of her Joynture Rot. Claus 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 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 and His Council because Verney being indebted to the King and others practised to be Indicted of Felony wherein he might have his Clergy and make his Purgation of intent to defraud his Creditors 34. Hen. 6 Rot. 37. in Banco Regis Edward the Fourth and His Council in the Star-Chamber heard the Cause of the Master and Poor Brethren of S. Leonards in York complaining that Sir Huge Hastings and others withdrew from them a great part of their Living which consisted chiefly upon the having of a Thrave of Corn of every Plough-Land within the Counties of York Westmerland Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. Paten de Anno 8 Ed. 4. Part 3. Memb. 14. Henry the Seventh and His Council in the Star-Chamber decreed That Margery and Florence Becket should sue no further in their Cause against Alice Radley Widow for Lands in Wolwich and Plumstead in Kent for as much as the Matter had been heard first before the Council of King Edw. 4. after that before the President of the Requests of that King Hen. 7. and then lastly before the Council of the said King 1 Hen. 7. What is hitherto affirmed of the Dependency and Subjection of the Common Law to the Soveraign Prince the same may be said as well of all Statute Laws for the King is the sole immediate Author Corrector and Moderator of them also so that neither of these two kinds of Laws are or can be any Diminution of that Natural Power which Kings have over their People by right of Father-hood but rather are an Argument 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 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 Praesentia Regis Procerumque Prelaterumque collectorum The Meeting of the Nobility or the Presence of the King Prelates and Peers Assembled or in General Magnum Concilium or Commune Concilium and many of our Kings in elder times made use of such great Assemblies for to consult of important Affairs of State all which Meetings in a General Sense may be termed Parliaments Great are the Advantages which both the King and People may receive by a well-ordered Parliament there is nothing more expresseth the Majesty and Supream Power of a King than such an Assembly wherein all his People acknowledg 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 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 refractory Multitude The benefit which accrews 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 things which otherwise they would not yield unto for the Voice of a Multitude is easilier heard Many Vexations of the People are without the knowledg of the King who in Parliament seeth and heareth his People himself whereas at other times he commonly useth the Eyes and Ears of other Men. Against the Antiquity of Parliaments we need not dispute since the more ancient they be the more they make for the 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 Caesar landed he found 4 Kings in Kent and the British Names of Dammonii Durotriges Belgae Attrebatii Trinobantes Iceni Silures and the rest are plentiful Testimonies of the several Kingdoms of Britains when the Romans left us The Saxons divided us into 7 Kingdoms when these Saxons were united all into a Monarchy they had always the Danes their Companions or their Masters in the Empire till Edward the Confessors Days since whose time the Kingdom of England hath continued United as now it doth But for a thousand Years before we cannot find it was entirely settled during the time of any one King's Reign As under the 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 Confessor's Reign who was next but one before the Conqueror 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. Edward's Laws Yet some say that Edgar 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 in the Saxon's times the Nobility and Clergy only were of those Assemblies or whether the Commons were also called Some are of Opinion that though 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 Ancient 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
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 Supream 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 other-times 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 Hiberniae 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 Glocestriae made by the King and his Justices only were received always as Statutes and are still Printed amongst them The Statute made for Correction of the 12 th Chapter of the Statute of Glocester was Signed under the Great Seal and sent to the Justices of the Bench after the manner of a Writ Patent with a certain Writ closed dated by the King's Hand at Westminster requiring that they should do and execute all and every thing contained in it although the same do not accord with the Statute of Glocester in all things The Statute of Rutland is the King's Letters to his Treasurer and Barons of his Exchequer and to his Chamberlain The Statute of Circumspecte Agis runs The King to his Judges sendeth Greeting There are many other Statutes of the same Form and some of them which run only in the Majestick Terms of The King Commands or The King Wills or Our 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 meer Proclamations as the Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly of the Prelates and Nobility for the Coronation of the King and his Queen Eleanor which begins Provisum est in Curia Domini Regis apud Merton Also a Provision was made 19. Hen. 3. de Assisa ultimae Praesentationis which was continued and allowed for Law until Tit. West 2. an 13. Ed. 1. cap. 5. which provides the contrary in express words This Provision begins Provisum fuit coram Dom. Rege Archiepiscopis Episcopis Baronibus quod c. It seems Origanally the difference was not great between a Proclamation and a Statute this latter the King made by Common Council of the Kingdom In the former he had but the advice only of his great Council of the Peers or of his Privy Council only For that the King had a great Council besides his Parliament appears by a Record of 5. Hen. 4. about 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 Regal Power given him by God may do many things in such Cases should not be driven to extend the Liberties and Supremity of his Regal Power and Dignity by willfulness of froward Subjcts 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 a 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 Statute 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 Damned and Annulled for ever Mr. Fuller in his Arguments against the proceedings of the High-Comission 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
to Governors in Dangerous and Doubtful Times II. Reflections concerning the Original of Government upon 1. Aristotle's Politiques 2. Mr. Hobs's Leviathan 3. Mr. Milton against Salmasius 4. H. Grotius De Jure Belli 5. Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy or the Anarchy of a limited or mixed Monarchy III. A Succinct Examination of the Fundamentals of Monarchy both in this and other Kingdoms as well about the Right of Power in Kings as of the Original and Natural Liberty of the People A Question never yet Disputed though most necessary in these Times IV. The Power of Kings And in Particular of the King of England V. An Advertisement to the Jury-Men of England touching Witches Together with a Difference between an English and Hebrew Witch VI. PATRIARCHA Or the Natural Power of KINGS The Argument A Presentment of divers Statutes Records and other Precedents explaining the Writs of Summons to Parliament shewing I. That the Commons by their Writ are only to Perform and Consent to the Ordinances of Parliament II. That the Lords or Common Councel by their Writ are only to Treat and give Counsel in Parliament III. That the King himself only Ordains and makes Laws and is Supreme Judge in Parliament With the Suffrages of Hen. de Bracton Jo. Britton Tho. Egerton Edw. Coke Walter Raleigh Rob. Cotton Hen. Spelman Jo. Glanvil Will. Lambard Rich. Crompton William Cambden and Jo. Selden THE Free-holders GRAND INQUEST Touching Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Parliament EVery Free-holder that hath a Voice in the Election of Knights Citizens or Burgesses for the Parliament ought to know with what Power he trusts those whom he chooseth because such Trust is the Foundation of the Power of the House of Commons A Writ from the King to the Sheriff of the County is that which gives Authority and Commission for the Free-holders to make their Election at the next County-Court-day after the Receipt of the Writ and in the Writ there is also expressed the Duty and Power of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses that are there elected The means to know what Trust or Authority the Countrey or Free-holders confer or bestow by their Election is in this as in other like Cases to have an eye to the words of the Commission or Writ it self thereby it may be seen whether that which the House of Commons doth act be within the Limit of their Commission greater or other Trust than is comprised in the Body of the Writ the Free-holders do not or cannot give if they obey the Writ the Writ being Latine and not extant in English few Free-holders understand it and fewer observe it I have rendred it in Latine and English Rex Vicecomiti salut ' c. QVia de Advisamento Assensu Concilii nostri pro quibusdam arduis urgentibus Negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernen ' quoddam Parliamentum nostrum apud Civitatem nostram West duodecimo die Novembris prox ' futur ' teneri ordinavimus ibid ' cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquium habere tract ' Tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentes quod facta proclam ' in prox ' comitat ' tuo post receptionem hujus brevis nostri tenend ' die loco praedict ' duos milit ' gladiis cinct ' magis idoneos discretos comit ' praedicti de qualib ' civitate com' illius duos Cives de quolibet Burgo duos Burgenses de discretior ' magis sufficientibus libere indifferenter per illos qui proclam ' hujusmodi interfuerint juxta formam statutorum inde edit ' provis ' eligi nomina corundum milit ' civium Burgensium sic electorum in quibusdam indentur ' inter te illos qui hujusmodi election ' interfuerint inde conficiend ' sive hujusmodi electi praesentes fuerint vel absentes inseri cósque ad dict' diem locum venire fac ' Ita quod iidem milites plenam sufficientem potestatem pro se communitate comit ' praedicti ac dict' Cives Burgenses pro se communitat ' Civitatum Burgorum praedictorum divisim ab ipsishabeant ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibid ' de communi Consilio dicti reg nostri favente Deo contigerint ordinari super negotiis ante dictis Ita quod pro defectu potestatis hujusmodi seu propter improvidam electionem milit ' Civium aut Burgensium praedictorum dicta negotia infecta non remaneant quovismodo Nolumus autem quod tu nec aliquis alius vic' dicti reg nostri aliqualiter sit electus Et electionem illam in pleno comitatu factam distincte aperte sub sigillo tuo sigillis eorum qui electioni illi interfuerint nobis in cancellar ' nostram ad dict' diem locum certifices indilate remittens nobis alteram partem indenturarum praedictarum praesentibus consut ' una cum hoc breve Teste meipso apud Westmon ' The King to the Sheriff of Greeting WHereas by the Advice and Consent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the State and Defence of our Kingdom of England and the English Church We have ordained a certain Parliament of ours to be held at Our City of _____ the _____ day of _____ next ensuing and there to have Conference and to treat with the Prelates Great men and Peers of our said Kingdom We command and straitly enjoyn you that making Proclamation at the next County-Court after the Receipt of this our Writ to be holden the day and place aforesaid You cause two Knights girt with Swords the most fit and discreet of the County aforesaid and of every City of that County two Citizens of every Borough two Burgesses of the discreeter and most sufficient to be freely and indifferently chosen by them who shall be present at such Proclamation according to the Tenor of the Statutes in that case made and provided and the Names of the said Knights Citizens and Burgesses so chosen to be inserted in certain Indentures to be then made between you and those that shall be present at such Election whether the Parties so elected be present or absent and shall make them to come at the said day and place so that the said Knights for themselves and for the County aforesaid and the said Citizens and Burgesses for themselves and the Commonalty of the aforesaid Cities and Boroughs may have severally from them full and sufficient Power to Perform and to Consent to those things which then by the Favour of God shall there happen to be ordained by the Common Councel of our said Kingdom concerning the Businesses aforesaid So that the Business may not by any means remain undone for want of such Power or by reason of the improvident Election of the aforesaid Knights Citizens and Burgesses But We will not in any
had no formal Parliaments till about the 18 th year of King Hen. 1. For in his Third year for the Marriage of his Daughter the King raised a Tax upon every Hide of Land by the Advice of his Privy Councel alone And the Subjects saith he soon after this Parliament was established began to stand upon Terms with their King and drew from him by strong hand and their Swords their Great Charter it was after the establishment of the Parliament by colour of it that they had so great Daring If any desire to know the cause why Hen. 1. called the People to Parliament it was upon no very good Occasion if we believe Sir Walter Raleigh The Grand Charter saith he was not originally granted Regally and freely for King Hen. 1. did but usurp the Kingdom and therefore the better to secure himself against Robert his elder Brother he flattered the People with those Charters yea King John that confirmed them had the like Respect for Arthur D. of Britain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom John usurped so these Charters had their original from Kings de facto but not de jure and then afterwards his Conclusion is that the Great Charter had first an obscure Birth by Vsurpation was fostered and shewed to the World by Rebellion in brief the King called the People to Parliament and granted them Magna Charta that they might confirm to him the Crown The third Point consists of two parts First that the Commons were not called to Parliament until Hen. 3. days this appears by divers of the Precedents formerly cited to prove that the Barons were the Common Councel For though Hen. 1. called all the People of the Land to his Coronation and again in the 15. or 18. year of his Reign yet always he did not so neither many of those Kings that did succeed him as appeareth before Secondly For calling the Commons by Writ I find it acknowledged in a Book intituled The Privilege and Practice of Parliaments in these words In ancient times after the King had summoned His Parliament innumerable multitudes of People did make their Access thereunto pretending that Privilege of Right to belong to them But King Hen. 3. having Experience of the Mischief and inconveniences by occasion of such popular Confusion did take order that none might come to His Parliament but those who were specially summoned To this purpose it is observed by Master Selden that the first Writs we find accompanied with other Circumstances of a Summons to Parliament as well for the Commons as Lords is in the 49 of Hen. 3. In the like manner Master Cambden speaking of the Dignity of Barons hath these words King Hen. 3. out of a great Multitude which were seditious and turbulent called the very best by Writ or Summons to Parliament for he after many Troubles and Vexations between the King himself and Simon de Monefort with other Barons and after appeased did decree and ordain That all those Earls and Barons unto whom the King himself vouchsafed to direct His Writs of Summons should come to his Parliament and no others but that which he began a little before his Death Edward 1. and his Successors constantly observed and continued The said prudent King Edward summoned always those of ancient Families that were most wise to His Parliament and omitted their Sons after their Death if they were not answerable to their Parents in Vnderstanding Also Mr. Cambden in another place saith that in the time of Edw 1. select men for Wisdom and Worth among the Gentry were called to Parliament and their Posterity omitted if they were defective therein As the power of sending Writs of Summons for Elections was first exercised by Hen. 3. so succeeding Kings did regulate the Elections upon such Writs as doth appear by several Statutes which all speak in the Name and Power of the Kings themselves for such was the Language of our Fore-fathers In 5 Ric. 2. c. 4. these be the words The King Willeth and Commandeth all Persons which shall have Summons to come to Parliament and every Person that doth absent himself except he may reasonably and honestly excuse him to Our Lord the King shall be amerced and otherwise punished 7 Hen. 4. c. 15. Our Lord the King at the grievous complaint of his Commons of the undue Election of the Knights of Counties sometimes made of affection of Sheriffs and otherwise against the Form of the Writs to the great slander of the Counties c. Our Lord the King willing therein to provide Remedy by the Assent of the Lords and Commons Hath Ordained That Election shall be made in the full County-Court and that all that be there present as well-Suitors as others shall proceed to the Election freely notwithstanding any Request or Command to the contrary 11 Hen. 4. c. 1. Our Lord the King Ordained that a Sheriff that maketh an undue Return c. shall incur the Penalty of a 100 l. to be paid to Our Lord the King 1 H. 5. c. 1. Our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords and the special Instance and Request of the Commons Ordained that the Knights of the Shire be not chosen unless they be resiant within the Shire the day of the date of the Writ and that Citizens and Burgesses be resiant dwelling and free in the same Cities and Burroughs and no others in any wise 6 Hen. 6. c. 4. Our Lord the King willing to provide remedy for Knights chosen for Parliament and Sheriffs Hath Ordained that they shall have their Answer and traverse to Inquest of Office found against them 8 Hen. 6. c. 7. Where as Elections of Knights have been made by great Out-rages and excessive number of People of which most part was of People of no value whereof every of them pretend a Voice equivalent to Wortby Knights and Esquires whereby Man-slaughters Riots and Divisions among Gentlemen shall likely be Our Lord the King hath ordained That Knights of Shires be chosen by People dwelling in the Counties every of them having Lands or Tenements to the value of 2 l. the year at the least and that he that shall be chosen shall be dwelling and resiant within the Counties 10 H. 6. Our Lord the King ordained that Knights be chosen by People dwelling and having 2 l. by the year within the same County 11 H. 6. c. 11. The King willing to provide for the Ease of them that come to the Parliaments and Councels of the King by his commandment hath ordained that if any Assault or Fray be made on them that come to Parliament or other Councel of the King the Party which made any such Affray or Assault shall pay double Damages and make Fine and Ransom at the Kings Will. 23 H. 6. c. 15. The King considering the Statutes of 1 H. 5. c. 1. 8 Hen. 6. c. 7. and the Defaults of Sheriffs in returning Knights Citizens and Burgesses ordained 1. That
the said Statutes should be duly kept 2. That the Sheriffs shall deliver Precepts to Mayors and Bailiffs to chuse Citizens and Burgesses 3. The Penalty of 100 l. for a Sheriff making an untrue Return concerning the election of Knights Citizens and Burgesses 4. The Penalty of 40 l. for Mayors or Bailiffs making untrue Returns 5. Due Election of Knights must be in the full County-Court between the Hours of Eight and Eleven before noon 6. The Party must begin his Suit within 3 Moneths after the Parliament began 7. Knights of the Shire shall be notable Knights of the County or such notable Esquires or Gentlemen born of the said Counties as shall be able to be Knights and no man to be such Knight which standeth in the Degree of a Yeoman and under The last thing I observe in the Writ for Election of Members for Parliament is That by the express words of the Writ Citizens and Burgesses for the Parliament were eligible at the County-Court as well as Knights of the Shire and that not only Freeholders but all others whosoever were present at the County-Court had Voices in such Elections See the Stat. 7 Hen. 4. cap. 15. I have the longer insisted on the Examination of the Writ being the Power Actions of the House of Commons are principally justified by the Trust which the Free-holders commit unto them by virtue of this Writ I would not be understood to determine what Power the House of Commons doth or may exercise if the King please I confine my self only to the Power in the Writ I am not ignorant that King Hen. 7. in the Cause of the Duke of Britain and King James in the Business of the Palatinate asked the Councel of the House of Commons and not only the House of Commons but every Subject in particular by Duty and Allegiance is bound to give his best Advice to his Sovereign when he is thought worthy to have his Councel asked 13 Edw. 3. nu 10. All the Merchants of England were summoned by Writ to appear at Westminster in proper Person to confer upon great business concerning the King's Honour the Salvation of the Realm and of themselves In Passages of publick Councel it is observable saith Sir Rob. Cotton that in ancient times the Kings of England did entertain the Commons with weighty Causes thereby to apt and bind them to a readiness of Charge and the Commons to shun Expence have warily avoided to give Advice 13 Edw. 3. The Lords and Commons were called to consult how the domestick Quiet may be preserved the Marches of Scotland defended and the Sea secured from Enemies The Peers and Commons having apart consulted the Commons desired Not to be charged to Councel of things of which they had no Cognisance de queux ils n' ont pas de Cognisance 21 Edw. 3. Justice Thorp declaring to the Peers and Commons that the French War began by their Advice the Truce after by their Assent accepted and now ended the Kings Pleasure was to have their Counsel in the Prosecution the Commons being commanded to assemble themselves and when they were agreed to give notice to the King and the Lords of the Councel after four days Consultation Humbly desire of the King that he would be advised therein by the Lords and others of more Experience than themselves in such Affairs 6 Ric. 2. The Parliament was called to consult whether the King should go in Person to rescue Gaunt or send an Army The Commons after two days Debate crave a Conference with the Lords and Sir Thomas Puckering their Speaker protests that Councels for War did aptly belong to the King and His Lords yet since the Commons were commanded to give their Advice they humbly wished a Voyage by the King 7 Ric. 2. At the second Session the Commons are willed to Advise upon View of Articles of Peace with the French whether War or such Amity should be accepted they modestly excuse themselves as too weak to Counsel in so weighty Causes But charged again as they did tender their Honour and the Right of the King they make their Answer giving their Opinions rather for Peace than War For fuller Manifestation of what hath been said touching the Calling Election and Power of the Commons in Parliament it is behooveful to observe some Points delivered by Sir Edw. Coke in his Treatise of the Jurisdiction of Parliaments where First he fairly begins and lays his Foundation that the High Court of Parliament consisteth of the Kings Majesty sitting there and of the three Estates 1. The Lords Spiritual 2. The Lords Temporal 3. And the Commons Hence it is to be gathered that truly and properly it cannot be called the High Court of Parliament but whilst the King is sitting there in Person so that the Question now a-days whether the Parliament be above the King is either false or idle false if you exclude and idle if you include the King's Person in the word Parliament The case truly put and as it is meant is whether the three Estates or which is all one the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament be above the King and not whether the King with the three Estates be above the King It appears also that they are much mistaken who reckon the King one of the three Estates as Mr. Pryn pag. 20. and many others do for the three Estates make the Body and the King is Caput Principium Finis Parliamentor ' as confesseth Sir Edw. Coke Secondly Sir Edw. Coke delivers That certain it is both Houses at first sate togther and that it appears in Edward the Third's time the Lords and Commons sate together and the Commons had no continual Speaker If he mean the Lords and Commons did sit and Vote together in one Body few there be that will believe it because the Commons never were wont to lose or forego any of their Liberties or Privileges and for them to stand now with their Hats in their hands which is no Magistratical Posture there where they were wont to sit and Vote is an alteration not imaginable to be endured by the Commons It may be in former times when the Commons had no constant Speaker they were oft and perhaps for the most part in the same Chamber and in the presence of the Lords to hear the Debates and Consultations of the Great Councel but not to sit and Vote with them for when the Commons were to Advise among themselves the Chapter-house of the Abby of Westminster was oft-times their place to meet in before they had a setled House and their meetings not being very frequent may be the reason I conceive why the name of the House of Commons is not of such great Antiquity or taken notice of but the House of Lords was only called the Parliament-House and the Treatise called Modus tenendi Parliamentum speaks of the Parliament as but of one House only The House where now the Commons sit in Westminster is
for him to enquire what and whence that Power is and how far it reacheth The chief Writ of Summons to the Peers was in these words CAROLUS Dei Gratia c. Reverendissimo in Christo patri G. eadem gratia Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano salutem Quia de advisamento assensu Concilii nostri pro quibusdam arduis urgentibus negotiis Nos statum defensionem regni nostri Angliae ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus quoddam Parliamentum nostrum apud W. c. teneri ordinavimus ibidem vobiscum cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum Vobis in fide dilectione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter injungendo mandamus quod consideratis dictorum negotiorum ardititate periculis imminentibus cessante quacunque excusatione dictis die loco personaliter intersitis Nobiscum cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri hoc sicut Nos Honorem nostrum ac salvationem regni praedicti ac ecclesiae sanctae expeditionemque dictorum negotiorum diligitis nullatenus omittatis Praemonentes Decanum Capitulum ecclesiae vestrae Cantuariensis ac Archidiaconos totumque Clerum vestrae Diocesis quod idem Decanus Archidiaconi in propriis personis suis ac dictum Capitulum per unum idemque Clerus per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo Clero habentes praedictis die loco personaliter intersint ad consentiendum hiis quae tunc ibidem de Commune Concilio ipsius Regni Nostri divina favente Clementia contigerint ordinari Teste Meipso apud Westm ' c. CHARLES by the Grace of God c. To the most Reverend Father in Christ W. by the same Grace Arch-bishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of all England Health Whereas by the Advice and Assent of our Councel for certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning Us the State and Defence of Our Kingdom of England and of the English Church We have Ordained a certain Parliament of Ours to be holden at W. c. and there to have Conference and to treat with you the Prelates Great men and Peers of Our said Kingdom We straitly Charge and Command by the Faith and Love by which you are bound to Us that considering the Difficulties of the Businesses aforesaid and the imminent Dangers and setting aside all Excuses you be personally present at the Day and Place aforesaid to treat and give your Counsel concerning the said Businesses And this as you love Us and Our Honour and the Safe-guard of the foresaid Kingdom and Church and the Expedition of the said Businesses you must no way omit Forewarning the Dean and Chapter of your Church of Canterbury and the Arch-deacons and all the Clergy of your Diocese that the same Dean and the Arch-deacon in their proper Persons and the said Chapter by one and the said Clergy by two fit Proctors having full and sufficient Power from them the Chapter and Clergy be personally present at the foresaid Day and Place to Consent to those things which then and there shall happen by the favour of God to be Ordained by the Common Councel of our Kingdom Witness our Self at Westm ' The same Form of Writ mutatis mutandis concluding with you must no way omit Witness c. is to the Temporal Barons But whereas the Spiritual Barons are required by the Faith and Love the Temporal are required by their Allegiance or Homage The Difference between the two Writs is that the Lords are to Treat and to Give Counsel the Commons are to Perform and Consent to what is ordained By this Writ the Lords have a deliberative or a consultive Power to Treat and give Counsel in difficult Businesses and so likewise have the Judges Barons of the Exchequer the Kings Councel and the Masters of the Chancery by their Writs But over and besides this Power the Lords do exercise a decisive or Judicial Power which is not mentioned or found in their Writ For the better Understanding of these two different Powers we must carefully note the distinction between a Judge and a Counsellor in a Monarchy the ordinary Duty or Office of a Judge is to give Judgment and to command in the Place of the King but the ordinary Duty of a Counsellor is to advise the King what he himself shall do or cause to be done The Judge represents the Kings Person in his absence the Counsellor in the Kings Presence gives his Advice Judges by their Commission or Institution are limited their Charge and Power and in such things they may judge and cause their Judgments to be put in execution But Counsellors have no Power to command their Consultations to be executed for that were to take away the Sovereignty from their Prince who by his Wisdom is to weigh the Advice of his Councel and at liberty to resolve according to the Judgment of the wiser part of his Councel and not always of the greater In a word regularly a Councellor hath no Power but in the Kings Presence and a Judge no Power but out of his Presence These two Powers thus distinguished have yet such Correspondency and there is so near Affinity between the Acts of judging and counselling that although the ordinary Power of the Judg is to give Judgment yet by their Oath they are bound in Causes extraordinary when the King pleaseth to call them to be his Counsellors and on the other side although the proper work of a Counsellor be only to make Report of his Advice to his Sovereign yet many times for the Ease only and by the Permission of the King Councellors are allowed to judge and command in Points wherein ordinarily they know the mind of the Prince and what they do is the act of the Royal Power it self for the Councel is always presupposed to be united to the Person of the King and therefore the Decrees of the Councel are styled By the King in his Privy Councel To apply this Distinction to the House of Peers whe find originally they are called as Counsellors to the King and so have only a deliberative Power specified in their Writ and therefore the Lords do only then properly perform the Duty for which they are called when they are in the King's Presence that He may have Conference and treat with them the very Words of the Writ are Nobiscum ac cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus praedictis super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque concilium impensuri with Us and with the Prelates Great men and Peers to treat and give your councel the word Nobiscum implieth plainly the King's Presence It is a thing in reason most absurd to make the King assent to the Judgments in Parliament and allow Him no part in the Consultation this were to make
the King a Subject Councel loseth the name of Counsel and becomes a Command if it put a Necessity upon the King to follow it such Imperious Councels make those that are but Counsellors in name to be Kings in Fact and Kings themselves to be but Subjects We read in Sir Robert Cotton that towards the end of the Saxons and the first times of the Norman Kings Parliaments stood in Custom-grace fixed to Easter Whitsuntide and Christmas and that at the Kings Court or Palace Parliaments sate in the Presence or Privy Chamber from whence he infers an Improbability to believe the King excluded His own Presence and unmannerly for Guests to bar him their Company who gave them their Entertainment And although now a-days the Parliament sit not in the Court where the Kings houshold remains yet still even to this day to shew that Parliaments are the Kings Guests the Lord Steward of the Kings Houshold keeps a standing Table to entertain the Peers during the sitting of Parliament and he alone or some from or under him as the Treasurer or Comptroller of the Kings Houshold takes the Oaths of the Members of the House of Commons the first day of the Parliament Sir Richard Scroop Steward of the Houshold of our Sovereign Lord the King by the Commandment of the Lords sitting in full Parliament in the Great Chamber put J. Lord Gomeniz and William Weston to answer severally to Accusations brought against them The Necessity of the King's Presence in Parliament appears by the Desire of Parliaments themselves in former times and the Practice of it Sir Robert Cotton proves by several Precedents whence he concludes that in the Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King was not only present to advise but to determine also Whensoever the King is present all Power of judging which is derived from His ceaseth The Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the final Judgment is only the Kings Indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of their Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought them out of Use by which means it is come to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late been left to the Judgment of the Peers who in Quality of Judges extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in his absence to determine such matters as are properly brought before the King Himself sitting in Person attended with His great Councel of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the Kings Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is commonly placed or at least from the Confirmation of Him who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supreme Judge All Judgment is by or under Him it cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if he were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton that ancient Chief Justice in Hen. 3. time An ancient Precedent I meet with cited by Master Selden of a judicious Proceeding in a Criminal Cause of the Barons before the Conquest wherein I observe the Kings Will was that the Lords should be Judges in the Cause wherein Himself was a Party and He ratified their Proceeding The case was thus Earl Godwin having had a Trial before the Lords under King Hardicanute touching the Death of Alfred Son to King Ethelbert and Brother to him who was afterward Edward the Confessor had fled out of England and upon his Return with hope of Edward the Confessor's Favour he solicited the Lords to intercede for him with the King who consulting together brought Godwin with them before the King to obtain his Grace and Favour But the King presently as soon as he beheld him said Thou Traytor Godwin I do appeal thee of the Death of my Brother Alfred whom thou hast most Trayterously slain Then Godwin excusing it answered My Lord the King may it please your Grace I neither betrayed nor killed your Brother whereof I put my self upon the Judgment of your Court Then the King said You noble Lords Earls and Barons of the Land who are my Liege men now gathered here together and have heard my Appeal and Godwin's Answer I will that in this Appeal between us ye decree right Judgment and do true Justice The Earls and Barons treating of this among themselves were of differing Judgments some said that Godwin was never bound to the King either by Homage Service or Fealty and therefore could not be his Traytor and that he had not slain Alfred with his own hands others said that neither Earl nor Baron nor any other Subject of the King could wage his war by Law against the King in his Appeal but must wholly put himself into the King's Mercy and offer competent Amends Then Leofric Consul of Chester a good man before God and the World said Earl Godwin next to the King is a man of the best Parentage of all England and he cannot deny but that by his Counsel Alfred the King's Brother was slain therefore for my part I consider that He and his Son and all we twelve Earls who are his Friends and Kinsmen do go humbly before the King laden with so much Gold and Silver as each of us can carry in our Arms offering him That for his Offence and humbly praying for Pardon And he will pardon the Earl and taking his Homage and Fealty will restore him all his Lands All they in this form lading themselves with Treasure and coming to the King did shew the Manner and Order of their Consideration to which The King not willing to contradict did ratifie all that they had judged 23 Hen. 2. In Lent there was an Assembly of all the Spiritual and Temporal Barons at Westminster for the determination of that great Contention between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre touching divers Castles and Territories in Spain which was by comprise submitted to the Judgment of the King of England And The King consulting with his Bishops Earls and Barons determined it as he saith Himself in the first Person in the Exemplification of the Judgment 2. Of King John also that great Controversie touching the Barony that William of Moubray claimed against William of Stutvil which had depended from the time of King Hen. 2. was ended by the Council of the Kingdom and Will of the King Concilio Regni Voluntate Regis The Lords in Parliament adjudge William de Weston to Death for surrendring Barwick Castle but for that Our Lord the King was not informed of the manner of the Judgment the Constable of the Tower Allen Bruxal was commanded safely to keep the said William until he had other Commandment from our Lord the King 4 Ric. 2. Also the Lords adjudged John Lord of Gomentz for surrendring the Towns and Castles of Ardee and for
of many Officers were left to the meer pleasure of Kings The punitive part of the Law which gives all the Vigour and Binding Part to the Law we find committed by the Statutes to the Kings meer Will and Pleasure as if there were no Law at all I will offer a few Precedents to the Point 3 Edw. 1. c. 9. saith That Sheriffs Coroners and Bayliffs for concealing of Felonies shall make grievous Fines at the Kings Pleasure Chap. 13. Ordains That such as be found culpable of Ravishing of Women shall Fine at the Kings pleasure Chap. 15. saith The penalty for detaining a Prisoner that is mainpernable is a Fine at the Kings pleasure or a grievous Amercement to the King and he that shall take Reward for deliverance of such shall be at the Great Mercy of the King Chap. 20. Offenders in Parks or Ponds shall make Fines at the Kings pleasure Chap. 25. Committers of Champerty and Extortioners are to be punished at the Kings pleasure Chap. 31. Purveyors not paying for what they take shall be Grievously punished at the King's pleasure Chap. 32. The King shall punish Grievously the Sheriff and him that doth maintain Quarrels Chap. 37. The King shall grant Attaint in Plea of Land where it shall seem to him necessary 7 Edw. 1. saith Whereas of late before certain Persons deputed to treat upon Debates between Vs and certain Great Men it was accorded that in our next Parliament Provision shall be made by Vs and the common Assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons that in all Parliaments for ever every man shall come without Force and Armour And now in our next Parliament the Prelates Earls Barons and Commonalty have said That to US it belongeth through Our Royal Signory straitly to defend Force of Armour at all times when it shall please Us and to punish them which shall do otherwise and hereunto they are bound to Aid Us their Sovereign Lord at all Seasons when Need shall be 13 Edw. 1. Takers away of Nuns from religious Houses Fined at the Kings Will. If by the Default of the Lord that will not avoid the Dike Vnderwoods and Bushes in High-ways Murder be done the Lord shall make Fine at the Kings Pleasure 28 Edw. 1. If a Gold-Smith be attainted for not Assaying Touching and Working Vessels of Gold he shall be punished by a Ransome at the Kings Pleasure 2 Hen. 4. The Commons desire they may have Answer of their Petitions before the Gift of any Subsidy to which the King answers He would confer with the Lords and do what should be best according to their Advice and the last day of Parliament He gave this Answer That that manner of Doing had not been Seen nor used in no time of his Progenitors or Predecessors that they should have any Answer of their Petitions or Knowledge of it before they have shewed and finished all their other Business of Parliament be it of any Grant Business or otherwise and therefore the King would not in any ways change the Good Customs and Usages made and used of ancient Times 5 Hen. 4. c. 6. Whereas one Savage did beat and maim one Richard Chedder Esquire Menial Servant to Tho. Brook Knight of the Shire for Somerset-shire the Statute saith Savage shall make Fine and Ransom at the Kings Pleasure 8 Hen. 4. It is said POTEST AS PRINCIPIS NON EST INCLVS A LEGIBVS the Power of the Prince is not included in the Laws 13 Hen. 4. nu 20. We read of a Restitution in Blood and Lands of William Lasenby by the King by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Commons omitting the Lords Temporal 2 Hen. 5. in a Law made there is a Clause That it is the Kings Regality to grant or deny such of their Petitions as pleaseth himself 6 Hen. 6. c. 6. An Ordinance was made for to endure As long as it shall please the King 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. hath this Law The King our Sovereign Lord calling to his Remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm and that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the Defence of Him and the Land against every Rebellion Power Might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in Service in Battel if Case so require and that for the same Service what Fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battel against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time past hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in His Person or being in other places by His Commandment within the Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance Be it therefore Enacted That no Person that shall attend upon the King and do Him true Service shall be attainted therefore of Treason or any other Offence by Act of Parliament or otherwise Also the 18 Chap. of the same year saith Where every Subject by the Duty of his Allegiance is bounden to Serve and Assist his Prince and Sovereign Lord at all Seasons when need shall require and bound to give attendance upon his Royal Person to defend the same when He shall fortune to go in Person in War for Defence of the Realm or against his Rebels and Enemies for the Subduing and Repressing of them and their malicious purpose Christopher Wray Serjeant at Law chosen Speaker 13 Eliz. in his Speech to Her Majesty said that for the orderly Government of the Common-wealth three things were necessary 1. Religion 2. Authority 3. Law By the first we are taught not only our Duty to God but to obey the Queen that not only in Temporals but in Spirituals in which Her Power is absolute Mr. Grivel in the 35 Eliz. said in Parliament He wished not the making of many Laws since the more we make the less liberty we have our selves Her Majesty not being bound by them For further proof that the Legislative Power is proper to the King we may take notice that in antient time as Sir Edward Coke saith All Acts of Parliament were in form of Petitions if the Petitions were from the Commons and the Answer of them the King 's it is easie thereby to judge who made the Act of Parliament Also Sir Jo. Glanvil affirms that in former times the course of Petitioning the King was this The Lords and Speaker either by Words or Writing preferr'd their Petition to the King this then was called the Bill of Commons which being received by the King part He received part He put out and part He ratified for as it came from Him it was drawn into a Law Also it appears that Provisions Ordinances and Proclamations made heretofore out of Parliament have been always acknowledged for Laws and Statutes We have
amongst the printed Statutes one called the Statute of Ireland dated at Westminster 9 Feb. 14. Hen. 3. which is nothing but a Letter of the King to Gerard Son of Maurice Justicer of Ireland The Explanations of the Statute of Gloucester made by the King and His Justices only were received always for Statutes and are still printed with them Also the Statute made for the correction of the twelfth Chapter of the Statute of Gloucester was Signed under the Great Seal and sent to the Justices of the Bench after the manner of a Writ Patent with a certain Writ closed dated by the Kings hand at Westminster 2 Maii 9 Edw. 1. requiring that they should do and execute all and every thing contained in it though the same do not accord with the Stat. of Gloucester in all things The Provisions of Merton made by the King at an Assembly of Prelates and the greater part of the Earls and Barons for the Coronation of the King and his Queen Elenor are in the Form of a Proclamation and begin Provisum est in Curia Domini Regis apud Merton 19 Hen. 3. a Provision was made de assisa praesentationis which was continued and allowed for a Law until the Stat. of West 2. which provides the contrary in express words In the old Statutes it is hard to distinguish what Laws were made by Kings in Parliament and what out of Parliament when Kings called Peers only to Parliament and of those how many or whom they pleased as it appears anciently they did it was no easie matter to put a difference between a Councel-Table and a Parliament or between a Proclamation and a Statute Yet it is most evident that in old times there was a distinction between the Kings especial or Privy Councel and his Common Councel of the Kingdom and His special Councel did sit with the Peers in Parliament and were of great and extraordinary Authority there In the Stat. of Westm. 1. it is said These are the Acts of King Edw. 1. made at His first Parliament by His Councel and by the Assent of Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm The Stat. of Acton Burnell hath these words The King for himself and by His Councel hath Ordained and Established In articulis super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the Request of the Prelates Earls and Barons are found these two provisions 1. Nevertheless the King and his Councel do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the Kings Right 2. Notwithstanding all these things before-mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Councel and all they that were present will and intend that the Right and Prerogative of His Crown shall be saved to Him in all things The Stat. of Escheators hath this Title At the Parliament of our Sovereign Lord the King By His Councel it was agreed and also by the King himself commanded 1 Ed. 3. where Magna Charta was confirmed this Preamble is found At the request of the Commonalty by their Petition made before the King and His Councel in Parliament by the Assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons c. The Statute made at York 9 Ed. 3. goeth thus Whereas the Knights Citizens and Burgesses desired Our Sovereign Lord the King in His Parliament by their Petition c. Our Sovereign Lord the King desiring the profit of his People By the Assent of His Prelates Earls Barons and other Nobles of His Realm and by the Advice of His Councel being there Hath Ordained 25 Ed. 3. In the Statute of Purveyors where the King at the request of the Lords and Commons made a Declaration what Offences should be adjudged Treason It is there further said if per-case any man ride Armed with Men of Arms against any other to slay him or rob him It is not the Mind of the King or of his Councel that in such cases it shall be adjudged Treason By this Statute it appears that even in the Case of Treason which is the Kings own Cause as whereas a man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King or a man do wage War against our Lord the King in His Realm or be adherent to the Kings Enemies in His Realm giving to them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere in all these cases it is the Kings Declaration only that makes it to be Treason and though it be said that Difficult points of Treason shall be brought and shewed to the King and his Parliament yet it is said it is the mind of the King and his Councel that determines what shall be adjudged Treason and what Felony or Trespass 27 Edw. 3. The Commons presenting a Petition to the King which the Kings Councel did mislike were content thereupon to amend and explain their Petition the Petition hath these words To their most redoubted Sovereign Lord the King praying your said Commons that whereas they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Eyre c. which Petition seemeth to his Councel to be prejudicial unto him and in Disinherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted His said Commons not willing nor desiring to demand things of him or of his Crown perpetually as of Escheats c. But of Trespasses Misprisions Negligences Ignorances c. And as in Parliaments the Kings Councel were of Supereminent Power so out of Parliament Kings made great Use of them King Edw. 1. finding that Bogo de Clare was discharged of an Accusation brought against him in Parliament commanded him nevertheless to appear before him and his Councel ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus Concilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to the Examination of the whole Cause 8 Edw. 1. Edw. 3. In the Star-chamber which was the ancient Councel-table at Westminster upon the complaint of Eliz. Audley commanded James Audley to appear before Him and His Councel and determined a Controversie between them touching Land contained in her Jointure Rot. claus de An. 41 Edw. 3. Hen. 5. In a Suit before Him and His Councel For the Titles of the Manors of Serre and St. Lawrence in the Isle of Thanet in Kent took order for the Sequestring the Profits till the Right were tried Hen. 6. commanded the Justices of the Bench to stay the Arraignment of one Verney in London till they had other Commandment from Him and His Councel 34 Hen. 6. rot 37. in Banco Edw. 4. and his Councel in the Star-chamber heard the Cause of the Master and poor Brethren of Saint Leonards in York complaining that Sir Hugh Hastings and others withdrew from them a great part of their Living which consisted chiefly upon the having of a Thrave of Corn of every Plow-land within the Counties of York Westmorland Cumberland and Lancashire Rot. pat de an 8. Edw. 4. part 3. memb 14. Hen. 7. and his Councel in the Star-chamber decreed that Margery
of Government but they have all or most of them been of particular Cities with none or very small Territories at first belonging to them At this present the Government of the Low-Countreys and of Swisserland are not appropriated either of them to any one City for they are compounded of several petty Principalities which have special and different Laws and Privileges each of them insomuch that the Vnited Provinces and united Cantons are but Confederacies and Leaguers and not two entire Commonweals Associates only for mutual Defence Nay the Cantons of Swisserland are not only several Republicks but reputed to have different Forms of Commonweals some being said to be Aristocratically governed and others Democratically as the Mountaineers and some of the Cantons are Papists and some Protestants and some mix'd of both we do not find that any large or great Dominion or Kingdom united in one Government and under the same Laws was ever reduced at once to any kind of Popular Government and not confined to the subjection of one City This being a thing not yet done requires the abler men to settle such a Peaceable Government as is to be desired there being no Precedent in the case all that can be done in it is at first to enquire into such Governments as have been existent in the World As a Preface to such an Enquiry the Sacred Scripture if it be but for the Antiquity of it would be consulted and then Aristotle the grand Master of Politiques and after him the Greek and Latin Historians that lived in Popular times would be diligently examined To excite others of greater Abilities to an exacter Disquisition I presume to offer a Taste of some Doctrines of Aristotle which are usher'd in with a briefer Touch of the Holy Scriptures It is not probable that any sure direction of the beginning of Government can be found either in Plato Aristotle Cicero Polybius or in any other of the Heathen Authors who were ignorant of the manner of the Creation of the World we must not neglect the Scriptures and search in Philosophers for the grounds of Dominion and Property which are the main Principles of Government and Justice The first Government in the World was Monarchical in the Father of all Flesh Adam being commanded to multiply and People the Earth and to subdue it and having Dominion given him over all Creatures was thereby the Monarch of the whole World none of his Posterity had any Right to possess any thing but by His Grant or Permission or by Succession from him the Earth saith the Psalmist hath he given to the children of men which shews the Title comes from Fatherhood There never was any such thing as an Independent Multitude who at first had a natural Right to a Community this is but a Fiction or Fancy of too many in these days who please themselves in running after the Opinions of Philosophers and Poets to find out such an Original of Government as might promise them some title to Liberty to the great Scandal of Christianity and Bringing in of Atheism since a natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the Creation of Adam And yet this conceit of Original Freedom is the only Ground upon which not only the Heathen Philosophers but also the Authors of the Principles of the Civil Law and Grotius Selden Hobs Ashcam and others raise and build their Doctrines of Government and of the several sorts or kinds as they call them of Common-wealths Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first the Father had power to dispose or sell his Children or Servants whence we find that at the first reckoning up of Goods in Scripture the Man servant and the Maid-servant are numbred among the Possessions and Substance of the Owner as other Goods were As for the names of Subject Slave and Tyrant they are not found in Scripture but what we now call a Subject or a Slave is there named no other than a Servant I cannot learn that either the Hebrew Greek or Latine have any proper and Original Word for a Tyrant or a Slave it seems these are names of later invention and taken up in disgrace of Monarchical Government I cannot find any one place or Text in the Bible where any Power or Commission is given to a People either to Govern themselves or to choose themselves Governours or to alter the manner of Government at their pleasure the Power of Government is settled and fixed by the Commandment of Honour thy Father if there were a higher Power than the Fatherly then this Commandment could not stand and be observed Whereas we read in Scripture of some Actions of the People in setting up of Kings further than to a naked Declaration by a part of the People of their Obedience such Actions could not amount since we find no Commission they have to bestow any Right a true representation of the People to be made is as impossible as for the whole People to Govern the names of an Aristocracy a Democracy a Commonweal a State or any other of like signification are not to be met either in the Law or Gospel That there is a ground in Nature for Monarchy Aristotle himself affirmeth saying the first Kings were Fathers of Families as for any ground of any other Form of Government there hath been none yet alledged but a supposed natural Freedom of Mankind the Proof whereof I find none do undertake but only beg it to be granted We find the Government of Gods own People varied under the several Titles of Patriarchs Captains Judges and Kings but in all these the Supreme Power rested still in one Person onely We no where find any Supreme Power given to the People or to a Multitude in Scripture or ever exercised by them The People were never the Lords anointed nor called Gods nor Crowned nor had the Title of Nursing-Fathers Gen. 35.11 The Supreme Power being an indivisible Beam of Majesty cannot be divided among or settled upon a Multitude God would have it fixed in one Person not sometimes in one part of the People and sometimes in another and sometimes and that for the most part no where as when the Assembly is dissolved it must rest in the Air or in the walls of the Chamber where they were Assembled If there were any thing like a Popular Government among Gods People it was about the time of the Judges when there was no King in Israel for they had then some small Show of Government such as it was but it was so poor and beggarly that the Scripture brands it with this note that every man did what was right in his own eyes because there was no King in Israel it is not said because there was no Government but because there was no King it seems no Government but the Government of a King in the judgment of the Scriptures
could restrain men from doing what they listed where every man doth what he pleaseth it may be truly said there is no Government for the end of Government is that every man should not do what he pleaseth or be his own Judge in his own case for the Scripture to say there was no King is to say there was no Form of Government in Israel And what the Old Testament teacheth us we have confirmed in the New If Saint Paul had only said Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers and said no more then men might have disputed whether Saint Paul by Higher Powers had not meant as well other Governours as Kings or other Forms of Government as Monarchy but the good luck is Saint Paul hath been his own Interpreter or Comment for after the general Doctrine of Obedience to be given by all men to the Higher Powers he proceeds next to charge it home and lay it to the Conscience under pain of Damnation and applies it to each particular man's Conscience saying Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power which Power he expounds in the Singular Number restraining it to one Person saying He is the Minister of God to thee it is not They are the Ministers to thee and then again He beareth not the Sword in vain and then a third time in the same Verse lest thou should'st forget it he saith for He is the Minister of God a Revenger to Wrath c. upon thee if Saint Paul had said They are the Ministers of God or They bear not the Sword in vain it might be doubted whether they were meant of Kings only or of other Governours also but this Scruple is taken away by the Apostle himself And as Saint Paul hath expounded what he means by Higher Powers so Saint Peter also doth the like for the self-same Word that Saint Paul useth for Higher in Saint Peter is translated Supreme so that though in our English Bibles the words differ yet in the Original they are both the same so that Saint Paul might have been Englished Let every Soul be subject to the Supreme Power or Saint Peter might have been Translated whether to the King as to the higher ye there is this difference that whereas Saint Paul useth the word in the Plural Number Saint Peter hath it in the Singular and with Application to the King It will be said Though Saint Peter make the King Supreme yet he tells us the King is a Humane Ordinance or a Creature of the Peoples But it is answered Kings may be called an Humane Ordinance for being made of one of the People and not by the People and so are humane in Regard of their Material Cause not of their Efficient If Saint Peter had meant that Kings had been made by the People he must also have meant that Governours had been made by the People for he calls the Governours as well an Ordinance of Man as the King for his words are Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or whether it be to Governours but Saint Peter sheweth that Governours are not made by the People for he saith they that are sent by Him not by them for the Punishment of Evil Doers so that the Governours are sent by the King and not by the People some would have sent by him to be sent by God but the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is the King and not God Besides if Governours be sent by God and Kings by the People then Governours would be Supreme which is contrary to Saint Peter's Doctrine and it will follow that the People have not the Power of choosing Representers to Govern if Governours must be sent of God The safest sense of Saint Peter's words is Submit your selves to all Humane Laws whether made by the King or by his Subordinate Governours So the King may be called a Humane Ordinance as being all one with a Speaking Law the Word in the Original is Be subject to every Humane Creation it is more proper to call a Law made by a King a Creation of an Ordinance than the Peoples choosing or declaring of a King a Creation of him But take the words in what sense soever you will it is most evident that Saint Peter in this place takes no notice of any Government or Governours but of a King and Governours sent by him but not by the People And it is to be noted That St. Peter and St. Paul the two chief of the Apostles wrote their Epistles at such a time when the name of a Popular Government or of the People of Rome was at least so much in Shew and in Name that many do believe That notwithstanding the Emperours by strong hand usurped a Military Power yet the Government was for a long time in most things then in the Senate and People of Rome but for all this neither of the two Apostles take any notice of any such Popular Government No nor our Saviour himself who divides all between God and Caesar and allows nothing that we can find for the People OBSERVATIONS UPON ARISTOTLE'S Politicks TOUCHING Forms of Government WHAT cannot be found in Scripture many do look for in Aristotle for if there be any other Form of Government besides Monarchy he is the man best able to tell what it is and to let us know by what name to call it since the Greek Tongue is most happy in compounding Names most significant to express the nature of most things The usual Terms in this Age of Aristocraty and Democraty are taken up from him to express Forms of Government most different from Monarchy We must therefore make inquiry into Aristotle touching these two Terms True it is Aristotle seems to make three sorts of Government which he distinguisheth by the Sovereignty of one man or of a few or of many for the common Good These he saith are right or perfect Governments but those that are for the private Good of one or of a few or of a Multitude are Transgressions The Government of a Monarchy for the Common Good he calls a Kingdom The Government of a few more than one an Aristocraty either because the best men govern or because it is for the best of the governed when a Multitude governs for the Common Good it is called by the common name of all Governments a POLITY It is possible that one or a few may excel in Vertue but it is difficult for many to excel in all Vertue except in warlike Affairs for this is natural in a Multitude therefore in this sort of Government their principal Vse is to war one for another and to possess the Arms or Ammunition The Transgressions of Government before spoken of are these Tyranny is the Transgression of the Kingdom and Democraty is the Transgression of the Polity For Tyranny is a Monarchy for the Benefit of the Monarch the Oligarchy for the
Profit of the Rich the Democraty for the Benefit of the Poor None of these are for the Common Good Here Aristotle if he had stood to his own Principles should have said an Oligarchy should be for the Benefit of a few and those the best and not for the Benefit of the Rich and a Democraty for the Benefit of many and not of the Poor only for so the Opposition â—â—eth but then Aristotle saw his Democraty would prove to be no Transgression but a perfect Polity and his Oligarchy would not be for the Benefit of a few and those the best men for they cannot be the best men that seek only their private Profit In this Chapter the mind of Aristotle about the several kinds of Government is clearliest delivered as being the Foundation of all his Books of Politicks it is the more necessary to make a curious Observation of these his Doctrines In the first place he acknowledgeth the Government of one man or of a Monarchy and that is a perfect Form of Government Concerning Monarchy Aristotle teacheth us the beginning of it for saith he the first Society made of many Houses is a Colony which seems most naturally to be a Colony of Families or Foster-brethren of Children and Childrens children And therefore at the beginning Cities were and now Nations under the Government of Kings the Eldest in every house is King and so for Kindred sake it is in Colonies Thus he deduced the Original of Government from the Power of the Fatherhood not from the Election of the People This it seems he learnt of his Master Plato who in his third Book of Laws affirms that the true and first Reason of Authority is that the Father and Mother and simply those that beget and ingender do command and rule over all their Children Aristotle also tells us from Homer that every man gives Laws to his Wife and Children In the fourth Book of his Politicks cap. 2. he gives to Monarchy the Title of the first and divinest sort of Government defining Tyranny to be a Transgression from the first and divinest Again Aristotle in the eighth Book of his Ethicks in the 12 Chapter saith That of the right Kinds of Government a Monarchy was the best and a popular Estate the worst Lastly in the third Book of his Politicks and the sixteenth Chapter concerning Monarchy he saith that A perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King rules all things according to his own Will for he that is called a King according to the Law makes no kind of Government Secondly he saith there is a Government of a few men but doth not tell us how many those few men may or must be only he saith they must be more than one man but how many that he leaves uncertain This perfect Government of a few any man would think Aristotle should have called an Oligarchy for that this word properly signifies so much but in stead of the Government of a few Aristotle gives it a quite other name and terms it an Aristocraty which signifies the Power of the best the reason why it is called an Aristocraty said Aristotle is for that there the best men govern or because that is not always true for that it is for the best of the governed by this latter reason any Government and most especially a Monarchy may be called an Aristocraty because the End of Monarchy is for the best of the governed as well as the End of an Aristocraty so that of these two Reasons for calling the Government of a few an Aristocraty the first is seldom true and the latter is never sufficient to frame a distinction This Aristotle himself confesseth in his next Chapter saying that the Causes aforesaid do not make a Difference and that it is Poverty and Riches and not Few and Many that make the Difference between an Oligarchy and Democraty there must be an Oligarchy where rich men rule whether they be few or many and wheresoever the Poor have the Sovereignty there must be a Democraty Now if Aristotle will allow Riches and Poverty to make a Difference between an Oligarchy and a Democraty these two must likewise make the Difference between an Aristocraty and a Polity for the only Difference Aristotle makes between them is in their Ends and not in their Matter for the same few men may make an Aristocraty if their End be the Common Good and they may be an Oligarchy if they aim only at their private Benefit Thus is Aristotle distracted and perplexed how to distinguish his Aristocraty whether by the smallness of their Number or by the Greatness of their Estates Nay if we look into Aristotle's Rhetoricks we shall find a new Conceit not only about Aristocraty but also about the sorts of Government for whereas he has taught us in his Politicks that there be three sorts of Right or perfect Government and as many sorts of wrong which he calls Transgressions or Corruptions he comes in his Rhetoricks and teacheth us that there be four sorts of Government 1. A Democraty where Magistracies are distributed by Lots 2. In an Oligarchy by their Wealth 3. In an Aristocraty by their Instructions in the Law It is necessary for these to appear the best from whence they have their name 4. A Monarchy according to the name wherein one is Lord over all Here we see Aristocraty is not distinguished by smalness of Number nor by Riches but by Skill in the Laws for he saith those that are instructed in the Laws govern in an Aristocraty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Point not dreamt of in his Politicks by which it seems Aristotle himself did not know well what he would have to be an Aristocraty And as he cannot teach us truly what an Aristocraty is so he is to seek to tell us where any Aristocraty ever was even himself seems to doubt whether there be any such Form of Government where he saith in his third Book of Politicks cap. 5. It is impossible for any Mechanical man to be a Citizen in an Aristocraty if there be any such Government as they call Aristocratical His if makes him seem to doubt of it yet I find him affirm that the Commonwealth of Carthage was Aristocratical he doth not say it was an Aristocraty for he confesseth it had many of the Transgressions which other Commonwealths had and did incline either to a Democraty or an Oligarchy The Government of Carthage did transgress from an Aristocraty to an Oligarchy And he concludes that if by Misfortune there should happen any Discord among the Carthaginians themselves there would be no Medicine by Law found out to give it Rest wherein me-thinks Aristotle was a kind of Prophet for the Discords between the Citizens of Carthage were the main Cause that Hannibal lost not only Italy but Carthage it self By these few Collections we may find how uncertain Aristotle is in determining what an Aristocraty is or where
born slaves by Nature which quite contradicts the Position that all men are born equal and free and therefore Aristotle thought it fitter to allow all imaginable Forms of Government that so he might not disparage any one City than to propound such a Form as might condemn and destroy all the rest Though Aristotle allow so many several Forms of corrupted Governments yet he insists upon no one Form of all those that he can define or describe in such sort that he is able to say that any one City in all Greece was governed just according to such a Form his diligence is only to make as many Forms as the giddy or inconstant Humour of a City could happen upon he freely gives the People Liberty to invent as many Kinds of Government as they please provided he may have Liberty to find fault with every one of them it proved an easier Work for him to find Fault with every Form than to tell how to amend any one of them he found so many Imperfections in all sorts of Commonweals that he could not hold from reproving them before ever he tells us what a Commonweal is or how many sorts there are and to this Purpose he spends his whole second Book in setting out and correcting the chief Commonweals of Greece and among others the Lacedemonian the Cretan and Carthaginian Commonweals which three he esteems to be much alike and better than any other yet he spares not to lay open their imperfections and doth the like to the Athenian wherein he breaks the Rule of Method by delivering the Faults of Commonweals before he teach us what a Commonweal is for in his first Book he speaks only of the Parts of which a City or a Commonweal is made but tells us not what a City or Commonweal is until he come to his Third Book and there in handling the sorts of Government he observes no Method at all but in a disorderly way flies backward and forward from one sort to another and howsoever there may be observed in him many Rules of Policy touching Government in general yet without doubt where he comes to discourse of particular Forms he is full of Contradiction or Confusion or both it is true he is brief and difficult the best Right a man can do him is to confess he understands him not yet a diligent Reader may readily discern so many Irregularities and Breaches in Aristotle's Books of Politicks as tend to such Distraction or Confusion that none of our new Politicians can make advantage of his Principles for the Confirmation of an original Power by Nature in the People which is the only Theme now in Fashion For Aristotle's Discourse is of such Commonweals as were founded by particular Persons as the Chalcedonian by Phaleas the Milesian by Hippodamas the Lacedemonian by Lycurgus the Cretan by Minos the Athenian by Solon and the like but the natural Right of the People to found or elect their Kind of Government is not once disputed by him It seems the underived Majesty of the People was such a Metaphysical Piece of Speculation as our grand Philosopher was not acquainted with he speaks very contemptuously of the Multitude in several Places he affirms that the People are base or wicked Judges in their own Cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that many of them differ nothing from beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again he saith The Common People or Freemen are such as are neither Rich nor in Reputation for Virtue and it is not safe to commit to them great Governments for by reason of their Injustice and Vnskilfulness they would do much Injustice and commit many Errours and it is pleasanter to the multitude to live Disorderly than Soberly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Aristotle had believed a Publick Interest to have been in the People to the enabling them to be their own carvers in point of Government he would never have entangled himself with such intricate and ambiguous Forms of Commonweals as himself cannot tell how to explain nor any of his Commentators how to understand or make Use of This one Benefit I have found by Reading Aristotle that his Books of Politicks serve for an admirable Commentary upon that Text of Scripture which saith In those days there was no King in Israel every man did that which was right in his own eyes For he grants a liberty in every City for any man or multitude of men either by Cunning or Force to set up what Government they please and he will allow some name or other of a Commonweal which in effect is to allow every man to do what he lists if he be able hence it is that by the Confession of Aristotle the first Commonweals in Greece after Kings were given over were made of those that waged War those several kinds of Commonweals were all summed up into the Government of an Army for it is saith Aristotle in their power who manage Arms to continue or not continue the Form of Government whereby the Estate is Governed which is nothing else but a Stratocratie or Military Government We cannot much blame Aristotle for the Incertainty and Contrariety in him about the sorts of Government if we consider him as a Heathen for it is not possible for the Wit of man to search out the first Grounds or Principles of Government which necessarily depend upon the original of Property except he know that at the Creation one man alone was made to whom the Dominion of all things was given and from whom all men derive their Title This Point can be learnt only from the Scriptures as for the imaginary Contract of People it is a Fancy not improbable only but impossible except a multitude of men at first had sprung out and were engendred of the Earth which Aristotle knows not whether he may believe or no If Justice which is to give every man his Due be the End of Government there must Necessarily be a Rule to know how any man at first came to have a Right to any thing to have it truly called his This is a Point Aristotle disputes not nor so much as ever dreamt of an original Contract among People he looked no farther in every City then to a Scambling among the Citizens whereby every one snatcht what he could get so that a violent Possession was the first and best Title that he knew The main Distinction of Aristotle touching perfect or Right Forms of Government from those that are imperfect or corrupt consists solely in this Point that where the profit of the governed is respected there is a right Government but where the Profit of the Governours is regarded there is a Corruption or Transgression of Government By this it is supposed by Aristole that there may be a Government only for the Benefit of the Governours this Supposition to be false may be proved from Aristotle himself I will Instance about the Point of Tyranny Tyranny saith Aristotle
for it was almost forty years after the Rejection of Kings before an Assembly of Tribes were thought on or spoken of for it was the Assembly of the People by Centuries that agreed to the Expulsion of Kings and creating of Consuls in their Room also the Famous Laws of the twelve Tables were ratified by the Assembly of the Centuries This Assembly by Centuries as it was more Ancient than that by Tribes so it was more truly popular because all the Nobility as well as the Commons had Voices in it The Assembly by Tribes was pretended at first only to elect Tribunes of the People and other inferiour Magistrates to determine of lesser Crimes that were not Capital but only finable and to decree that Peace should be made but they did not meddle with denouncing War to be made for that high Point did belong only to the Assembly of the Centuries and so also did the judging of Treason and other Capital Crimes The difference between the Assembly of the Tribes and of the Centuries is very material for though it be commonly thought that either of these two Assemblies were esteemed to be the People yet in Reality it was not so for the Assembly of the Centuries only could be said to be the People because all the Nobility were included in it as well as the Commons whereas they were excluded out of the Assembly of the Tribes and yet in Effect the Assembly of the Centuries was but as the Assembly of the Lords or Nobles only because the lesser and richer part of the People had the Sovereignty as the Assembly of the Tribes was but the Commons only In maintenance of the popular Government of Rome Bodin objects that there could be no Regal Power in the two Consuls who could neither make Law nor Peace nor War The Answer is though there were two Consuls yet but one of them had the Regality for they governed by Turns one Consul one Month and the other Consul another Month or the first one day and the second another day That the Consuls could make no Laws is false it is plain by Livy that they had the Power to make Laws or War and did execute that Power though they were often hindered by the Tribunes of the People not for that the Power of making Laws or War was ever taken away from the Consuls or communicated to the Tribunes but only the Exercise of the Consular Power was suspended by a seeming humble way of intercession of the Tribunes The Consuls by their first Institution had a lawful Right to do those things which yet they would not do by reason of the shortness of their Reigns but chose rather to countenance their Actions with the Title of a Decree of the Senate who were their private Council yea and sometimes with the Decree of the Assembly of the Centuries who were their Publick Council for both the Assembling of the Senate and of the Centuries was at the Pleasure of the Consuls and nothing was to be propounded in either of them but at the Will of the Consuls which argues a Sovereignty in them over the Senate and Centuries the Senate of Rome was like the House of Lords the Assembly of the Tribes resembled the House of Commons but the Assembling of the Centuries was a Body composed of Lords and Commons united to Vote together The Tribunes of the People bore all the Sway among the Tribes they called them together when they pleased without any Order whereas the Centuries were never Assembled without Ceremony and Religious Observation of the Birds by the Augurs and by the Approbation of the Senate and therefore were said to be auspicata and ex authoritate Patrum These things considered it appears that the Assembly of the Centuries was the only legitimate and great Meeting of the People of Rome as for any Assembling or Electing of any Trustees or Representors of the People of Rome in nature of the Modern Parliaments it was not in Use or ever known in Rome Above two hundred and twenty years after the Expulsion of Kings a sullen humour took the Commons of Rome that they would needs depart the City to Janiculum on the other side of Tybur they would not be brought back into the City until a Law was made That a Plebiscitum or a Decree of the Commons might be observed for a Law this Law was made by the Dictator Hortensius to quiet the Sedition by giving a part of the Legislative Power to the Commons in such inferiour matters only as by Toleration and Usurpation had been practised by the Commons I find not that they desired an Enlargement of the Points which were the Object of their Power but of the Persons or Nobility that should be subject to their Decrees the great Power of making War of creating the greater Magistrates of judging in Capital Crimes remained in the Consuls with the Senate and Assembly of the Centuries For further manifestation of the broken and distracted Government of Rome it is fit to consider the Original Power of the Consuls and of the Tribunes of the Commons who are ordinarily called the Tribunes of the People First it is undeniable that upon the expulsion of Kings Kingly Power was not taken away but only made Annual and changeable between two Consuls who in their Turns and by course had the Sovereignty and all Regal Power this appears plainly in Livy who tells us that Valerius Publicola being Consul he himself alone ordained a Law and then assembled a General Session Turentillus Arsa inveyed and complained against the Consul's Government as being so absolute and in Name only less odious than that of Kings but in Fact more cruel for instead of one Lord the City had received twain having Authority beyond all Measure unlimited and infinite Sextius and Licinus complain that there would never be any indifferent Course so long as the Nobles kept the Sovereign Place of Command and the Sword to strike whilst the poor Commons have only the Buckler their Conclusion was that it remains that the Commons bear the Office of Consuls too for that were a Fortress of their Liberty from that day forward shall the Commons be Partakers of those things wherein the Nobles now surpass them namely Sovereign Rule and Authority The Law of the twelve Tribes affirm Regio imperio duo sunto iique Consules appellantur Let two have Regal Power and let them be called Consuls also the Judgment of Livy is that the Sovereign Power was translated from Consuls to Decemvirs as before from Kings to Consuls These are proofs sufficient to shew the Royal Power of the Consuls About sixteen years after the first Creation of Consuls the Commons finding themselves much run into Debt by wasting their Estates in following the Wars and so becoming as they thought oppressed by Usury and cast into Prison by the Judgment and Sentence of the Consuls they grievously complained of Usury and of the Power of the Consuls and by Sedition
other and is quite contrary to the indivisible nature of Sovereignty The Truth is the Consuls having but annual Sovereignty were glad for their own Safety and Ease in Matters of great Importance and Weight to call together sometimes the Senate who were their ordinary Council and many times the Centuries of the People who were their Council extraordinary that by their Advice they might countenance and strengthen such Actions as were full of Danger and Envy and thus the Consuls by weakening their Original Power brought the Government to Confusion Civil Dissension and utter Ruine so dangerous a thing it is to shew Favour to Common People who interpret all Graces and Favours for their Rights and just Liberties the Consuls following the Advice of the Senate or People did not take away their Right of Governing no more than Kings lose their Supremacy by taking Advice in Parliaments Not only the Consuls but also the Pretors and Censors two great Offices ordained only for the ease of the Consuls from whom an Appeal lay to the Consuls did in many things exercise an Arbitrary or Legislative power in the Absence of the Consuls they had no Laws to limit them for many Years after the Creation of Consuls ten men were sent into Greece to choose Laws and after the twelve Tables were confirmed whatsoever the Pretors who were but the Consuls Substitutes did command was called jus honorarium and they were wont at the Entrance into their Office to collect and hang up for Publick View a Form of Administration of Justice which they would observe and though the edictum Praetoris expired with the Pretors Office yet it was called Edictum perpetuum What Peace the Low-Countries have found since their Revolt is visible it is near about an hundred Years since they set up for themselves of all which time only twelve years they had a Truce with the Spaniard yet in the next year after the Truce was agreed upon the War of Juliers brake forth which engaged both Parties so that upon the matter they have lived in a continual War for almost an hundred years had it not been for the Aid of their Neighbours they had been long ago swallowed up when they were glad humbly to offer their new hatch'd Commonweal and themselves Vassals to the Queen of England after that the French King Henry the Third had refused to accept them as his Subjects That little Truce they had was almost as costly as a War they being forced to keep about thirty thousand Souldiers continually in Garrison Two things they say they first fought about Religion and Taxes and they have prevailed it seems in both for they have gotten all the Religions in Christendom and pay the greatest Taxes in the World they pay Tribute half in half for Food and most necessary things paying as much for Tribute as the price of the thing sold Excise is paid by all Retailers of Wine and other Commodities for each Tun of Beer six Shillings for each Cow for the Pail two Stivers every Week for Oxen Horses Sheep and other Beasts sold in the Market the twelfth part at least be they never so oft sold by the year to and fro the new Master still pays as much they pay five Stivers for every Bushel of their own Wheat which they use to grind in Publick Mills These are the Fruits of the Low-Country War It will be said that Venice is a Commonwealth that enjoys Peace She indeed of all other States hath enjoyed of late the greatest Peace but she owes it not to her kind of Government but to the natural Situation of the City having such a Bank in the Sea of near threescore Miles and such Marshes towards the Land as make her unapproachable by Land or Sea to these she is indebted for her Peace at home and what Peace she hath abroad she buys at a dear Rate and yet her Peace is little better than a continued War The City always is in such perpetual Fears that many besieged Cities are in more Security a Senator or Gentleman dares not converse with any Stranger in Venice shuns Acquaintance or dares not own it they are no better than Bandito's to all humane Society Nay no People in the World live in such Jealousie one of another hence are their intricate Solemnities or rather Lotteries in Election of their Magistrates which in any other Place would be ridiculous and useless The Senators or Gentlemen are not only jealous of the Common People whom they keep disarmed but of one another they dare not trust any of their own Citizens to be a Leader of their Army but are forced to hire and entertain Foreign Princes for their Generals excepting their Citizens from their Wars and hiring others in their Places it cannot be said that People live in Peace which are in such miserable Fears continually The Venetians at first were subject to the Roman Emperour and for fear of the Invasion of the Hunnes forsook Padua and other Places in Italy and retired with all their Substance to those Islands where now Venice stands I do not read they had any Leave to desert the defence of their Prince and Country where they had got their Wealth much less to set up a Government of their own it was no better than a Rebellion or Revolting from the Roman Empire At first they lived under a kind of Oligarchy for several Islands had each a Tribune who all met and governed in common but the dangerous Seditions of their Tribunes put a necessity upon them to choose a Duke for Life who for many hundreds of years had an Absolute Power under whose Government Venice flourished most and got great Victories and rich Possessions But by insensible degrees the Great Council of the Gentlemen have for many years been lessening the Power of their Dukes and have at last quite taken it away It is a strange Errour for any man to believe that the Government of Venice hath been always the same that it is now he that reads but the History of Venice may find for a long time a Sovereign Power in their Dukes and that for these last two hundred years since the diminishing of that Power there have been no great Victories and Conquests obtained by that Estate That which exceeds admiration is that Contarene hath the confidence to affirm the present Government of Venice to be a mixed Form of Monarchy Democraty and Aristocraty For whereas he makes the Duke to have the Person and Shew of a King he after confesseth that the Duke can do nothing at all alone and being joyned with other Magistrates he hath no more Authority than any of them also the Power of the Magistrates is so small that no one of them how great soever he be can determine of any thing of moment without the allowance of the Council So that this Duke is but a man dressed up in Purple a King only in Pomp and Ornament in Power but a Senator within the City
if there should be granted two sorts of Power without any Subordination of one to the other they would be in perpetual strife which should be Supreme for two Supremes cannot agree if the Fatherly Power be Supreme then the Power of the People must be subordinate and depend on it if the Power of the People be Supreme then the Fatherly Power must submit to it and cannot be exercised without the Licence of the People which must quite destroy the Frame and course of Nature Even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood he is both the King and Father of us all as God hath exalted the Dignity of Earthly Kings by communicating to them his own Title by saying they are gods so on the other side he hath been pleased as it were to humble himself by assuming the Title of a King to express his Power and not the Title of any popular Government we find it is a punishment to have no King Hosea ch 3.4 and promised as a Blessing to Abraham Gen. 17.6 that Kings shall come out of thee Every man hath a part or share in the preservation of Mankind in General he that usurps the Power of a Superiour thereby puts upon himself a Necessity of acting the Duty of a Superiour in the Preservation of them over whom he hath usurped unless he will aggravate one heinous Crime by committing another more horrid he that takes upon him the Power of a Superiour sins sufficiently and to the Purpose but he that proceeds to destroy both his Superiour and those under the Superiours Protection goeth a Strain higher by adding Murther to Robbery if Government be hindered mankind perisheth an Usurper by hindering the Government of another brings a Necessity upon himself to govern his Duty before Usurpation was only to be ministerial or instrumental in the preservation of others by his Obedience but when he denies his own and hinders the Obedience of others he doth not only not help but is the Cause of the Distraction in hindering his Superiour to perform his Duty he makes the Duty his own if a Superiour cannot protract it is his part to desire to be able to do it which he cannot do in the Future if in the present they be destroyed for want of Government therefore it is to be presumed that the Superiour desires the preservation of them that should be subject to him and so likewise it may be presumed that an Usurper in general doth the Will of his Superiour by preserving the People by Government and it is not improper to say that in obeying an Usurper we may obey primarily the true Superiour so long as our Obedience aims at the preservation of those in Subjection and not at the Destruction of the true Governour Not only the Usurper but those also over whom Power is usurped may joyn in the preservation of themselves yea and in the preservation sometimes of the Usurper himself Thus there may be a conditional Duty or Right in an Usurper to govern that is to say supposing him to be so wicked as to usurp and not willing to surrender or forgo his Usurpation he is then bound to protect by Government or else he encreaseth and multiplieth his Sin Though an Usurper can never gain a Right from the true Superiour yet from those that are Subjects he may for if they know no other that hath a better Title than the Usurper then as to them the Usurper in Possession hath a true Right Such a qualified Right is found at first in all Usurpers as is in Thieves who have stolen Goods and during the time they are possessed of them have a Title in Law against all others but the true Owners and such Usurpers to divers Intents and Purposes may be obeyed Neither is he only an Usurper who obtains the Government but all they are Partakers in the Usurpation who have either failed to give Assistance to their lawful Sovereign or have given Aid either by their Persons Estates or Counsels for the Destroying of that Governour under whose Protection they have been born and preserved for although it should be granted that Protection and Subjection are reciprocal so that where the first fails the latter ceaseth yet it must be remembred that where a man hath been born under the Protection of a long and peaceable Government he owes an Assistance for the preservation of that Government that hath protected him and is the Author of his own Disobedience It is said by some that an usurped Power may be obeyed in things that are lawful but it may not be obeyed not only in lawful things but also in things indifferent Obedience in things indifferent is necessary not indifferent For in things necessarily good God is immediately obeyed Superiours only by Consequence If men command things evil Obedience is due only by tolerating what they inflict not by performing what they require in the first they declare what God commands to be done in the latter what to be suffered so it remains that things indifferent only are the proper Object of Humane Laws Actions are to be considered simply and alone and so are good as being Motions depending on the first Mover or joyntly with Circumstances And that in a double Manner 1. In Regard of the Ability or Possibility whilest they may be done 2. In the Act when they be performed Before they be done they be indifferent but once breaking out into Act they become distinctly Good or Evil according to the Circumstances which determine the same Now an Action commanded is supposed as not yet done whereupon the Hebrews call the Imperative Mood the first Future and so remaineth many times indifferent Some may be of Opinion that if Obedience may be given to an Usurper in things indifferent as well as to a lawful Power that then there is as much Obedience due to an usurped Power as to a lawful But it is a Mistake for though it be granted that in things indifferent an Usurper may be obeyed as well as a lawful Governour yet herein lieth a main Difference that some things are indifferent for a lawful Superiour which are not indifferent but unlawful to an Usurper to enjoyn Usurpation is the resisting and taking away the Power from him who hath such a former Right to govern the Usurper as cannot be lawfully taken away so that it cannot be just for an Usurper to take Advantage of his own unlawful Act or create himself a Title by continuation of his own Injustice which aggravates and never extenuates his Crime and if it never can be an Act indifferent for the Usurper himself to disobey his Lawful Sovereign much less can it be indifferent for him to command another to do that to which he hath no Right himself It is only then a matter indifferent for an Usurper to command when the Actions enjoyned are such as the lawful Superiour is commanded by the Law of God to provide for the benefit of
Here I find Mr. Hobs is much mistaken for the Liberty of the Athenians and Romans was a Liberty only to be found in Popular Estates and not in Monarchies This is clear by Aristotle who calls a City a Community of Freemen meaning every particular Citizen to be free Not that every particular man had a Liberty to resist his Governour or do what he list but a Liberty only for particular men to Govern and to be governed by Turns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Aristotle's words this was a Liberty not to be found in Hereditary Monarchies so Tacitus mentioning the several Governments of Rome joyns the Consulship and Liberty to be brought in by Brutus because by the annual Election of Consuls particular Citizens came in their Course to govern and to be governed This may be confirmed by the Complaint of our Authour which followeth It is an easie thing for men to be deceived by the specious name of Liberty and for want of Judgment to distinguish mistake that for their private Inheritance or Birthright which is the Right of the Publick only And when the same Errour is confirmed by the Authority of men in Reputation for their Writings on this Subject it is no wonder if it produce Sedition and Change of Government In the Western Parts of the World we are made to receive our Opinions concerning the Institution and Right of Commonwealths from Aristotle and Cicero and other men Greeks and Romans that living under Popular Estates derived those Rights not from the Principles of Nature but transcribed them into their Books out of the Practice of their own Commonwealths which were Popular And because the Athenians were taught to keep them from Desire of changing their Government that they were Free-men and all that lived under Monarchy Slaves therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politicks In Democracy Liberty is to be supposed for it 's commonly held that no man is free in any other Government So Cicero and other Writers grounded their Civil Doctrine on the Opinions of the Romans who were taught to hate Monarchy at first by them that having deposed their Sovereign shared amongst them the Sovereignty of Rome And by reading of these Greek and Latine Authors Men from their Childhood have gotten a Habit under a false shew of Liberty of favouring Tumults and of licentious controuling the Actions of their Sovereigns XI Pag. 102. Dominion Paternal not attained by Generation but by Contract which is the Childs Consent either express or by other sufficient Arguments declared How a Child can express Consent or by other sufficient Arguments declare it before it comes to the Age of Discretion I understand not yet all men grant it is due before consent can be given and I take it Mr. Hobs is of the same Mind pag. 249. where he teacheth that Abraham's Children were bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for God's Law which they could not be but in Vertue of the Obedience they owed to their Parents they owed not they covenanted to give Also where he saith pag. 121. the Father and Master being before the Institution of Commonweals Absolute Sovereigns in their own Families how can it be said that either Children or Servants were in the State of jus naturae till the Institutions of Commonweals It is said by Mr. Hobs in his Book De Cive cap. 9. Section 7. the Mother originally hath the Government of her Children and from her the Father derives his Right because she brings forth and first nourisheth them But we know that God at the Creation gave the Sovereignty to the man over the Woman as being the Nobler and Principal Agent in Generation As to the Objection that it is not known who is the Father to the Son but by the discovery of the Mother and that he is his Son whom the Mother will and therefore he is the Mother's The answer is that it is not at the Will of the Mother to make whom she will the Father for if the Mother be not in possession of a Husband the Child is not reckoned to have any Father at all but if she be in the possession of a Man the Child notwithstanding whatsoever the Woman discovereth to the contrary is still reputed to be his in whose possession she is No Child naturally and infallibly knows who are his true Parents yet he must obey those that in common reputation are so otherwise the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother were in vain and no Child bound to the obedience of it XII If the Government of one man and the Government of two men make two several kinds of Government why may not the Government of two and the Government of three do the like and make a third and so every differing Number a differing kind of Common-wealth If an Assembly of all as Mr. Hobs saith that will come together be a Democratie and an Assembly of a part only an Aristocratie then if all that will come together be but a part only a Democratie and Aristocratie are all one and why must an Assembly of part be called an Aristocratie and not a Merocratie It seems Mr. Hobs is of the mind that there is but one kind Government and that is Monarchy for he defines a Commonwealth to be one Person and an Assembly of men or real Vnity of them all in one and the same Person the multitude so united he calls a Commonwealth This his Moulding of a Multitude into one Person is the generation of his great Leviathan the King of the Children of Pride pag. 167. Thus he concludes the Person of a Commonwealth to be a Monarch XIII I cannot but wonder Master Hobs should say Pag. 112. The Consent of a Subject to Sovereign Power is contained in these words I Authorise and do take upon me all his Actions in which there is no restriction at all of his own former natural Liberty Surely here Master Hobs forgot himself for before he makes the Resignation to go in these words also I give up my Right of governing my self to this man This is a restriction certainly of his own former natural Liberty when he gives it away and if a man allow his Sovereign to kill him which Mr. Hobs seems to confess how can he reserve a Right to defend himself And if a man have a Power and Right to kill himself he doth not Authorise and give up his Right to his Sovereign if he do not obey him when he commands him to kill himself XIV Mr. Hobs saith pag. 112. No man is bound by the words themselves of his Submission to kill himself or any other man and consequently that the Obligation a man may sometimes have upon the Command of the Sovereign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable Office dependeth not on the words of our Submission but on the Intention which is to be understood by the End thereof When therefore our refusal to Obey
frustrates the End for which the Sovereignty was Ordained then there is no liberty to refuse otherwise there is If no man be bound by the words of his Subjection to kill any other man then a Sovereign may be denied the benefit of War and be rendred unable to defend his People and so the End of Government frustrated If the Obligation upon the Commands of a Sovereign to execute a dangerous or dishonourable Office dependeth not on the words of our Submission but on the Intention which is to be understood by the End thereof No man by Mr. Hobs's Rules is bound but by the words of his Submission the Intention of the Command binds not if the words do not If the Intention should bind it is necessary the Sovereign must discover it and the People must dispute and judge it which how well it may consist with the Rights of Sovereignty Mr. Hobs may consider Whereas Master Hobs saith the Intention is to be understood by the End I take it he means the End by Effect for the End and the Intention are one and the same thing and if he mean the Effect the Obedience must go before and not depend on the understanding of the Effect which can never be if the Obedience do not precede it In fine he resolves refusal to obey may depend upon the judging of what frustrates the End of Sovereignty and what not of which he cannot mean any other Judge but the People XV. Mr. Hobs puts a case by way of Question A great many men together have already resisted the Sovereign Power unjustly or committed some Capital Crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the liberty then to joyn together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have for they but defend their Lives which the Guilty man may as well do as the Innocent There was indeed Injustice in the first breach of their Duty their bearing of Arms subsequent to it though it be to maintain what they have done is no new unjust Act and if it be only to defend their Persons it is not unjust at all The only reason here alledged for the Bearing of Arms is this That there is no new unjust Act as if the beginning only of a Rebellion were an unjust Act and the continuance of it none at all No better Answer can be given to this case than what the Author himself hath delivered in the beginning of the same Paragraph in these words To resist the Sword of the Commonwealth in defence of another man Guilty or Innocent no man hath Liberty because such Liberty takes away from the Sovereign the Means of protecting us and is therefore destructive of the very Essence of Government Thus he first answers the question and then afterwards makes it and gives it a contrary Answer other Passages I meet with to the like purpose He saith Page 66. A man cannot lay down the Right of Resisting them that assault him by Force to take away his Life The same may be said of Wounds Chains and Imprisonment Page 69. A Covenant to defend my self from Force by Force is void Pag. 68. Right of Defending Life and Means of living can never be abandoned These last Doctrines are destructive to all Government whatsoever and even to the Leviathan it self hereby any Rogue or Villain may murder his Sovereign if the Sovereign but offer by force to whip or lay him in the Stocks since Whipping may be said to be wounding and putting in the Stocks an Imprisonment so likewise every man's Goods being a Means of Living if a man cannot abandon them no Contract among men be it never so just can be observed thus we are at least in as miserable condition of War as Mr. Hobs at first by Nature found us XVI The Kingdom of God signifies saith Master Hobs page 216. a Kingdom constituted by the Votes of the People of Israel in a peculiar manner wherein they choose God for their King by Covenant made with him upon God's promising them Canaan If we look upon Master Hobs's Text for this it will be found that the People did not Constitute by Votes and choose God for their King But by the Appointment first of God himself the Covenant was to be a God to them they did not contract with God that if he would give them Canaan they would be his Subjects and he should be their King It was not in their power to choose whether God should be their God yea or nay for it is confessed He reigned naturally over all by his Might If God Reigned naturally he had a Kingdom and Sovereign Power over his Subjects not acquired by their own Consent This Kingdom said to be constituted by the Votes of the People of Israel is but the Vote of Abraham only his single Voice carried it he was the Representative of the People For at this Vote it is confessed that the Name of King is not given to God nor of Kingdom to Abraham yet the thing if we will believe Master Hobs is all one If a Contract be the mutual transferring of Right I would know what Right a People can have to transfer to God by Contract Had the People of Israel at Mount Sinai a Right not to obey God's Voice If they had not such a Right what had they to transfer The Covenant mentioned at Mount Sinai was but a Conditional Contract and God but a Conditional King and though the People promised to obey God's word yet it was more than they were able to perform for they often disobeyed God's Voice which being a breach of the Condition the Covenant was void and God not their King by Contract It is complained by God They have rejected me that I should reign over them but it is not said according to their Contract for I do not find that the Desiring of a King was a breach of their Contract of Covenant or disobedience to the Voice of God there is no such Law extant The People did not totally reject the Lord but in part only out of timorousness when they saw Nahash King of the Children of Ammon come against them they distrusted that God would not suddenly provide for their Deliverance as if they had had always a King in readiness to go up presently to fight for them This Despair in them who had found so many miraculous deliverances under Gods Government was that which offended the Lord so highly they did not desire an Alteration of Government and to cast off God's Laws but hoped for a certainer and speedier deliverance from danger in time of War They did not petition that they might choose their King themselves that had been a greater sin and yet if they had it had not been a total rejection of God's Reigning over them as long as they desired not to depart from the Worship of God their King and from the Obedience of his Laws I see not that the Kingdom of God was cast off by
common Good Another Doctrine of Grotius is That the Empire which is exercised by Kings doth not cease to be the Empire of the People that Kings who in a lawful Order succeed those who were elected have the supreme Power by an usufructuary Right only and no Propriety Furthermore he teacheth That the People may chuse what Form of Government they please and their Will is the Rule of Right Populus eligere potest qualem vult gubernationis formam neque ex praestantia formae sed ex voluntate jus metiendum est lib. 1. cap. 3. Also That the People chusing a King may reserve some Acts to themselves and may bestow others upon the King with full Authority if either an express Partition be appointed or if the People being yet free do command their future King by way of a standing Command or if any thing be added by which it may be understood that the King may be compelled or else punished In these Passages of Grotius which I have cited we find evidently these Doctrines 1. That Civil Power depends on the Will of the People 2. That private Men or petty Multitudes may take up Arms against their Princes 3. That the lawfullest Kings have no Propriety in their Kingdoms but an usufructuary Right only as if the People were the Lords and Kings but their Tenants 4. That the Law of Not resisting Superiors is a humane Law depending on the Will of the People at first 5. That the Will of the first People if it be not known may be expounded by the People that now are No doubt but Grotius foresaw what Uses the People might make of these Doctrines by concluding if the chief Power be in the People that then it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power Therefore he tells us He rejects the Opinion of them who every where and without Exception will have the chief Power to be so the Peoples that it is lawful for them to compel and punish Kings as oft as they misuse their Power and this Opinion he confesseth if it be altogether received hath been and may be the cause of many Evils This cautelous Rejection qualified with these Terms of every where without Exception and altogether makes but a mixt Negation partly negative and partly affirmative which our Lawyers call a negative Repugnant which brings forth this modal Proposition That in some places with Exception and in some sort the People may compel and punish their Kings But let us see how Grotius doth refute the general Opinion That People may correct Kings He frames his Argument in these words It is lawful for every man to yield himself to be a private Servant to whom he please What should hinder but that also it may be lawful for a free People so to yield themselves to one or more that the Right of governing them be fully set over without retaining any part of the Right And you must not say That this may not be presumed for we do not now seek what in a doubtful case may be presumed but what by Right may be done Thus far is the Argument in which the most that is proved if we gratifie him and yield his whole Argument for good is this That the People may grant away their Power without retaining any part But what is this to what the People have done For though the People may give away their Power without reservation of any part to themselves yet if they have not so done but have reserved a part Grotius must confess that the People may compel and punish their Kings if they transgress so that by his favour the point will be not what by Right may be done but what in this doubtful case hath been done since by his own Rule it is the Will and Meaning of the first People that joyned in Society that must regulate the Power of their Successours But on Grotius side it may be urged That in all presumption the People have given away their whole Power to Kings unless they can prove they have reserved a part for if they will have any benefit of a Reservation or Exception it lies on their part to prove their Exception and not on the Kings part who are in possession This Answer though in it self it be most just and good yet of all men Grotius may not use it For he saves the Peoples labour of proving the primitive Reservation of their Forefathers by making the People that now are competent Expositors of the meaning of those first Ancestors who may justly be presumed not to have been either so improvident for themselves or so negligent of all their Posterity when by the Law of Nature they were free and had all things common at an instant without any Condition or Limitation to give away that Liberty and Right of Community and to make themselves and their Children eternally subject to the Will of such Governours as might misuse them without Controul On the behalf of the People it may be further answered to Grotius That although our Ancestors had made an absolute Grant of their Liberty without any Condition expressed yet it must be necessarily implied that it was upon condition to be well governed and that the Non-performance of that implied Condition makes the Grant void Or if we will not allow an implicit Condition then it may be said That the Grant in it self was a void Grant for being unreasonable and a violation of the Law of Nature without any valuable Consideration What sound Reply Grotius can return to such Answers I cannot conceive if he keep himself to his first Principle of natural Community As Grotius's Argument against the People is not sound so his Answer to the Argument that is made for the People is not satisfactory It is objected That he that ordains is above him that is ordained Grotius answers Verum duntaxat est in ea constitutione cujus effectus perpetuò pendet à voluntate constituentis non etiam in ea quae ab initio est voluntatis postea verò effectum habet necessitatis quomodo mulier virum sibi constituit cui parere semper habet necesse The Reply may be That by Grotius's former Doctrine the very Effect of the Constitution of Kings by the People depends perpetually upon the Will of them that Constitute and upon no other Necessity he will not say That it is by any necessity of the Law of Nature or by any positive Law of God he teacheth That non Dei praecepto sed sponte men entred into Civil Society that it is an Humane Ordinance that God doth only approve it ut humanum and humano modo He tells us further That Populus potest eligere qualem vult gubernationis formam ex voluntate jus metiendum est that the People may give the King as little Power as they will and for as little time as they please that they may make temporary Kings as Directors and Protectors jus
be that the Government or the Governed may be divided an Example he gives of the Roman Empire which was divided into the East and West but whereas he saith Fieri potest c. It may be the People chusing a King may reserve some Actions to themselves and in others they may give full power to the King The Example he brings out of Plato of the Heraclides doth not prove it and it is to dream of such a Form of Government as never yet had name nor was ever found in any setled Kingdom nor cannot possibly be without strange Confusion If it were a thing so voluntary and at the pleasure of men when they were free to put themselves under Subjection why may they not as voluntarily leave Subjection when they please and be free again If they had a liberty to change their Natural Freedom into a voluntary Subjection there is stronger reason that they may change their voluntary Subjection into natural Freedom since it is as lawful for men to alter their Wills as their Judgments Certainly it was a rare felicity that all the men in the World at one instant of time should agree together in one mind to change the Natural Community of all things into private Dominion for without such an unanimous Consent it was not possible for Community to be altered for if but one man in the World had dissented the Alteration had been unjust because that Man by the Law of Nature had a Right to the common Use of all things in the World so that to have given a propriety of any one thing to any other had been to have robbed him of his Right to the common Use of all things And of this Judgment the Jesuit Lud. Molina seems to be in his Book De Justitia where he saith Si aliquis de cohabitantibus c. If one of the Neighbours will not give his Consent to it the Commonwealth should have no Authority over him because then every other man hath no Right or Authority over him and therefore can they not give Authority to the Commonwealth over him If our first Parents or some other of our Forefathers did voluntarily bring in Propriety of Goods and Subjection to Governours and it were in their power either to bring them in or not or having brought them in to alter their minds and restore them to their first condition of Community and Liberty what reason can there be alledged that men that now live should not have the same power So that if any one man in the World be he never so mean or base will but alter his Will and say he will resume his Natural Right to Community and be restored unto his Natural Liberty and consequently take what he please and do what he list who can say that such a man doth more than by Right he may And then it will be lawful for every man when he please to dissolve all Government and destroy all Property VVhereas Grotius saith That by the Law of Nature all things were at first Common and yet teacheth That after Propriety was brought in it was against the Law of Nature to use Community he doth thereby not only make the Law of Nature changeable which he saith God cannot do but he also makes the Law of Nature contrary to it self OBSERVATIONS UPON Mr. HVNTON'S Treatise of Monarchy OR THE ANARCHY Of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy THese Observations on the Treatise of Monarchy written by Mr. Hunton being of like Argument with the former are here annexed with this Advertisement That the Treatise it self consists of two Parts the first concerning Monarchy in general the latter concerning this particular Monarchy and is seconded with a Vindication which alledgeth new matter about the nature kinds causes and means of Limitation in Government intimating a mistrust that the Treatise had not fully or sufficiently discovered these Points These Observations reach only to the first Part of the Treatise concerning Monarchy in general Whether it can possibly be Limited or Mixed If this be not made good it is but vain labour to trouble the Reader with the dispute about the nature kinds and causes of that which is not nor cannot at all be or to handle the Hypothesis about this particular Monarchy for which the prime and chief Arguments are of no greater Antiquity than some Concessions since these present Troubles The ancient Doctrine of Government in these later days hath been strangely refined by the Romanists and wonderfully improved since the Reformation especially in point of Monarchy by an Opinion That the People have Originally a power to create several sorts of Monarchy and to limit and compound them at their pleasure The consideration hereof caused me to scruple the modern Piece of Politicks touching Limited and Mixed Monarchy and finding it only presented us by this Author I have drawn these few Observations upon the most considerable part of his Treatise desiring to receive satisfaction from the Author or any other for him The Novelty of this Point challengeth a modest Debate the rather for that the Treatise acknowledgeth that not only Monarchy but also Aristocracy and Democracy may be either Simple or Mixed of two or all three together though it do not determine whether they can be Absolute or Limited THE PREFACE WE do but flatter our selves if we hope ever to be governed without an Arbitrary Power No we mistake the Question is not Whether there shall be an Arbitrary Power but the only point is Who shall have that Arbitrary Power whether one man or many There never was nor ever can be any People governed without a Power of making Laws and every Power of making Laws must be Arbitrary For to make a Law according to Law is Contradictio in adjecto It is generally confessed That in a Democracy the Supreme or Arbitrary Power of making Laws is in a Multitude and so in an Aristocracy the like Legislative or Arbitrary Power is in a few or in the Nobility And therefore by a necessary Consequence in a Monarchy the same Legislative Power must be in one according to the Rule of Aristotle who saith Government is in One or in a Few or in Many This ancient Doctrine of Government in these latter days hath been strangely refined by the Romanists and wonderfully improved since the Reformation especially in point of Monarchy by an Opinion That the People have Originally a Power to create several sorts of Monarchy to limit and compound them with other Forms of Government at their pleasure As for this natural Power of the People they find neither Scripture Reason or Practice to justifie it For though several Kingdoms have several and distinct Laws one from another yet that doth not make several sorts of Monarchy Nor doth the difference of obtaining the Supreme Power whether by Conquest Election Succession or by any other way make different sorts of Government It is the difference only of the Authors of the Laws and not of the Laws
it to one kind that is to Monarchy or the Government of one alone and the determination of it to the individual person and line of Adam are all three Ordinances of God Neither Eve nor her Children could either limit Adams power or joyn others with him in the Government and what was given unto Adam was given in his person to his posterity This paternal Power continued Monarchical to the Flood and after the Flood to the confusion of Babel when Kingdoms were first erected planted or scattered over the face of the World we find Gen. 10.11 it was done by Colonies of whole Families over which the prime Fathers had supreme power and were Kings who were all the Sons or Grand-children of Noah from whom they derived a fatherly and regal Power over their Families Now if this supreme Power was setled and founded by God himself in the Fatherhood how is it possible for the people to have any right or title to alter and dispose of it otherwise What Commission can they shew that gives them power either of Limitation or Mixture It was God's Ordinance that Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as all the acts of his will and as in him so in all others that have supreme Power as appears by the judgment and speech of the people to Joshuah when he was supreme Governour these are their words to him All that thou commandest us we will do whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him he shall be put to death We may not say that these were evil Councellours or flattering Courtiers of Joshuah or that he himself was a Tyrant for having such arbitrary power Our Author and all those who affirm that power is conveyed to persons by publick consent are forced to confess that it is the fatherly power that first enables a people to make such conveyance so that admitting as they hold that our Ancestors did at first convey power yet the reason why we now living do submit to such power is for that our Forefathers every one for himself his family and posterity had a power of resigning up themselves and us to a supreme Power As the Scripture teacheth us That supreme Power was originally in the Fatherhood without any limitation so likewise Reason doth evince it that if God ordained that Supremacy should be that then Supremacy must of necessity be unlimited for the power that limits must be above that power which is limited if it be limited it cannot be supreme so that if our Author will grant supreme Power to be the Ordinance of God the supreme Power will prove it self to be unlimited by the same Ordinance because a supreme limited Power is a contradiction The Monarchical Power of Adam the Father of all flesh being by a general binding Ordinance setled by God in him and his posterity by right of fatherhood the form of Monarchy must be preferred above other forms except the like Ordinance for other forms can be shewed neither may men according to their relations to the form they live under to their affections and judgments in divers respects prefer or compare any other form with Monarchy The point that most perplexeth our Author and many others is that if Monarchy be allowed to be the Ordinance of God an absurdity would follow that we should uncharitably condemn all the Communities which have not that form for violation of Gods Ordinance and pronounce those other Powers unlawful If those who live under a Monarchy can justifie the form they live under to be Gods Ordinance they are not bound to forbear their own justification because others cannot do the like for the form they live under let others look to the defence of their own Government if it cannot be proved or shewed that any other form of Government had ever any lawful beginning but was brought in or erected by Rebellion must therefore the lawful and just obedience to Monarchy be denied to be the Ordinance of God To proceed with our Author in the 3 d. page he saith The Higher Power is Gods Ordinance That it resideth in One or more in such or such a way is from humane designment God by no word binds any people to this or that form till they by their own act bind themselves Because the power and consent of the People in Government is the burden of the whole Book and our Author expects it should be admitted as a magisterial postulation without any other proof than a naked supposition and since others also maintain that originally Power was or now is in the People and that the first Kings were chosen by the People they may not be offended if they be asked in what sence they understand the word People because this as many other words hath different acceptions being sometimes taken in a larger otherwhile in a stricter sence Literally and in the largest sence the word People signifies the whole multitude of mankind but figuratively and synecdochically it notes many times the major part of a multitude or sometimes the better or the richer or the wiser or some other part and oftentimes a very small part of the People if there be no other apparent opposite party hath the name of the People by presumption If they understand that the entire multitude or whole People have originally by nature Power to chuse a King they must remember that by their own principles and rules by nature all mankind in the World makes but one People who they suppose to be born alike to an equal freedom from Subjection and where such freedom is there all things must of necessity be common and therefore without a joynt consent of the whole People of the World no one thing can be made proper to any one man but it will be an injury and an usurpation upon the Common right of all others From whence it follows that natural freedom being once granted there cannot be any one man chosen a King without the universal consent of all the People of the world at one instant nemine contradicente Nay if it be true that nature hath made all men free though all mankind should concur in one vote yet it cannot seem reasonable that they should have power to alter the law of nature for if no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a murtherer of himself how can any people confer such a power as they have not themselves upon any one man without being accessories to their own deaths and every particular man become guilty of being felo de se If this general signification of the word People be disavowed and men will suppose that the People of particular Regions or Countries have power and freedom to chuse unto themselves Kings then let them but observe the consequence Since nature hath not distinguished the habitable World into Kingdoms nor determined what part of a People shall
belong to one Kingdom and what to another it follows that the original freedom of mankind being supposed every man is at liberty to be of what Kingdom he please and so every petty company hath a Right to make a Kingdom by it self and not only every City but every Village and every Family nay and every particular man a liberty to chuse himself to be his own King if he please and he were a madman that being by nature free would chuse any man but himself to be his own Governour Thus to avoid the having but of one King of the whole world we shall run into a liberty of having as many Kings as there be men in the world which upon the matter is to have no King at all but to leave all men to their natural liberty which is the mischief the Pleaders for natural liberty do pretend they would most avoid But if neither the whole people of the world nor the whole people of any part of the world be meant but only the major part or some other part of a part of the world yet still the objection will be the stronger For besides that nature hath made no partition of the world or of the people into distinct Kingdoms and that without an universal consent at one and the same instant no partition can be made yet if it were lawful for particular parts of the world by consent to chuse their Kings nevertheless their elections would bind none to subjection but only such as consented for the major part never binds but where men at first either agree to be so bound or where a higher power so commands Now there being no higher power than nature but God himself where neither nature nor God appoints the major part to bind there consent is not binding to any but only to themselves who consent Yet for the present to gratifie them so far as to admit that either by nature or by a general consent of all mankind the world at first was divided into particular Kingdoms and the major part of the people of each Kingdom assembled allowed to chuse their King yet it cannot truly be said that ever the whole people or the major part or indeed any considerable part of the whole people of any Nation ever assembled to any such purpose For except by some secret miraculous instinct they should all meet at one time and place what one man or company of men less than the whole people hath power to appoint either time or place of elections where all be alike free by nature and without a lawful summons it is most unjust to bind those that be absent The whole People cannot summon it self one man is sick another is lame a third is aged and a fourth is under age of discretion all these at some time or other or at some place or other might be able to meet if they might chuse their own time and place as men naturally free should In Assemblies that are by humane politique constitution the superior power that ordains such assemblies can regulate and confine them both for time place persons and other circumstances but where there is an equality by nature there can be no superior power there every Infant at the hour it is born in hath a like interest with the greatest and wisest man in the World Mankind is like the sea ever ebbing or flowing every minute one is born another dies those that are the People this minute are not the People the next minute in every instant and point of time there is a variation no one time can be indifferent for all mankind to assemble it cannot but be mischievous always at the least to all Infants and others under age of discretion not to speak of Women especially Virgins who by birth have as much natural freedom as any other and therefore ought not to lose their liberty without their own consent But in part to salve this it will be said that Infants and Children may be concluded by the votes of their Parents This remedy may cure some part of the mischief but it destroys the whole cause and at last stumbles upon the true original of Government For if it be allowed that the acts of Parents bind the Children then farewel the Doctrine of the natural freedom of mankind where Subjection of Children to Parents is natural there can be no natural freedom If any reply that not all Children shall be bound by their Parents consent but only those that are under age It must be considered that in nature there is no nonage if a man be not born free she doth not assign him any other time when he shall attain his freedom or if she did then Children attaining that age should be discharged of their Parents contract So that in conclusion if it be imagined that the People were ever but once free from Subjection by nature it will prove a meer impossibility ever lawfully to introduce any kind of government whatsoever without apparent wrong to a multitude of People It is further observable that ordinarily Children and Servants are far a greater number than Parents and Masters and for the major part of these to be able to vote and appoint what Government or Governours their Fathers and Masters shall be subject unto is most unnatural and in effect to give the Children the government over their Parents To all this it may be opposed What need dispute how a People can chuse a King since there be multitude of examples that Kings have been and are now adays chosen by their People The answer is 1. The question is not of the fact but of the right whether it have been done by a natural or by an usurped right 2. Many Kings are and have been chosen by some small part of a people but by the whole or major part of a Kingdom not any at all Most have been elected by the Nobility Great men and Princes of the blood as in Poland Denmark and in Sweden not by any collective or representative body of any Nation sometimes a factious or seditious City or a mutinous Army hath set up a King but none of all those could ever prove they had Right or just title either by Nature or any otherwise for such elections We may resolve upon these two propositions 1. That the people have no power or right of themselves to chuse Kings 2. If they had any such right it is not possible for them any way lawfully to exercise it You will say There must necessarily be a right in some body to elect in case a King die without an Heir I answer No King can die without an Heir as long as there is any one man living in the world It may be the Heir may be unknown to the people but that is no fault in nature but the negligence or ignorance of those whom it concerns But if a King could die without an Heir yet the Kingly power in that case shall not escheat to
the whole people but to the supream Heads and Fathers of Families not as they are the people but quatenus they are Fathers of people over whom they have a supream power devolved unto them after the death of their soveraign Ancestor and if any can have a right to chuse a King it must be these Fathers by conferring their distinct fatherly powers upon one man alone Chief Fathers in Scripture are accounted as all the people as all the Children of Israel as all the Congregation as the Text plainly expounds it self 2 Chr. 1.2 where Solomon speaks to All Israel that is to the Captains the Judges and to every Governour the CHIEF OF THE FATHERS and so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 King 8.1 and the 2 Chr. 5.2 If it be objected That Kings are not now as they were at the first planting or peopling of the world the Fathers of their People or Kingdoms and that the fatherhood hath lost the right of governing An answer is That all Kings that now are or ever were are or were either Fathers of their People or the Heirs of such Fathers or Usurpers of the right of such Fathers It is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever either great or small though gathered together from the several corners and remotest regions of the world but that in the same multitude considered by it self there is one man amongst them that in nature hath a right to be the King of all the rest as being the next Heir to Adam and all the other subject unto him every man by nature is a King or a Subject the obedience which all Subjects yield to Kings is but the paying of that duty which is due to the supream fatherhood Many times by the act either of an Usurper himself or of those that set him up the true Heir of a Crown is dispossessed God using the ministry of the wickedest men for the removing and setting up of Kings in such cases the Subjects obedience to the fatherly power must go along and wait upon God's providence who only hath right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby to adopt Subjects into the obedience of another fatherly power according to that of Arist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government Ethic. l. 8. c. 12. However the natural freedom of the People be cried us as the sole means to determine the kind of Government and the Governours yet in the close all the favourers of this opinion are constrained to grant that the obedience which is due to the fatherly Power is the true only cause of the Subjection which we that are now living give to Kings since none of us gave consent to Government but only our Fore-fathers act and consent hath concluded us Whereas many confess that Government only in the abstract is the ordinance of God they are not able to prove any such ordinance in the Scripture but only in the fatherly power and therefore we find the Commandment that enjoyns obedience to Superiours given in the terms of Honour thy Father so that not only the Power or right of Government but the form of the power of governing and the person having that power are all the ordinance of God the first Father had not only simply power but power Monarchical as he was a Father immediately from God For by the appointment of God as soon as Adam was created he was Monarch of the World though he had no Subjects for though there could not be actual Government until there were Subjects yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be Governour of his posterity though not in Act yet at least in habit Adam was a King from his Creation And in the state of innocency he had been Governour of his Children for the integrity or excellency of the Subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the Governour Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned the Angels who are of a pure nature are subject to God which confutes their saying who in disgrace of civil Government or power say it was brought in by sin Government as to coactive power was after sin because coaction supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of innocency But as for directive power the condition of humane nature requires it since civil Society cannot be imagined without power of Government for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done yet things indifferent that depended meerly on their free will might be directed by the power of Adam's command If we consider the first plantations of the world which were after the building of Babel when the confusion of tongues was we may find the division of the Earth into distinct Kingdoms and Countries by several families whereof the Sons or Grand-children of Noah were the Kings or Governours by a fatherly right and for the preservation of this power and right in the Fathers God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by it self the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom as appears by the words of the Text Gen. 10. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their generations in their Nations and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the floud Every one after HIS TONGUE AFTER THEIR FAMILIES in their Nations The Kings of England have been graciously pleased to admit and accept the Commons in Parliament as the Representees of the Kingdom yet really and truly they are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom The Commons in Parliament are not the representative body of the whole Kingdom they do not represent the King who is the head and principal member of the Kingdom nor do they represent the Lords who are the nobler and higher part of the body of the Realm and are personally present in Parliament and therefore need no representation The Commons only represent a part of the lower or inferior part of the body of the People which are the Free-holders worth 40 s. by the year and the Commons or Free-men of Cities and Burroughs or the major part of them All which are not one quarter nay not a tenth part of the Commons of the Kingdom for in every Parish for one Free-holder there may be found ten that are no Freeholders and anciently before Rents were improved there were nothing near so many Free-holders of 40 s. by the year as now are to be found The scope and Conclusion of this discourse and Argument is that the people taken in what notion or sense soever either diffusively collectively or representatively have not nor cannot exercise any right or power of their own by nature either in chusing or in regulating Kings But whatsoever power any people
lawful to proceed against him by way of Fact or Force For question is not here what men are able to do by Strength and Force but what they ought of Right to do as not whether the Subject have Power and Strength but whether they have lawful Power to Condemn their Soveraign Prince The Subject is not only guilty of Treason in the highest Degree who hath Slain his Soveraign Prince but even he also which hath Attempted the same who hath given Counsel or Consent thereto yea if he have Concealed the same or but so much as Thought it Which Fact the Laws have in such Detestation as that when a man guilty of any Offence or Crime dyeth before he be condemned thereof he is deemed to have died in whole and perfect Estate except he have conspired against the Life and Dignity of his Soveraign Prince This only thing they have thought to be such as that for which he may worthily seem to have been now already judged and Condemned yea even before he was thereof Accused And albeit the Laws inflict no Punishment upon the Evil Thoughts of men but on those only which by Word or Deed break out into some Enormity yet if any man shall so much as conceit a Thought for the Violating of the Person of his Soveraign Prince although he have Attempted nothing they have yet Judged this same Thought worthy of Death notwithstanding what Repentance soever he have had thereof Lest any men should think Kings or Princes themselves to have been the Authors of these Laws so the more straitly to provide for their own Safety and Honour let us see the Laws and Examples of Holy Scripture Nabuchodonosor King of Assyria with Fire and Sword destroyed all the Country of Palestina besieged Jerusalem took it rob'd and razed it down to the ground burnt the Temple and defiled the Sanctuary of God slew the King with the greatest part of the people carrying away the rest into Captivity into Babylon caused the Image of himself made in Gold to be set up in Publick place commanding all men to Adore and Worship the same upon pain of being Burnt alive and caused them that refused so to do to be cast into a burning Furnace And yet for all that the holy Prophets Baruch 1. Jeremy 29. directing their Letters unto their Brethren the Jews then in Captivity in Babylon will them to pray unto God for the good and happy Life of Nabuchodonosor and his Children and that they might so long Rule and Reign over them as the Heavens should endure Yea even God himself doubted not to call Nabuchodonosor his Servant saying That he would make him the most Mighty Prince of the world and yet was there never a more detestable Tyrant than he who not contented to be Himself Worshipped but caused his Image also to be Adored and that upon pain of being burnt quick We have another rare Example of Saul who possessed with an evil Spirit caused the Priests of the Lord to be without just Cause slain for that one of them had received David flying from him and did what in his power was to kill or cause to be kill'd the same David a most innocent Prince by whom he had got so many Victories at which time he fell twice himself into David's Hands who blamed of his Souldiers for that he would not suffer his so mortal Enemy then in his power to be Slain being in assured Hope to have enjoyed the Kingdom after his Death he detested their Counsel saying God forbid that I should suffer the Person of a King the Lords Anointed to be violated Yea he himself defended the same King persecuting of him whenas he commanded the Souldiers of his Guard overcome by Wine and Sleep to be wakened And at such time as Saul was slain and that a Souldier thinking to do David a pleasure presented him with Saul's Head David caused the same Souldier to be Slain which had brought him the Head saying Go thou Wicked How durst thou lay thy impure Hands upon the Lords Anointed Thou shalt surely Die therefore And afterwards without all Dissimulation mourned Himself for the dead King All which is worth good consideration for David was by Saul prosecuted to Death and yet wanted not Power to have revenged Himself being become Stronger than the King besides he was the Chosen of God and Anointed by Samuel to be King and had Married the King's Daughter And yet for all that he abhorred to take upon him the Title of a King and much more to Attempt any thing against the Life or Honour of Saul or to Rebel against him but chose rather to Banish himself out of the Realm than in any sort to seek the Kings Destruction We doubt not but David a King and a Prophet led by the Spirit of God had always before his Eyes the Law of God Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not speak Evil of thy Prince nor detract the Magistrate neither is there any thing more common in Holy Scripture than the forbidding not only to Kill or Attempt the Life or Honour of a Prince but even for the very Magistrates although saith the Scripture They be Wicked and Naught The Protestant Princes of Germany before they entred into Arms against Charles the Emperour demanded of Martin Luther if it were Lawful for them so to do or not who frankly told them That it was not Lawful whatsoever Tyranny or Impiety were pretended yet was he not therein by them Believed so thereof ensued a Deadly and most Lamentable War the End whereof was most Miserable drawing with it the Ruine of many great and noble Houses of Germany with exceeding slaughter of the Subjects The Prince whom you may justly call the Father of the Country ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God The Subject is never to be suffered to Attempt any thing against the Prince how Naughty and Cruel soever he be lawful it is not to obey him in things contrary to the Laws of God to Flie and Hide our selves from him but yet to suffer Stripes yea and Death also rather than to Attempt any thing against his Life and Honour O how many Tyrants should there be if it should be lawful for Subjects to kill Tyrants How many good and innocent Princes should as Tyrants perish by the Conspiracy of their Subjects against them He that should of his Subjects but exact Subsidies should be then as the Vulgar People esteem him a Tyrant He that should Rule and Command contrary to the good Liking of the People should be a Tyrant He that should keep strong Guards and Garrisons for the safety of his Person should be a Tyrant He that should put to death Traitors and Conspirators against his State should be also counted a Tyrant How should good Princes be assured of their Lives if under colour of Tyranny they might be Slain by their Subjects by whom they ought to be
Defended In a well-ordered State the Soveraign Power must remain in One onely without Communicating any part thereof unto the State for in that case it should be a Popular Government and no Monarchy Wise Politicians Philosophers Divines and Historiographers have highly commended a Monarchy above all other Commonweals It is not to please the Prince that they hold this Opinion but for the Safety and Happiness of the Subjects And contrariwise when as they shall Limit and Restrain the Soveraign Power of a Monarch to Subject him to the General Estates or to the Council the Soveraignty hath no firm Foundation but they frame a Popular Confusion or a miserable Anarchy which is the Plague of all Estates and Commonweals The which must be duly considered not giving credit to their goodly Discourses which perswade Subjects that it is necessary to subject Monarchs and to give their Prince a Law for that is not only the Ruine of the Monarch but also of the Subjects It is yet more strange that many hold Opinion that the Prince is subject to his Laws that is to say subject to his Will whereon the Laws which he hath made depend a thing impossible in Nature And under this Colour and ill-digested Opinion they make a mixture and confusion of Civil Laws with the Laws of Nature and of God A pure Absolute Monarchy is the furest Common-weal and without Comparison the Best of all Wherein many are abused who maintain that an Optimacy is the best kind of Government for that many Commanders have more Judgment Wisdom and Counsel than One alone For there is a great difference betwixt Councel and Commandment The Councel of Many wise men may be better than of One But to Resolve Determine and to Command One will always perform it better than Many He which hath advisedly digested All their Opinions will soon Resolve without Contention the which Many cannot easily perform It is necessary to have a Soveraign Prince which may have Power to Resolve and Determine of the Opinions of his Council FINIS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE JURY-MEN of ENGLAND TOUCHING WITCHES THE late Execution of Witches at the Summer Assises in Kent occasioned this brief Exercitation which addresses it self to such as have not deliberately thought upon the great difficulty in discovering what or who a Witch is To have nothing but the publick Faith of the present Age is none of the best Evidence unless the universality of elder Times do concur with these Doctrines which ignorance in the times of darkness brought forth and credulity in these days of light hath continued Such as shall not be pleased with this Tractate are left to their liberty to consider whether all those Proofs and Presumptions numbered up by Mr. Perkins for the Conviction of a Witch be not all condemned or confessed by himself to be unsufficient or uncertain He brings no less than eighteen Signs or Proofs whereby a Witch may be discovered which are too many to be all true his seven first he himself confesseth to be insufficient for Conviction of a Witch His eight next Proofs which he saith men in place have used he acknowledgeth to be false or insufficient Thus of his eighteen Proofs which made a great show fifteen of them are cast off by himself there remains then his sixteenth which is the Confession of a Witch yet presently he is forced to yield That a bare Confession is not a sufficient proof and so he cometh to his seventeenth proof which is two credible Witnesses and he here grants That the League between the Devil and the Witch is closely made and the Practices of Witches be very secret that hardly a man can be brought which upon his own knowledge can averr such things Therefore at last when all other proofs fail he is forced to fly to his eighteenth proof and tells us that yet there is a way to come to the knowledge of a Witch which is that Satan useth all means to discover a Witch which how it can be well done except the Devil be bound over to give in Evidence against the Witch cannot be understood And as Mr. Perkins weakens and discredits all his own Proofs so he doth the like for all those of King James who as I remember hath but Three Arguments for the discovery of a Witch First the secret Mark of a Witch of which Mr. Perkins saith it hath no power by Gods Ordinance Secondly The discovery by a fellow Witch this Mr. Perkins by no means will allow to be a good proof Thirdly The swimming of a Witch who is to be flung cross-ways into the water that is as Wierus interprets it when the Thumb of the right Hand is bound to the great Toe of the left Foot and the Thumb of the left Hand to the great Toe of the right Foot Against this Tryal by water together with a disability in a Witch to shed Tears which King James mentions Delrio and Mr. Perkins both argue for it seems they both writ after King James who put forth his Book of Daemonologie in his youth being in Scotland about his age of thirty years It concerns the People of this Nation to be more diligently instructed in the Doctrine of Witchcraft than those of Foreign Countries because here they are tyed to a stricter or exacter Rule in giving their Sentence than others are for all of them must agree in their Verdict which in a case of extreme difficulty is very dangerous and it is a sad thing for men to be reduced to that extremity that they must hazard their Consciences or their Lives A DIFFERENCE Between an English and Hebrew WITCH THE Point in Question is briefly this Whether such a Witch as is Condemned by the Laws and Statutes of this Land be one and the same with the Witch forbidden by the Law of Moses The Witch Condemned by our Statute-Law is 1 Jacob. Cap. 12. One that shall use practise or exercise any Invocation or Conjuration of any evil or wicked Spirit or consult covenant with entertain or employ féed or reward any evil or wicked Spirit to or for any intent or purpose or take up any dead man woman or child out of his her or their grave or any other place where the dead body resteth or the skin bone or other part of any dead person to be employed or used in any manner of Witchcraft Sorcery Charm or Enchantment or shall use practise or exercise any Witchcraft Enchantment Charm or Sorcery whereby any Person shall be killed destroyed wasted consumed pined or lamed in his or her Body or any part thereof such Offenders duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted shall suffer death If any Person shall take upon him by Witchcraft Inchantment Charm or Sorcery to tell or declare in what place any Treasure of Gold or Silver should or might be found or had in the Earth or other secret places or where Goods or things lost or stoln should be found or become Or to the intent to
Most of the Civilest Nations of the Earth labour to fetch their Original from some One of the Sons or Nephews of Noah which were scatterd abroad after the Confusion of Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Regal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World It is a common Opinion that at the Confusion of Tongues there were 72 distinct Nations erected all which were not Confused Multitudes without Heads or Governors and at Liberty to chose what Governors or Government they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even in the Confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Sons of Japhet the Conclusion is By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so it is said These are the Sons of Ham after their Families after their Tongues in their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of Shem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he sayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the number of his Sons the Limits of which Three Parts are all found in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who no doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did he enlarge his Empire by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families And in this sense he may be said to be the Author and first Founder of Monarchy And all those that do attribute unto him the Original Regal Power do hold he got it by Tyrany or Usurpation and not by any due Election of the People or Multitude or 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 It is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their Families and their Places by their Nations 7 Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but some petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories could be but small and not worthy the Title of Kingdoms but they must consider that at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find in the time of Abraham which was about 300 years after the Flood that in a little corner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Battail most of which were but Kings of Cities apiece with the adjacent Territories as of Sodom Gomorrha Shinar c. In the same Chapter is mention of Melchisedeck King of Salem which was but the City of Jerusalem And in the Catalogue of the Kings of Edom the Names of each King's City is recorded as the only Mark to distinguish their Dominions In the Land of Canaan which was but a small circuit Joshua destroyed thirty one Kings and about the same time Adonibeseck had 70 Kings whose hands and toes he had cut off and made them feed under his Table A few years after this 32 Kings came to Benhadad King of Syria and about 70 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 Egypt where the Exercise of Supream Partriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites out of Bondage God out of a special Care of them chose Moses and Joshua successively to govern as Princes in the place and stead of the Supream Fathers and after them likewise for a time he raised up Judges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gave the Israelites Kings he reestablished the Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special Person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently in the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Graunt 8. It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme 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 unto 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 let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more significant to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy by this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae 9. It may be demanded what becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in Case
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a House Nor 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 a 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 those that say Political and Oeconomical Societies are all one and do not differ Specie but only Multitudine Paucitate as if there were no difference betwixt a Great House and a Little City All the Argument I find he brings against them is this The Community of Man and Wife differs 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 Commonweal 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 for for if it should be granted which yet is false that Generation and Preservation differ about the Individuum yet they agree in the General and serve both for the Conservation of Mankind Even as several Servants differ in the particular Ends or Offices as one to Brew and another to Bake yet they agree in the general Preservation of the 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 us how and when Sons become Free I 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 suferiour 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 Community 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 Parents ought to have been Princes of their Posterity And until 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 if 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 or 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 of them This Answer of Scarce possible nor yet Expedient It is likelier begets 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 or 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 priviledge of the whole World If any think that particular Multitudes at their own Discretion had power to divide themselves into several Commonwealths those that think so have neither Reason nor Proof for so thinking and thereby 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 Election of a Prince Is there any Example of it ever found in the Whole World To conceit such a thing is to imagine 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 these Cases it may be said to be the Work of the whole Multitude As to the Acts of the Major part of a Multitude it is true that by Politick Humane Constitutions it is oft ordained that the Voices of the most shall over-rule the Rest and such Ordinances bind because where Men are Assembled by an humane Power that power that doth Assemble them can also Limit and Direct the manner of the Execution of that Power and by such Derivative Power made known by Law or Custom either the greater part or two Thirds or Three parts of Five or the like have power to oversway the Liberty of their Opposites But in Assemblies that take their Authority from the Law of Nature it cannot be so for what Freedom or Liberty is due to any Man by the Law of Nature no Inferiour Power can alter limit or diminish no One Man nor a Multitude can give away the Natural Right of another The Law of Nature is unchangeable and howsoever One Man may hinder Another in the Use or Exercise of his Natural Right yet thereby No Man loseth the Right of it self for the Right and the Use of the Right may be distinguished as Right and Possession are oft distinct Therefore unless it can be proved by the Law of Nature that the Major or some other part have Power to over rule the Rest of the Multitude It must follow that the Acts of Multitudes not Entire are not Binding to All but only to such as Consent unto them 7. As to the point of Proxy it cannot be shewed or proved That all those that have been Absent from Popular Elections did ever give their Voices to some of their Fellows I ask but one Example out of the History of the whole World Let the Commonweal be but named wherever the Multitude or so much as the Greatest part of it consented either by Voice or by Procuration to the Election of a Prince The Ambition sometimes of One Man sometimes of Many or the Faction of a City or Citizens or the Mutiny of an Army hath set up or put down Princes but they have never tarried for this pretended Order by proceeding of the whole Multitude Lastly if the silent Acceptation of a Governour by part of the People be an Argument of their Concurring in the Election of him by the same Reason the Tacit Assent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained From whence it follows that every Prince that comes to a Crown either by Succession Conquest or Vsurpation may be said to be Elected by the People which Inference is too ridiculous for in such Cases the People are so far from the Liberty of Specification that they want even that of Contradiction 8. But it is in vain to argue against the Liberty of the People in the Election of Kings as long as men are perswaded that Examples of it are to be found in Scripture It is fit therefore to discover the Grounds of this Errour It is plain by an Evident Text that it is one thing to choose a King and another thing to set up a King over the People this latter power the Children of Israel had but not the former This distinction is found most evident in Deut. 17.15 where the Law of God saith Him shalt thou set King over thee whom the Lord shall choose so God must Eligere and the People only do Constituere Mr. Hooker in his Eight Book of Ecclesiastical Policy clearly expounds this Distinction the words are worthy the citing Heaps of Scripture saith he are alledged concerning the Solemn Coronation or Inauguration of Saul David Solomon and others by Nobles Ancients and the people of the Commonwealth of Israel as if these Solemnities were a kind of Deed whereby the Right of Dominion is given which strange untrue and unnatural conceits are set abroad by Seed-men of Rebellion only to animate unquiet Spirits and to feed them with possibilities of Aspiring unto the Thrones if they can win the Hearts of the People whatsoever Hereditary Title any other before them may have I say these unjust and insolent Positions I would not mention were it not thereby to
make the Countenance of Truth more Orient For unless we will openly proclaim Defiance unto all Law Equity and Reason we must for there is no other Remedy acknowledg that in Kingdoms Hereditary Birth-right giveth Right unto Sovereign Dominion and the Death of the Predecessor putteth the Successor by Blood in Seisin Those publick Solemnities before-mentioned do either serve for an open Testification of the Inheritor's Right or belong to the Form of inducing of him into possession of that thing he hath Right unto This is Mr. Hooker's Judgment of the Israelites Power to set a King over themselves No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King they would never have made choice of Joas a Child but of seven years old nor of Manasses a Boy of Twelve since as Solomon saith Wo to the Land whose King is a Child Nor is it probable they would have elected Josias but a very Child and a Son to so wicked and Idolatrous a Father as that his own Servants murthered him and yet all the people set up this young Josias and slew the Conspirators of the Death of Ammon his Father which Justice of the People God rewarded by making this Josias the most Religious King that ever that Nation enjoyed 9. Because it is affirmed that the People have Power to choose as well what Form of Government as what Governours they please of which mind is Bellarmine in those Places we cited at first Therefore it is necessary to Examine the Strength of what is said in Defence of popular Common-weals against this Natural Form of Kingdoms which I maintain'd Here I must first put the Cardinal in mind of what he affirms in cold Blood in other Places where he saith God when he made all Mankind of one Man did seem openly to signifie that he rather approved the Government of one Man than of many Again God shewed his Opinion when he endued not only Men but all Creatures with a Natural Propensity to Monarchy neither can it be doubted but a Natural Propensity is to be referred to God who is Author of Nature And again in a Third Place What Form of Government God confirmed by his Authority may be gathered by that Common-weal which he instituted amongst the Hebrews which was not Aristocratical as Calvin saith but plainly Monarchichal 10. Now if God as Bellarmine saith hath taught us by Natural Instinct signified to us by the Creation and confirmed by his own Example the Excellency of Monarchy why should Bellarmine or We doubt but that it is Natural Do 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 were all Monarchs There is not in all the Scripture Mention or Approbation of any other Form of Government At the time when Scripture saith There was no King in Israel but that every Man did that which was Right in his Own Eyes Even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Benjamitical War for providing Wives for the Benjamites we find the Elders of the Congregation bare only Sway. 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 unto 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 begg'd a King of Samuel they were Governed by Kingly Power God out of a special Love and Care to the House of Israel did choose to be their King himself and did govern them at that time by his Viceroy Samuel and his Sons and therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected Thee but Me that I should not Reign over them It seems they did not like a King by Deputation but desired one by Succession like all the Nations All Nations belike had Kings then and those by Inheritance not by Election for we do not find the Israelites prayed that they themselves might choose their Own King they dream of no such Liberty and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together If other Nations had Elected their own Kings no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated Other Nations as well in the Electing as in the Having of a King Aristotle in his Book of Politicks when he comes to compare the several Kinds of Government he is very reserved in discoursing what Form he thinks Best he disputes subtilely to and fro of many Points and Judiciously of many Errours but concludes nothing himself In all those Books I find little Commendation of Monarchy It was his Hap to live in those Times when the Graecians abounded with several Common-wealths who had then Learning enough to make them seditious Yet in his Ethicks he hath so much good Manners as to confess in right down words That Monarchy is the best Form of Government and a Popular Estate the worst And though he be not so free in his Politicks yet the Necessity of Truth hath here and there extorted from him that which amounts no less to the Dignity of Monarchy he confesseth it to be First the Natural and the Divinest Form of Government and that the Gods themselves did live under a Monarchy What can a Heathen say more Indeed the World for a long time knew no other sort of Government but only Monarchy The Best Order the Greatest Strength the Most Stability and easiest Government are to be found all in Monarchy and in no other Form of Government The New Platforms of Commonweals were first hatched in a Corner of the World amongst a few Cities of Greece which have been imitated by very few other places 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 Democracy 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
Justice A natural Reason is to be rendered for it It is the Multitude of People and the abundance of their Riches which are the only Strength and Glory of every Prince The Bodies of his Subjects do him Service in War and their Goods supply his present Wants therefore if not out of Affection to his People yet out of Natural Love to Himself every Tyrant desires to preserve the Lives and protect the Goods of his Subjects which cannot be done but by Justice and if it be not done the Prince's Loss is the greatest on the contrary in a Popular State evey man knows the Publick good doth not depend wholly on his Care but the Common-wealth may well enough be governed by others though he tend only his Private Benefit he never takes the Publick to be his Own Business thus as in a Family where one Office is to be done by many Servants one looks upon another and every own leaves the Business for his Fellow until it is quite neglected by all nor are they much to be blamed for their Negligence since it is an even Wager their Ignorance is as great For Magistrates among the People being for the most part Annual do always lay down their Office before they understand it so that a Prince of a Duller Understanding by Use and Experience must needs excell them again there is no Tyrant so barbarously Wicked but his own reason and sense will tell him that though he be a God yet he must dye like a Man and that there is not the Meanest of his Subjects but may find a means to revenge himself of the Injustice that is offered him hence it is that great Tyrants live continually in base fears as did Dionysius the Elder Tiberius Caligula and Nero are noted by Suetonius to have been frighted with Panick fears But it is not so where wrong is done to any Particular Person by a Multitude he knows not who hurt him or who to complain of or to whom to address himself for reparation Any man may boldly exercise his Malice and Cruelty in all Popular Assemblies There is no Tyranny to be compared to the Tyranny of a Multitude 16. What though the Government of the People be a thing not to be endured much less defended yet many men please themselves with an Opinion that though the People may 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 Sovereignty to Himself for the having of this alone and nothing but this makes a King to be a King As for that Shew of Popularity which is found in such Kingdoms as have General Assemblies for Consultation about making Publick Laws It must be remembred that such Meetings do not share or divide the Sovereignty with the Prince but do only deliberate and advise their Supreme Head who still reserves the Absolute Power in himself for if in such Assemblies the King the Nobility and People have equal Shares in the Sovereignty then the King hath but one Voice the Nobility likewise one and the People one and then any two of these Voices should have Power to over-rule the third thus the Nobility and Commons together should have Power to make a Law to bind the King which was never yet seen in any Kingdom but if it could the State must needs be Popular and not Regal 17. If it be Unnatural for the Multitude to chuse their Governours or to Govern or to partake in the Government what can be thought of that damnable Conclusion which is made by too many that the Multitude may Correct or Depose their Prince if need be Surely the Unnaturalness and Injustice of this Position cannot sufficiently be expressed For admit that a King make a Contract or Paction with his People either Originally in his Ancestors or personally at his Coronation for both these Pactions some dream of but cannot offer any proof for either yet by no Law of any Nation can a Contract be thought broken except that first a Lawful Tryal be had by the Ordinary Judge of the Breakers thereof or else every Man may be both Party and Judge in his own case which is absur'd once to be thought for then it will lye in the hands of the headless Multitude when they please to cast off the Yoke of Government that God hath laid upon them to judge and punish him by whom they should be judged and punished themselves Aristotle can tell us what Judges the Multitude are in their own case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Judgment of the Multitude in Disposing of the Sovereignty 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 justified 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
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 Vsurp 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 Britain was the undoubted Heir of the Crown upon whom King John Vsurped 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 Vsurpation and was secondly fostered 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 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 cannot 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 King's Writs appoint The prudent King Edward the First summoned always those Barons of ancient Families that were most wise to his Parliament but omitted 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 Freeholders in the Counties and Freemen in the Cities and Burroughs yet in the City of Westminster all the House-holders though they be neither Freemen nor Free-holders have Voices in their Election of Burgesses Also during the time of Parliament those Privileges 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 a-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 Privileges 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 Supream Judg 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
that is God can only compel but the Law and his Courts may advise Him Rot. Parliament 1 Hen. 4. nu 79. the Commons expresly affirm Judgment in Parliament belongs to the King and Lords These Precedents shew that from the Conquest until a great part of Henry the Third's Reign in whose days it is thought the Writ for Election of Knights was framed which is about two hundred years and above a third part of the time since the Conquest to our days the Barons made the Parliament or Common Councel of the Kingdom under the name of Barons not only the Earls but the Bishops also were Comprehended for the Conquerour made the Bishops Barons Therefore it is no such great Wonder that in the Writ we find the Lords only to be the Counsellors and the Commons Called only to perform and consent to the Ordinances Those there be who seem to believe that under the word Barons anciently the Lords of Court-Barons were comprehended and that they were Called to Parliament as Barons but if this could be proved to have been at any time true yet those Lords of Court-Barons were not the representative Body of the Commons of England except it can be also proved that the Commons or Free-holders of the Kingdom chose such Lords of Court-Barons to be present in Parliament The Lords of Manors came not at first by Election of the People as Sir Edw. Coke treating of the Institution of Court-Barons resolves us in these words By the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings and especially of King Alfred it appeareth that the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demean and les grand Manors and Royalties they reserved to themselves and of the remnant they for the Defence of the Realm enfeoffed the Barons of the Realm with such Jurisdiction as the Court-Baron now hath Coke's Institutes First part Fol. 58. Here by the way I cannot but note that if the first Kings had all the Lands of England in Demean as Sir Edw. Coke saith they had And if the first Kings were chosen by the People as many think they were then surely our Fore-fathers were a very bountiful if not a prodigal People to give all the Lands of the whole Kingdom to their Kings with Liberty for them to keep what they pleased and to give the Remainder to their Subjects clogg'd and encumbred with a Condition to defend the Realm This is but an ill sign of a limited Monarchy by original Constitution or Contract But to conclude the former point Sir Edward Coke's Opinion is that in the ancient Laws under the name of Barons were comprised all the Nobility This Doctrine of the Barons being the Common Councel doth displease many and is denied as tending to the Disparagement of the Commons and to the Discredit and Confutation of their Opinion who teach that the Commons are assigned Councellors to the King by the People therefore I will call in Mr. Pryn to help us with his Testimony He in his Book of Treachery Disloyalty c. proves that before the Conquest by the Laws of Edward the Confessor cap. 17. The King by his Oaths was to do Justice by the Councel of the Nobles of his Realm He also resolves that the Earls and Barons in Parliament are above the King and ought to bridle him when he exorbitates from the Laws He further tells us the Peers Prelates have oft translated the Crown from the right Heir 1. Electing and Crowning Edward who was illegitimate and putting by Ethelred the right Heir after Edgars decease 2. Electing and Crowning Canutus a meer Foreigner in opposition to Edmund the right Heir to King Ethelred 3. Harold and Hardiknute both elected Kings successively without title Edmund and Alfred the right Heirs being dispossessed 4. The English Nobility upon the Death of Harold enacted that none of the Danish bloud should any more reign over them 5. Edgar Etheling who had best Title was rejected and Harold elected and crowned King 6. In the second and third year of Edw. 2. the Peers and Nobles of the Land seeing themselves contemned entreated the King to manage the Affairs of the Kingdom by the Councel of his Barons He gave his Assent and sware to ratifie what the Nobles ordained and one of their Articles was that He would thenceforward order all the Affairs of the Kingdom by the Councel of his Clergy and Lords 7. William Rufus finding the greatest part of the Nobles against him sware to Lanfranke that if they would choose him for King he would abrogate their over-hard Laws 8. The Beginning saith Mr. Pryn of the Charter of Hen. 1. is observable Henry by the Grace of God of England c. Know ye That by the Mercy of God and Common Councel of the Barons of the Kingdom I am Crowned King 9. Maud the Empress the right Heir was put-by the Crown by the Prelates and Barons and Stephen Earl of Mortain who had no good Title assembling the Bishop and Peers promising the amendment of the Laws according to all their Pleasures and Liking was by them all proclaimed King 10 Lewis of France Crowned King by the Barons instead of King John All these Testimonies from Mr. Pryn may satisfie that anciently the Barons were the Common Councel or Parliament of England And if Mr. Pryn could have found so much Antiquity and Proof for the Knights Citizens and Burgesses being of the Common Councel I make no doubt but we should have heard from him in Capital Characters but alas he meets not with so much as these Names in those elder Ages He dares not say the Barons were assigned by the People Councellors to the King for he tells us every Baron in Parliament doth represent his own Person and speaketh in behalf of himself alone but in the Knights Citizens and Burgesses are represented the Commons of the whole Realm therefore every one of the Commons hath a greater voice in Parliament than the greatest Earl in England Nevertheless Master Pryn will be very well content if we will admit and swallow these Parliaments of Barons for the representative Body of the Kingdom and to that Purpose he cites them or to no Purpose at all But to prove the Treachery and Disloyalty of Popish Parliaments Prelates and Peers to their Kings which is the main Point that Master Pryn by the Title of his Book is to make good and to prove As to the second Point which is That until the time of Hen. 1. the Commons were not called to Parliament besides the general Silence of Antiquity which never makes mention of the Commons Coming to Parliament until that time our Histories say before his time only certain of the Nobility were called to Consultation about the most important affairs of the State He caused the Commons also to be assembled by Knights Citizens and Burgesses of their own Appointment much to the same purpose writes Sir Walter Raleigh saying it is held that the Kings of England
Estates But to the contrary His Majesty thereby to be much the Greater and the more Honourable seeing all His People to acknowledge Him for their Soveraign We see the principal Point of Soveraign Majesty and Absolute Power to consist principally in giving Laws unto the Subjects without their Consent It behoveth that the Soveraign Prince should have the Laws in his Power to Change and Amend them according as Occasion shall require In a Monarchy every one in particular must swear to the Observation of the Laws and their Allegiance to One Soveraign Monarch who next unto God of whom he holds his Scepter and Power is bound to No Man For an Oath carrieth always with it Reverence unto whom and in whose Name it is made as still given to a Superiour and therefore the Vassal gives such Oath unto his Lord but receives None from Him again though they be mutually Bound the One of them to the Other Trajan swore to keep the Laws although he under the name of a Soveraign Prince was exempted but never any of the Emperours before him so sware Therefore Pliny the Younger in a Panegyrical Oration speaking of the Oath of Trajan gives out A great Novelty saith he and never before heard of He sweareth by whom we swear Of these two things the one must come to pass to wit the Prince that swears to keep the Laws of his Country must either not have the Soveraignty or else become a Perjur'd Man if he should Abrogate but one Law contrary to his Oath whereas it is not only Profitable that a Prince should sometimes Abrogate some such Laws but also Necessary for him to Alter or Correct them as the infinite Variety of Places Times and Persons shall require Or if we shall say the Prince to be still a Soveraign and yet nevertheless with such conditions that he can make no Law without the Advice of his Councel or People He must also be Dispensed with by his Subjects for the Oath which he hath made for the Observation of the Laws and the Subjects again which are obliged to the Laws have also need to be Dispensed withal by their Prince for fear they should be Perjur'd So shall it come to pass that the Majesty of the Commonweal enclining now to this side now to that side sometimes the Prince sometimes the People bearing sway shall have no Certainty to rest upon which are notable Absurdities and altogether incompatible with the Majesty of Absolute Soveraignty and contrary both to Law and Reason And yet we see many men that think they see more in the matter than others will maintain it to be most Necessary that Princes should be bound by Oath to keep the Laws and Customs of their Countreys In which doing they weaken and overthrow all the Rights of Soveraign Majesty which ought to be most Sacred and Holy and confound the Soveraignty of One Soveraign Monarch with an Aristocracy or Democracy Publication or Approbation of Laws in the Assembly of the Estates or Parliament is with us of great importance for the keeping of the Laws not that the Prince cannot of himself make a Law without the Consent of the Estates or People for even all his Declarations of War Treaties of Peace Valuations of the Coin Charters to enable Towns to send Burgesses to Parliament and his Writ of Summons to both Houses to Assemble are Laws though made without the Consent of the Estates or People but it is a Courteous part to do it by the good liking of the Senate What if a Prince by Law forbid to Kill or Steal is he not Bound to obey his own Laws I say that this Law is not His but the Law of God whereunto all Princes are more straitly bound than their Subjects God taketh a stricter account of Princes than others as Solomon a King hath said whereto agreeth Marcus Aurelius saying The Magistrates are Judges over private men Princes judge the Magistrates and God the Princes It is not only a Law of Nature but also oftentimes repeated among the Laws of God that we should be Obedient unto the Laws of such Princes as it hath pleased God to set to Rule and Reign over us if their Laws be not directly Repugnant unto the Laws of God whereunto all Princes are as well bound as their Subjects For as the Vassal oweth his Oath of Fidelity unto his Lord towards and against all men except his Soveraign Prince So the Subject oweth his Obedience to his Soveraign Prince towards and against all the Majesty of God excepted who is the Absolute Soveraign of All the Princes in the World To confound the state of Monarchy with the Popular or Aristocratical estate is a thing impossible and in effect incompatible and such as cannot be imagined For Soveraignty being of it self Indivisible How can it at one and the same time be Divided betwixt One Prince the Nobility and the People in common The first Mark of Soveraign Majesty is to be of Power to give Laws and to Command over them unto the Subjects And who should those Subjects be that should yield their Obedience to the Law if they should have also Power to make the Laws Who should He be that could Give the Law being he himself constrain'd to Receive it of them unto whom he himself Gave it So that of necessity we must conclude that as no One in particular hath the Power to make the Law in such a State that there the State must needs be Popular Never any Commonwealth hath been made of an Aristocracy and Popular Estate much less of all the Three Estates of a Commonwealth Such States wherein the Right of Soveraignty is Divided are not rightly to be called Commonweals but rather the Corruption of Commonweals as Herodotus hath most briefly but truly written Commonweals which change their State the Soveraign Right and Power of them being Divided find no rest from Civil Wars If the Prince be an Absolute Soveraign as are the true Monarchs of France of Spain of England Scotland Turkey Muscovy Tartary Persia Aethiopia India and almost of all the Kingdoms of Africk and Asia where the Kings themselves have the Soveraignty without all doubt or question not Divided with their Subjects In this case it is not lawful for any One of the Subjects in particular or all of them in general to attempt any thing either by way of Fact or of Justice against the Honour Life or Dignity of the Soveraign albeit he had committed all the Wickedness Impiety and Cruelty that could be spoke For as to proceed against Him by way of Justice the Subject hath not such Jurisdiction over his Soveraign Prince of whom dependeth all Power to Command and who may not only Revoke all the Power of his Magistrates but even in whose Presence the Power of all Magistrates Corporations Estates and Communities cease Now if it be not lawful for the Subject by the way of Justice to proceed against a King How should it then be