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
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
men and yet we find no particular Point of Pride charged upon him but that he enjoyned the Romans to labour in cleansing and casting of Ditches and paving their Sinks an Act both for the Benefit and Ornament of the City and therefore commendable in the King But the Citizens of Rome who had been Conquerours of all Nations round about them could not endure of Warriers to become Quarriers and Day-labourers Whereas it is said that Tarquin was expelled for the Rape committed by his Son on Lucrece it is unjust to condemn the Father for the Crime of his Son it had been fit to have petitioned the Father for the Punishment of the Offender The Fact of young Tarquin cannot be excused yet without wrong to the Reputation of so chaste a Lady as Lucrece is reputed to be it may be said she had a greater Desire to be thought chaste than to be chaste she might have died untouched and unspotted in her Body if she had not been afraid to be slandered for Inchastity both Dionysius Halicarnasseus and Livie who both are her Friends so tell the Tale of her as if she had chosen rather to be a Whore than to be thought a Whore To say Truth we find no other Cause of the Expulsion of Tarquin than the Wantonness and Licentiousness of the People of Rome This is further to be considered in the Roman Government that all the time between their Kings and their Emperours there lasted a continued strife between the Nobility and Commons wherein by Degrees the Commons prevailed at last so to weaken the Authority of the Consuls and Senate that even the last sparks of Monarchy were in a manner extinguished and then instantly began the Civil War which lasted till the Regal Power was quickly brought home and setled in Monarchy So long as the Power of the Senate stood good for the Election of Consuls the Regal Power was preserved in them for the Senate had their first Institution from Monarchy It is worth the noting that in all those places that have seemed to be most popular that weak Degree of Government that hath been exercised among them hath been founded upon and been beholden unto Monarchical Principles both for the Power of assembling and manner of consulting for the entire and gross Body of any People is such an unweildy and diffused thing as is not capable of uniting or congregating or deliberating in an entire Lump but in broken Parts which at first were regulated by Monarchy Furthermore it is observable that Rome in her chief Popularity was oft beholden for her Preservation to the Monarchical Power of the Father over the Children by means of this Fatherly Power saith Bodin the Romans flourished in all Honour and Vertue and oftentimes was their Common-weal thereby delivered from most imminent Destruction when the Fathers drew out of the Consistory their Sons being Tribunes publishing Laws tending to Sedition Amongst others Cassius threw his Son headlong out of the Consistory publishing the Law Agraria for the Division of Lands in the Behoof of the People and after by his own private Judgment put him to Death the Magistrates Serjeants and People standing thereat astonied and not daring to withstand his Fatherly Authority although they would with all their Power have had that Law for Division of Lands which is sufficient Proof this Power of the Father not only to have been sacred and inviolable but also to have been lawful for him either by Right or Wrong to dispose of the Life and Death of his Children even contrary to the Will of the Magistrates and People It is generally believed that the Government of Rome after the Expulsion of Kings was popular Bodin endeavours to prove it but I am not satisfied with his Arguments and though it will be thought a Paradox yet I must maintain it was never truly popular First it is difficult to agree what a popular Government is Aristotle saith it is where Many or a Multitude do rule he doth not say where the People or the major part of the People or the Representors of the People govern Bodin affirms if all the People be interessed in the Government it is a Popular Estate Lib. 2. c. 1. but after in the same Chapter he resolves that it is a Popular Estate when all the People or the greater part thereof hath the Sovereignty and he puts the Case that if there be threescore thousand Citizens and forty thousand of them have the Sovereignty and twenty thousand be excluded it shall be called a popular Estate But I must tell him though fifty nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine of them govern yet it is no popular Estate for if but one man be excluded the same reason that excludes that one man may exclude many hundreds and many thousands yea and the major part it self if it be admitted that the People are or ever were free by Nature and not to be governed but by their own Consent it is most unjust to exclude any one man from his Right in Government and to suppose the People so unnatural as at the first to have all consented to give away their Right to a major part as if they had Liberty given them only to give away and not to use it themselves is not only improbable but impossible for the whole People is a thing so uncertain and changeable that it alters every moment so that it is necessary to ask of every Infant so soon as it is born its Consent to Government if you will ever have the Consent of the whole People Moreover if the Arbitrary Tryal by a Jury of Twelve men be a thing of that admirable Perfection and Justice as is commonly believed wherein the Negative Voice of every single Person is preserved so that the dissent of any of the Twelve frustrates the whole Judgment How much more ought the natural freedom of each man be preserved by allowing him his Negative Voice which is but a continuing him in that Estate wherein it is confessed Nature at first placed him Justice requires that no one Law should bind all except all consent to it there is nothing more violent and contrary to Nature than to allow a major part or any other greater part less than the whole to bind all the People The next difficulty to discovering what a Popular Estate is is to find out where the Supreme Power in the Roman Government rested it is Bodin's Opinion that in the Roman State the Government was in the Magistrates the Authority and Council in the Senate but the Sovereign Power and Majesty in the People Lib. 2. c. 1. So in his first Book his Doctrine is that the ancient Romans said Imperium in Magistratibus Authoritatem in Senatu Potestatem in plebe Majestatem in Populo jure esse dicebant These four words Command Authority Power and Majesty signifie ordinarily one and the same thing to wit the Sovereignty or supreme Power I cannot find that Bodin knows how to
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
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
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
Author hath omitted I shall attempt to supply and leave to the scanning And it shall be a real as well as nominal definition of Monarchy A Monarchy is the Government of one alone For the better credit of this definition though it be able to maintain it self yet I shall deduce it from the Principles of our Author of the Treatise of Monarchy We all know that this word Monarch is compounded of two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is imperare to govern and rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one alone The understanding of these two words may be picked out of our Author First for Government he teacheth us It is potestatis exercitium the exercise of a moral power next he grants us That every Monarch even his limited Monarch must have the supreme Power of the State in him so that his Power must no way be limited by any power above his for then he were not a Monarch but a subordinate Magistrate Here we have a fair confession of a supreme unlimited Power in his limited Monarch if you will know what he means by these words supreme Power turn to his 26. page there you will find Supreme Power is either Legislative or Gubernative and that the Legislative power is the chief of the two he makes both supreme and yet one chief the like distinction he hath before where he saith The power of Magistracy in respect of its degrees is Nomothetical or Architectonical and Gubernative or Executive by these words of Legislative Nomothetical and Architectonical Power in plain English he understands a power of making Laws and by Gubernative and Executive a power of putting those Laws in execution by judging and punishing offenders The result we have from hence is That by the Authors acknowledgment every Monarch must have the supreme Power and that supreme Power is a power to make Laws and howsoever the Author makes the Gubernative and Executive power a part of the supreme Power yet he confesseth the Legislative to be chief or the highest degree of power for he doth acknowledge degrees of supreme Power nay he afterwards teacheth us That the Legislative power is the height of power to which the other parts are subsequent and subservient if Gubernative be subservient to Legislative how can Gubernative power be supreme Now let us examine the Authors Limited Monarch by these his own rules he tells us That in a moderated limited stinted conditionate legal or allayed Monarchy for all these terms he hath for it the supreme Power must be restrained by some Law according to which this power was given and by direction of which this power must act when in a line before he said That the Monarchs power must not be limited by any power above his yet here he will have his supreme Power restrained not limited and yet restrained is not a restraint a limitation And if restrained how is it supreme And if restrained by some Law is not the power of that Law and of them that made that Law above his supreme Power And if by the direction of such Law only he must govern where is the Legislative power which is the chief of supreme Power When the Law must rule and govern the Monarch and not the Monarch the Law he hath at the most but a Gubernative or Executive power If his Authority transcends its bounds if it command beyond the Law the Subject is not bound legally to subjection in such cases and if the utmost extent of the Law of the Land be the measure of the limited Monarchs power and Subjects duty where shall we find the supreme Power that Culmen or Apex potestatis that prime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Author saith must be in every Monarch The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies principality and power doth also signifie principium beginning which doth teach us that by the word Prince or Principality the principium or beginning of Government is meant this if it be given to the Law it robs the Monarch and makes the Law the primum mobile and so that which is but the instrument or servant to the Monarch becomes the master Thus much of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solus one alone the Monarch must not only have the supreme Power unlimited but he must have it alone without any companions Our Author teacheth us He is no Monarch if the supreme Power be not in one And again he saith If you put the Apex potestatis or supreme Power in the whole body or a part of it you destroy the being of Monarchy Now let us see if his mixed Monarchy be framed according to these his own Principles First he saith In a mixed Monarchy the Soveraign power must be originally in all three Estates And again his words are The three Estates are all sharers in the supreme Power the primity of share in the supreme Power is in One. Here we find that he that told us the supreme Power must be in one will now allow his mixed Monarch but one share only of the supreme Power and gives other shares to the Estates thus he destroys the being of Monarchy by putting the supreme Power or Culmen potestatis or a part of it in the whole body or a part thereof and yet formerly he confesseth That the power of Magistracy cannot well be divided for it is one simple thing or indivisible beam of Divine perfection but he can make this indivisible beam to be divisible into three shares I have done with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solus alone I have dwelt the longer upon this definition of Monarchy because the apprehending of it out of the Authors own grounds quite overthrows both his Monarch limited by Law and his Monarch mixed with the States For to Govern is to give a Law to others and not to have a Law given to govern and limit him that governs And to govern alone is not to have sharers or Companions mixed with the Governour Thus the two words of which Monarchy is compounded contradict the two sorts of Monarchy which he pleads for and by consequence his whole Treatise for these two sorts of limited and mixed Monarchy take up in a manner his whole Book I will now touch some few particular passages in the Treatise Our Author first confesseth It is Gods express Ordinance there should be Government and he proves it by Gen. 3.16 where God ordained Adam to rule over his wife and her desires were to be subject to his and as hers so all theirs that should come of her Here we have the original grant of Government and the fountain of all power placed in the Father of all Mankind accordingly we find the Law for obedience to Government given in the terms of honour thy Father not only the constitution of Power in general but the limitation of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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
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