the Commonwealth be named wherever the Multitude or so much as the major part of it consented either by Voice or Procuration to the Election of a Prince not observing that if an Answer could not be given he did overthrow the Rights of all the Princes that are or ever have bin in the world for if the Liberty of one man cannot be limited or diminished by one or any number of men and none can give away the Right of another 't is plain that the Ambition of one man or of many a faction of Citizens or the mutiny of an Army cannot give a Right to any over the Liberties of a whole Nation Those who are so set up have their root in Violence or Fraud and are rather to be accounted Robbers and Pirats than Magistrates Leo Africanus observing in his History that since the extinction of Mahomet's Race to whom his Countrymen thought God had given the Empire of the World their Princes did not come in by the consent of those Nations which they governed says that they are esteemed Thieves and that on this account the most honourable Men among the Arabians and Moors scorn to eat drink or make Alliances with them and if the case were as general as that Author makes it no better Rule could be any where followed by honourable and worthy Men. But a good Cause must not be lost by the fault of an ill Advocate the Rights of Kings must not perish because Filmer knows not how to defend or dos maliciously betray them I have already proved that David and divers of the Judges were chosen by all Israel Jeroboam by ten Tribes all the Kings of Rome except Tarquin the Proud by the whole City I may add many Examples of the Saxons in our own Country Ina and Offa were made Kings omnium consensu These All are expressed plainly by the words Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Senatoribus Ducibus Populo terrae Egbert and Ethelward came to the Crown by the same Authority Omnium consensu Rex creatur Ethelwolf the Monk Necessitate cogente factus est Rex consensus publicus in regem dari petiit Ethelstan tho a Bastard Electus est magno consensu Optimatum a Populo consalutatus In the like manner Edwin's Government being disliked they chose Edgar Vnanimi omnium conspiratione Edwino dejecto eligerunt Deo dictante Edgarum in Regem annuente Populo And in another place Edgarus ab omni Anglorum Populo electus est Ironside being deâ—d Canutus was received by the general consent of all Juraverunt illi quod eum regem sibi eligere vellent foedus etiam cum principibus omni populo ipse illi cum ipso percusserunt Whereupon Omnium consensu super totam Angliam Canutus coronatur Hardicanutus gaudenter ab omnibus suscipitur electus est The same Author says that Edward the Confessor Electus est in regem ab omni populo And another Omnium Electione in Edwardum concordatur Tho the name of Conqueror be odiously given to William the Norman he had the same Title to the Crown with his Predecessors In magna exultatione a Clero Populo susceptus ab omnibus Rex acclamatus I cannot recite all the Examples of this kind that the History of almost all Nations furnishes unless I should make a Volume in bulk not inferior to the Book of Martyrs But those which I have mentioned out of the Sacred Roman and English History being more than sufficient to answer our Author's Challenge I take liberty to add that tho there could not be one Example produced of a Prince or any other Magistrate chosen by the general consent of the People or by the major part of them it could be of no advantage to the Cause he has undertaken to maintain For when a People hath either indefinitely or under certain Conditions and Limitations resigned their Power into the hands of a certain number of men or agreed upon Rules according to which persons should from time to time be deputed for the management of their Affairs the Acts of those persons if their Power be without restrictions are of the same value as the Acts of the whole Nation and the assent of every individual man is comprehended in them If the Power be limited whatsoever is done according to that limitation has the same Authority If it do therefore appear as is testified by the Laws and Histories of all our Northern Nations that the power of every People is either wholly or to such a degree as is necessary for creating Kings granted to their several Gemotes Diets Cortez Assemblies of Estates Parliaments and the like all the Kings that they have any where or at any time chosen do reign by the same authority and have the same right as if every individual man of those Nations had assented to their Election But that these Gemotes Diets and other Assemblies of State have every where had such Powers and executed them by rejecting or setting up Kings and that the Kings now in being among us have received their beginning from such Acts has bin fully proved and is so plain in it self that none but those who are grosly stupid or impudent can deny it which is enough to shew that all Kings are not set up by violence deceit faction of a sew powerful men or the mutinies of Armies but from the consent of such multitudes as joining together frame Civil Societies and either in their own persons at general Assemblies or by their Delegates confer a just and legal Power upon them which our Author rejecting he dos as far as in him lies prove them all to be Usurpers and Tyrants SECT VI. They who have a right of chusing a King have the right of making a King THO the Right of Magistrates do essentially depend upon the consent of those they govern it is hardly worth our pains to examin Whether the silent acceptation of a Governor by part of the People be an argument of their concurring in the election of him or by the same reason the tacit consent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained for when the question is concerning Right fraudulent surmises are of no value much less will it from thence follow that a Prince commanding by Succession Conquest or Usurpation may be said to be elected by the People for evident marks of dissent are often given Some declare their hatred other murmur more privately many oppose the Governour or Government and succeed according to the measure of their Strength Virtue or Furtune Many would resist but cannot and it were ridiculous to say that the Inhabitants of Greece the Kingdom of Naples or Dutchy of Tuscany do tacitly assent to the Government of the Great Turk King of Spain or Duke of Florence when nothing is more certain than that those miserable Nations abhor the Tyrannies they are under and if they were not mastered by a Power that
were in them Secondly Neither Plato nor Aristotle acknowledg either reason or justice in the power os a Monarch unless he has more of the Virtues conducing to the good of the Civil Society than all those who compose it and employ them for the publick advantage and not to his own pleasure and profit as being set up by those who seek their own good for no other reason than that he should procure it To this end a Law is set as a rule to him and the best men that is such as are most like to himself made to be his Assistants because say they Lex est mens sine affectu quasi Deus whereas the best of men have their affections and passions and are subject to be misled by them Which shews that as the Monarch is not sor himself nor by himself he dos not give but receive power nor admit others to the participation of it but is by them admitted to what he has Whereupon they conclude that to prefer the absolute power of a man as in those Governments which they call Barbarorum regna before the regular Government of Kings justly exercising a power instituted by Law and directed to the publick good is to chuse rather to be subject to the lust of a Beast than to be governed by a God And because such a choice can only be made by a Beast I leave our Author to find a description of himself in their Books which he so often cites But if Aristotle deserve credit the Princes who reign for themselves and not for the People preferring their own pleasure or profit before the publick become Tyrants which in his language is Enemies to God and Man On this account Boccalini introduces the Princes of Europe raising a mutiny against him in Parnassus for giving such definitions of Tyrants as they said comprehended them all and forcing the poor Philosopher to declare by a new definition that Tyrants were certain men of antient times whose race is now extinguished But with all his Wit and Learning he could not give a reason why those who do the same things that rendred the Antient Tyrants detestable should not be so also in our days In the third place The Scriptures declare the necessity of setting bounds to those who are placed in the highest dignities Moses seems to have had as great abilities as any man that ever lived in the world but he alone was not able to bear the weight of the Government and therefore God appointed Seventy chosen men to be his assistants This was a perpetual Law to Israel and as no King was to have more power than Moses or more abilities to perform the duties of his Office none could be exempted from the necessity of wanting the like helps Our Author therefore must confess that they are Kings who have them or that Kingly Government is contrary to the Scriptures When God by Moses gave liberty to his People to make a King he did it under these conditions He must be one of their Brethren They must chuse him he must not multiply Gold Silver Wives or Horses he must not lift up his Heart above his Brethren And Josephus paraphrasing upon the place says He shall do nothing without the advice of the Sanhedrin or if he do they shall oppose him This agrees with the confession of Zedekiah to the Princes which was the Sanhedrin The King can do nothing without you and seems to have bin in pursuance of the Law of the Kingdom which was written in a Book and laid up before the Lord and could not but agree with that of Mosis unless they spake by different Spirits or that the Spirit by which they did speak was subject to error or change and the whole series of God's Law shews that the Pride Magnificence Pomp and Glory usurped by their Kings was utterly contrary to the will of God They did lift up their hearts above their Brethren which was for bidden by the Law All the Kings of Israel and most of the Kings of Jadah utterly rejected it and every one of them did very much depart from the observation of it I will not deny that the People in their institution of a King intended they should do so they had done it themselves and would have a King that might uphold them in their disobedience they were addicted to the Idolatry of their accursed Neighbours and desired that Government by which it was maintained amongst them In doing this they did not reject Samuel but they rejected God that he should not reign over them They might perhaps believe that unless their King were such as the Law did not permit he would not perform what they intended or that the name of King did not belong to him unless he had a power that the Law denied But since God and his Prophets give the name of King to the chief Magistrate endow'd with a power that was restrain'd within very narrow limits whom they might without offence set up we also may safely give the same to those of the same nature whether it please Fihner or not 4. The practice of most Nations and I may truly say of all that deserve imitation has bin as directly contrary to the absolute power of one man as their Constitutions or if the original of many Governments lie hid in the impenetrable darkness of Antiquity their progress may serve to shew the intention of the Founders Aristotle seems to think that the first Monarchs having bin chosen for their Virtue were little restrain'd in the exercise of their Power but that they or their Children falling into Corruption and Pride grew odious and that Nations did on that account either abolish their Authority or create Senates and other Magistrates who having part of the Power might keep them in order The Spartan Kings were certainly of this nature and the Persian till they conquer'd Babylon Nay I may safely say that neither the Kings which the frantick people set up in opposition to the Law of God nor those of the bordering Nations whose example they chose to follow had that absolute power which our Author attributes to all Kings as inseparable from the name Achish the Philistin lov'd and admir'd David he look'd upon him as an Angel of God and promised that he should be the keeper of his head for ever but when the Princes suspected him and said he shall not go down with us to Battel he was obliged to dismiss him This was not the language of Slaves but of those who had a great part in the Government and the Kings submission to their will shows that he was more like to the Kings of Sparta than to an absolute Monarch who dos whatever pleases him I know not whether the Spartans were descended from the Hebrews as some think but their Kings were under a regulation much like that of the 17 of Deut. tho they had two Their Senate of twenty eight and the Ephori
had a power like to that of the Sanhedrin and by them Kings were condemned to fines imprisonment banishment and death as appears by the examples of Pausanias Clonymus Leonidas Agis and others The Hebrew Discipline was the same Reges Davidicae stirpis says Maimonides judicabant judicabantur They gave testimony in judgment when they were called and testimony was given against them Whereas the Kings of Israel as the same Author says were superbi corde elati spretores legis nec judicabant nec judicabantur proud insolent and contemners of the Law who would neither judg nor submit to judgment as the Law commanded The Fruits they gathered were sutable to the Seed they had sown their Crimes were not left unpunish'd they who despised the Law were destroy'd without Law and when no ordinary course could be taken against them for their excesses they were overthrown by force and the Crown within the space of sew years transported into nine several Families with the utter extirpation of those that had possess'd it On the other hand there never was any Sedition against the Spartan Kings and after the moderate Discipline according to which they liv'd was established none of them died by the hands of their Subjects except only two who were put to death in a way of Justice the Kingdom continued in the same races till Cleomenes was defeated by Antigonus and the Government overthrown by the insolence of the Macedonians This gave occasion to those bestial Tyrants Nabis and Machanidas to set up such a Government as our Author recommends to the World which immediately brought destruction upon themselves and the whole City The Germans who pretended to be descended from the Spartans had the like Government Their Princes according to their merit had the credit of perswading not the power of commanding and the question was not what part of the Government their Kings would allow to the Nobility and People but what they would give to their Kings and 't is not much material to our present dispute whether they learnt this from some obscure knowledg of the Law which God gave to his People or whether led by the light of reason which is also from God they discovered what was altogether conformable to that Law Whoever understands the affairs of Germany knows that the present Emperors notwithstanding their haughty Title have a power limited as in the days of Tacitus If they are good and wise they may perswade but they can command no farther than the Law allows They do not admit the Princes Noblemen and Cities to the power which they all exercise in their general Diets and each of them within their own Precincts but they exercise that which has bin by publick consent bestow'd upon them All the Kingdoms peopled from the North observed the same rules In all of them the powers were divided between the Kings the Nobility Clergy and Commons and by the Decrees of Councils Diets Parliaments Cortez and Assemblies of Estates Authority and Liberty were so balanced that such Princes as assumed to themselves more than the Law did permit were severely punished and those who did by force or fraud invade Thrones were by force thrown down from them This was equally beneficial to Kings and People The Powers as Theopompus King of Sparta said were most safe when they were least envied and hated Lewis the 11th of France was one of the first that broke this Golden Chain and by more subtil Arts than had bin formerly known subverted the Laws by which the fury of those Kings had bin restrain'd and taught others to do the like tho all of them have not so well saved themselves from punishment James the third of Scotland was one of his most apt Scholars and Buchanan in his life says That he was precipitated into all manner of Infamy by men of the most abject condition that the corruption of those times and the ill Example of neighbouring Princes were considerable motives to pervert him for Edward the fourth of England Charles of Burgundy Lewis the 11th of France and John the second of Portugal had already laid the Foundations of Tyranny in those Countries and Richard the third was then most cruelly exercising the same in the Kingdom of England This could not have bin if all the Power had always bin in Kings and neither the People nor the Nobility had ever had any For no man can be said to gain that which he and his Predecessors always possessed or to take from others that which they never had nor to set up any sort of Government if it had bin always the same But the foresaid Lewis the 11th did assume to himself a Power above that of his Predecessors and Philip de Commines shews the ways by which he acquir'd it with the miserable effects of his Acquisition both to himself and to his people Modern Authors observe that the change was made by him and for that reason he is said by Mezeray and others to have brought those Kings out of Guardianship they were not therefore so till he did emancipate them Nevertheless this Emancipation had no resemblance to the unlimited Power of which our Author dreams The General Assemblies of Estates were often held long after his death and continued in the exercise of the Sovereign Power of the Nation Davila speaking of the General Assembly held at Orleans in the time of Francis the second asserts the whole Power of the Nation to have bin in them Monsieur de Thou says the same thing and adds that the King dying suddenly the Assembly continued even at the desire of the Council in the exercise of that Power till they had setled the Regency and other Affairs of the highest importance according to their own judgment Hottoman a Lawyer of that Time and Nation famous for his Learning Judgment and Integrity having diligently examin'd the antient Laws and Histories of that Kingdom distinctly proves that the French Nation never had any Kings but of their own chusing that their Kings had no Power except what was conferr'd upon them and that they had bin removed when they excessively abused or readred themselves unworthy of that Trust. This is sufficiently clear by the forecited examples of Pharamond's Grandchildren and the degenerated Races of Meroveus and Pepin of which many were deposed some of the nearest in Blood excluded and when their Vices seemed to be incorrigible they were wholly rejected All this was done by virtue of that Rule which they call the Salique Law And tho some of our Princes pretending to the Inheritance of that Crown by marrying the Heirs General denied that there was any such thing no man can say that for the space of above twelve hundred years Females or their Descendents who are by that Law excluded have ever bin thought to have any right to the Crown And no Law unless it be explicitly given by God can be of greater Authority than one which
has bin in force for so many Ages What the beginning of it was is not known But Charles the sixth receding from this Law and thinking to dispose of the Succession otherwise than was ordained by it was esteemed mad and all his Acts rescinded And tho the Reputation Strength and Valour of the English commanded by Henry the fifth one of the bravest Princes that have ever bin in the world was terrible to the French Nation yet they opposed him to the utmost of their power rather than suffer that Law to be broken And tho our Success under his Conduct was great and admirable yet soon aster his death with the expence of much Blood and Treasure we lost all that we had on that side and suffer'd the Penalty of having unadvisedly entred into that Quarrel By virtue of the same Law the Agreement made by King John when he was Prisoner at London by which he had alienated part of that Dominion as well as that of Francis the first concluded when he was under the same Circumstances at Madrid were reputed null and upon all occasions that Nation has given sufficient testimony that the Laws by which they live are their own made by themselves and not imposed upon them And 't is as impossible for them who made and deposed Kings exalted or depressed reigning Families and prescribed Rules to the Succession to have received from their own Creatures the Power or part of the Government they had as for a man to be begotten by his own Son Nay tho their Constitutions were much changed by Lewis the 11 th yet they retained so much of their antient Liberty that in the last Age when the House of Valois was as much depraved as those of Meroveus and Pepin had bin and Henry the third by his own Lewdness Hypocrisy Cruelty and Impurity together with the baseness of his Minions and Favorites had rendred himself odious and contemptible to the Nobility and People the great Cities Parliaments the greater and in political matters the sounder part of the Nation declared him to be fallen from the Crown and pursued him to the death tho the blow was given by the hand of a base and half-distracted Monk Henry of Bourbon was without controversy the next Heir but neither the Nobility nor the People who thought themselves in the Government would admit him to the Crown till he had given them satisfaction that he would govern according to their Laws by abjuring his Religion which they judged inconsistent with them The later Commotions in Paris Bourdeaux and other places together with the Wars for Religion shew that tho the French do not complain of every Grievance and cannot always agree in the defence and vindication of their violated Liberties yet they very well understand their Rights and that as they do not live by or for the King but he reigns by and for them so their Privileges are not from him but that his Crown is from them and that according to the true Rule of their Government he can do nothing against their Laws or if he do they may oppose him The Institution of a Kingdom is the act of a free Nation and whoever denies them to be free denies that there can be any thing of right in what they set up That which was true in the beginning is so and must be so for ever This is so far acknowledged by the highest Monarchs that in a Treatise published in the year 1667 by Authority of the present King of France to justify his pretensions to some part of the Low-Countries notwithstanding all the Acts of himself and the King of Spain to extinguish them it is said That Kings are under the happy inability to do any thing against the Laws of their Country And tho perhaps he may do things contrary to Law yet he grounds his Power upon the Law and the most able and most trusted of his Ministers declare the same About the year 1660 the Count D' Aubijoux a man of eminent quality in Languedoc but averse to the Court and hated by Cardinal Mazarin had bin tried by the Parliament of Tholouse for a Duel in which a Gentleman was kill'd and it appearing to the Court then in that City that he had bin acquitted upon forged Letters of Grace false Witnesses powerful Friends and other undue means Mazarin desired to bring him to a new Trial but the Chancellor Seguier told the Queen-Mother it could not be for the Law did not permit a man once acquitted to be again question'd for the same Fact and that if the course of the Law were interrupted neither the Salique Law nor the succession of her Children or any thing else could be secure in France This is farther proved by the Histories of that Nation The Kings of Meroveus and Pepin's Races were suffer'd to divide the Kingdom amongst their Sons or as Hottoman says the Estates made the Division and allotted to each such a part as they thought fit But when this way was found to be prejudicial to the Publick an Act of State was made in the time of Hugh Capet by which it was ordain'd that for the future the Kingdom should not be dismembred which Constitution continuing in force to this day the Sons or Brothers of their Kings receive such an Apannage they call it as is bestow'd on them remaining subject to the Crown as well as other men And there has been no King of France since that time except only Charles the sixth who has not acknowledged that he cannot alienate any part of their Dominion Whoever imputes the acknowledgment of this to Kingcraft and says that they who avow this when 't is for their advantage will deny it on a different occasion is of all men their most dangerous Enemy In laying such fraud to their charge he destroys the veneration by which they subsist and teaches Subjects not to keep Faith with those who by the most malicious deceits show that they are tied by none Human Societies are maintained by mutual Contracts which are of no value if they are not observ'd Laws are made and Magistrates created to cause them to be performed in publick and private matters and to punish those who violate them But none will ever be observed if he who receives the greatest benefit by them and is set up to oversee others give the example to those who of themselves are too much inclin'd to break them The first step that Pompey made to his own ruin was by violating the Laws he himself had proposed But it would be much worse for Kings to break those that are established by the Authority of a whole People and confirmed by the succession of many Ages I am far from laying any such blemishes on them or thinking that they deserve them I must believe the French King speaks sincerely when he says he can do nothing against the Laws of his Country And that our King James did the like when he
taking upon him to be King till the Tribe of Judah had chosen him that he often acknowledged Saul to be his Lord. When Baanah and Rechab brought the head of Ishbosheth to him he commanded them to be slain Because they had killed a righteous man upon his Bed in his own House which he could not have said if Ishbosheth had unjustly detained from him the ten Tribes and that he had a right to reign over them before they had chosen him The Word of God did not make him King but only foretold that he should be King and by such ways as he pleased prepared the hearts of the People to set him up and till the time designed by God for that work was accomplished he pretended to no other Authority than what the six hundred men who first followed him afterwards the Tribe of Judah and at last all the rest of the People conferred upon him I no way defend Absalom's revolt he was wicked and acted wickedly but after his death no man was ever blamed or questioned for siding with him and Amasa who commanded his Army is represented in Scripture as a good man even David saying that Joab by slaying Abner and Amasa had killed two men who were better than himself which could not have bin unless the People had a right of looking into matters of Government and of redressing abuses tho being deceived by Absalom they so far erred as to prefer him who was in all respects wicked before the man who except in the matter of Uriah is said to be after God's own heart This right was acknowledged by David himself when he commanded Hushai to say to Absalom I will be thy Servant O King and by Hushai in the following Chapter Nay but whom the Lord and his People and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and with him will I abide which could have no sense in it unless the People had a right of chusing and that the choice in which they generally concurred was esteemed to be from God But if Saul who was made King by the whole People and anointed by the command of God might be lawfully resisted when he departed from the Law of his Institution it cannot be doubted that any other for the like reason may be resisted If David tho designed by God to be King and anointed by the hand of the Prophet was not King till the People had chosen him and he had made a Covenant with them it will if I mistake not be hard to find a man who can claim a right which is not originally from them And if the People of Israel could erect and pull down institute abrogate or transfer to other Persons or Families Kingdoms more firmly established than any we know the same right cannot be denied to other Nations SECT II. The Kings of Israel and Judah were under a Law not safely to be transgress'd OUR Author might be pardon'd if he only vented his own follies but he aggravates his own crime by imputing them to men of more Credit and tho I cannot look upon Sir Walter Raleigh as a very good Interpreter of Scripture he had too much understanding to say That if practice declare the greatness of Authority even the best Kings of Israel and Judah were not tied to any Law but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest matters for there is no sense in those words If practice declares the greatness of Authority even the best were tied to no Law signifies nothing for practice cannot declare the greatness of Authority Peter the Cruel of Castille and Christiern the 2d of Denmark kill'd whom they pleas'd but no man ever thought they had therefore a right to do so and if there was a Law all were tied by it and the best were less likely to break it than the worst But if Sir Walter Raleigh's opinion which he calls a conjecture be taken there was so great a difference between the Kings of Israel and Judah that as to their general proceedings in point of Power hardly any thing can be said which may rightly be applied to both and he there endeavours to show that the reason why the ten Tribes did not return to the house of David after the destruction of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasba was because they would not endure a Power so absolute as that which was exercised by the house of David If he has therefore any where said that the Kings did what they pleased it must be in the sense that Moses Maimonides says The Kings of Israel committed many extravagancies because they were insolent impious and despisers of the Law But whatsoever Sir Walter Raleigh may say for I do not remember his words and have not leisure to seek whether any such are found in his Books 't is most evident that they did not what they pleased The Tribes that did not submit to David nor crown him till they thought fit and then made a Covenant with him took care it might be observed whether he would or not Absalom's Rebellion follow'd by almost all Israel was a terrible check to his Will That of Sheba the Son of Bichri was like to have bin worse if it had not bin suppressed by Joab's diligence and David often confessed the Sons of Zerviah were too hard for him Solomon indeed overthrowing the Law given by Moses multiplying Gold and Silver Wives and Horses introducing Idolatry and lifting up his heart above his Brethren did what he pleased but Rehoboam paid for all the ten Tribes revolted from him by reason of the heavy burdens laid upon them stoned Adoram who was sent to levy the Tributes and set up Jeroboam who as Sir Walter Raleigh says in the place before cited had no other Title than the curtesy of the People and utterly rejected the house of David If practice therefore declares a right the practice of the People to avenge the injuries they suffered from their Kings as soon as they found a man fit to be their Leader shews they had a right of doing it 'T is true the best of the Kings with Moses Joshua and Samuel may in one sense be said to have done what they pleased because they desired to do that only which was good But this will hardly be brought to confer a right upon all Kings And I deny that even the Kings of Judah did what they pleased or that it were any thing to our question if they did Zedekiah professed to the great men that is to the Sanhedrin that without them he could do nothing When Amaziah by his folly had brought a great slaughter upon the Tribe of Judah they conspired against him in publick Council whereupon he fled to Lachish and they pursuing him thither killed him avowed the Fact and it was neither question'd nor blamed which examples agree with the paraphrase of Josephus on Deut. 17. He shall do nothing without the consent of the Sanhedrin and if
resolved upon by another Power The Jewish Doctors generally agree that the Kings of Judah could make no Law because there was a curse denounced against those who should add to or detract from that which God had given by the hand of Moses that they might sit in Judgment with the High Priest and Sanhedrin but could not judg by themselves unless the Sanhedrin did plainly fail of performing their duty Upon this account Maimonides excuses David for commanding Solomon not to suffer the grey hairs of Joab to go down to the grave in peace and Solomon for appointing him to be kill'd at the soot of the Altar for he having killed Abner and Amasa and by those actions shed the blood of war in time of peace the Sanhedrin should have punished him but being protected by favour or power and even David himself fearing him Solomon was put in mind of his duty which he performed tho Joab laid hold upon the horns of the Altar which by the express words of the Law gave no protection to wilful Murderers The use of the military Sword amongst them was also moderated Their Kings might make War upon the seven accursed Nations that they were commanded to destroy and so might any other man for no peace was to be made with them but not against any other Nation without the assent of the Sanhedrin And when Amaziah contrary to that Law had foolishly made war upon Joash King of Israel and thereby brought a great slaughter upon Judah the Princes that is the Sanhedrin combined against him pursued him to Lachish and killed him there The Legislative Power of Sparta was evidently in the People The Laws that go under the name of Lycurgus were proposed by him to the general Assembly of the People and from them received their Authority But the discipline they contained was of such efficacy for framing the minds of men to virtue and by banishing Silver and Gold they so far banished all manner of Crimes that from the institution of those Laws to the times of their Corruption which was more than eight hundred years we hardly find that three men were put to death of whom two were Kings so that it seems difficult to determine where the power of judging did reside tho 't is most probable considering the nature of their Government that it was in the Senate and in Cases extraordinary in the Ephori with a right of appealing to the People Their Kings therefore could have little to do with the Sword of Justice neither the Legislative nor the Judicial Power being any ways in them The military Sword was not much more in their Power unless the excellency of their Virtues gave them the credit of perswading when the Law denied the right of commanding They were obliged to make war against those and those only who were declared Enemies by the Senate and Ephori and in the manner place and time they directed so that Agesilaus tho carrying on a glorious War in Persia no sooner received the Parchment Roll wherein he was commanded by the Ephori to come home for the defence of his own Country than he immediately returned and is on that account called by no less a man than Xenophon a good and faithful King rendring obedience to the Laws of his Country By this it appears that there are Kings who may be feared by those that do ill and not by such as do well for having no more power than what the Law gives and being obliged to execute it as the Law directs they cannot depart from the Precept of the Apostle My own actions therefore or the sense of my own guilt arising from them is to be the measure of my fear of that Magistrate who is the Minister of God and not his Power The like may be said of almost all the Nations of the world that have had any thing of Civil Order amongst them The supreme Magistrate under what name soever he was known whether King Emperor Asymnetes Suffetes Consul Dictator or Archon has usually a part assigned to him in the administration of Justice and making War but that he may know it to be assigned and not inherent and so assigned as to be employ'd for the publick good not to his own profit or pleasure it is circumscribed by such rules as he cannot safely transgress This is above all seen in the German Nations from whom we draw our Original and Government and is so well described by Tacitus in his treatise of their Customs and Manners that I shall content my self to refer to it and to what I have cited from him in the former part of this Work The Saxons coming into our Country retain'd to themselves the same rights They had no Kings but such as were set up by themselves and they abrogated their Power when they pleased Off a acknowledged that he was chosen for the fence of their Liberty not from his own merit but by their favour and in the Conventus Pananglicus at which all the chief men as well Secular as Ecclesiastical were present it was decreed by the King Archbishops Bishops Abbots Dukes and Senators that the Kings should be chosen by the Priests and by the Elders of the People In pursuance of which Egbert who had no right to the succession was made King Ethelwerd was chosen in the same manner by the consent of all Ethelwolf a Monk for want of a better was advanced to the same Honor. His Son Alfred tho crowned by the Pope and marrying without the consent of the Nobility and Kingdom against their Customs and Statutes acknowledged that he had received the Crown from the bounty of the Princes Elders and People and in his Will declared that he left the People as he had found them free as the inward thoughts of Man His Son Edward was elected to be his Successor Ethelstan tho a Bastard and without all Title was elected by the consent of the Nobility and People Eadred by the same Authority was elected and preferred before the Sons of Edmond his Predecessor Edwin tho rightly chosen was deposed for his ill life and Edgar elected King by the will of God and consent of the People But he also was deprived of the Crown for the Rape of a Nun and after seven years restored by the whole People coram omni multitudine populi Anglorum Ethelred who is said to have bin cruel in the beginning wretched in the course and infamous in the end of his Reign was deposed by the same power that had advanced him Canutus made a Contract with the Princes and the whole People and thereupon was by general consent crown'd King over all England After him Harold was chosen in the usual manner He being dead a Message was sent to Hardi Canute with an offer of the Crown which he accepted and accordingly was received Edward the Consessor was elected King with the consent of the Clergy
and People at London and Harold excused himself for not performing his Oath to William the Norman because he said he had made it unduly and presumptuously without consulting the Nobility and People and without their Authority William was received with great joy by the Clergy and People and saluted King by all swearing to observe the antient good and approved Laws of England and tho he did but ill perform his Oath yet before his death he seemed to repent of the ways he had taken and only wishing his Son might be King of England he confessed in his last Will made at Caen in Normandy that he neither found nor left the Kingdom as an Inheritance If he possessed no right except what was conferred upon him no more was conserred than had bin enjoy'd by the antient Kings according to the approved Laws which he swore to observe Those Laws gave no power to any till he was elected and that which they did then give was so limited that the Nobility and People reserved to themselves the disposition of the greatest Affairs even to the deposition and expulsion of such as should not well perform the duty of their Oaths and Office And I leave it to our Author to prove how they can be said to have had the Sword and the Power so as to be feared otherwise than as the Apostle says by those that do evil which we acknowledg to be not only in the King but in the lowest Officer of Justice in the world If it be pretended that our later Kings are more to be seared than William the Norman or his Predecessors it must not be as has bin proved either from the general right of Kings or from the Doctrine of the Apostle but from something else that is peculiar and subsequent which I leave our Author's Disciples to prove and an answer may be found in due time But to show that our Ancestors did not mistake the words of the Apostle 't is good to consider when to whom and upon what occasion he spoke The Christian Religion was then in its infancy his discourses were addressed to the Professors of it who tho they soon grew to be considerable in number were for the most part of the meanest sort of People Servants or Inhabitants of the Cities rather than Citizens and Freemen joined in no civil Body or Society nor such as had or could have any part in the Government The occasion was to suppress the dangerous mistake of many converted Jews and others who knowing themselves to be freed from the power of Sin and the Devil presumed they were also freed from the obligation of human Laws And if this Error had not bin crop'd in the bud it would have given occasion to their Enemies who desired nothing more to destroy them all and who knowing that such Notions were stirring among them would have bin glad that they who were not easily to be discovered had by that means discovered themselves This induced a necessity of diverting a poor mean scatter'd People from such thoughts concerning the State to convince them of the Error into which they were fallen that Christians did not owe the same obedience to Civil Laws and Magistrates as other men and to keep them from drawing destruction upon themselves by such ways as not being warranted by God had no promise of his Protection St. Paul's work was to preserve the Professors of Christianity as appears by his own words I exhort that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and for all that are in Authority that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates to be ready for every good work St. Peter agrees with him fully in describing the Magistrate and his Duty shewing the reasons why obedience should be pay'd to him and teaching Christians to be humble and contented with their condition as free yet not using their Liberty for a cover to malice and not only to fear God and honor the King of which conjunction of words such as Filmer are very proud but to honor all men as is said in the same verse This was in a peculiar manner the work of that time in which those who were to preach and propagate the Gospel were not to be diverted from that Duty by entangling themselves in the care of State-affairs but it dos in some sense agree with all times for it can never be the duty of a good man to oppose such a Magistrate as is the Minister of God in the exercise of his Office nor to deny to any man that which is his due But as the Christian Law exempts no man from the Duty he ows to his Father Master or the Magistrate it dos not make him more a Slave than he was before nor deprive him of any natural or civil Right and if we are obliged to pay Tribute Honor or any other thing where it is not due it must be by some Precept very different from that which commands us to give to Cesar that which is Cesar's If he define the Magistrate to be the Minister of God doing Justice and from thence draws the Reasons he gives for rendring Obedience to him we are to inquire whose Minister he is who overthrows it and look for some other reason sor rendring obedience to him than the words of the Apostles If David who was willing to lay down his life sor the people who hated iniquity and would not suffer a liar to come into his presence was the Minister of God I desire to know whose Minister Caligula was who set up himself to be worshipped for a God and would at once have destroyed all the people that he ought to have protected Whose Minister was Nero who besides the abominable impurities of his lise and hatred to all virtue as contrary to his Person and Government set fire to the great City If it be true that contrariorum contraria est ratio these questions are easily decided and if the reasons of things are eternal the same distinction grounded upon truth will be good for ever Every Magistrate and every man by his works will for ever declare whose Minister he is in what spirit he lives and consequently what obedience is due to him according to the Precept of the Apostle If any man ask what I mean by Justice I answer That the Law of the Land as far as it is Sanctio recta jubens honesta prohibens contraria declares what it is But there have bin and are Laws that are neither just nor commendable There was a Law in Rome that no God should be worshipped vvithout the consent of the Senat Upon vvhich Tertullian says scoffingly That God shall not be God unless he please Man and by virtue of this Law the first Christians were exposed to all manner of cruelties and some
able than themselves to bear the weight of a Crown convinces me fully that they had so framed our Laws that even children women or ill men might either perform as much as was necessarily required of them or be brought to reason if they transgressed and arrogated to themselves more than was allow'd For 't is not to be imagined that a company of men should so far degenerate from their own Nature which is Reason to give up themselves and their Posterity with all their concernments in the world to depend upon the will of a child a woman an ill man or a fool If therefore Laws are necessary to popular States they are no less to Monarchies or rather that is not a State or Government which has them not and 't is no less impossible for any to subsist without them than for the body of a man to be and perform its functions without Nerves or Bones And if any People had ever bin so foolish to establish that which they called a Government without Laws to support and regulate it the impossibility of subsisting would evidence the madness of the Constitution and ought to deter all others from following their example 'T is no less incredible that those Nations which rejected Kings did put themselves into the Power of one man to prescribe to them such Laws as he pleased But the instances alledged by our Author are evidently false The Athenians were not without Laws when they had Kings AEgeus was subject to the Laws and did nothing of importance without the consent of the People and Theseus not being able to please them died a banished man Draco and Solon did not make but propose Laws and they were of no force till they were established by the Authority of the People The Spartans dealt in the same manner with Lycurgus he invented their Laws but the People made them and when the Assembly of all the Citizens had approved and sworn to observe them till his return from Crete he resolved rather to die in a voluntary banishment than by his return to absolve them from the Oath they had taken The Romans also had Laws during the Government of their Kings but not finding in them that Perfection they desired the Decemviri were chosen to frame others which yet were of no value till they were passed by the People in the Comitia Centuriata and being so approved they were established But this Sanction to which every man whether Magistrate or private Citizen was subject did no way bind the whole body os the People who still retained in themselves the Power os changing both the matter and the form of their Government as appears by their instituting and abrogating Kings Consuls Dictators Tribuns with consular Power and Decemviri when they thought good for the Commonwealth And if they had this Power I leave our Author to shew why the like is not in other Nations SECT XIV Laws are not made by Kings not because they are busied in greater matters than doing Justice but because Nations will be governed by Rule and not Arbitrarily OUR Author pursuing the mistakes to which he seems perpetually condemned says that when Kings were either busied in War or distracted with publick Cares so that every private man could not have access unto their Persons to learn their Wills and Pleasures then of necessity were Laws invented that so every particular Subject might find his Prince's Pleasure I have often heard that Governments were established for the obtaining of Justice and if that be true 't is hard to imagine what business a supreme Magistrate can have to divert him from accomplishing the principal end of his Institution And 't is as commonly said that this distribution of Justice to a People is a work surpassing the strength of any one man Jethro seems to have bin a wise man and 't is probable he thought Moses to be so also but he found the work of judging the People to be too heavy for him and therefore advised him to leave the judgment of Causes to others who should be chosen for that purpose which advice Moses accepted and God approved The governing power was as insupportable to him as the Judicial He desired rather to die than to bear so great a burden and God neither accusing him of sloth or impatience gave him seventy Assistants But if we may believe our Author the Powers Judicial and Legislative that of judging as well as that of governing is not too much for any man woman or child whatsoever and that he stands in no need either of God's Statutes to direct him or Man's Counsel to assist him unless it be when he is otherwise employ'd and his Will alone is sufficient for all But what if he be not busied in greater matters or distracted with publick cares is every Prince capable of this work Tho Moses had not found it too great for him or it should be granted that a man of excellent natural Endowments great Wisdom Learning Experience Industry and Integrity might perform it is it certain that all those who happen to be born in reigning Families are so If Moses had the Law of God before his eyes and could repair to God himself for the application or explanation of it have all Princes the same Assistance Do they all speak with God face to face or can they do what he did without the Assistance he had If all Kings of mature years are of that perfection are we assured that none shall die before his Heir arrive to the same Or shall he have the same ripeness of Judgment in his Infancy If a Child come to a Crown dos that immediately infuse the most admirable Endowments and Graces Have we any promise from Heaven that Women shall enjoy the same Prerogatives in those Countries where they are made capable of the Succession Or dos that Law which renders them capable defend them not only against the frailty of their own Nature but confer the most sublime virtues upon them But who knows not that no Families do more frequently produce weak or ill men than the greatest and that which is worse their greatness is a snare to them so that they who in a low condition might have passed unregarded being advanced to the highest have often appeared to be or became the worst of all Beasts and they who advance them are like to them For if the Power be in the Multitude as our Author is forced to confess otherwise the Athenians and Romans could not have given all as he says nor a part as I say to Draco Solon or the Decemviri they must be Beasts also who should have given away their Right and Liberty in hopes of receiving Justice from such as probably will neither understand nor regard it or protection from those who will not be able to help themselves and expect such Virtue Wisdom and Integrity should be and for ever remain in the Family they set up as was never known to
of late bin given to Monk and his honourable Dutchess New phrases have bin invented to please Princes or the sense of the old perverted as has happen'd to that of Le Roy s'avisera And that which was no more than a Liberty to consult with the Lords upon a Bill presented by the Commons is by some men now taken for a Right inherent in the King of denying such Bills as may be offer'd to him by the Lords and Commons tho the Coronation Oath oblige him to hold keep and defend the just Laws and Customs quas vulgus elegerit And if a stop be not put to this exorbitant abuse the words still remaining in Acts of Parliament which shew that their Acts are our Laws may perhaps be also abolished But tho this should come to pass by the slackness of the Lords and Commons it could neither create a new Right in the King nor diminish that of the People But it might give a better colour to those who are Enemies to their Country to render the Power of the Crown arbitrary than any thing that is yet among us SECT XXXV The Authority given by our Law to the Acts performed by a King de facto detract nothing from the peoples right of creating whom they please THEY who have more regard to the prevailing Power than to Right and lay great weight upon the Statute of Henry the seventh which authorizes the Acts of a King de facto seem not to consider that thereby they destroy all right of Inheritance that he only is King de facto who is received by the People and that this reception could neither be of any value in it self nor be made valid by a Statute unless the People and their Representatives who make the Statute had in themselves the power of receiving authorizing and creating whom they please For he is not King de facto who calls himself so as Perkin or Simnel but he who by the consent of the Nation is possess'd of the Regal Power If there were such a thing in nature as a natural Lord over every Country and that the right must go by descent it would be impossible for any other man to acquire it or for the people to confer it upon him and to give the Authority to the Acts of one who neither is nor can be a King which belongs only to him who has the right inherent in himself and inseparable from him Neither can it be denied that the same power which gives the validity to such Acts as are performed by one who is not a King that belongs to those of a true King may also make him King for the essence of a King consists in the validity of his Acts. And 't is equally absurd for one to pretend to be a King whose Acts as King are not valid as that his own can be valid if those of another are for then the same indivisible Right which our Author and those of his principles assert to be inseparable from the Person would be at the same time exercised and enjoyed by two distinct and contrary Powers Moreover it may be observed that this Statute was made after frequent and bloody Wars concerning Titles to the Crown and whether the cause were good or bad those who were overcome were not only subject to be killed in the field but afterwards to be prosecuted as Traitors under the colour of Law He who gained the Victory was always set up to be King by those of his party and he never failed to proceed against his Enemies as Rebels This introduced a horrid series of the most destructive mischiefs The fortune of War varied often and I think it may be said that there were few if any great Families in England that were not either destroy'd or at least so far shaken as to lose their Chiefs and many considerable branches of them And experience taught that instead of gaining any advantage to the Publick in point of Government he for whom they fought seldom proved better than his Enemy They saw that the like might again happen tho the title of the reigning King should be as clear as descent of blood could make it This brought things into an uneasy posture and 't is not strange that both the Nobility and Commonalty should be weary of it No Law could prevent the dangers of battel for he that had followers and would venture himself might bring them to such a decision as was only in the hand of God But thinking no more could justly be required to the full performance of their Duty to the King than to expose themselves to the hazard of battel for him and not being answerable for the success they would not have that Law which they endeavour'd to support turned to their destruction by their Enemies who might come to be the interpreters of it But as they could be exempted from this danger only by their own Laws which could authorize the Acts of a King without a Title and justify them for acting under him 't is evident that the power of the Law was in their hands and that the acts of the person who enjoyed the Crown were of no value in themselves The Law had bin impertinent if it could have bin done without Law and the Intervention of the Parliament useless if the Kings de facto could have given authority to their own Acts. But if the Parliament could make that to have the effect of Law which was not Law and exempt those that acted according to it from the penalties of the Law and give the same force to the Acts of one who is not King as of one who is they cannot but have a power of making him to be King who is not so that is to say all depends intirely upon their Authority Besides he is not King who assumes the title to himself or is set up by a corrupt party but he who according to the usages required in the case is made King If these are wanting he is neither de facto nor de jure but Tyrannus sine titulo Nevertheless this very man if he comes to be received by the People and placed in the Throne he is thereby made King de facto His Acts are valid in Law the same service is due to him as to any other they who render it are in the same manner protected by the Law that is to say he is truly King If our Author therefore do allow such to be Kings he must confess that power to be good which makes them so when they have no right in themselves If he deny it he must not only deny that there is any such thing as a King de facto which the Statute acknowledges but that we ever had any King in England for we never had any other than such as I have proved before By the same means he will so unravel all the Law that no man shall know what he has or what he ought to do or avoid and will find no
excelling all others in virtue can have no other just power than what the Laws give nor any title to the privileges of the Lord 's Anointed p. 250. Sect. 2. The Kings of Israel and Judah were under a Law not safely to be transgressed p. 262. Sect. 3. Samuel did not describe to the Israelites the glory of a free Monarchy but the evils the people should suffer that he might divert them from desiring a King p. 264. Sect. 4. No People can be obliged to suffer from their Kings what they have not a right to do p. 266. Sect. 5. The mischiefs suffer'd from wicked Kings are such as render it both reasonable and just for all Nations that have Virtue and Power to exert both in repelling them p. 270. Sect. 6. 'T is not good for such Nations as will have Kings to suffer them to be glorious powerful or abounding in Riches p. 273. Sect. 7. When the Israelites asked for such a King as the Nations about them had they asked for a Tyrant tho they did not call him so p. 277. Sect. 8. Vnder the name of Tribute no more is understood than what the Law of each Nation gives to the supreme Magistrate for the defraying of publick Charges to which the customs of the Romans or sufferings of the Jews have no relation p. 283. Sect. 9. Our own Laws confirm to us the enjoyment of our native Rights p. 288. Sect. 10. The words of St. Paul enjoyning obedience to higher Powers favour all sorts of Government no less than Monarchy p. 292. Sect. 11. That which is not just is not Law and that which is not Law ought not to be obeyed p. 300. Sect. 12. The right and power of a Magistrate depends upon his institution not upon his name p. 302. Sect. 13. Laws were made to direct and instruct Magistrates and if they will not be directed to restrain them p. 305. Sect. 14. Laws are not made by Kings not because they are busied in greater matters than doing Justice but because Nations will be governed by rule and not arbitrarily p. 309. Sect. 15. A general presumption that Kings will govern well is not a sufficient security to the people p. 314. Sect. 16. The observation of the Laws of Nature is absurdly expected from Tyrants who set themselves up against all Laws and he that subjects Kings to no other Law than what is common to Tyrants destroys their being p. 317. Sect. 17. Kings cannot be the interpreters of the Oaths they take p. 322. Sect. 18. The next in blood to deceased Kings cannot generally be said to be Kings till they are crowned p. 330. Sect. 19. The greatest enemy of a just Magistrate is he who endeavours to invalidate the Contract between him and the people or to corrupt their manners p. 341. Sect. 20. Vnjust commands are not to be obey'd and no man is obliged to suffer for not obeying such as are against Law p. 345. Sect. 21. It cannot be for the good of the People that the Magistrate have a Power above the Law And he is not a Magistrate who has not his Power by Law 348. Sect. 22. The rigor of the Law is to be temper'd by men of known integrity and judgment and not by the Prince who may be ignorant or vicious p. 354. Sect. 23. Aristotle proves that no man is to be intrusted with an Absolute Power by shewing that no one knows how to execute it but such a man as is not to be found p. 358. Sect. 24. The Power of Augustus Cesar was not given but usurped p. 360. Sect. 25. The Regal Power was not the first in this Nation nor necessarily to be continued tho it had bin the first p. 361. Sect. 26. That the King may be entrusted with the power of chusing Judges yet that by which they act is from the Law p. 369. Sect. 27. Magna Charta was not the Original but a declaration of the English Liberties The King's Power is not restrained but created by that and other Laws and the Nation that made them can only correct the defects of them p. 370. Sect. 28. The English Nation has always bin governed by it self or its Representatives p. 379. Sect. 29. The King was never Master of the Soil p. 391. Sect. 30. Henry the first was King of England by as good a Title as any of his Predecessors or Successors p. 395. Sect. 31. Free Nations have a right of meeting when and where they please unless they deprive themselves of it p. 399. Sect. 32. The Powers of Kings are so various according to the Constitutions of several States that no consequence can be drawn to the prejudice or advantage of any one merely from the name p. 404. Sect. 33. The Liberty of a People is the Gift of God and Nature p. 406. Sect. 34. No veneration paid or honor confer'd upon a just and lawful Magistrate can diminish the liberty of a Nation p. 409. Sect. 35. The Authority given by our Law to the Acts performed by a King de facto detract nothing from the Peoples Right of creating whom they please p. 411. Sect. 36. The general revolt of a Nation cannot be called a Rebellion p. 413. Sect. 37. The English Government was not ill constituted the defects more lately observed proceeding from the change of manners and corruption of the times p. 418. Sect. 38. The power of calling and dissolving Parliaments is not simply in the King The variety of Customs in chusing Parliamentmen and the Errors a People may commit neither prove that Kings are or ought to be absolute p. 421. Sect. 39. Those Kings only are heads of the People who are good wise and seek to advance no Interest but that of the Publick p. 426. Sect. 40. Good Laws prescribe easy and safe Remedies against the Evils proceeding from the Vices or Infirmities of the Magistrate and when they fail they must be supplied p. 432. Sect. 41. The people for whom and by whom the Magistrate is created can only judg whether he rightly performs his Office or not p. 436. Sect. 42. The Person that wears the Crown cannot determine the Affairs which the Law refers to the King p. 440. Sect. 43. Proclamations are not Laws p. 445. Sect. 44. No People that is not free can substitute Delegates p. 450. Sect. 45. The Legislative Power is always Arbitrary and not to be trusted in the hands of any who are not bound to obey the Laws they make p. 455. Sect. 46. The coercive Power of the Law proceeds from the Authority of Parliament p. 457. ERRATA PAge 77. line 41. for Numbers read Members P. 113. l. 37. read Antiochus P. 197. l. 6. read acquired P. 229. l. 39. for nor read and. P. 269. l. 12. for for read from P. 282. l. 3. read should it P. 285. l. 42. read renounced P. 335. l. 41. for to read de P. 418. l. 20. for have read hâ—â— P. 429. l. 38. for them read him Potentiora Legiun quam hominum
so many of those who had enjoy'd the same honour or might aspire to it as to bring them for his pleasure to betray their Country and as no man was ever chosen who had not given great testimonies of his Vertues so no one did ever forfeit the good opinion conceived of him Vertue was then honour'd and thought so necessarily to comprehend a sincere love and fidelity to the Commonwealth that without it the most eminent qualities were reputed vile and odious and the memory of former Services could no way expiate the guilt of conspiring against it This seeming Severity was in truth the greatest Clemency for tho our Author has the impudence to say that during the Roman Liberty the best men thrived worst and the worst best he cannot alledg one example of any eminent Roman put to death except Manlius Capitolinus from the expulsion of the Tarquins to the time of the Gracchi and the Civil Wars not long after ensuing and of very few who were banished By these means Crimes were prevented and the temptations to evil being removed Treachery was destroy'd in the root and such as might be naturally ambitious were made to see there was no other way to Honour and Power than by acting virtuously But lest this should not be sufficient to restrain aspiring men what Power soever was granted to any Magistrate the Soveraignty still remained in the People and all without exception were subject to them This may seem strange to those who think the Dictators were absolute because they are said to have bin sine provocatione but that is to be only understood in relation to other Magistrates and not to the People as is clearly proved in the case of Q. Fabius whom Papirius the Dictator would have put to death Tribunos Plebis appello says Fabius Maximus his Father provoco ad Populum eumque tibi fugienti exercitus tui fugienti Senatus judicium Judicem fero qui certe unus plusquam tua dictatura potest polletque videro cessurusne sis provocationi cui Tullus Hostilius cessit And tho the People did rather interceed for Fabius than command his deliverance that modesty did evidently proceed from an opinion that Papirius was in the right and tho they desired to save Fabius who seems to have bin one of the greatest and best men that ever the City produced they would not enervate that military Discipline to which they owed not only their greatness but their subsistence most especially when their Soveraign Authority was acknowledged by all and the Dictator himself had submitted This right of Appeals to the People was the foundation of the Roman Commonwealth laid in the days of Romulus submitted to by Hostilius in the case of Horatius and never violated till the Laws and the Liberty which they supported were overthrown by the power of the Sword This is confirmed by the speech of Metellus the Tribune who in the time of the second Carthaginian War causelesly disliking the Proceedings of Q. Fabius Maximus then Dictator in a publick Assembly of the People said Quod si antiquus animus Plebi Romanae esset se audacter laturum de abrogando Q. Fabii Imperio nunc modicam rogationem promulgaturum de aequando Magistri Equitum Dictatoris jure which was done and that Action which had no precedent shews that the People needed none and that their Power being eminently above that of all Magistrates was obliged to no other rule than that of their own Will Tho I do therefore grant that a Power like to the Dictatorian limited in time circumscribed by Law and kept perpetually under the supreme Authority of the People may by vertuous and well-disciplin'd Nations upon some occasions be prudently granted to a vertuous man it can have no relation to our Author's Monarch whose Power is in himself subject to no Law perpetually exercised by himself and for his own sake whether he have any of the abilities required for the due performance of so great a work or be intirely destitute of them nothing being more unreasonable than to deduce consequences from cases which in substance and circumstances are altogether unlike but to the contrary these examples shewing that the Romans even in the time of such Magistrates as seemed to be most absolute did retain and exercise the Soveraign Power do most evidently prove that the Government was ever the same remaining in the People who without prejudice might give the Administration to one or more men as best pleased themselves and the success shews that they did it prudently SECT XIV No Sedition was hurtful to Rome till through their Prosperity some men gained a Power above the Laws LIttle pains is required to confute our Author who imputes much bloodshed to the popular Government of Rome for he cannot prove that one man was unjustly put to death or slain in any Sedition before Publius Gracchus The Foundations of the Common-wealth were then so shaken that the Laws could not be executed and whatsoever did then fall out ought to be attributed to the Monarchy for which the great men began to contend Whilst they had no other Wars than with neighbouring Nations they had a strict eye upon their Commanders and could preserve Discipline among the Soldiers but when by the excellence of their Valour and Conduct the greatest Powers of the World were subdued and for the better carrying on of foreign Wars Armies were suffered to continue in the same hands longer than the Law did direct Soldiery came to be accounted a Trade and those who had the worst designs against the Commonwealth began to favour all manner of Licentiousness and Rapine that they might gain the favour of the Legions who by that means became unruly and seditious 't was hard if not impossible to preserve a Civil equality when the Spoils of the greatest Kingdoms were brought to adorn the Houses of private men and they who had the greatest Cities and Nations to be their Dependents and Clients were apt to scorn the power of the Law This was a most dangerous Disease like those to which human Bodies are subject when they are arrived to that which Physicians call the Athletick habit proceeding from the highest perfection of Health Activity and Strength that the best Constitution by Diet and Exercise can attain Whosoever falls into them shews that he had attain'd that perfection and he who blames that which brings a State into the like condition condemns that which is most perfect among men Whilst the Romans were in the way to this no Sedition did them any hurt they were composed without Blood and those that seemed to be the most dangerous produced the best Laws But when they were arrived to that condition no Order could do them good the fatal period set to human things was come they could go no higher Summisque negatum Stare diu and all that our Author blames is not to be imputed to their Constitution but their departing from
for those that persecuted them But besides that those Precepts of the most extreme lenity do ill sute with the violent practices of those who attempt to enslave Nations and who by alledging them do plainly shew either that they do not extend to all Christians or that they themselves are none whilst they act contrary to them they are to know that those Precepts were merely temporary and directed to the Persons of the Apostles who were armed only with the sword of the Spirit that the primitive Christians used Prayers and Tears only no longer than whilst they had no other arms But knowing that by listing themselves under the ensigns of Christianity they had not lost the rights belonging to all Mankind when Nations came to be converted they noway thought themselves obliged to give their Enemies a certain opportunity of destroying them when God had put means into their hands of defending themselves and proceeded so far in this way that the Christian Valour soon became no less famous and remarkable than that of the Pagans They did with the utmost vigour defend both their civil and religious Rights against all the Powers of Earth and Hell who by force and fraud endeavoured to destroy them SECT VIII Under the name of Tribute no more is understood than what the Law of each Nation gives to the supreme Magistrate for the defraying of publick Charges to which the Customs of the Romans or sufferings of the Jews have no relation IF any desire the directions of the New Testament says our Author he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal Power by giving to Cesar those things that are Cesar ' s and to God the things that are God's But that will be of no advantage to him in this contest We do not deny to any man that which is his due but do not so well know who is Cesar nor what it is that can truly be said to be due to him I grant that when those words were spoken the power of the Romans exercised by Tiberius was then expressed by the name of Cesar which he without any Title had assumed The Jews amongst many other Nations having bin subdued submitted to it and being noway competent Judges of the rights belonging to the Senate or People of Rome were obliged to acknowledg that Power which their Masters were under They had no Commonwealth of their own nor any other Government amongst themselves that was not precarious They thought Christ was to have restored their Kingdom and by them to have reigned over the Nations but he shewed them they were to be subject to the Gentiles and that within few years their City and Temple should be destroy'd Their Commonwealth must needs expire when all that was prefigured by it was accomplished It was not for them at such a time to presume upon their abrogated Privileges nor the promises made to them which were then fulfilled Nay they had by their Sins profand themselves and given to the Gentiles a right over them which none could have had if they had continued in their obedience to the Law of God This was the foundation of the Cesars dominion over them but can have no influence upon us The first of the Cesars had not bin set up by them The series of them had not bin continued by their consent They had not interrupted the succession by placing or displacing such as they pleased They had not brought in Strangers or Bastards nor preferred the remotest in blood before the nearest They had no part in making the Laws by which they were governed nor had the Cesars sworn to them They had no Great Charter acknowledging their Liberties to be innate or inherent in them confirmed by immemorial Custom and strengthen'd by thirty acts of their own general Assemblies with the assent of the Romans The Cesar who then governed came not to the power by their consent The question Will ye have this man to reign had never bin asked but he being imposed upon them they were to submit to the Laws by which he governed their Masters This can be nothing to us whose case is in every respect most unlike to theirs We have no Dictatorian Power over us and neither we nor our Fathers have render'd or owed obedience to any human Laws but our own nor to any other Magistracy than what we have established We have a King who reigns by Law His power is from the Law that makes him King and we can know only from thence what he is to command and what we are obliged to obey We know the power of the Cesars was usurped maintained and exercised with the most detestable violence injustice and cruelty But tho it had bin established by the consent of the Romans from an opinion that it was good for them in that state of affairs it were nothing to us and we could be no more obliged to follow their example in that than to be governed by Consuls Tribuns and Decemviri or to constitute such a Government as they set up when they expelled their Kings Their Authority was as good at one time as at the other or if a difference ought to be made the preference is to be given to what they did when their manners were most pure the people most free and when virtue was most flourishing among them But if we are not obliged to set up such a Magistracy as they had 't is ridiculous to think that such an obedience is due to one who is not in being as they pay'd to him that was And if I should confess that Cesar holding the Senate and People of Rome under the power of the Sword imposed what tribute he pleased upon the Provinces and that the Jews who had no part in the Government were obliged to submit to his will our liberty of paying nothing except what the Parliament appoints and yielding obedience to no Laws but such as are made to be so by their Authority or by our own immemorial Customs could not be thereby infringed But we may justly affirm that the Tribute imposed was not as our Author infers all their Coin nor a considerable part of it nor more than what was understood to go for the defraying of the publick Charges Christ by asking whose Image and Superscription was stampt upon their Mony and thereupon commanding them to give to Cesar that which was Cesar's did not imply that all was his but that Cesar's Mony being current amongst them it was a continual and evident testimony that they acknowledged themselves to be under his jurisdiction and therefore could not refuse to pay the Tribute laid upon them by the same Authority as other Nations did It may also be observed that Christ did not so much say this to determin the questions that might arise concerning Cesar's Power for he plainly says that was not his work but to put the Pharisees to silence who tempted him According to the opinion of the Jews that the Messias would restore the
a Commonwealths-man as Cato but the washed Swine will return to the Mire He overthrows all by a preposterous conjunction of the rights os Kings which are just and by Law with those of Tyrants which are utterly against Law and gives the sacred and gentle name os Father to those Beasts who by their actions declare themselves enemies not only to all Law and Justice but to Mankind that cannot subsist without them This requires no other proof than to examine whether Attila or Tamerlan did well deserve to be called Fathers of the Countries they destroy'd The first of these was usually called the scourge of God and he gloried in the Name The other being reproved for the detestable cruelties he exercised made answer You speak to me as to a man I am not a man but the scourge of God and plague of Mankind This is certainly sweet and gentle Language savouring much of a fatherly tenderness There is no doubt that those who use it will provide for the safety of the Nations under them and the preservation of the Laws of Nature is rightly referred to them and 't is very probable that they who came to burn the Countries and destroy the Nations that fell under their power should make it their business to preserve them and look upon the former Governors as their Fathers whose acts they were obliged to confirm tho they seldom attained to the Dominion by any other means than the slaughter of them and their Families But if the enmity be not against the Nation and the cause of the war be only for Dominion against the ruling Person or Family as that of Baasha against the house of Jeroboam of Zimri against that of Baasha of Omri against Zimri and of Jehu against Joram the prosecution of it is a strange way of becoming the Son of the Person destroyed And Filmer alone is subtil enough to discover that Jehu by extinguishing the house of Ahab drew an obligation upon himself of looking on him as his Father and confirming his acts If this be true Moses was obliged to confirm the acts of the Kings of the Amalekites Moabites and Amorites that he destroy'd the same duty lay upon Joshua in relation to the Cananites but 't is not so easily decided to which of them he did owe that deference for the same could not be due to all and 't is hard to believe that by killing above thirty Kings he should purchase to himself so many Fathers and the like may be said of divers others Moreover there is a sort of Tyrant who has no Father as Agathocles Dionysius Cesar and generally all those who subvert the Liberties of their own Countrey And if they stood obliged to look upon the former Magistrates as their Predecessors and to confirm their Acts the first should have bin to give impunity and reward to any that would kill them it having bin a fundamental Maxim in those States That any man might kill a Tyrant This being in all respects ridiculous and absurd 't is evident that our Author who by proposing such a false security to Nations for their Liberties endeavours to betray them is not less treacherous to Kings when under a pretence of defending their rights he makes them to be the same with those of Tyrants who are known to have none and are Tyrants because they have none and gives no other hopes to Nations of being preserved by the Kings they set up for that end than what upon the same account may be expected from Tyrants whom all wise men have ever abhorr'd and affirmed to have bin produced to bring destruction upon the World and whose Lives have verifi'd the Sentence This is truly to depose and abolish Kings by abolishing that by which and for which they are so The greatness of their Power Riches State and the pleasures that accompany them cannot but create enemies Some will envy that which is accounted Happiness others may dislike the use they make of their Power some may be unjustly exasperated by the best of their Actions when they find themselves incommoded by them others may be too severe judges of slight miscarriages These things may reasonably temper the joys of those who delight most in the advantages of Crowns But the worst and most dangerous of all their enemies are these accursed Sycophants who by making those that ought to be the best of men like to the worst destroy their Being and by perswading the world they aim at the same things and are bound to no other rule than is common to all Tyrants give a fair pretence to ill men to say They are all of one kind And if this should be received for truth even they who think the miscarriages of their Governors may be easily redressed and desire no more would be the most fierce in procuring the destruction of that which is naught in Principle and cannot be corrected SECT XVII Kings cannot be the Interpreters of the Oaths they take OUR Author's Book is so full of absurdities and contradictions that it would be a rope of Sand if a continued series of frauds did not like a string of Poisons running through the whole give it some consistence with it self and shew it to be the work of one and the same hand After having endeavoured to subvert the Laws of God Nature and Nations most especially our own by abusing the Scriptures falsly alledging the Authority of many good Writers and seeking to obtrude upon Mankind a universal Law that would take from every Nation the right of constituting such Governments within themselves as seem most convenient for them and giving rules for the administration of such as they had established he gives us a full view of his Religion and Morals by destroying the force of the Oath taken by our Kings at their Coronation Others says he affirm that although Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronation tie them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy judgments indifferent and upright Justice and to use discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee c. To which the King answers in the Affirmative being first demanded by the Archbishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of the antient times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the famous King Edward From this he infers That the King is not to observe all Laws but such as are upright because he finds evil Laws mention'd in the Oath of Richard the
and Life than by the performance of his Oath and accomplishing the ends of his election They neither took him to be the giver or interpreter of their Laws and would not suffer him to violate those of their Ancestors In this way they always continued and tho perhaps they might want skill to fall upon the surest and easiest means of restraining the Lusts of Princes yet they maintained their rights so well that the wisest Princes seldom invaded them and the success of those who were so foolish to attempt it was such as may justly deter others from following their unprosperous Examples We have had no King since William the First more hardy than Henry the 8th and yet he so intirely acknowledged the power of making changing and repealing Laws to be in the Parliament as never to attempt any extraordinary thing otherwise than by their Authority It was not he but the Parliament that dissolved the Abbies He did not take their Lands to himself but receiv'd what the Parliament thought fit to give him He did not reject the Supremacy of the Pope nor assume any other power in spiritual matters than the Parliament conferred upon him The intricacies of his Marriages and the legitimation of his Children was settled by the same Power At least one of his Daughters could not inherit the Crown upon any other Title they who gave him a power to dispose of the Crown by will might have given it to his Groom and he was too haughty to ask it from them if he had it in himself which he must have had if the Laws and Judicatures had bin in his hand This is farther evidenced by what passed in the Tower between Sir Thomas Moor and Rich the King's Sollicitor who asking if it would not be treason to oppose Richard Rich if the Parliament should make him King Moor said that was Casus levis for the Parliament could make and depose Kings as they thought fit and then as more conducing to his own case asked Rich if the Parliament should enact that God should not be God whether such as did not submit should be esteemed Traitors 'T is evident that a man of the acuteness and learning of Sir Tho. Moor would not have made use of such an Argument to avoid the necessity of obeying what the Parliament had ordained by shewing his Case to be of a nature far above the power of man unless it had bin confessed by all men that the Parliament could do whatsoever lay within the reach of human power This may be enough to prove that the King cannot have a power over the Law and if he has it not the power of interpreting Laws is absurdly attributed to him since it is founded upon a supposition that he can make them which is false SECT XXVII Magna Charta was not the Original but a Declaration of the English Liberties The King's Power is not restrained but created by that and other Laws and the Nation that made them can only correct the defects of them I Agree with our Author that Magna Charta was not made to restrain the absolute Authority for no such thing was in being or pretended the folly of such visions seeming to have bin reserved to compleat the misfortunes and ignominy of our age but it was to assert the native and original Liberties of our Nation by the confession of the King then being that neither he nor his Successors should any way encroach upon them and it cannot be said that the power of Kings is diminished by that or any other Law for as they are Kings only by Law the Law may confer power upon one in particular or upon him and his Successors but can take nothing from them because they have nothing except what is given to them But as that which the Law gives is given by those who make the Law they only are capable of judging whether he to whom they gave it do well or ill imploy that power and consequently are only fit to correct the defects that may be found in it Therefore tho I should confess that faults may be found in many Statutes and that the whole body of them is greatly defective it will not follow that the compendious way of referring all to the will of the King should be taken But what defects soever may be in our Law the disease is not so great to require extreme remedies and we may hope for a cheaper cure Our Law may possibly have given away too much from the People and provided only insufficient defences of our Liberties against the encroachments of bad Princes but none who are not in judgment and honesty like to our Author can propose sor a remedy to the evils that proceed from the error of giving too much the resignation of all the rest to them Whatever he says 't is evident that he knows this to be true when tho he denies that the power of Kings can be restrained by Acts of Parliament he endeavours to take advantage of such clauses as were either fraudulently inserted by the King's Officers who till the days of Henry the fifth for the most part had the penning of the publick Acts or through negligence did not fully explain the intentions of the Legislators which would be to no purpose if all were put into the hands of the King by a general Law from God that no human power could diminish or enlarge and as his last shift would obliquely put all into the power of the King by giving him a right of interpreting the Law and judging such cases as are not clearly decided which would be equally impertinent if he had openly and plainly a right of determining all things according to his will But what defects soever may be in any Statutes no great inconveniences could probably ensue if that for annual Parliaments was observed as of right it ought to be Nothing is more unlikely than that a great Assembly of eminent and chosen men should make a Law evidently destructive to their own designs and no mischief that might emerge upon the discovery of a mistake could be so extreme that the cure might not be deferr'd till the meeting of the Parliament or at least forty days in which time the King may call one if that which the Law has fixed seem to be too long If he fail of this he performs not his trust and he that would reward such a breach of it with a vast and uncontrolable power may be justly thought equal in madness to our Author who by forbidding us to examine the titles of Kings and enjoyning an intire veneration of the power by what means soever obtained encourages the worst of men to murder the best of Princes with an assurance that if they prosper they shall enjoy all the honors and advantages that this World can afford Princes are not much more beholden to him for the haughty language he puts into their mouths it having bin observed that the worst are always most
to their Country I say that all Nations amongst whom Virtue has bin esteemed have had a great regard to them and their Posterity And tho Kings when they were made have bin intrusted by the Saxons and other Nations with a Power of ennobling those who by services render'd to their Country might deserve that Honor yet the body of the Nobility was more antient than such for it had bin equally impossible to take Kings according to Tacitus out of the Nobility if there had bin no Nobility as to take Captains for their Virtue if there had bin no Virtue and Princes could not without breach of that trust confer Honors upon those that did not deserve them which is so true that this practice was objected as the greatest crime against Vortigern the last and the worst of the British Kings and tho he might pretend according to such cavils as are usual in our time that the judgment of those matters was reserred to him yet the world judged of his Crimes and when he had render'd himself odious to God and men by them he perished in them and brought destruction upon his Country that had suffer'd them too long As among the Turks and most of the Eastern Tyrannies there is no Nobility and no man has any considerable advantage above the common People unless by the immediate favour of the Prince so in all the legal Kingdoms of the North the strength of the Government has always bin placed in the Nobility and no better defence has bin found against the encroachments of ill Kings than by setting up an Order of men who by holding large Territories and having great numbers of Tenants and Dependents might be able to restrain the exorbitances that either the Kings or the Commons might run into For this end Spain Germany France Poland Denmark Sweeden Scotland and England were almost wholly divided into Lordships under several names by which every particular Possessor owed Allegiance that is such an Obedience as the Law requires to the King and he reciprocally swore to perform that which the same Law exacted from him When these Nations were converted to the Christian Religion they had a great veneration for the Clergy and not doubting that the men whom they esteemed holy would be just thought their Liberties could not be better secured than by joining those who had the direction of their Consciences to the Noblemen who had the command of their Forces This succeeded so well in relation to the defence of the publick Rights that in all the forementioned States the Bishops Abbots c. were no less zealous or bold in defending the publick Liberty than the best and greatest of the Lords And if it were true that things being thus established the Commons did neither personally nor by their Representatives enter into the General Assemblies it could be of no advantage to Kings for such a Power as is above-mentioned is equally inconsistent with the absolute Sovereignty of Kings if placed in the Nobility and Clergy as if the Commons had a part If the King has all no other man nor number of men can have any If the Nobility and Clergy have the power the Commons may have their share also But I affirm that those whom we now call Commons have always had a part in the Government and their place in the Councils that managed it for if there was a distinction it must have bin by Patent Birth or Tenure As for Patents we know they began long after the coming of the Normans and those that now have them cannot pretend to any advantage on account of Birth or Tenure beyond many of those who have them not Nay besides the several Branches of the Families that now enjoy the most antient Honors which consequently are as noble as they and some of them of the elder Houses we know many that are now called Commoners who in antiquity and eminency are no way inferior to the chief of the titular Nobility and nothing can be more absurd than to give a prerogative of Birth to Cr-v-n T-ft-n H-ae B-nn-t Osb-rn and others before the Cliftons Hampdens Courtneys Pelhams St. Johns Baintons Wilbrahams Hungerfords and many others And if the Tenures of their Estates be consider'd they have the same and as antient as any of those who go under the names of Duke or Marquess I forbear to mention the sordid ways of attaining to Titles in our days but whoever will take the pains to examine them shall find that they rather defile than ennoble the possessors And whereas men are truly ennobled only by Virtue and respect is due to such as are descended from those who have bravely serv'd their Country because it is presumed till they shew the contrary that they will resemble their Ancestors these modern Courtiers by their Names and Titles frequently oblige us to call to mind such things as are not to be mentioned without blushing Whatever the antient Noblemen of England were we are sure they were not such as these And tho it should be confess'd that no others than Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts and Barons had their places in the Councils mentioned by Cesar and Tacitus or in the great Assemblies of the Saxons it could be of no advantage to such as now are called by those names They were the titles of Offices conserred upon those who did and could best conduct the people in time of War give Counsel to the King administer Justice and perform other publick duties but were never made hereditary except by abuse much less were they sold for money or given as recompences of the vilest services If the antient order be totally inverted and the ends of its institution perverted they who from thence pretend to be distinguished from other men must build their claim upon something very different from Antiquity This being sufficient if I mistake not to make it appear that the antient Councils of our Nation did not consist of such as we now call Noblemen it may be worth our pains to examine of what sort of men they did consist And tho I cannot much rely upon the credit of Camden which he has forfeited by a great number of untruths I will begin with him because he is cited by our Author If we will believe him That which the Saxons called Wittenagemot we may justly name Parliament which has the supreme and most sacred Authority of making abrogating and interpreting Laws and generally of all things relating to the safety of the Commonwealth This Wittenagemot was according to William of Malmsbury The general meeting of the Senat and People and Sir Harry Spelman calls it The General Council of the Clergy and People In the Assembly at Calcuth it was decreed by the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Dukes Senators and the People of the Land Populo terrae that the Kings should be elected by the Priests and Elders of the People By these Offa Ina and others were made Kings and Alfred
he refused In the same place they met and chose Saul to be their King He being dead the men of Judah assembled themselves and anointed David Not long after all the Tribes met at Hebron made a Contract with him and received him as their King In the same manner tho by worse Counsel they made Absalom King And the like was attempted in favour of Sheba the Son of Bichri tho they then had a King chosen by themselves When they found themselves oppressed by the Tributes that had bin laid upon them by Solomon they met at Shechem and being displeased with Rehoboam's answer to their complaints ten of the Tribes made Jeroboam King Jehu and all the other Kings of Israel whether good or bad had no other Title than was conferred upon them by the prevailing part of the People which could not have given them any unless they had met together nor meet together without the consent and against the will of those that reigned unless the Power had bin in themselves Where Governments are more exactly regulated the power of judging when 't is fit to call the Senate or People together is refer'd to one or more Magistrates as in Rome to the Consuls or Tribuns in Athens to the Archons and in Thebes to the Beotarches but none of them could have these Powers unless they had bin given by those who advanced them to the Magistracies to which they were annexed nor could they have bin so annexed if those who created them had not had the right in themselves If these Officers neglected their duty of calling such Assemblies when the publick Affairs required the people met by their own Authority and punished the Person or abrogated the Magistracy as appears in the case of the Decemviri and many others that might be alledged if the thing were not so plain as to need no further proof The reason of this is that they who institute a Magistracy best know whether the end of the Institution be rightly pursued or not And all just Magistracies being the same in essence tho differing in form the same right must perpetually belong to those who put the Sovereign Power into the hands of one a few or many men which is what our Author calls the disposal of the Sovereignty Thus the Romans did when they created Kings Consuls Military Tribuns Dictators or Decemviri and it had bin most ridiculous to say that those Officers gave authority to the people to meet and chuse them for they who are chosen are the Creatures of those who chuse and are nothing more than others till they are chosen The last King of Sweden Charles Gustavus told a Gentleman who was Ambassador there That the Swedes having made him King when he was poor and had nothing in the world he had but one work to do which was so to reign that they might never repent the good opinion they had conceived of him They might therefore meet and did meet to confer the Sovereignty upon him or he could never have had it For tho the Kingdom be hereditary to Males or Females and his Mother was Sister to the Great Gustavus yet having married a stranger without the consent of the Estates she performed not the condition upon which women are admitted to the Succession and thereby falling from her right he pretended not to any The Act of his Election declares he had none and gives the Crown to him and the Heirs of his body with this farther declaration that the benefit of his Election should no way extend to his Brother Prince Adolphus and 't is confessed by all the Swedish Nation that if the King now reigning should die without children the Estates would proceed to a new Election 'T is rightly observ'd by our Author that if the people might meet and give the Sovereign Power they might also direct and limit it for they did meet in this and other Countries they did confer the Sovereign Power they did limit and direct the exercise and the Laws of each people shew in what manner and measure it is every where done This is as certain in relation to Kings as any other Magistrates The Commission of the Roman Dictators was to take care that the Commonwealth might receive no detriment The same was sometimes given to the Consuls King Offa's confession that he was made King to preserve the publick Liberty expresses the same thing And Charles Gustavus who said he had no other work than to govern in such a manner that they who had made him King might not repent shew'd there was a Rule which he stood obliged to follow and an end which he was to procure that he might merit and preserve their good opinion This power of conferring the Sovereignty was exercised in France by those who made Meroveus King in the prejudice of the two Grandchildren of Pharamond Sons to Clodion by those who excluded his Race and gave the Crown to Pepin by those who deposed Lewis le Debonair and Charles le Gros by those who brought in five Kings that were either Bastards or Strangers between him and Charles le Simple by those who rejected his Race and advanced Hugh Capet by those who made Henry the first King to the prejudice of Robert his elder Brother and continued the Crown in the Race of Henry for ten Generations whilst the Descendents of Robert were only Dukes of Burgundy The like was done in Castille and Arragon by frequently preferring the younger before the elder Brother the Descendents of Females before those of the Male-line in the same degree the more remote in Blood before the nearest and sometimes Bastards before the legitimate Issue The same was done in England in relation to every King since the coming in of the Normans as I shewed in the last Section and other places of this Work That they who gave the Sovereignty might also circumscribe and direct it is manifest by the several ways of providing for the Succession instituted by several Nations Some are merely elective as the Empire of Germany and the Kingdom of Poland to this day the Kingdom of Denmark till the year 1660 that of Sweden till the time of Gustavus Ericson who delivered that Nation from the oppression of Christiern the second the cruel King of the Danes In others the Election was confined to one or more Families as the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain to the Balthei and Amalthei In some the eldest Man of the reigning Family was preferr'd before the nearest as in Scotland before the time of Kennethus In other places the nearest in Blood is preferr'd before the elder if more remote In some no regard is had to Females or their Descendents as in France and Turky In others they or their Descendents are admitted either simply as well as Males or under a condition of marrying in the Country or with the consent of the Estates as in Sweden And no other reason can be given for this almost infinite variety of
Valerius against the Decemviri and whoever should do otherwise might for sottishness be compared to the Courtiers of the two last Kings of Spain The first of these by name Philip the third being indisposed in cold weather a Braziero of Coals was brought into his Chamber and placed so near to him that he was cruelly scorched A Nobleman then present said to one who stood by him The King burns the other answered it was true but the Page whose Office it was to bring and remove the Braziero was not there and before he could be found his Majesty's Legs and Face were so burnt that it caus'd an Erysipelas of which he died Philip the fourth escaped not much better who being surprized as he was hunting by a violent storm of Rain and Hail and no man presuming to lend the King a Cloak he was so wet before the Officer could be found who carried his own that he took a cold which cast him into a dangerous Fever If Kings like the consequences of such a Regularity they may cause it to be observed in their own families but Nations looking in the first place to their own safety would be guilty of the most extreme stupidity if they should suffer themselves to be ruined for adhering to such Ceremonies This is said upon a supposition that the whole power of calling and dissolving Parliaments is by the Law placed in the King but I utterly deny that it is so and to prove it shall give the following Reasons 1. That the King can have no such Power unless it be given to him for every man is originally free and the same power that makes him King gives him all that belongs to his being King 'T is not therefore an inherent but a delegated Power and whoever receives it is accountable to those that gave it for as our Author is forced to confess they who give Authority by Commission do always retain more than they grant 2. The Law for annual Parliaments expresly declares it not to be in the King's power as to the point of their meeting nor consequently their continuance For they meet to no purpose if they may not continue to do the work for which they meet and it were absurd to give them a power of meeting if they might not continue till it be done For as Grotius says Qui dat finem dat media ad finem necessaria The only reason why Parliaments do meet is to provide for the publick good and they by Law ought to meet for that end They ought not therefore to be dissolved till it be accomplished For this reason the opinion given by Tresilian that Kings might dissolve Parliaments at their pleasure was judged to be a principal part of his Treason 3. We have already proved that Saxons Danes Normans c. who had no title to the Crown were made Kings by Micklegemots Wittenagemots and Parliaments that is either by the whole People or their Representatives Others have bin by the same Authority restrained brought to order or deposed But as it is impossible that such as were not Kings and had no title to be Kings could by virtue of a kingly Power call Parliaments when they had none and absurd to think that such as were in the Throne who had not govern'd according to Law would suffer themselves to be restrain'd imprisoned or deposed by Parliaments called and sitting by themselves and still depending upon their will to be or not to be 'T is certain that Parliaments have in themselves a Power of sitting and acting for the publick Good 2. To the second The various customs used in Elections are nothing to this question In the Counties which make up the Body of the Nation all Freeholders have their Votes these are properly Cives Members of the Commonwealth in distinction from those who are only Incolae or Inhabitants Vilains and such as being under their Parents are not yet sui juris These in the beginning of the Saxons reign in England composed the Micklegemots and when they grew to be so numerous that one place could not contain them or so far dispersed that without trouble and danger they could not leave their habitations they deputed such as should represent them When the Nation came to be more polished to inhabit Cities and Towns and to set up several Arts and Trades those who exercised them were thought to be as useful to the Commonwealth as the Freeholders in the Country and to deserve the same Privileges But it not being reasonable that every one should in this case do what he pleased it was thought fit that the King with his Council which always consisted of the Proceres and Magnates Regni should judg what numbers of men and what places deserved to be made Corporations or Bodies Politick and to enjoy those Privileges by which he did not confer upon them any thing that was his but according to the trust reposed in him did dispense out of the publick Stock parcels of what he had received from the whole Nation And whether this was to be enjoy'd by all the Inhabitants as in Westminster by the Common Hall as in London or by the Mayor Aldermen Jurats and Corporation as in other places 't is the same thing for in all these cases the King dos only distribute not give and under the same condition that he might call Parliaments that is for the publick good This indeed increases the Honor of the person intrusted and adds weight to the obligation incumbent upon him but can never change the nature of the thing so as to make that an inherent which is only a delegated Power And as Parliaments when occasion required have bin assembled have refus'd to be dissolved till their work was finished have severely punished those who went about to perswade Kings that such matters depended absolutely upon their will and made Laws to the contrary 't is not to be imagined that they would not also have interposed their Authority in matters of Charters if it had bin observed that any King had notoriously abused the trust reposed in him and turned the Power to his privat advantage with which he was entrusted for the publick good That which renders this most plain and safe is that men chosen in this manner to serve in Parliament do not act by themselves but in conjunction with others who are sent thither by prescription nor by a Power derived from Kings but from those that chuse them If it be true therefore that those who delegate Powers do always retain to themselves more than they give they who send these men do not give them an absolute power of doing whatsoever they please but retain to themselves more than they confer upon their Deputies They must therefore be accountable to their Principals contrary to what our Author asserts This continues in force tho he knows not that any Knights and Burgesses have ever bin questioned by those that sent them sor it cannot be concluded they ought not
In the other by the Parliament which being the representative body of the People and the collected wisdom of the Nation is least subject to error most exempted from passion and most free from corruption their own good both publick and private depending upon the rectitude of their Sanctions Thev cannot do any thing that is ill without damage to themselves and their posterity which being all that can be done by human understanding our Lives Liberties and Properties are by our Laws directed to depend upon them SECT XLIII Proclamations are not Laws Our Author according to his usual method and integrity lays great weight upon Proclamations as the significations of the King's pleasure which in his opinion is our only Law But neither Law nor Reason openly directing nor by consequences insinuating that such a Power should be put into an uncertain or suspected hand we may safely deny them to be Laws or in any sense to have the effect of Laws Nay they cannot be so much as significations of his will for as he is King he can have no will but as the Law directs If he depart from the Law he is no longer King and his will is nothing to us Proclamations at most are but temporary by the advice of Council in pursuance of the Law If they be not so the Subject is no way obliged to obey them and the Counsellors are to be punished for them These Laws are either immemorial Customs or Statutes The first have their beginning and continuance from the universal consent of the Nation The latter receive their Authority and Force of Laws from Parliaments as is frequently expressed in the Preambles These are under God the best defence of our Lives Liberties and Estates they proceed not from the blind corrupt and fluctuating humor of a man but from the mature deliberation of the choicest Persons of the Nation and such as have the greatest interest in it Our Ancestors have always relied upon these Laws and 't is to be hoped we shall not be so abandoned by God so deprived of courage and common sense to suffer our selves to be cheated of the Inheritance which they have so frequently so bravely and so constantly defended Tho experience has too well taught us that Parliaments may have their failings and that the Vices which are industriously spread amongst them may be too prevalent yet they are the best helps we have and we may much more reasonably depend upon them than upon those who propagate that corruption among them for which only they can deserve to be suspected We hope they will take care of our concernments since they are as other men so soon as a Session is ended and can do nothing to our prejudice that will not equally affect them and their posterity besides the guilt of betraying their Country which can never be washed off If some should prove false to their trust 't is probable that others would continue in their integrity Or if the base arts which are usually practised by those who endeavour to delude corrupt enslave and ruin Nations should happen to prevail upon the youngest and weakest it may be reasonably hoped that the wisest will see the snares and instruct their companions to avoid them But if all things were so put into the hands of one man that his Proclamations were to be esteemed Laws the Nation would be exposed to ruin as soon as it should chance to fall into an ill hand 'T is in vain to say we have a good King who will not make an ill use of his power for even the best are subject to be deceived by flatterers and Crown'd heads are almost ever encompassed by them The principal art of a Courtier is to observe his Master's passions and to attack him on that side where he seems to be most weak It would be a strange thing to find a man impregnable in every part and if he be not 't is impossible he should resist all the attempts that are made upon him If his Judgment come to be prepossess'd he and all that depend on him are lost Contradictions tho never so just are then unsafe and no man will venture upon them but he who dares sacrifice himself for the publick good The nature of man is frail and stands in need of assistance Virtuous actions that are profitable to a Commonwealth ought to be made as far as it is possible safe easy and advantageous and 't is the utmost imprudence to tempt men to be enemies to the publick by making the most pernicious actions to be the means of obtaining honour and favour whilst no man can serve his Country but with the ruin of himself and his family However in this case the question is not concerning a person the same Counsels are to be follow'd when Moses or Samuel is in the Throne as if Caligula had invaded it Laws ought to aim at perpetuity but the Virtues of a man die with him and very often before him Those who have deserved the highest praises for wisdom and integrity have frequently left the honors they enjoyed to foolish and vicious children If virtue may in any respect be said to outlive the person it can only be when good men frame such Laws and Constitutions as by favouring it preserve themselves This has never bin done otherwise than by balancing the Powers in such a manner that the corruption which one or a few men might fall into should not be suffer'd to spread the contagion to the ruin of the whole The long continuance of Lycurgus his Laws is to be attributed to this They restrained the lusts of Kings and reduced those to order who adventured to transgress them Whereas the whole fabrick must have fallen to the ground in a short time if the first that had a fancy to be absolute had bin able to effect his design This has bin the fate of all Governments that were made to depend upon the virtue of a man which never continues long in any family and when that fails all is lost The Nations therefore that are so happy to have good Kings ought to make a right use of them by establishing the good that may outlast their lives Those of them that are good will readily join in this work and take care that their Successors may be obliged in doing the like to be equally beneficial to their own families and the people they govern If the rulers of Nations be restrained not only the people is by that means secured from the mischiefs of their vices and follies but they themselves are preserved from the greatest temptations to ill and the terrible effects of the vengeance that frequently ensues upon it An unlimited Prince might be justly compared to a weak ship exposed to a violent storm with a vast Sail and no Rudder We have an eminent example of this in the book of Esther A wicked Villain having filled the ears of a foolish King with false stories of the Jews he issues out
manifest this by the words Be it enacted by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by Authority of the same But King James says Filmer in his Law of free Monarchy affirms the contrary and it may be so yet that is nothing to us No man doubts that he desired it might be so in England but it dos not from thence appear that it is so The Law of a free Monarchy is nothing to us for that Monarchy is not free which is regulated by a Law not to be broken without the guilt of Perjury as he himself confessed in relation to ours As to the words cited from Hooker I can find no hurt in them To draw up the form of a good Law is a matter of invention and judgment but it receives the force of a Law from the power that enacts it We have no other reason for the paiment of Excise or Customs than that the Parliament has granted those Revenues to the King to defray the publick Charges Whatever therefore King James was pleased to say in his Books or in those written for him we do not so much as know that the killing of a King is Treason or to be punished with death otherwise than as it is enacted by Parliament and it was not always so for in the time of Ethelstan the Estimates of Lives were agreed in Parliament and that of a King valued at thirty thousand Thrymsae And if that Law had not bin alter'd by the Parliament it must have bin in force at this day It had bin in vain for a King to say he would have it otherwise for he is not created to make Laws but to govern according to such as are made and sworn to assent to such as shall be proposed He who thinks the Crown not worth accepting on these conditions may refuse it The words Le Roy le veult are only a pattern of the French fashions upon which some Kings have laid great stress and would no doubt have bin glad to introduce Car tel est nostre plaisir but that may prove a difficult matter Nay in France it self where that Stile and all the ranting expressions that please the vainest of men are in mode no Edict has the power of a Law till it be registred in Parliament This is not a mere ceremony as some pretend but all that is essential to a Law Nothing has bin more common than for those Parliaments to refuse Edicts sent to them by the King When John Chastel had at the instigation of the Jesuits stabb'd Henry the fourth in the Mouth and that Order had designed or executed many other execrable crimes they were banished out of the Kingdom by an Arrest of the Parliament of Paris Some other Parliaments registred the same but those of Tholouse and Bordeaux absolutely refused and notwithstanding all that the King could do the Jesuits continued at Tournon and many other places within their Precincts till the Arrest was revoked These proceedings are so displeasing to the Court that the most violent ways have bin often used to abolish them About the year 1650 Seguier then Chancellor of France was sent with a great number of Soldiers to oblige the Parliament of Paris to pass some Edicts upon which they had hesitated but he was so far from accomplishing his design that the People rose against him and he thought himself happy that he escaped with his Life If the Parliaments do not in all parts of the Kingdom continue in the Liberty of approving or rejecting all Edicts the Law is not altered but oppressed by the violence of the Sword And the Prince of Condé who was principally employ'd to do that work may as I suppose have had leisure to reflect upon those Actions and cannot but find reason to conclude that his excellent valour and conduct was used in a most noble exploit equally beneficial to his Country and himself However those who are skilled in the Laws of that Nation do still affirm that all publick Acts which are not duly examined and registred are void in themselves and can be of no force longer than the miserable People lies under the violence of Oppression which is all that could reasonably be said if a Pirat had the same power over them But whether the French have willingly offer'd their ears to be bor'd or have bin subdued by force it concerns us not Our Liberties depend not upon their will virtue or fortune how wretched and shameful soever their Slavery may be the evil is only to themselves We are to consider no human Laws but our own and if we have the spirit of our Ancestors we shall maintain them and die as free as they left us Le Roy le veut tho written in great Letters or pronounced in the most tragical manner can signify no more than that the King in performance of his Oath dos assent to such Laws as the Lords and Commons have agreed Without prejudice to themselves and their Liberties a People may suffer the King to advise with his Council upon what they propose Two eyes see more than one and human judgment is subject to errors Tho the Parliament consist of the most eminent men of the Nation yet when they intend good they may be mistaken They may sefely put a check upon themselves that they may farther consider the most important matters and correct the errors that may have bin committed if the King's Council do discover them but he can speak only by the advice of his Council and every man of them is with his head to answer for the advices he gives If the Parliament has not bin satisfied with the reasons given against any Law that they offer'd it has frequently pass'd and if they have bin satisfied 't was not the King but they that laid it aside He that is of another opinion may try whether Le Roy le veut can give the force of a Law to any thing conceived by the King his Council or any other than the Parliament But if no wise man will affirm that he can do it or deny that by his Oath he is obliged to assent to those that come from them he can neither have the Legislative power in himself nor any other part in it than what is necessarily to be performed by him as the Law prescribes I know not what our Author means by saying Le Roy le veut is the interpretative phrase pronounced at the passing of every Act of Parliament For if there be difficulty in any of them those words do no way remove it But the following part of the paragraph better deserves to be observed It was says he the antient custom for á long time until the days of Henry the fifth for the Kings when any Bill was brought to them that had passed both Houses to take and pick out what they liked not and so much as they chose was enacted as a Law But the custom of the
and good or to subject the best to the rage of the worst If there be any Family therefore in the world that can by the Law of God and Nature distinct from the Ordinance of Man pretend to an hereditary Right of Dominion over any People it must be one that never did and never can produce any person that is not free from all the Infirmities and Vices that render him unable to exercise the Sovereign Power and is endowed with all the Vertues required to that end or at least a promise from God verified by experience that the next in Blood shall ever be able and fit for that work But since we do not know that any such hath yet appeared in the World we have no reason to believe that there is or ever was any such and consequently none upon whom God hath conferred the Rights that cannot be exercised without them If there was no shadow of a Paternal Right in the Institution of the Kingdoms of Saul and David there could be none in those that succeeded Rehoboam could have no other than from Solomon When he reigned over two Tribes and Jeroboam over ten 't is not possible that both of them could be the next Heir of their last common Father Jacob and 't is absurd to say that ought to be reputed which is impossible for our thoughts are ever to be guided by Truth or such an appearance of it as doth perswade or convince us The same Title of Father is yet more ridiculously or odiously applied to the succeeding Kings Baasha had no other Title to the Crown than by killing Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and destroying his Family Zimri purchased the same honour by the slaughter of Elah when he was drunk and dealing with the House of Baasha as he had done with that of Jeroboam Zimri burning himself transferred the same to Omri as a reward for bringing him to that extremity As Jehu was more fierce than these he seems to have gained a more excellent recompence than any since Jeroboam even a conditional Promise of a perpetual Kingdom but falling from these glorious Privileges purchased by his zeal in killing two wicked Kings and above one hundred of their Brethren Shallum inherited them by destroying Zachary and all that remained of his Race This in plain English is no less than to say that whosoever kills a King and invades a Crown tho the act and means of accomplishing it be never so detestable dos thereby become Father of his Country and Heir of all the divine Privileges annexed to that glorious Inheritance And tho I cannot tell whether such a Doctrine be more sottish monstrous or impious I dare affirm that if it were received no King in the World could think himself safe in his Throne for one day They are already encompassed with many dangers but lest Pride Avarice Ambition Lust Rage and all the Vices that usually reign in the hearts of worldly men should not be sufficient to invite them perpetually to disturb Mankind through the desire of gaining the Power Riches and Splendor that accompanies a Crown our Author proposes to them the most sacred Privileges as a reward of the most execrable Crimes He that was stirred up only by the violence of his own Nature thought that a Kingdom could never be bought at too dear a rate Pro Regno velim Patriam Penates conjugem flammis dare Imperia precio quolibet constant bene Senec. Theb. But if the sacred Character of God's Anointed or Vicegerent and Father of a Country were added to the other Advantages that follow the highest Fortunes the most modest and just men would be filled with fury that they might attain to them Nay it may be even the best would be the most forward in conspiring against such as reigned They who could not be tempted with external Pleasures would be most in love with divine Privileges and since they should become the sacred Ministers of God if they succeeded and Traitors or Rogues only if they miscarried their only care would be so to lay their Designs that they might be surely executed This is a Doctrine worthy of Filmer's Invention and Heylin's Approbation which being well weighed will shew to all good and just Kings how far they are obliged to those who under pretence of advancing their Authority fill the minds of men with such Notions as are so desperately pernicious to them SECT XVI The Antients chose those to be Kings who excelled in the Vertues that are most beneficial to Civil Societies IF the Israelites whose Lawgiver was God had no King in the first Institution of their Government 't is no wonder that other Nations should not think themselves obliged to set up any if they who came all of one stock and knew their Genealogies when they did institute Kings had no regard to our Author 's Chimerical right of Inheritance nor were taught by God or his Prophets to have any 't is not strange that Nations who did not know their own Original and who probably if not certainly came of several Stocks never put themselves to the trouble of seeking one who by his birth deserved to be preferred before others and if the various Changes happening in all Kingdoms whereby in process of time the Crowns were transported into divers Families to which the Right of Inheritance could not without the utmost impiety and madness be imputed such a fancy certainly could only enter into the heads of Fools and we know of none so foolish to have harbour'd it The Grecians amongst others who sollowed the Light of Reason knew no other original Title to the Government of a Nation than that Wisdom Valour and Justice which was beneficial to the People These Qualities gave beginning to those Governments which we call Heroum Regna and the veneration paid to such as enjoyed them proceeded from a grateful sense of the good received from them They were thought to be descended from the Gods who in vertue and beneficence surpassed other men The same attended their Descendents till they came to abuse their Power and by their Vices shewed themselves like to or worse than others Those Nations did not seek the most antient but the most worthy and thought such only worthy to be preferred before others who could best perform their Duty The Spartans knew that Hercules and Achilles were not their Fathers for they were a Nation before either of them were born but thinking their Children might be like to them in valour they brought them from Thebes and Epirus to be their Kings If our Author is of another opinion I desire to know whether the Heraclidae or the AEacidae were or ought to be reputed Fathers of the Lacedemonians for if the one was the other was not The same method was followed in Italy and they who esteemed themselves Aborigines Qui rupto robore nati Compositive Luto nullos habuere parentes Juven Sat. 6. could not set up one to govern them under the Title of
Parent They could pay no veneration to any Man under the name of a common Father who thought they had none and they who esteemed themselves equal could have no reason to prefer any one unless he were distinguished from others by the Vertues that were beneficial to all This may be illustrated by matters of fact Romulus and Remus the Sons of a Nun constuprated as is probable by a lusty Soldier who was said to be Mars for their vigour and valour were made heads of a gathered People We know not that ever they had any Children but we are sure they could not be Fathers of the People that flocked to them from several places nor in any manner be reputed Heirs of him or them that were so for they never knew who was their own Father and when their Mother came to be discovered they ought to have bin Subjects to Amulius or Numitor when they had slain him They could not be his Heirs whilst he lived and were not when he died The Government of the Latins continued at Alba and Romulus reigned over those who joined with him in building Rome The Power not coming to him by Inheritance must have bin gained by Force or conferred upon him by Consent It could not be acquired by Force for one Man could not force a multitude of fierce and valiant men as they appear to have bin It must therefore have bin by Consent And when he aimed at more Authority than they were willing to allow they slew him He being dead they fetched Numa from among the Sabines He was not their Father nor Heir to their Father but a Stranger not a Conqueror but an unarmed Philosopher Tullus Hostilius had no other Title Ancus Martius was no way related to such as had reigned The first Tarquin was the Son of a banished Corinthian Servius Tullus came to Rome in the belly of his captive Mother and could inherit nothing but Chains from his vanquished Father Tarquin the Proud murdered him and first took upon himself the Title of King sine jussu Populi If this murder and usurpation be called a Conquest and thought to create a Right the effect will be but small The Conqueror was soon conquered banished and his Sons slain after which we hear no more of him or his Descendants Whatsoever he gained from Servius or the People was soon lost and did accrue to those that conquered and ejected him and they might retain what was their own or confer it upon one or more in such manner and measure as best pleased themselves If the Regal Power which our Author says was in the Consuls could be divided into two parts limited to a Year and suffer such restrictions as the People pleased to lay upon it they might have divided it into as many parcels and put it into such form as best suted with their inclinations and the several Magistracies which they did create for the exercise of the Kingly and all other Powers shews that they were to give account to none but themselves The Israelites Spartans Romans and others who thus framed their Governments according to their own Will did it not by any peculiar Privilege but by a universal Right conferred upon them by God and Nature They were made of no better Clay than others They had no Right that dos not as well belong to other Nations that is to say The Constitution of every Government is referred to those who are concerned in it and no other has any thing to do with it Yet if it be asserted that the Government of Rome was Paternal or they had none at all I desire to know how they came to have six Fathers of several Families whilst they lived under Kings and two or more new ones every Year afterwards Or how they came to be so excellent in Vertue and Fortune as to conquer the best part of the World if they had no Government Hobbes indeed doth scurrilously deride Cicero Plato and Aristotle Caeterosque Romanae Graecae Anarchiae fautores But 't is strange that this Anarchy which he resembles to a Chaos full of darkness and confusion that can have no strength or regular Action should overthrow all the Monarchies that came within their reach If as our Author says the best order greatest strength and most stability be in them It must therefore be confessed that these Governments are in their various Forms rightly instituted by several Nations without any regard to Inheritance or that these Nations have had no Governments and were more strong vertuous and happy without Government than under it which is most absurd But if Governments arise from the Consent of Men and are instituted by Men according to their own Inclinations they did therein seek their own good sor the Will is ever drawn by some real Good or the appearance of it This is that which man seeks by all the regular or irregular motions of his mind Reason and Passion Vertue and Vice do herein concur tho they differ vastly in the Objects in which each of them thinks this Good to consist A People therefore that sets up Kings Dictators Consuls Pretors or Emperors dos it not that they may be great glorious rich or happy but that it may be well with themselves and their Posterity This is not accomplished simply by setting one a few or more men in the administration of Powers but by placing the Authority in those who may rightly perform their Office This is not every man's Work Valour Integrity Wisdom Industry Experience and Skill are required for the management of those Military and Civil Affairs that necessarily fall under the care of the chief Magistrates He or they therefore may reasonably be advanced above their Equals who are most fit to perform the Duties belonging to their Stations in order to the publick Good for which they were instituted Marius Sylla Catiline Julius or Octavius Caesar and all those who by force or fraud usurped a Dominion over their Brethren could have no Title to this Right much less could they become Fathers of the People by using all the most wicked means that could well be imagined to destroy them and not being regularly chosen for their Vertues or the opinion of them nor preferred on account of any Prerogative that had bin from the beginning annexed to their Families they could have no other Right than Occupation could confer upon them If this can confer a Right there is an end of all Disputes concerning the Laws of God or Man If Julius and Octavius Caesar did successively become Lords and Fathers of their Country by slaughtering almost all the Senate and such Persons as were eminent for Nobility or Vertue together with the major part of the People it cannot be denied that a Thief who breaks into his Neighbour's House and kills him is justly Master of his Estate and may exact the same obedience from his Children that they render to their Father If this Right could be transferred to Tiberius either
may be liable to hard Censures but those who use them most gently must confess that such an extreme deviation from the end of their Institution annuls it and the Wound thereby given to the natural and original Rights of those Nations cannot be cured unless they resume the Liberties of which they have bin deprived and return to the antient Custom of chusing those to be Magistrates who for their Vertues best deserve to be preferred before their Brethren and are endowed with those Qualities that best enable men to perform the great end of providing for the Publick Safety SECT XVII God having given the Government of the World to no one Man nor declared how it should be divided left it to the Will of Man OUR Author's next Inquiry is What becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in case the Crown should escheat for want of an Heir Whether it doth not escheat to the People His answer is 'T is but the negligence or ignorance of the People to lose the knowledg of the true Heir c. And a little below The Power is not devolved to the Multitude No the Kingly Power escheats on independent Heads of Families All such prime Heads have Power to consent in the uniting or conferring 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 by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of Vniversal Father c. In my opinion before he had asked What should be done in case the Crown should escheat for want of an Heir he ought to have proved there had bin a Man in the world who had the Right in himself and telling who he was have shewed how it had bin transmitted for some Generations that we might know where to seek his Heir and before he accused the Multitude of ignorance or negligence in not knowing this Heir he ought to have informed us how it may be possible to know him or whâ—t it would avail us if we did know him for 't is in vain to know to whom a Right belongs that never was and never can be executed But we may go farther and affirm that as the Universal Right must have bin in Noah and Shem if in any who never exercised it we have reason to believe there never was any such thing And having proved from Scripture and Human History That the first Kingdoms were set up in a direct opposition to this Right by Nimrod and others he that should seek and find their Heirs would only find those who by a most accursed Wickedness had usurped and continued a Dominion over their Fathers contrary to the Laws of God and Nature and we should neither be more wise nor more happy than we are tho our Author should furnish us with certain and authentick Genealogies by which we might know the true Heirs of Nimrod and the seventy two Kings that went from Babylon who as he supposes gave beginning to all the Kingdoms of the Earth Moreover if the Right be Universal it must be in one for the Univers being but one the whole Right of commanding it cannot at the same time be in many and proceed from the Ordinance of God or of Man It cannot proceed from the Ordinance of God for he doth nothing in vain He never gave a Right that could not be executed No man can govern that which he dos not so much as know No man did ever know all the World no man therefore did or could govern it and none could be appointed by God to do that which is absolutely impossible to be done for it could not consist with his Wisdom We find this in our selves It were a shame for one of us poor weak short sighted Creatures in the disposal of our Affairs to appoint such a method as were utterly ineffectual for the preservation of our Families or destructive to them and the blasphemy of imputing to God such an Ordinance as would be a Reproach to one of us can sute only with the wicked and impudent Fury of such as our Author who delights in Monsters This also shews us that it cannot be from Men One or a few may commit Follies but mankind dos not universally commit and perpetually persist in any They cannot therefore by a general and permanent Authority enact that which is utterly absurd and impossible or if they do they destroy their own Nature and can no longer deserve the name of reasonable Creatures There can be therefore no such man and the solly of seeking him or his Heir that never was may be left to the Disciples of Filmer The Difficulties are as great if it be said The World might be divided into parcels and we are to seek the Heirs of the first Possessors for besides that no man can be obliged to seek that which cannot be found all men knowing that Caliginosa nocte haec premit Deus and that the Genealogies of mankind are so confused that unless possibly among the Jews we have reason to believe there is not a man in the world who knows his own Original it could be of no advantage to us tho we knew that of every one for the Division would be of no value unless it were at the first rightly made by him who had all the Authority in himself which dos no where appear and rightly deduced to him who according to that division claims a right to the parcel he enjoys and I fear our Author would terribly shake the Crowns in which the Nations of Europe are concerned if they should be perswaded to search into the Genealogies of their Princes and to judg of their Rights according to the proofs they should give of Titles rightly deduced by succession of Blood from the seventy two first Kings from whom our Author fancies all the Kingdoms of the World to be derived Besides tho this were done it would be to no purpose for the seventy two were not sent out by Noah nor was he or his Sons of that number but they went or were sent from Babylon where Nimrod reigned who as has bin already proved neither had nor could have any right at all but was a mighty Hunter even a proud and cruel Tyrant usurping a power to which he had no right and which was perpetually exercised by him and his Successors against God and his People from whence I may sasely conclude That no right can ever be derived and may justly presume it will be denied by none who are of better Morals and of more sound principles in matters of Law and Religion than Filmer and Heylin since 't is no less absurd to deduce a right from him that had none than to expect pure and wholsom Waters from a filthy polluted and poisonous Fountain If it be pretended that some other man since Noah had this universal Right it must either remain in one single person as his right Heir or be divided If in
this our Author attributes it to the wisdom of Princes But before this comes to be authentick we must at the least be sure that all Princes have this great and profound Wisdom which our Author acknowledges to be in them and which is certainly necessary for the doing of such great things if they were referred to them They seem to us to be born like other men and to be generally no wiser than other men We are not obliged to believe that Nebuchadnezzar was wise till God had given him the heart of a man or that his Grandson Belshazzar who being laid in the balance was found too light had any such profound Wisdom Ahasuerus shewed it not in appointing all the People of God to be slain upon a Lie told to him by a Rascal and the matter was not very much mended when being informed of the truth he gave them leave to kill as many of their Enemies as they pleased The hardness of Pharaoh's heart and the overthrow thereby brought upon himself and People dos not argue so profound a Judgment as our Author presumes every Prince must have And 't is not probable that Samuel would have told Saul He had done foolishly if Kings had always bin so exceeding wise Nay if Wisdom had bin annexed to the Character Solomon might have spared the pains of asking it from God and Rehoboam must have had it Not to multiply examples out of Scripture 't is believed that Xerxes had not inflicted Stripes upon the Sea for breaking his Navy in pieces if he had bin so very wise Caligula for the same reason might have saved the labour of making love to the Moon or have chosen a fitter Subject to advance to the Consulat than his Horse Incitatus Nero had not endeavoured to make a Woman of a Man nor married a Man as a Woman Many other Examples might be alledged to shew that Kings are not always wise and not only the Roman Satyrist who says Quicquid delirant Reges c. shews that he did not believe them to be generally wiser than other men but Solomon himself judges them to be as liable to infirmities when he prefers a wise Child before an old and foolish King If therefore the strength of our Author's Argument lies in the certainty of the Wisdom of Kings it can be of no value till he proves it to be more universal in them than History or Experience will permit us to believe Nay if there be Truth or Wisdom in the Scripture which frequently represents the wicked Man as a Fool we cannot think that all Kings are wise unless it be proved that none of them have bin wicked and when this is performed by Filmer's Disciples I shall confess my error Men give testimony of their Wisdom when they undertake that which they ought to do and rightly perform that which they undertake both which points do utterly fail in the subject of our Discourse We have often heard of such as have adopted those to be their Sons who were not so and some Civil Laws approve it This signifies no more than that such a man either through affection to one who is not his Son or to his Parents or for some other reason takes him into his Family and shews kindness to him as to his Son but the adoption of Fathers is a whimsical piece of nonsense If this be capable of an aggravation I think none can be greater than not to leave it to my own discretion who having no Father may resolve to pay the Duty I owed to my Father to one who may have shewed Kindness to me but for another to impose a Father upon a Man or a People composed of Fathers or such as have Fathers whereby they should be deprived of that natural Honour and Right which he makes the foundation of his Discourse is the utmost of all absurdities If any Prince therefore have ever undertaken to appoint Fathers of his People he cannot be accounted a man of profound Wisdom but a Fool or a Madman and his acts can be of no value But if the thing were consonant to Nature and referred to the will of Princes which I absolutely deny the frequent Extravagancies committed by them in the elevation of their Favourites shews that they intend not to make them Fathers of the People or know not what they do when they do it To chuse or institute a Father is nonsense in the very term but if any were to be chosen to perform the Office of Fathers to such as have none and are not of age to provide for themselves as men do Tutors or Guardians for Orphans none could be capable of being elected but such as in kindness to the person they were to take under their care did most resemble his true Father and had the vertues and abilities required rightly to provide for his good If this fails all Right ceases and such a corruption is introduced as we saw in our Court of Wards which the Nation could not bear when the Institution was perverted and the King who ought to have taken a tender care of the Wards and their Estates delivered them as a prey to those whom he favoured Our Author ridiculously attributes the Title and Authority of Father to the word Prince for it hath none in it and signifies no more than a Man who in some kind is more eminent than the Vulgar In this sense Mutius Scaevola told Porsenna that Three hundred Princes of the Roman Youth had conspired against him by which he could not mean that three hundred Fathers of the Roman Youth but three hundred Roman young men had conspired and they could not be Fathers of the City unless they had bin Fathers of their own Fathers Princeps Senatus was understood in the same sense and T. Sempronius the Censor chusing Q. Fabius Maximus to that Honour gave for a reason Se lectarum Q. Fabium Maximum quem tum Principem Romanae Civitatis esse vel Annibale judice dicturus esset which could not be understood that Hannibal thought him to be the Father or Lord of the City for he knew he was not but the Man who for Wisdom and Valour was the most eminent in it The like are and ought to be the Princes of every Nation and tho something of Honour may justly be attributed to the Descendents of such as have done great Services to their Country yet they who degenerate from them cannot be esteemed Princes much less can such Honours or Rights be conferred upon Court-creatures or Favourites Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba and others could advance Macro Pallas Narcissus Tigellinus Vinnius Laco and the like to the highest degrees of Riches and Power but they still continued to be Villains and so they died No wise or good Man ever thought otherwise of those who through the folly of Princes have bin advanced to the highest places in several Countries The madness of attributing to them a paternal power seems to
all or any one of these Points How far and which of them gives the preference since 't is impossible for me to determine whether my Father who may be wise tho not rich is thereby devested of his Right and it comes to be transferr'd to another who may be rich tho not wise nor of any personal merit at all till that Point be decided or so much as to guess when I am emancipated from the Duty I owe to him by whom I was begotten and educated unless I know whether he be fallen from his Right through want of Merit Wisdom or Estate and that can never be till it be determined that he hath forfeited his Right by being defective in all or any of the three and what proportion of Merit Wisdom or Estate is required in him for the enjoyment of his Right or in another that would acquire it for no man can succeed to the Right of another unless the first possessor be rightly deprived of it and it cannot belong to them both because common sense universally teaches that two distinct Persons cannot at the same time and in the same degree have an equal Right to the same individual thing The Right of Father cannot therefore be conferred upon Princes by Kings but must for ever follow the Rule of Nature The Character of a Father is indelible and incommunicable The Duty of Children arising from Benefits received is perpetual because they can never not have received them and can be due only to him from whom they are received For these Reasons we see that such as our Author calls Princes cannot confer it upon a King for they cannot give what they have not in themselves They who have nothing can give nothing They who are only supposititious cannot make another to be real and the Whimsey of Kings making Princes to be Fathers and Princes conferring that Right on Kings comes to nothing SECT XX. All just Magistratical Power is from the People HAVING proved that the Right of a Father proceeds from the Generation and Education of his Children That no man can have that Right over those whom he hath not begotten and educated That every man hath it over those who owe their Birth and Education to him That all the Sons of Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob and others did equally inherit it That by the same Reasons it doth for ever belong to every man that begets Children it plainly appears that no Father can have a Right over others unless it be by them granted to him and that he receive his Right from those who granted it But our Author with an admirable sagacity peculiar to himself discovers and with equal confidence tells us that that which is from the People or the chief Heads of them is not from the People He that is so elected says he claims not his Right from the People as a Donative but from God That is if I mistake not Romulus was not made King of the Romans by that People but by God Those men being newly gathered together had two Fathers tho neither of them had any Children and no man knew who was their Father nor which of them was the elder But Romulus by the slaughter of his Brother decided all Questions and purchased to himself a Royal Charter from God and the Act of the People which conferred the Power on him was the Act of God We had formerly learnt that whatsoever was done by Monarchs was to be imputed to God and that whosoever murdered the Father of a People acquired the same Right to himself but now it seems that Nations also have the same privilege and that God doth what they do Now I understand why it was said of old Vox Populi est Vox Dei But if it was so in regard of Romulus the same must be confessed of Tullus Hostilius Ancus Martius Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullus who being all strangers to each other and most of them Aliens also were successively advanced by the same People without any respect to the Children Relations or Heirs of their Predecessors And I cannot comprehend why the Act of the same People should not have the same Virtue and be equally attributed to God when they gave the same or more power to Consuls Military Tribunes Decemviri or Dictators or why the same Divine Character should not be in the same manner conferred upon any Magistracies that by any People have bin are or shall be at any time erected for the same ends Upon the same grounds we may conclude that no Privilege is peculiarly annexed to any Form of Government but that all Magistrates are equally the Ministers of God who perform the Work for which they were instituted and that the People which institutes them may proportion regulate and terminate their Power as to time measure and number of persons as seems most convenient to themselves which can be no other than their own good For it cannot be imagined that a multitude of People should send for Numa or any other Person to whom they owed nothing to reign over them that he might live in Glory and Pleasure or for any other reason than that it might be good for them and their Posterity This shews the Work of all Magistrates to be always and every where the same even the doing of Justice and procuring the Welfare of those that create them This we learn from common sense Plato Aristotle Cicero and the best human Authors lay it as an unmoveable Foundation upon which they build their Arguments relating to matters of that nature And the Apostle from better Authority declares That Rulers are not a terror to good Works but to Evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same for he is the Minister of God unto thee for good But if thou do that which is evil be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute Wrath upon him that doth evil And the reason he gives for praying for Kings and all that are in Authority is that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty But if this be the Work of the Magistrate and the glorious Name of God's Minister be given to him for the performance of it we may easily see to whom that Title belongs His Children and Servants ye are whose Works ye do He therefore and he only is the Servant of God who dos the Work of God who is a terror to those that do evil and a praise to those that do well who beareth the Sword for the punishment of Wickedness and Vice and so governs that the People may live quietly in all godliness and honesty The order of his Institution is inverted and the Institution vacated if the Power be turned to the praise of those that do evil and becomes a terror to such as do well and that none who live honestly and
or Fraud Or is it possible that any one man can make himself Lord of a People or parcel of that Body to whom God had given the liberty of governing themselves by any other means than Violence or Fraud unless they did willingly submit to him If this Right be not devolved upon any one Man is not the invasion of it the most outragious Injury that can be done to all Mankind and most particularly to the Nation that is enslaved by it Or if the Justice of every Government depends necessarily upon an original Grant and a Succession certainly deduced from our first Fathers dos not he by his own Principles condemn all the Monarchies of the World as the most detestable Usurpations since not one of them that we know do any way pretend to it Or tho I who deny any Power to be just that is not founded upon consent may boldly blame Usurpation is it not an absurd and unpardonable impudence in Filmer to condemn Userpation in a People when he has declared that the Right and Power of a Father may be gained by Usurpation and that Nations in their Obedience are to regard the Power not the Means by which it was gained But not to lose more time upon a most frivolous fiction I affirm that the Liberty which we contend for is granted by God to every man in his own Person in such a manner as may be useful to him and his Posterity and as it was exercised by Noah Shem Abraham Isaac Jacob c. and their Children as has bin proved and not to the vast Body of all Mankind which never did meet together since the first Age after the Flood and never could meet to receive any benefit by it His next Question deserves scorn and hatred with all the effects of either if it proceed from malice tho perhaps he may deserve compassion if his Crime proceed from ignorance Was a general Meeting of a whole Kingdom says he ever known for the Election of a Prince But if there never was any general Meetings of whole Nations or of such as they did delegate and entrust with the Power of the whole how did any man that was elected come to have a Power over the whole Why may not a People meet to chuse a Prince as well as any other Magistrate Why might not the Athenians Romans or Carthaginians have chosen Princes as well as Archons Consuls Dictators or Suffetes if it had pleased them Who chose all the Roman Kings except Tarquin the proud if the People did not since their Histories testify that he was the first who took upon him to reign sine jussu populi Who ever heard of a King of the Goths in Spain that was not chosen by the Nobility and People Or how could they chuse him if they did not meet in their Persons or by their Deputies which is the same thing when a People has agreed it should be so How did the Kings of Sweden come by their Power unless by the like Election till the Crown was made hereditary in the time of Gustavus the First as a Reward of his Vertue and Service in delivering that Country from the Tyranny of the Danes How did Charles Gustavus come to be King unless it was by the Election of the Nobility He acknowledged by the Act of his Election and upon all occasions that he had no other right to the Crown than what they had conferred on him Did not the like Custom prevail in Hungary and Bohemia till those Countries fell under the Power of the House of Austria and in Denmark till the Year 1660 Do not the Kings of Poland derive their Authority from this popular Election which he derides Dos not the stile of the Oath of Allegiance used in the Kingdom of Arragon as it is related by Antonio Perez Secretary of State to Philip 2d shew that their Kings were of their own making Could they say We who are as good as you make you our King on condition that you keep and observe our Privileges and Liberties and if not not if he did not come in by their Election Were not the Roman Emperors in disorderly times chosen by the Souldiers and in such as were more regular by the Senate with the consent of the People Our Author may say the whole Body of these Nations did not meet at their Elections tho that is not always true for in the Infancy of Rome when the whole People dwelt within the Walls of a small City they did meet for the choice of their Kings as afterwards for the choice of other Magistrates Whilst the Goths Franks Vandals and Saxons lived within the Precincts of a Camp they frequently met for the Election of a King and raised upon a Target the Person they had chosen but finding that to be inconvenient or rather impossible when they were vastly increased in number and dispersed over all the Countries they had conquered no better way was found than to institute Gemotes Parliaments Diets Cortez Assemblies of Estates or the like to do that which formerly had bin performed by themselves and when a People is by mutual compact joined together in a civil Society there is no difference as to Right between that which is done by them all in their own Persons or by some deputed by all and acting according to the Powers received from all If our Author was ignorant of these things which are the most common in all Histories he might have spared the pains of writing upon more abstruse Points but 't is a stupendous folly in him to presume to raise Doctrines depending upon the universal Law of God and Nature without examining the only Law that ever God did in a publick manner give to Man If he had looked into it he might have learnt That all Israel was by the command of God assembled at Mispeth to chuse a King and did chuse Saul He being slain all Judah came to Hebron and made David their King after the death of Ishbosheth all the Tribes went to Hebron and anointed him King over them and he made a Covenant with them before the Lord. When Solomon was dead all Israel met together in Shechem and ten Tribes disliking the proceedings of Rehoboam rejected him and made Jeroboam their King The same People in the time of the Judges had general Assemblies as often as occasion did require to set up a Judg make War or the like and the several Tribes had their Assemblies to treat of Businesses relating to themselves The Histories of all Nations especially of those that have peopled the best parts of Europe are so full of Examples in this kind that no man can question them unless he be brutally ignorant or maliciously contentious The great matters among the Germans were transacted omnium consensu De minoribus consultant Principes de majoribus omnes The Michelgemote among the Saxons was an Assembly of the whole People The Baronagium is truly said
is much too great for them they would soon free themselves And those who are under such Governments do no more assent to them tho they may be silent than a man approves of being robbed when without saying a word he delivers his purse to a Thief that he knows to be too strong for him 'T is not therefore the bear fufferance of a Government when a disgust is declared nor a silent submission when the power of opposing is wanting that can imply an Assent or Election and create a Right but an explicit act of approbation when men have ability and courage to resist or deny Which being agreed 't is evident that our Author's distinction between eligere and instituere signifies nothing tho if the power of instituting were only left to Nations it would be sufficient for he is in vain elected who is not instituted and he that is instituted is certainly elected for his institution is an Election As the Romans who chose Romulus Numa and Hostilius to be Kings and Brutus Valerius or Lucretius to be Consuls did make them so and their Right was solely grounded upon their Election The Text brought by our Author against this doth fully prove it Him shalt thou set King over thee whom the Lord shall chuse for God did not only make the institution of a King to be purely an act of the People but left it to them to institute one or not as should best please themselves and the Words whom the Lord shall chuse can have no other signification than that the People resolving to have a King and following the Rules prescribed by his Servant Moses he would direct them in their choice which relates only to that particular People in covenant with God and immediately under his Government which no other was But this pains might have bin saved if God by a universal Law had given a rule to all The Israelites could not have bin three hundred years without a King and then left to the liberty of making one or not if he by a perpetual Law had ordained that every Nation should have one and it had bin as well impertinent as unjust to deliberate who should be King if the Dominion had by right of Inheritance belonged to one They must have submitted to him whether they would or not No care was to be taken in the election or institution of him who by his birth had a Right annexed to his person that could not be altered He could not have bin forbidden to multiply Silver or Gold who by the Law of his Creation might do what he pleased It had bin ridiculous to say he should not raise his Heart above his Brethren who had no Brethren that is no Equals but was raised above all by God who had imposed upon all others a necessity of obeying him But God who dos nothing in vain did neither constitute or elect any till they desired it nor command them to do it themselves unless it so pleased themselves nor appoint them to take him out of any one Line Every Israelite might be chosen None but Strangers were excluded and the People were left to the liberty of chusing and instituting any one of their Brethren Our Author endeavouring by Hooker's authority to establish his distinction between eligere and instituere destroys it and the paternal Right which he makes the foundation of his Doctrine Heaps of Scripture are alledged says he concerning the solemn Coronation and Inauguration of Saul David Solomon and others by Nobles Antients and People of the Commonwealth of Israel which is enough to prove that the whole work was theirs that no other had any title more than what they bestowed upon him They were set up by the Nobles Antients and People Even God did no otherwise intervene than by such a secret disposition of the Lots by his Providence as is exercised in the Government of all the things in the World and we cannot have a more certain evidence that a paternal right to Dominion is a meer Whimsy than that God did not cause the Lot to fall upon the eldest of the eldest Line of the eldest Tribe but upon Saul a young man of the youngest Tribe and afterwards tho he had designed David Solomon Jeroboam and others who had no pretence to the paternal Right to be Kings he left both the election and institution of them to the Elders and People But Hooker being well examined it will appear that his opinions were as contrary to the Doctrine of our Author as those we have mentioned out of Plato and Aristotle He plainly says It is impossible that any should have a compleat lawful power over a multitude consisting of so many Families as every politick Society doth but by consent of Men or immediate appointment from God Because not having the natural Superiority of Fathers their Power must needs be usurped and then unlawful or if lawful then either granted or consented unto by them over whom they exercise the same or else given extraordinarily by God And tho he thinks Kings to have bin the first Governors so constituted he adds That this is not the only Regiment that hath bin received in the World The inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry others to be devised So that in a word all publick Regiment of what kind soever seemeth evidently to have risen from deliberate advice consultation and composition between men judging it convenient and behoofeful And a little below Man's Nature standing therefore as it doth some kind of regiment the Law of Nature doth require yet the kinds thereof being many Nature tyeth not to any one but leaveth the choice as a thing arbitrary And again To live by one mans will became all mens misery This constrained them to come unto Laws c. But as those Laws do not only teach that which is good but enjoin it they have in them a constraining force To constrain men to any thing inconvenient seemeth unreasonable Most requisite therefore it is that to devise Laws which all men should be forced to obey none but wise men should be admitted Moreover that which we say concerning the power of Government must here be applied unto the power of making Laws whereby to govern which Power God hath over all and by the natural Law whereunto he hath made all subject the lawful power of making Laws to command whole politick Societies of men belongeth so properly unto the same intire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind soever upon Earth to exercise the same of himself and not either by express commission immediately from God or else by authority derived at the first from their consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny Laws therefore they are not which publick consent hath not made so The humour of our Age considered I should not have dared to say so much but if Hooker be a man of such great authority I cannot offend in
some few may have proved better than was intended it will appear that our Author's Assertions are in the utmost degree false Of this we need no better witness than Tacitus The Civil Wars and the Proscriptions upon which he touches are justly to be attributed to that Monarchy which was then setting up the only question being who should be the Monarch when the Liberty was already overthrown And if any eminent men escaped it was much against the will of those who had usurped the power He acknowledges his Histories to be a continued relation of the slaughter of the most illustrious Persons and that in the times of which he writes Virtue was attended with certain destruction After the death of Germanicus and his eldest Children Valerius Asiaticus Seneca Corbulo and an infinite number more who were thought most to resemble them found this to be true at the expence of their lives Nero in pursuance of the same tyrannical design murder'd Helvidius and Thraseas that he might tear up Virtue by the roots Domitian spared none willingly that had either Virtue or Reputation and tho Trajan with perhaps some other might grow up under him in the remote Provinces yet no good man could escape who came under his eye and was so eminent as to be observed by him Whilst these who were thought to be the best men that appear'd in the Roman Empire did thrive in this manner Sejanus Macro Narcissus Pallas Tigillinus Icetus Vinnius Laco and others like to them had the power of the Empire in their hands Therefore unless Mankind has bin mistaken to this day and that these who have hitherto bin accounted the worst of Villains were indeed the best men in the world and that those destroy'd by them who are thought to have bin the best were truly the worst it cannot be denied that the best men during the Liberty of Rome thrived best that good men suffer'd no indignity unless by some fraud imposed upon the well-meaning People and that so soon as the Liberty was subverted the worst men thrived best The best men were exposed to so many Calamities and Snares that it was thought a matter of great wonder to see a virtuous man die in his bed and if the account were well made I think it might appear that every one of the Emperors before Titus shed more noble and innocent Blood than Rome and all the Commonwealths in the world have done whilst they had the free enjoyment of their own Liberty But if any man in favour of our Author seek to diminish this vast disproportion between the two differing sorts of Government and impute the disorders that happen'd in the time of the Gracchi and others whilst Rome was strugling for her Liberty to the Government of a Commonwealth he will find them no more to be compar'd with those that fell out afterwards than the railings of a turbulent Tribune against the Senate to the Villanies and Cruelties that corrupted and dispeopled the Provinces from Babylon to Scotland And whereas the State never fail'd to recover from any disorders as long as the Root of Liberty remain'd untouch'd and became more powerful and glorious than ever even after the Wars of Marius and Sylla when that was destroy'd the City fell into a languishing condition and grew weaker and weaker till that and the whole Empire was ruin'd by the Barbarians 3. Our Author to shew that his memory is as good as his judgment having represented Rome in the times of Liberty as a publick Slaughter-house soon after blames the clemency of their Laws whereas 't is impossible that the same City could at the same time be guilty of those contrary extremities and no less certain that it was perfectly free from them both His assertion seems to be grounded upon Cesar's Speech related by Salust in favour of Lentulus and Cethegus Companions of Catiline but tho he there endeavoured to put the best colour he could upon their cause it signified only thus much that a Roman Citizen could not be put to death without being heard in publick which Law will displease none that in understanding and integrity may not be compared to Filmer and his Followers 'T is a folly to extend it farther for 't is easily proved that there was always a power of putting Citizens to death and that it was exercised when occasion required The Laws were the same in the time of the Kings and when that Office was executed by Consuls excepting such changes as are already mention'd The Lex perduellionis cited by Livy in the case of Horatius who had kill'd his Sister continued in force from the foundation to the end of that Government the condemnation was to death the words of the Sentence these Caput obnubito infelici arbore reste suspendito verberato intra Pomaerium vel extra Pomaerium He was tried by this Law upon an appeal made to the People by his Father and absolved admiratione magis virtutis quam jure causae which could not have bin if by the Law no Citizen might be put to death The Sons of Brutus were condemn'd to death in publick and executed with the Aquilii and Vitellii their Companions in the same Conspiracy Manlius Capitolinus was put to death by the vote of the People Titus Manlius by the command of his Father Torquatus for fighting without order Two Legions were decimated by Appius Claudius Spurius Melius refusing to appear before the Dictator was killed by Servilius Ahala General of the Horse and pronounced jure caesum Quintus Fabius was by Papirius the Dictator condemn'd to die and could not have bin saved but by the intercession and authority of the People If this be not so I desire to be informed what the Senate meant by condemning Nero to be put to death more majorum if more majorum no Citizen might be put to death Why the Consuls Dictators Military Tribuns Decemviri caused Rods and Axes to be carried beforethem as well within as without the City if no use was to be made of them Were they only vain Badges of a Power never to be executed or upon whom was the Supreme Power signified by them to be exercised within and without the City if the Citizens were not subject to it 'T is strange that a man who had ever read a Book of matters relating to the Affairs of Rome should fancy these things or hope to impose them upon the World if he knew them to be foolish false and absurd But of all the marks of a most supine stupidity that can be given by a man I know no one equal to this of our Author who in the same Clause wherein he says no Citizen could be put to death or banished adds that the Magistrates were upon pain of death forbidden to do it for if a Magistrate might be put to death for banishing a Citizen or causing him to be executed a Citizen might be put to death for the Magistrates were not Strangers but Citizens
Riches Virtue and Power If on the other side by doing evil he has drawn upon himself the publick hatred he will always endeavour to take from them the power of doing him any hurt by bringing them into the utmost weakness poverty and baseness And whoever would know whether any particular Prince desires to increase or destroy the Bodies and Goods of his Subjects must examine whether his Government be such as renders him grateful or odious to them and whether he do pursue the publick Interest or for the advancement of his own Authority set up one in himself contrary to that of his People which can never befal a Popular Government and consequently no mischief equal to it can be produced by any such unless something can be imagined worse than corruption and destruction SECT XXVIII Men living under Popular or Mix'd Governments are more careful of the publick Good than in Absolute Monarchies OUR Author delighting in strange things dos in the next place with an admirable sagacity discover two faults in Popular Governments that were never found by any man before him and these are no less than Ignorance and Negligence Speaking of the Care of Princes to preserve their Subjects he adds On the contrary in a Popular State every man knows the publick Good doth not wholly depend upon his Care but the Commonwealth may be well enough governed by others tho he only tend his private business And a little below Nor are they much to be blamed for their Negligence since it is an even wager their Ignorance may be as great The Magistrates amongst the people being for the most part annual do always lay down their Office before they understand it so as a Prince of a duller understanding must needs excel them This is bravely determin'd and the world is beholden to Filmer for the discovery of the Errors that have hitherto bin Epidemical Most men had believed that such as live in Free States are usually pleas'd with their condition desire to maintain it and every man finding his own good comprehended in the Publick as those that sail in the same Ship employs the Talent he has in endeavouring to preserve it knowing that he must perish if that miscarry This was an incouragement to Industry and the continual Labours and Dangers to which the Romans and other free Nations exposed themselves have bin taken for Testimonies that they thought themselves concerned in the businesses that passed among them and that every one did not neglect them through an opinion that they would be done well enough by others It was also thought that free Cities by frequent Elections of Magistrates became Nurseries of great and able Men every man endeavouring to excel others that he might be advanced to the Honor he had no other title to than what might arise from his Merit or Reputation in which they succeeded so well that one of them may be justly said to have produced more eminent Men than all the Absolute Monarchies that have bin in the World But these were mistakes Perhaps Brutus Valerius and other Roman Senators or Magistrates for the space of three hundred years might have taken some care of the Common-wealth if they had thought it wholly depended upon one of them But believing it would be well enough governed by others they neglected it Camillus Cincinnatus Papirius Fabius Rullus and Maximus Scipio Africanus Amilcar Hannibal Pericles Themistocles Alcibiades Epaminondas Philopemen and others might have proved able Men in affairs of War or Government but they were removed from their Offices before they understood them and must needs be excelled in both by Princes tho of duller understanding This may be enough to excuse them for performing their Duty so slackly and meanly But 't is strange that Tacitus and others should so sar overlook the Reason and so grosly mistake the matter of Fact as not only to say that great and excellent Spirits failed when Liberty was lost and all Preferments given to those who were most propense to Slavery but that there wanted men even to write the History Inscitia Reipublicae ut alienae They never applied themselves to understand Affairs depending upon the will of one man in whom they were no otherwise concern'd than to avoid the effects of his Rage and that was chiefly to be done by not falling under the suspicion of being virtuous This was the study then in request and the most cunning in this Art were called Scientes temporum No other wisdom was esteemed in that and the ensuing Ages and no more was requir'd since the paternal Care deep Wisdom and profound Judgment of the Princes provided for all and tho they were of duller understandings they must needs excel other Magistrates who having bin created only for a year left their Offices before they could understand the Duties of them This was evidenced by that tenderness and sincerity of heart as well as the great purity of manners observed in Tiberius the Clemency Justice solid Judgment and Frugality of Caligula the Industry Courage and Sobriety of Claudius the good Nature and prudent Government of Nero the Temperance Vivacity and Diligence of Vitellius the Liberality of Galba and Vespasian together with the Encouragement given by Domitian Commodus Heliogabalus and many others to all manner of Virtues and Favours conferred upon those that excelled in them Our Author giving such infallible proof of his Integrity and Understanding by teaching us these things that would never have come into our heads ought to be credited tho that which he proposes seem to be most absurd But if we believe such as lived in those times or those who in later ages have perused their Writings we cannot but think the Princes beforementioned and the greatest part of those who possessed the same place not only to have bin void of all Virtue and to have suffer'd none to grow up under them but in baseness sottishness and malice to have bin equal to the worst of all Beasts Whilst one Prince polluted with Lust and Blood sat in his Grotto at Capreae surrounded with an infamous troop of Astrologers and others were govern'd by Whores Bardache's manumised Slaves and other Villains the Empire was ruin'd through their negligence incapacity and wickedness and the City that had flourish'd in all manner of Virtue as much or more than any that has bin yet known in the world produced no more the Discipline was dissolved that nourish'd it no man could hope to advance a publick Good or obviate an Evil by his diligence and valour and he who acquired reputation by either could expect no other reward than a cruel death If Germanicus and Corbulo who were born when Liberty was expiring be brought for Examples against the first part of my Assertion their ends will justify the latter and no eminent Roman Family is known to have brought forth a man that deserved to be named in History since their time This is as probable in reason as true in fact Men are
acknowledged himself to be the Servant of the Commonwealth and the rather because 't is true and that he is placed in the Throne to that end Nothing is more essential and fundamental in the Constitutions of Kingdoms than that Diets Parliaments and Assemblies of Estates should see this perform'd 'T is not the King that gives them a right to judg of matters of War or Peace to grant Supplies of men and mony or to deny them and to make or abrogate Laws at their pleasure All the Powers rightly belonging to Kings or to them proceed from the same root The Northern Nations seeing what mischiess were generally brought upon the Eastern by referring too much to the irregular will of a man and what those who were more generous had suffer'd when one man by the force of a corrupt mercenary Soldiery had overthrown the Laws by which they lived feared they might fall into the same misery and therefore retained the greater part of the Power to be exercised by their General Assemblies or by Delegates when they grew so numerous that they could not meet These are the Kingdoms of which Grotius speaks where the King has his part and the Senat or People their part of the Supreme Authority and where the Law prescribes such limits that if the King attempt to seize that part which is not his he may justly be opposed Which is as much as to say that the Law upholds the Power it gives and turns against those who abuse it This Doctrin may be displeasing to Court-Parasites but no less profitable to such Kings as follow better Counsels than to the Nations that live under them the Wisdom and Virtue of the best is always fortified by the concurrence of those who are placed in part of the Power they always do what they will when they will nothing but that which is good and 't is a happy impotence in those who through ignorance or malice desire to do evil not to be able to effect it The weakness of such as by defects of Nature Sex Age or Education are not able of themselves to bear the weight of a Kingdom is thereby supported and they together with the People under them preserved from ruin the furious rashness of the Insolent is restrained the extravagance of those who are naturally lews is aw'd and the bestial madness of the most violently wicked and outragious suppress'd When the Law provides for these matters and prescribes ways by which they may be accomplished every man who receives or fears an Injury seeks a remedy in a legal way and vents his Passions in such a manner as brings no prejudice to the Common-wealth If his Complaints against a King may be heard and redressed by Courts of Justice Parliaments and Diets as well as against private men he is satisfied and looks no farther for a Remedy But if Kings like those of Israel will neither judg nor be judged and there be no Power orderly to redress private or publick Injuries every man has recourse to force as if he liv'd in a Wood where there is no Law and that force is always mortal to those who provoke it No Guards can preserve a hated Prince from the vengeance of one resolute hand and they as often sall by the Swords of their own Guards as of others Wrongs will be done and when they that do them cannot or will not be judged publickly the injur'd Persons become Judges in their own case and executioners of their own sentence If this be dangerous in matters of private Concernment 't is much more so in those relating to the publick The lewd extravagancies of Edward and Richard the Seconds whilst they acknowledged the power of the Law were gently reproved and restrained with the removal of some profligate Favourites but when they would admit of no other Law than their own Will no relief could be had but by their Deposition The lawful Spartan Kings who were obedient to the Laws of their Country liv'd in safety and died with glory whereas 't was a strange thing to see a lawless Tyrant die without such infamy and misery as held a just proportion with the wickedness of his Life They did as Plutarch says of Dionysius many mischiefs and suffer'd more This is confirmed by the examples of the Kingdom of Israel and of the Empires of Rome and Greece they who would submit to no Law were destroy'd without any I know not whether they thought themselves to be Gods as our Author says they were but I am sure the most part of them died like Dogs and had the burial of Asses rather than of Men. This is the happiness to which our Author would promote them all If a King admit a People to be his companions he ceaseth to be a King and the State becomes a Democracy And a little farther If in such Assemblies the King Nobility and People have equal shares in the Soveraignty then the King hath but one voice the Nobility likewise one and the People one and then any two of these voices should have power to overrule the third Thus the Nobility and Commons should have a power to make a Law to bridle the King which was never seen in any Kingdom We have heard of Nations that admitted a man to reign over them that is made him King but of no man that made a People The Hebrews made Saul David Jeroboam and other Kings when they returned from Captivity they conferred the same Title upon the Asmonean race as a reward of their Valour and Virtue the Romans chose Romulus Numa Hostilius and others to be their Kings the Spartans instituted two one of the Heraclidae the other of the AEacidae Other Nations set up one a few or more Magistrates to govern them and all the World agrees that Qui dat esse dat modum esse He that makes him to be makes him to be what he is and nothing can be more absurd than to say that he who has nothing but what is given can have more than is given to him If Saul and Romulus had no other title to be Kings than what the People conferred upon them they could be no otherwise Kings than as pleased the People They therefore did not admit the People to be partakers of the Government but the People who had all in themselves and could not have made a King if they had not had it bestow'd upon him what they thought fit and retained the rest in themselves If this were not so then instead of saying to the multitude Will ye have this man to reign they ought to say to the man Wilt thou have this multitude to be a People And whereas the Nobles of Arragon used to say to their new made King We who are as good as you make you our King on condition you keep and maintain our Rights and Liberties and if not not he should have said to them I who am better than you make you to be a People
turning his lawful Power into Tyranny disobeying the word of the Prophet slaying the Priests sparing the Amalekites and oppressing the Innocent overthrew his own Right and God declared the Kingdom which had bin given him under a conditional promise of perpetuity to be intirely abrogated This did not only give a right to the whole people of opposing him but to every particular man and upon this account David did not only fly from his fury but resisted it He made himself head of all the discontented persons that would follow him he had at first four and afterwards six hundred men he kept these in Arms against Saul and lived upon the Country and resolved to destroy Nabal with all his House only for refusing to send Provisions for his men Finding himself weak and unsafe he went to Achish the Philistin and offer'd his service even against Israel This was never reputed a sin in David or in those that follow'd him by any except the wicked Court-flatterer Doeg the Edomite and the drunken fool Nabal who is said to have bin a man of Belial If it be objected That this was rather a Flight than a War in as much as he neither killed Saul nor his men or that he made war as a King anointed by Samuel I answer that he who had six hundred men and entertain'd as many as came to him sufficiently shewed his intention rather to resist than to fly And no other reason can be given why he did not farther pursue that intention than that he had no greater power and he who arms six hundred men against his Prince when he can have no more can no more be said to obey patiently than if he had so many hundreds of thousands This holds tho he kill no man for that is not the War but the manner of making it and 't were as absurd to say David made no War because he killed no men as that Charles the eighth made no War in Italy because Guicciardin says he conquer'd Naples without breaking a Lance. But as David's strength increased he grew to be less sparing of Blood Those who say Kings never die but that the right is immediatly transfer'd to the next Heirs cannot deny that Ishbosheth inherited the right of Saul and that David had no other right of making war against him than against Saul unless it were conferred upon him by the Tribe of Judah that made him King If this be true it must be confessed that not only a whole People but a part of them may at their own pleasure abrogate a Kingdom tho never so well established by common consent for none was ever more solemnly instituted than that of Saul and few Subjects have more strongly obliged themselves to be obedient If it be not true the example of Nabal is to be follow'd and David tho guided by the Spirit of God deserves to be condemned as a fellow that rose up against his Master If to elude this it be said That God instituted and abrogated Saul's Kingdom and that David to whom the right was transmitted might therefore proceed against him and his Heirs as privat men I answer that if the obedience due to Saul proceeded from God's Institution it can extend to none but those who are so peculiarly instituted and anointed by his Command and the hand of his Prophet which will be of little advantage to the Kings that can give no testimony of such an Institution or Unction and an indisputable right will remain to every Nation of abrogating the Kingdoms which are instituted by and for themselves But as David did resist the Authority of Saul and Ishbosbeth without assuming the Power of a King tho designed by God and anointed by the Prophet till he was made King of Judah by that Tribe or arrogating to himself a Power over the other Tribes till he was made King by them and had enter'd into a Covenant with them 't is much more certain that the Persons and Authority of ill Kings who have no title to the Privileges due to Saul by virtue of his institution may be justly resisted which is as much as is necessary to my purpose Object But David's Heart smote him when he had cut off the skirt of Saul's Garment and he would not suffer Abishai to kill him This might be of some force if it were pretended that every man was obliged to kill an ill King whensoever he could do it which I think no man ever did say and no man having ever affirmed it no more can be concluded than is confessed by all But how is it possible that a man of a generous Spirit like to David could see a great and valiant King chosen from amongst all the Tribes of Israel anointed by the command of God and the hand of the Prophet famous for victories obtained against the enemies of Israel and a wonderful deliverance thereby purchased to that People cast at his feet to receive Life or Death from the hand of one whom he had so furiously persecuted and from whom he least deserved and could least expect mercy without extraordinary commotion of mind most especially when Abishai who saw all that he did and thereby ought best to have known his thoughts expressed so great a readiness to kill him This could not but make him reflect upon the instability of all that seemed to be most glorious in men and shew him that if Saul who had bin named even among the Prophets and assisted in an extraordinary manner to accomplish such great things was so abandoned and given over to fury misery and shame he that seemed to be most firmly established ought to take care lest he should fall Surely these things are neither to be thought strange in relation to Saul who was God's Anointed nor communicable to such as are not Some may suppose he was King by virtue of God's unction tho if that were true he had never bin chosen and made King by the People but it were madness to think he became God's Anointed by being King for if that were so the same Right and Title would belong to every King even to those who by his command were accursed and destroyed by his Servants Moses Joshua and Samuel The same men at the same time and in the same sense would be both his anointed and accursed loved and detested by him and the most sacred Privileges made to extend to the worst of his enemies Again the War made by David was not upon the account of being King as anointed by Samuel but upon the common natural right of defending himself against the violence and fury of a wicked man he trusted to the promise that he should be King but knew that as yet he was not so and when Saul found he had spared his Life he said I now know well that thou shalt surely be King and that the Kingdom of Israel shall surely be established in thy hand not that it was already Nay David himself was so far from
he attempt it they shall hinder him This was the Law of God not to be abrogated by man a Law of Liberty directly opposite to the necessity of submitting to the will of a man This was a Gift bestowed by God upon his Children and People whereas slavery was a great part of the Curse denounced against Cham for his wickedness and perpetually incumbent upon his Posterity The great Sanhedrin were constituted Judges as Grotius says most particularly of such matters as concern'd their Kings and Maimonides affirms that the Kings were judged by them The distribution of the power to the inferior Sanhedrins in every Tribe and City with the right of calling the People together in general Assemblies as often as occasion required were the foundations of their Liberty and being added to the Law of the Kingdom prescribed in the 17 th of Deuteronomy if they should think fit to have a King established the Freedom of that People upon a solid foundation And tho they in their fury did in a great measure wave the benefits God had bestowed upon them yet there was enough left to restrain the Lusts of their Kings Ahab did not treat with Naboth as with a Servant whose Person and Estate depended upon his Will and dos not seem to have bin so tender-hearted to grieve much for his refusal if by virtue of his royal Authority he could have taken away his Vineyard and his Life But that failing he had no other way of accomplishing his design than by the fraud of his accursed Wife and the perfidious wretches she employed And no better proof that it did fail can reasonably be required than that he was obliged to have recourse to such fordid odious and dangerous Remedies but we are furnished with one that is more unquestionable Hast thou killed and also taken possession In the place where Dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall they lick thy Blood even thine This shews that the Kings were not only under a Law but under a Law of equality with the rest of the People even that of Retaliation He had raised his heart above his Brethren but God brought him down and made him to suffer what he had done he was in all respects wicked but the justice of this sentence consisted in the Law he had broken which could not have bin if he had bin subject to none But as this Retaliation was the sum of all the Judicial Law given by God to his People the Sentence pronounced against Ahab in conformity to it and the execution committed to Jehu shews that the Kings were no less obliged to perform the Law than other men tho they were not so easily punished for transgressing it as others were and if many of them did escape it perfectly agrees with what had bin foretold by Samuel SECT III. Samuel did not describe to the Israelites the glory of a free Monarchy but the Evils the People should suffer that he might divert them from desiring a King THO no restraint had bin put upon the Lusts of the Hebrew Kings it could be no prejudice to any other Nation They deflected from the Law of God and rejecting him that he should reign over them no longer they fell into that misery which could affect none but those who enjoy the same Blessings and with the same fury despise them If their Kings had more Power than consisted with their welfare they gave it and God renounces the institution of such He gave them a Law of Liberty and if they fell into the shame and misery that accompanies slavery it was their own work They were not obliged to have any King and could not without a crime have any but one who must not raise his heart above the rest of them This was taught by Moses And Samuel who spoke by the same Spirit could not contradict him and in telling the people what such a King as they desired would do when he should be established he did announce to them the misery they would bring upon themselves by chusing such a one as he had forbidden This free Monarchy which our Author thinks to be so majestically described was not only displeasing to the Prophet but declared by God to be a rejection of him and inconsistent with his reign over them This might have bin sufficient to divert any other people from their furious resolution but the Prophet farther enforcing his disswasion told them that God who had in all other cases bin their helper would not hear them when they should cry to him by reason of their King This is the majestick description of that free Monarchy with which our Author is so much pleased It was displeasing to the Prophet hateful to God an aggravation of all the crimes they had committed since they came out of Egypt and that which would bring as it did most certain and irreparable destruction upon themselves But it seems the Regal Majesty in that Age was in its infancy and little in comparison of that which we find described by Tacitus Suetonius and others in later times He shall take your Sons says Samuel and set them over his Chariots and your Daughters to make them Confectioners and Cooks but the Majesty of the Roman Emperors was carried to a higher pitch of Glory Ahab could not without employing treachery and fraud get a small spot of ground for his mony to make a Garden of Herbs But Tiberius Caligula and Nero killed whom they pleased and took what they pleased of their Estates When they had satiated their cruelty and avarice by the murders and confications of the most eminent and best men they commonly exposed their Children to the Lust of their Slaves If the power of doing evil be glorious the utmost excess is its perfection and 't is pity that Samuel knew no more of the effects produced by unrestrained Lust that he might have made the description yet more majestick and as nothing can be suffer'd by man beyond constupration torments and death instead of such trifles as he mention'd he might have shew'd them the effects of Fury in its greatest exaltation If it be good for a Nation to live under such a Power why did not God of his own goodness institute it Did his Wisdom and Love to his People fail Or if he himself had not set up the best Government over them could he be displeased with them for asking it Did he separate that Nation from the rest of Mankind to make their condition worse than that of others Or can they be said to have sinned and rejected God when they desir'd nothing but the Government which by a perpetual Ordinance he had established over all the Nations of the World Is not the Law of Nature a Rule which he has given to things and the Law of man's Nature which is Reason an emanation of the divine Wisdom or some footsteps of divine Light remaining in us Is it possible that this which is from God can be contrary to his
King is so also if he be and ought to enjoy the Rights belonging to the Father of the People And 't is not less ridiculous to say those who will have a King than it would be to say he that will have a Father for every one must have one whether he will or not But if the King be a Father as our Author from thence infers that all Laws are from him none can be imposed upon him and whatsoever the Subject enjoys is by his concessions 'T is absurd to speak of an Obligation lying upon the people to allow him Royal maintenance by providing Revenues since he has all in himself and they have nothing that is not from him and depending upon his Will For this reason a worthy Gentleman of the House of Commons in the year 1640. desired that the business of the Judges who in the Star-Chamber had given for their Opinion concerning Shipmony That in cases of Necessity the King might provide it by his own Authority and that he was Judg of that Necessity might be first examined that they might know whether they had any thing to give before they should speak of giving And as'tis certain that if the Sentence of those perjur'd Wretches had stood the Subjects of England by consequence would have bin found to have nothing to give 't is no less sure that if our Author's principle concerning the Paternal and Absolute Power of Kings be true it will by a more compendious way appear that it is not left to the choice of any Nation whether they will have a King or not for they must have him and can have nothing to allow him but must receive all from him But if those only who will have a King are bound to have one and to allow this Royal maintenance such as will not have a King are by one and the same act delivered from the necessity of having one and from providing Maintenance for him which utterly overthrows the magnificent Fabrick of Paternal Monarchy and the Kings who were lately represented by our Author placed on the Throne by God and Nature and endow'd with an absolute Power over all appear to be purely the Creatures of the People and to have nothing but what is received from them From hence it may be rationally inferred that he who makes a thing to be makes it to be only what he pleases This must hold in relation to Kings as well as other Magistrates and as they who made Consuls Dictators and Military Tribuns gave them only such Power and for such a time as best pleased themselves 't is impossible they should not have the same right in relation to Kings in making them what they please as well as not to make them unless they please except there be a Charm belonging to the Name or the Letters that compose it which cannot belong to all Nations for they are different in every one according to the several Languages But says our Author 't is for the Honor Profit and Safety of the People that the King should be glorious powerful and abounding in Riches There is therefore no obligation upon them and they are to judg whether it be so or not The Scripture says plainly the contrary He shall not multiply Silver and Gold Wives and Horses he shall not lift up his heart above his Brethren He shall not therefore be glorious powerful or abounding in Riches Reason and Experience teach us the same thing If those Nations that have bin proud luxurious and vicious have desired by Pomp and Riches to foment the Vices of their Princes thereby to cherish their own such as have excelled in Virtue and good Discipline have abhorred it and except the immediate exercise of their Office have kept their supreme Magistrates to a manner of living little different from that of private men and it had bin impossible to maintain that frugality in which the integrity of their manners did chiefly consist if they had set up an Example directly contrary to it in him who was to be an Example to others or to provide for their own safety if they had overthrown that integrity of manners by which it could only be obtained and preserved There is a necessity incumbent upon every Nation that lives in the like Principle to put a stop to the entrance of those Vices that arise from the superfluity of Riches by keeping their Kings in that honest Poverty which is the Mother and Nurse of Modesty Sobriety and all manner of Virtue And no man can deny this to be well done unless he will affirm that Pride Luxury and Vice is more profitable to a Nation than the Virtues that are upheld by frugality There is another reason of no less importance to those Nations who tho they think fit to have Kings yet desire to preserve their Liberty which obliges them to set limits to the Glory Power and Riches of their Kings and that is That they can no otherwise be kept within the Rules of the Law Men are naturally propense to corruption and if he whose Will and Interest it is to corrupt them be furnished with the means he will never fail to do it Power Honors Riches and the Pleasures that attend them are the baits by which men are drawn to prefer a personal Interest before the publick Good and the number of those who covet them is so great that he who abounds in them will be able to gain so many to his service as shall be sufficient to subdue the rest 'T is hard to find a Tyranny in the world that has not bin introduced this way for no man by his own strength could ever subdue a multitude none could ever bring many to be subservient to his ill designs but by the rewards they received or hoped By this means Cesar accomplished his work and overthrew the Liberty of his Country and with it all that was then good in the world They who were corrupted in their minds desired to put all the Power and Riches into his hands that he might distribute them to such as served him And he who was nothing less than covetous in his own nature desired Riches that he might gain Followers and by the plunder of Gaul he corrupted those that betray'd Rome to him And tho I do not delight to speak of the Affairs of our own time I desire those who know the present State of France to tell me whether it were possible for the King to keep that Nation under servitude if a vast Revenue did not enable him to gain so many to his particular service as are sufficient to keep the rest in subjection and if this be not enough let them consider whether all the dangers that now threaten us at home do not proceed from the madness of those who gave such a Revenue as is utterly unproportionable to the Riches of the Nation unsutable to the modest behaviour expected from our Kings and which in time will render Parliaments unnecessary
described to be so by the Scriptures and to give another name to those who endeavour to advance their own glory contrary to the precept of God and the interest of mankind But unless the light of reason had bin extinguished in him he might have seen that tho no Law could be made without a supreme Power that Supremacy may be in a body consisting of many men and several orders of men If it be true which perhaps may be doubted that there have bin in the world simple Monarchies Aristocracies or Democracies legally established 't is certain that the most part of the Governments of the world and I think all that are or have bin good were mixed Part of the Power has bin confer'd upon the King or the Magistrate that represented him and part upon the Senate and People as has bin proved in relation to the Governments of the Hebrews Spartans Romans Venetians Germans and all those who live under that which is usually called the Gothic Polity If the single person participating of this divided Power dislike either the Name he bears or the Authority he has he may renounce it but no reason can be from thence drawn to the prejudice of Nations who give so much as they think consistent with their own good and reserve the rest to themselves or to such other Officers as they please to establish No man will deny that several Nations have had a right of giving power to Consuls Dictators Archons Suffetes Dukes and other Magistrates in such proportions as seemed most conducing to their own good and there must be a right in every Nation of allotting to Kings so much as they please as well as to the others unless there be a charm in the word King or in the Letters that compose it But this cannot be for there is no similitude between King Rex and Bazileus they must therefore have a right of regulating the Power of Kings as well as that of Consuls or Dictators and it had not bin more ridiculous in Fabius Scipio Camillus or Cincinnatus to assert an absolute power in himself under pretence of advancing his sovereign Majesty against the Law than for any King to do the like But as all Nations give what form they please to their Government they are also judges of the name to be imposed upon each man who is to have a part in the power and 't is as lawful for us to call him King who has a limited Authority amongst us as for the Medes or Arabs to give the same name to one who is more absolute If this be not admitted we are content to speak improperly but utterly deny that when we give the name we give any thing more than we please and had rather his Majesty should change his name than to renounce our own Rights and Liberties which he is to preserve and which we have received from God and Nature But that the folly and wickedness of our Author may not be capable of any farther aggravation he says That is skills not how he come by the power Violence therefore or fraud treachery or murder are as good as Election Donation or legal Succession 'T is in vain to examine the Laws of God or Man the rights of nature whether Children do inherit the Dignities and Magistracies of their Fathers as patrimonial Lands and Goods whether regard ought to be had to the fitness of the Person whether all should go to one or be divided amongst them or by what rule we may know who is the right Heir to the Succession and consequently what we are in conscience obliged to do Our Author tells us in short it matters not how he that has the power comes by it It has bin hitherto thought that to kill a King especially a good King was a most abominable action They who did it were thought to be incited by the worst of passions that can enter into the hearts of men and the severest punishments have bin invented to deter them from such attempts or to avenge their death upon those who should accomplish it but if our Author may be credited it must be the most commendable and glorious act that can be performed by man for besides the outward advantages that men so earnestly desire he that dos it is presently invested with the Sovereign Majesty and at the same time becomes God's Vicegerent and the father of his Country possessed of that Government which in exclusion to all other forms is only favoured by the Laws of God and Nature The only inconvenience is that all depends upon success and he that is to be the Minister of God and father of his Country if he succeed is the worst of all villains if he fail and at the best may be deprived of all by the same means he employ'd to gain it Tho a Prince should have the wisdom and virtues of Moses the valour of Joshua David and the Maccabees with the gentleness and integrity of Samuel the most foolish vitious base and detestable man in the world that kills him and seizes the power becomes his Heir and father of the People that he govern'd it skills not how he did it whether in open battel or by secret treachery in the field or in the bed by poison or by the sword The vilest slave in Israel had become the Lord 's anointed if he could have kill'd David or Solomon and found villains to place him in the Throne If this be right the world has to this day lived in darkness and the actions which have bin thought to be the most detestable are the most commendable and glorious But not troubling my self at present to decide this question I leave it to Kings to consider how much they are beholden to Filmer and his disciples who set such a price upon their heads as would render it hard to preserve their Lives one day if the Doctrines were received which they endeavour to infuse into the minds of the People and concluding this point only say that we in England know no other King than he who is so by Law nor any power in that King except that which he has by Law and tho the Roman Empire was held by the power of the Sword and Ulpian a corrupt Lawyer undertakes to say that the Prince is not obliged by the Laws yet Theodosius confessed that it was the glory of a good Emperor to acknowledg himself bound by them SECT XXII The rigour of the Law is to be temper'd by men of known integrity and judgment and not by the Prince who may be ignorant or vicious OUR Author's next shift is to place the King above the Law that he may mitigate the rigour of it without which he says The case of the Subject would be desperately miserable But this cure would prove worse than the disease Such pious fathers of the People as Caligula Nero or Domitian were not like to mitigate the rigour nor such as inherit Crowns in their infancy as the present
Kings of Spain France and Sweden so well to understand the meaning of it as to decide extraordinary cases The wisdom of Nations has provided more assured helps and none could have bin so brutish and negligent of the publick Concernments to suffer the Succession to fall to women children c. if they had not reserved a power in themselves to prefer others before the nearest in blood if reason require and prescribed such rules as might preserve the publick from ruin notwithstanding their infirmities and vices These helps provided by our Laws are principally by grand and petit Juries who are not only Judges of matters of fact as whether a man be kill'd but whether he be kill'd criminally These men are upon their Oaths and may be indicted of Perjury if they prevaricate The Judges are present not only to be a check upon them but to explain such points of the Law as may seem difficult And tho these Judges may be said in some sense to be chosen by the King he is not understood to do it otherwise than by the advice of his Council who cannot perform their duty unless they propose such as in their consciences they think most worthy of the Office and most capable of performing the duty rightly nor he accomplish the Oath of his Coronation unless he admit those who upon deliberation seem to be the best The Judges being thus chosen are so far from depending upon the will of the King that they swear faithfully to serve the People as well as the King and to do justice to every man according to the Law of the Land notwithstanding any Writs Letters or Commands received from him and in default thereof they are to forfeit their bodies lands and goods as in cases of Treason These Laws have bin so often and so severely executed that it concerns all Judges well to consider them and the Cases of Tresilian Empson Dudley and others shew that neither the King 's preceding command nor subsequent pardon could preserve them from the punishment they deserved All men knew that what they did was agreeable to the King's pleasure for Tresilian advanced the Prerogative of Edward the 2d and Empson brought great Treasures into the Coffers of Henry the 7th Nevertheless they were charged with Treason for subverting the Laws of the Land and executed as Traitors Tho England ought never to forget the happy Reign of Q. Elizabeth yet it must be acknowledged that she as well as others had her failings She was full of love to the People just in her nature sincere in her intentions but could not so perfectly discover the snares that were laid for her or resist the importunity of the Persons she most trusted as not sometimes to be brought to attempt things against Law She and her Counsellors pressed the Judges very hardly to obey the Patent under her Great Seal in the case of Cavendish but they answered That both she and they had taken an Oath to keep the Law and if they should obey her commands the Law would not warrant them c. And besides the offence against God their Country and the Commonwealth they alledged the example of Empson and Dudley whereby they said they were deterred from obeying her illegal Commands They who had sworn to keep the Law notwithstanding the King's Writs knew that the Law depended not upon his will and the same Oath that obliged them not to regard any command they should receive from him shewed that they were not to expect indemnity by it and not only that the King had neither the power of making altering mitigating or interpreting the Law but that he was not at all to be heard in general or particular matters otherwise than as he speaks in the common course of Justice by the Courts legally established which say the same thing whether he be young or old ignorant or wise wicked or good and nothing dos better evidence the wisdom and care of our Ancestors in framing the Laws and Government we live under than that the People did not suffer extremities by the vices or infirmities of Kings till an Age more full of malice than those in which they lived had found tricks to pervert the rule and frustrate their honest intentions It was not safe for the Kings to violate their Oaths by an undue interposition of their Authority but the Ministers who served them in those violations have seldom escaped punishment This is to be understood when the deviations from Justice are extreme and mischievous for something must always be allow'd to human frailty The best have their defects and none could stand if a too exact scrutiny were made of all their actions Edward the third about the twentieth year of his Reign acknowledged his own in Parliament and as well for the ease of his Conscience as the satisfaction of his People promoted an Act Commanding all Judges to do Justice notwithstanding any Writs Letters or Commands from himself and forbidding those that belonged to the King Queen and Prince to intermeddle in those matters But if the best and wisest of our Princes in the strength and maturity of their years had their failings and every act proceeding from them that tended to the interruption of Justice was a failing how can it be said that the King in his personal capacity directly or indirectly may enter into the discussion of these matters much less to determine them according to his will But says our Author the Law is no better than a Tyrant general Pardons at the Coronation and in Parliament are but the bounty of the Prerogative c. There may be hard cases and citing some perverted pieces from Aristotle's Ethicks and Politicsk adds That when something falls out besides the general rule then it is fit that what the Lawmaker hath omitted or where he hath erred by speaking generally it should be corrected and supplied as if the Lawmaker were present that ordained it The Governor whether he be one man or more ought to be Lord of these things whereof it was impossible that the Law should speak exactly These things are in part true but our Author makes use of them as the Devil dos of Scripture to subvert the truth There may be something of rigour in the Law that in some cases may be mitigated and the Law it self in relation to England dos so far acknowledg it as to refer much to the consciences of Juries and those who are appointed to assist them and the most difficult Cases are referred to the Parliament as the only judges that are able to determine them Thus the Statute of the 35 Edw. 3d enumerating the crimes then declared to be Treason leaves to suture Parliaments to judg what other facts equivalent to them may deserve the same punishment and 't is a general rule in the Law which the Judges are sworn to observe that difficult Cases should be reserved till the Parliament meet who are only able to decide them and
retained the name of a Senate was made up chiefly of those who had bin his Ministers in bringing the most miserable slavery upon their own Country The Roman Liberty and that bravery of spirit by which it had bin maintained was not only abolished but almost forgotten All consideration of Law and Right was trampled under foot and none could dispute with him who by the power of the sword had seiz'd the Authority both of the Senate and People Nothing was so extravagant that might not be extorted by the insolent violence of a Conqueror who had thirty mercenary Legions to execute his Commands The uncorrupted part of the People that had escaped the sword of Julius had either perished with Hirtius and Pansa Brutus and Cassius or bin destroy'd by the detestable Triumvirate Those that remain'd could lose nothing by a verbal resignation of their Liberty which they had neither strength nor courage to defend The Magistracies were possess'd by the Creatures of the Tyrant and the People was composed of such as were either born under slavery and accustomed to obey or remain'd under the terror of those arms that had consumed the Assertors of their Liberty Our Author standing in need of some Roman Example was obliged to seek it in an age when the Laws were subverted Virtue extinguished Injustice placed in the Throne and such as would not be of the same spirit exposed to the utmost cruelty This was the time when the Sovereign Majesty shined in glory and they who had raised it above the Law made it also the object of their Religion by adoring the Statues of their Oppressor The corruption of this Court spread it self over the best part of the world and reduced the Empire to that irrecoverable weakness in which it languished and perish'd This is the state of things that pleases Filmer and those that are like him who for the introduction of the same among us recommend such an elevation of the Sovereign Majesty as is most contrary to the Laws of God and Men abhorred by all generous Nations and most especially by our Ancestors who thought nothing too dear to be hazarded in the defence of themselves and us from it SECT XXV The Regal Power was not the first in this Nation nor necessarily to be continued tho it had bin the first TRUTH being uniform in it self those who desire to propagate it for the good of mankind lay the foundations of their reasonings in such Principles as are either evident to common sense or easily proved but Cheats and Impostors delighting in obscurity suppose things that are dubious or false and think to build one falshood upon another and our Author can find no better way to perswade us that all our Privileges and Laws are from the King than by saying That the first power was the Kingly Power which was both in this and all other Nations in 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 or common Customs of this Land were originally the Laws and Commands of the King But denying both these points I affirm 1. First that there was a power to make Kings before there was any King 2. Tho Kings had bin the first created Magistrates in all places as perhaps they were in some it dos not follow that they must continue for ever or that Laws are from them To the first I think no man will deny that there was a People at Babylon before Nimrod was King of that place This People had a Power for no number of men can be without it Nay this People had a power of making Nimrod King or he could never have bin King He could not be King by succession for the Scripture shews him to have bin the first He was not King by the right of Father for he was not their Father Chush Cham with his elder Brothers and Father Noah being still living and which is worst of all were not Kings for if they who lived in Nimrod's time or before him neither were Kings nor had Kings he that ought to have bin King over all by the right of nature if there had bin any such thing in nature was not King Those who immediately succeeded him and must have inherited his right if he had any did not inherit or pretend to it and therefore he that shall now claim a right from nature as Father of a People must ground it upon something more certain than Noah's right of reigning over his Children or it can have no strength in it Moreover the Nations who in and before the time of Nimrod had no Kings had Power or else they could have performed no Act nor constituted any other magistrate to this day which is absurd There was therefore a power in Nations before there were Kings or there could never have bin any and Nimrod could never have bin King if the People of Babylon had not made him King which they could not have done if they had not had a power of making him so 'T is ridiculous to say he made himself King for tho he might be strong and valiant he could not be stronger than a multitude of men That which sorces must be stronger than that which is forced and if it be true according to the antient saying that Hercules himself is not sufficient to encounter two 't is sure more impossible for one man to force a multitude for that must be stronger than he If he came in by perswasion they who were perswaded were perswaded to consent that he should be King That Consent therefore made him King But Qui dat esse dat modum esse They who made him King made him such a King as best pleased themselves He had therefore nothing but what was given his greatness and power must be from the multitude who gave it and their Laws and Liberties could not be from him but their Liberties were naturally inherent in themselves and their Laws were the product of them There was a People that made Romulus King He did not make or beget that People nor for any thing we know one man of them He could not come in by inheritance for he was a Bastard the Son of an unknown man and when he died the right that had bin conferred upon him reverted to the People who according to that right chose Numa Hostilius Martius Tarquinius Priscus and Servius all Strangers and without any other right than what was bestow'd upon them and Tarquinius Superbus who invaded the Throne without the command of the People was ejected and the Government of Kings abolisht by the same power that had created it We know not certainly by what Law Moses and the Judges created by the advice of Jethro governed the Israelites but may probably conjecture it to have bin by that Law which God had written in the hearts of mankind and the People submitted to the judgment of good and wise men tho
they were under no coercive Power but 't is certain they had a Law and a regular Magistracy under which they lived four hundred years before they had a King for Saul was the first This Law was not therefore from the King nor by the King but the King was chosen and made by the People according to the liberty they had by the Law tho they did not rightly follow the rules therein prescribed and by that means brought destruction upon themselves The Country in which we live lay long concealed under obscure barbarity and we know nothing of the first Inhabitants but what is involved in fables that leave us still in the dark Julius Cesar is the first who speaks distinctly of our affairs and gives us no reason to believe there was any Monarchy then established amongst us Cassivellaunus was occasionally chosen by the Nations that were most exposed to the violence of the Romans for the management of those wars against them By others we hear of Boadicia Arviragus Galgacus and many more set up asterwards when need required but we find no footsteps of a regular Succession either by inheritance or election And as they had then no Kings or any other general Magistrate that can be said to be equivalent to a King they might have had none at all unless they had thought fit Tacitus mentions a sort of Kings used by the Romans to keep Nations in servitude to them and tho it were true that there had bin such a man as Lucius and he one of this sort he is to be accounted only as a Roman Magistrate and signifies no more to our dispute than if he had bin called Proconsul Pretor or by any other name However there was no series of them that which was temporary and occasional depended upon the will of those who thinking there was occasion created such a Magistrate and omitted to do so when the occasion ceased or was thought to cease and might have had none at all if they had so pleased The Magistracy therefore was from them and depended upon their will We have already mentioned the Histories of the Saxons Danes and Normans from which Nations together with the Britains we are descended and finding that they were severe Assertors of their Liberties acknowledged no human Laws but their own received no Kings but such as swore to observe them and deposed those who did not well perform their Oaths and Duty 't is evident that their Kings were made by the People according to the Law and that the Law by which they became what they were could not be from themselves Our Ancestors were so fully convinced that in the creation of Kings they exercised their own right and were only to consider what was good sor themselves that without regard to the memory of those who had gone besore they were accustomed to take such as seemed most like wisely justly and gently to perform their office refused those that were suspected of pride cruelty or any other vice that might bring prejudice upon the Publick what title soever they pretended and removed such as had bin placed in the Throne if they did not answer the opinion conceived of their virtue which I take to be a manner of proceeding that agrees better with the quality of Masters making Laws and Magistrates for themselves than of Slaves receiving such as were imposed upon them 2. To the second Tho it should be granted that all Nations had at the first bin governed by Kings it were nothing to the question sor no man or number of Men was ever obliged to continue in the errors of his Predecessors The Authority of Custom as well as of Law I mean in relation to the Power that made it to be consists only in its rectitude And the same reason which may have induced one or more Nations to create Kings when they knew no other form of Government may not only induce them to set up another if that be found inconvenient to them but proves that they may as justly do so as remove a man who performs not what was expected from him If there had bin a Rule given by God and written in the minds of men by nature it must have bin from the beginning universal and perpetual or at least must have bin observed by the wisest and best instructed Nations which not being in any measure as I have proved already there can be no reason why a polite People should not relinquish the errors committed by their Ancestors in the time of their barbarism and ignorance and why they should not do it in matters of Government as well as in any other thing relating to life Men are subject to errors and 't is the work of the best and wisest to discover and amend such as their Ancestors may have committed or to add perfection to those things which by them have bin well invented This is so certain that whatsoever we enjoy beyond the misery in which our barbarous Ancestors lived is due only to the liberty of correcting what was amiss in their practice or inventing that which they did not know and I doubt whether it be more brutish to say we are obliged to continue in the Idolatry of the Druids with all the miseries and follies that accompany the most savage barbarity or to confess that tho we have a right to depart from these yet we are for ever bound to continue the Government they had established whatever inconveniences might attend it Tertullian disputing with the Pagans who objected the novelty of the Christian Religion troubled not himself with refuting that error but proving Christianity to be good and true he thought he had sufficiently proved it to be antient A wise Architect may shew his skill and deserve commendation sor building a poor house of vile materials when he can procure no better but he no way ought to hinder others from erecting more glorious Fabricks if they are furnished with the means required Besides such is the imperfection of all human Constitutions that they are subject to perpetual sluctuation which never permits them to continue long in the same condition Corruptions slide in insensibly and the best Orders are sometimes subverted by malice and violence so that he who only regards what was done in such an age often takes the corruption of the State for the institution follows the worst example thinks that to be the first that is the most antient he knows and if a brave People seeing the original defects of their Government or the corruption into which it may be fallen do either correct and reform what may be amended or abolish that which was evil in the institution or so perverted that it cannot be restor'd to integrity these men impute it to sedition and blame those actions which of all that can be performed by men are the most glorious We are not therefore so much to inquire after that which is most antient as that which is best and
ready to use it and their extravagances having bin often chastised by Law sufficiently proves that their power is not derived from a higher original than the Law of their own Countries If it were true that the answer sometimes given by Kings to Bills presented for their Assent did as our Author says amount to a denial it could only shew that they have a negative voice upon that which is agreed by the Parliament and is far from a power of acting by themselves being only a check upon the other parts of the Government But indeed it is no more than an elusion and he that dos by art obliquely elude confesses he has not a right absolutely to refuse 'T is natural to Kings especially to the worst to scrue up their Authority to the height and nothing can more evidently prove the defect of it than the necessity of having recourse to such pitiful evasions when they are unwilling to do that which is required But if I should grant that the words import a denial and that notwithstanding those of the Coronation Oath Quas vulgus elegerit they might deny no more could be inferred from thence than that they are entrusted with a power equal in that point to that of either House and cannot be supreme in our Author's sense unless there were in the same State at the same time three distinct supreme and absolute Powers which is absurd His cases relating to the proceedings of the Star-Chamber and Council-Table do only prove that some Kings have encroached upon the rights of the Nation and bin suffer'd till their excesses growing to be extreme they turn'd to the ruin of the Ministers that advised them and sometimes of the Kings themselves But the jurisdiction of the Council having bin regulated by the Statute of the 17 Car. 1. and the Star-Chamber more lately abolished they are nothing to our dispute Such as our Author usually impute to treason and rebellion the changes that upon such occasions have ensued but all impartial men do not only justify them but acknowledg that all the Crowns of Europe are at this day enjoy'd by no other title than such acts solemnly performed by the respective Nations who either disliking the person that pretended to the Crown tho next in blood or the government of the present possessor have thought fit to prefer another person or family They also say that as no Government can be so perfect but some defect may be originally in it or afterwards introduced none can subsist unless they be from time to time reduced to their first integrity by such an exertion of the power of those for whose sake they were instituted as may plainly shew them to be subject to no power under Heaven but may do whatever appears to be for their own good And as the safety of all Nations consists in rightly placing and measuring this power such have bin found always to prosper who have given it to those from whom usurpations were least to be feared who have bin least subject to be awed cheated or corrupted and who having the greatest interest in the Nation were most concerned to preserve its power liberty and welfare This is the greatest trust that can be reposed in men This power was by the Spartans given to the Ephori and the Senat of twenty eight in Venice to that which they call Concilio de Pregadi in Germany Spain France Sweedland Denmark Poland Hungary Bohemia Scotland England and generally all the Nations that have lived under the Gothick Polity it has bin in their General Assemblies under the names of Diets Cortez Parliaments Senats and the like But in what hands soever it is the power of making abrogating changing correcting and interpreting Laws has bin in the same Kings have bin rejected or deposed the Succession of the Crown settled regulated or changed and I defy any man to shew me one King amongst all the Nations abovementioned that has any right to the Crown he wears unless such acts are good If this power be not well placed or rightly proportioned to that which is given to other Magistrates the State must necessarily fall into great disorders or the most violent and dangerous means must be frequently used to preserve their Liberty Sparta and Venice have rarely bin put to that trouble because the Senats were so much above the Kings and Dukes in power that they could without difficulty bring them to reason The Gothick Kings in Spain never ventur'd to dispute with the Nobility and Witza and Rodrigo exposed the Kingdom as a prey to the Moors rather by weakning it through the neglect of Military discipline joined to their own ignorance and cowardice and by evil example bringing the youth to resemble them in lewdness and baseness than by establishing in themselves a power above the Law But in England our Ancestors who seem to have had some such thing in their eye as balancing the powers by a fatal mistake placed usually so much in the hands of the King that whensoever he happened to be bad his extravagances could not be repress'd without great danger And as this has in several ages cost the Nation a vast proportion of generous blood so 't is the cause of our present difficulties and threatens us with more but can never deprive us of the rights we inherit from our fathers SECT XXVIII The English Nation has always bin governed by it self or its Representatives HAVING proved that the People of England have never acknowledged any other human Law than their own and that our Parliaments having the power of making and abrogating Laws they only can interpret them and decide hard cases it plainly appears there can be no truth in our Author's assertion that the King is the Author Corrector and Moderator of both Statute and Common Law and nothing can be more frivolous than what he adds that neither of them can be a diminution of that natural power which Kings have over their People as fathers in as much as the differences between paternal and monarchical Power as he asserts it are vast and irreconcileable in principle and practice as I have proved at large in the former parts of this Work But lest we should be too proud of the honour he is pleased to do to our Parliaments by making use of their Authority he says We are first to remember that till the Conquest which name for the glory of our Nation he gives to the coming in of the Normans there could be no Parliament assembled of the General States because we cannot learn that until those days it was intirely united in one Secondly he doubts Whether the Parliament in the time of the Saxons were composed of the Nobility and Clergy or whether the Commons were also called but concludes there could be no Knights of any Shires because there were no Shires Thirdly That Henry the first caused the Commons first to assemble Knights and Burgesses of their own chusing and would make this to be an act
of grace and favour from that King but adds that it had bin more for the honour of Parliaments if a King whose title to the Crown had bin better had bin the Author of the form of it In answer to the first I do not think my self obliged to insist upon the name or form of the Parliament for the Authority of a Magistracy proceeds not from the number of years that it has continued but the rectitude of the institution and the Authority of those that instituted it The power of Saul David and Jeroboam was the same with that which belonged to the last Kings of Israel and Judah The Authority of the Roman Consuls Dictators Pretors and Tribuns was the same as soon as it was established was as legal and just as that of the Kings of Denmark which is said to have continued above three thousand years For as time can make nothing lawful or just that is not so of it self tho men are unwilling to change that which has pleased their Ancestors unless they discover great inconveniences in it that which a People dos rightly establish for their own good is of as much force the first day as continuance can ever give to it and therefore in matters of the greatest importance wise and good men do not so much inquire what has bin as what is good and ought to be for that which of it self is evil by continuance is made worse and upon the first opportunity is justly to be abolished But if that Liberty in which God created man can receive any strength from continuance and the rights of Englishmen can be render'd more unquestionable by prescription I say that the Nations whose rights we inherit have ever enjoy'd the Liberties we claim and always exercised them in governing themselves popularly or by such Representatives as have bin instituted by themselves from the time they were first known in the world The Britans and Saxons lay so long hid in the obscurity that accompanies barbarism that 't is in vain to seek what was done by either in any writers more antient than Cesar and Tacitus The first describes the Britans to have bin a fierce People zealous for Liberty and so obstinately valiant in the defence of it that tho they wanted skill and were overpower'd by the Romans their Country could no otherwise be subdued than by the slaughter of all the inhabitants that were able to bear arms He calls them a free People in as much as they were not like the Gauls governed by Laws made by the great men but by the People In his time they chose Cassivellaunus and afterwards Caractatus Arviragus Galgacus and others to command them in their wars but they retain'd the Government in themselves That no force might be put upon them they met arm'd in their general Assemblies and tho the smaller matters were left to the determination of the chief men chosen by themselves for that purpose they reserved the most important amongst which the chusing of those men was one to themselves When the Romans had brought them low they set up certain Kings to govern such as were within their Territories but those who defended themselves by the natural strength of their situation or retired into the North or the Islands were still governed by their own Customs and were never acquainted with domestick or foreign slavery The Saxons from whom we chiesly derive our Original and Manners were no less lovers of Liberty and better understood the ways of defending it They were certainly the most powerful and valiant people of Germany and what the Germans performed under Ariovistus Arminius and Maroboduus shews both their force and their temper If ever fear enter'd into the heart os Cesar it seems to have bin when he was to deal with Ariovistus The advantages that the brave Germanicus obtained against Arminius were at least thought equal to the greatest victories that had bin gain'd by any Roman Captain because these Nations fought not for riches or any instruments of Luxury and Pleasure which they despised but for Liberty This was the principle in which they lived as appears by their words and actions so that Arminius when his brother Flavius who served the Romans boasted of the increase of his pay and the marks of honour he had received in scorn call'd them the rewards of the vilest servitude but when he himself endeavour'd to usurp a power over the liberty of his Country which he had so bravely defended he was killed by those he would have oppress'd Tacitus farther describing the nature of the Germans shews that the Romans had run greater hazards from them than from the Samnites Carthaginians and Parthians and attributes their bravery to the Liberty they enjoyed for they are says he neither exhausted by Tributes nor vexed by Publicans and lest this Liberty should be violated the chief men consult about things of lesser moment but the most important matters are determined by all Whoever would know the opinion of that wise Author concerning the German Liberty may read his excellent Treatise concerning their Manners and Customs but I presume this may be enough to prove that they lived free under such Magistrates as they chose regulated by such Laws as they made and retained the principal powers of the Government in their general or particular Councils Their Kings and Princes had no other power than was conferred upon them by these Assemblies who having all in themselves could receive nothing from them who had nothing to give 'T is as easily proved that the Saxons or Angli from whom we descend were eminent among those whose power virtue and love to Liberty the abovementioned Historian so highly extols in as much as besides what he says in general of the Saxons he names the Angli describes their habitation near the Elb and their religious worship of the Goddess Erthum or the Earth celebrated in an Island lying in the mouth of that River thought to be Heyligland in resemblance of which a small one lying over against Berwick is called Holy Island If they were free in their own Country they must be so when they came hither The manner of their coming shews they were more likely to impose than submit to slavery and if they had not the name of Parliament it was because they did not speak French or not being yet joined with the Normans they had not thought fit to put their Affairs into that method but having the root of Power and Liberty in themselves they could not but have a right of establishing the one in such a form as best pleased them for the preservation of the other This being as I suppose undeniable it imports not whether the Assemblies in which the supreme Power of each Nation did reside were frequent or rare composed of many or few persons sitting altogether in one place or in more what name they had or whether every free man did meet and vote in his own
those that conquer'd This was not the work of two men and those who had bin free at home can never be thought to have left their own Country to fight as slaves for the glory and profit of two men in another It cannot be said that their wants compelled them for their Leaders suffer'd the same and could not be relieved but by their assistance and whether their enterprize was good or bad just or unjust it was the same to all No one man could have any right peculiar to himself unless they who gained it did confer it upon him and 't is no way probable that they who in their own Country had kept their Princes within very narrow limits as has bin proved should resign themselves and all they had as soon as they came hither But we have already shewn that they always continued most obstinate defenders of their Liberty and the Government to which they had bin accustomed that they managed it by themselves and acknowledged no other Laws than their own Nay if they had made such a resignation of their Right as was necessary to create one in their Leaders it would be enough to overthrow the proposition for 't is not then the Leader that gives to the People but the People to the Leader If the people had not a right to give what they did give none was conferred upon the receiver if they had a right he that should pretend to derive a benefit from thence must prove the grant that the nature and intention of it may appear 2. To the second If it be said that Records testify all Grants to have bin originally from the King I answer That tho it were confessed which I absolutely deny and affirm that our Rights and Liberties are innate inherent and enjoy'd time out of mind before we had Kings it could be nothing to the question which is concerning Reason and Justice and if they are wanting the defect can never be supplied by any matter of fact tho never so clearly proved Or if a Right be pretended to be grounded upon a matter of fact the thing to be proved is that the people did really confer such a right upon the first or some other Kings And if no such thing do appear the proceedings of one or more Kings as if they had it can be of no value But in the present case no such grant is pretended to have bin made either to the first or to any of the following Kings the Right they had not their Successors could not inherit and consequently cannot have it or at most no better title to it than that of Usurpation But as they who enquire for truth ought not to deny or conceal any thing I may grant that Mannors c. were enjoyed by tenure from Kings but that will no way prejudice the cause I defend nor signify more than that the Countries which the Saxons had acquired were to be divided among them and to avoid the quarrels that might arise if every man took upon him to seize what he could a certain method of making the distribution was necessarily to be fixed and it was fit that every man should have something in his own hands to justify his Title to what he possessed according to which controversies should be determined This must be testified by some body and no man could be so fit or of so much credit as he who was chief among them and this is no more than is usual in all the Societies of the World The Mayor of every Corporation the Speaker or Clerk of the House of Peers or House of Commons the first President of every Parliament or Presidial in France the Consul Burgermaster Advoyer or Bailiff in every free Town of Holland Germany or Switzerland sign the publick Acts that pass in those places The Dukes of Venice and Genoa do the like tho they have no other power than what is conferred upon them and of themselves can do little or nothing The Grants of our Kings are of the same nature tho the words mero motu nostro seem to imply the contrary sor Kings speak always in the plural number to shew that they do not act for themselves but for the Societies over which they are placed and all the veneration that is or can be given to their Acts dos not exalt them but those from whom their Authority is derived and for whom they are to execute The Tyrants of the East and other Barbarians whose power is most absolute speak in the single number as appears by the decrees of Nabuchodonosor Cyrus Darius and Abasaerus recited in Scripture with others that we hear of daily from those parts but wheresoever there is any thing of civility or regularity in Government the Prince uses the plural to shew that he acts in a publick capacity From hence says Grotius the rights of Kings to send Ambassadors make Leagues c. do arise the confederacies made by them do not terminate with their lives because they are not for themselves they speak not in their own Persons but as representing their People and ae King who is depriv'd of his Kingdom loses the right of sending Ambassadors because he can no longer speak for those who by their own consent or by a foreign force are cut off from him The question is not whether such a one be justly or unjustly deprived sor that concerns only those who do it or suffer it but whether he can oblige the People and 't is ridiculous for any Nation to treat with a man that cannot perform what shall be agreed or for him to stipulate that which can oblige and will be made good only by himself But tho much may be left to the discretion of Kings in the distribution of Lands and the like yet it no way diminishes the right of the People nor consers any upon them otherwise to dispose of what belongs to the publick than may tend to the common good and the accomplishment of those ends for which they are entrusted Nay if it were true that a conquered Country did belong to the Crown the King could not dispose of it because 't is annexed to the Office and not alienable by the Person This is not only found in regular mixed Monarchies as in Sweden where the Grants made by the last Kings have bin lately rescinded by the General Assembly of Estates as contrary to Law but even in the most absolute as in France where the present King who has stretched his power to the utmost has lately acknowledged that he cannot do it and according to the known maxim of the State that the demeasnes of the Crown which are designed for the defraying of publick Charges cannot be alienated all the Grants made within the last fifteen years have bin annulled even those who had bought Lands of the Crown have bin called to account and the Sums given being compared with the profits received and a moderate interest allowed to the purchasers so much
most regular Commonwealths that ever were in the world And it can with no more reason be pretended that the Goths received their privileges from Alan or Theodoric the Francs from Pharamond or Meroveus and the English from Ina or Ethelred than that the liberty of Athens was the gift of Themistocles or Pericles that the Empire of Rome proceeded from the liberality of Brutus or Valerius and that the Commonwealth of Venice at this day subsists by the favour of the Contarini or Moresini which must reduce us to matter of right since that of fact void of right can signify nothing SECT XXXII The powers of Kings are so various according to the Constitutions of several States that no consequence can be drawn to the prejudice or advantage of any one merely from the name IN opposition to what is above said some alledg the name of King as if there were a charm in the word and our Author seems to put more weight upon it than in the reasons he brings to support his cause But that we may see there is no efficacy in it and that it conveys no other right than what particular Nations may annex to it we are to consider 1. That the most absolute Princes that are or have bin in the world never had the name of King whereas it has bin frequently given to those whose powers have bin very much restrained The Cesars were never called Kings till the sixth age of Christianity the Califs and Soldan of Egypt and Babylon the Great Turk the Cham of Tartary or the Great Mogol never took that name or any other of the same signification The Czar of Moscovy has it not tho he is as absolute a Monarch and his People as miserable slaves as any in the world On the other side the chief Magistrates of Rome and Athens for some time those of Sparta Arragon Sweden Denmark and England who could do nothing but by Law have bin called Kings This may be enough to shew that a name being no way essential what title soever is given to the chief Magistrate he can have no other power than the Laws and Customs of his Country do give or the People confer upon him 2. The names of Magistrates are often changed tho the power continue to be the same and the powers are sometimes alter'd tho the name remain When Octavius Cesar by the force of a mad corrupted Soldiery had overthrown all Law and Right he took no other title in relation to military Affairs than that of Imperator which in the time of liberty was by the Armies often given to Pretors and Consuls In Civil matters he was as he pretended content with the power of Tribun and the like was observed in his Successor who to new invented Usurpations gave old and approved names On the other side those titles which have bin render'd odious and execrable by the violent exercise of an absolute power are sometimes made popular by moderat elimitations as in Germany where tho the Monarchy seem to be as well temper'd as any the Princes retain the same names of Imperator Cesar and Augustus as those had done who by the excess of their rage and fury had desolated and corrupted the best part of world Sometimes the name is changed tho the power in all respects continue to be the same The Lords of Castille had for many Ages no other title than that of Count and when the Nobility and People thought good they changed it to that of King without any addition to the power The Sovereign Magistrate in Poland was called Duke till within the last two hundred years when they gave the title of King to one of the Jagellan Family which title has continued to this day tho without any change in the nature of the Magistracy And I presume no wise man will think that if the Venetians should give the name of King to their Duke it could confer any other power upon him than he has already unless more should be conferr'd by the Authority of the Great Council 3. The same names which in some places denote the supreme Magistracy in others are subordinate or merely titular In England France and Spain Dukes and Earls are Subjects in Germany the Electors and Princes who are called by those names are little less than Sovereigns and the Dukes of Savoy Tuscany Moscovy and others acknowledg no Superior as well as those of Poland and Castille had none when they went under those titles The same may be said of Kings Some are subject to a foreign power as divers of them were subject to the Persian and Babylonian Monarchs who for that reason were called the Kings of Kings Some also are tributaries and when the Spaniards first landed in America the great Kings of Mexico and Peru had many others under them Threescore and ten Kings gathered up meat under the table of Adonibezek The Romans had many Kings depending upon them Herod and those of his race were of this number and the dispute between him and his Sons Aristobulus and Alexander was to be determined by them neither durst he decide the matter till it was referred to him But a right of Appeal did still remain as appears by the case of St. Paul when Agrippa was King The Kings of Mauritania from the time of Massinissa were under the like dependence Jugurtha went to Rome to justify himself for the death of Micipsa Juba was commanded by the Roman Magistrates Scipio Petreius and Afranius another Juba was made King of the same Country by Augustus and Tiridates of Armenia by Nero and infinite examples of this nature may be alledged Moreover their powers are variously regulated according to the variety of tempers in Nations and Ages Some have restrained the powers that by experience were found to be exorbitant others have dissolved the bonds that were laid upon them and Laws relating to the institution abrogation enlargement or restriction of the regal Power would be utterly insignificant if this could not be done But such Laws are of no effect in any other Country than where they are made The lives of the Spartans did not depend upon the will of Agesilaus or Leonidas because Nabuchodonosor could kill or save whom he pleased and tho the King of Marocco may stab his Subjects throw them to the Lions or hang them upon tenterhooks yet a King of Poland would probably be called to a severe account if he should unjustly kill a single man SECT XXXIII The Liberty of a People is the gift of God and Nature IF any man ask how Nations come to have the power of doing these things I answer that Liberty being only an exemption from the dominion of another the question ought not to be how a Nation can come to be free but how a man comes to have a dominion over it for till the right of Dominion be proved and justified Liberty subsists as arising from the Nature and Being of a man Tertullian speaking of the
This is he who never dos any wrong 'T is before him we appear when we demand Justice or render an account of our actions All Juries give their verdict in his sight They are his Commands that the Judges are bound and sworn to obey when they are not at all to consider such as they receive from the person that wears the Crown 'T was for Treason against him that Tresilian and others like to him in several ages were hanged They gratified the lusts of the visible Powers but the invisible King would not be mock'd He caused Justice to be executed upon Empson and Dudley He was injured when the perjur'd wretches who gave that accursed Judgment in the case of Shipmony were suffered to escape the like punishment by means of the ensuing troubles which they had chiefly raised And I leave it to those who are concerned to consider how many in our days may expect vengeance for the like crimes I should here conclude this point if the power of granting a Noli proseq Cesset Processus and Pardons which are said to be annexed to the person of the King were not taken for a proof that all proceedings at Law depend upon his will But whoever would from hence draw a general conclusion must first prove his proposition to be universally true If it be wholly false no true deduction can be made and if it be true only in some cases 't is absurd to draw from thence a general conclusion and to erect a vast fabrick upon a narrow foundation is impossible As to the general proposition I utterly deny it The King cannot stop any Suit that I begin in my own name or invalidate any Judgment I obtain upon it He cannot release a Debt of ten shillings due to me nor a Sentence for the like sum given upon an action of Battery Assault Trespass publick Nuisance or the like He cannot pardon a man condemned upon an Appeal nor hinder the person injured from appealing His power therefore is not universal if it be not universal it cannot be inherent but conferred upon him or entrusted by a superior Power that limits it These limits are fixed by the Law the Law therefore is above him His proceedings must be regulated by the Law and not the Law by his will Besides the extent of those limits can only be known by the intention of the Law that sets them and are so visible that none but such as are wilfully blind can mistake It cannot be imagined that the Law which dos not give a power to the King of pardoning a man that breaks my hedg can intend he should have power to pardon one who kills my father breaks my house robs me of my goods abuses my children and servants wounds me and brings me in danger of my life Whatever power he has in such cases is founded upon a presumption that he who has sworn not to deny or delay justice to any man will not break his Oath to interrupt it And farther as he dos nothing but what he may rightly do cum magnatum sapientum Consilio and that 't is supposed they will never advise him to do any thing but what ought to be done in order to attain the great ends of the Law Justice and the publick safety nevertheles lest this should not be sufficient to keep things in their due order or that the King should forget his Oath not to delay or deny justice to any man his Counsellors are exposed to the severest punishments if they advise him to do any thing contrary to it and the Law upon which it is grounded So that the utmost advantage the King can pretend to in this case is no more than that of the Norman who said he had gained his cause because it depended upon a point that was to be decided by his Oath that is to say if he will betray the trust reposed in him and perjure himself he may sometimes exempt a Vilain from the punishment he deserves and take the guilt upon himself I say sometimes for appeals may be brought in some cases and the Waterman who had bin pardoned by his Majesty in the year 1680 for a murder he had committed was condemned and hanged at the Assizes upon an appeal Nay in cases of Treason which some men think relate most particularly to the person of the King he cannot always do it Gaveston the two Spencers Tresilian Empson Dudley and others have bin executed as Traitors for things done by the King's command and 't is not doubted they would have bin saved if the King's power had extended so far I might add the cases of the Earls of Strafford and Danby for tho the King signed a Warrant for the execution of the first no man doubts he would have saved him if it had bin in his power The other continues in prison notwithstanding his pardon and for any thing I know he may continue where he is or come out in a way that will not be to his satisfaction unless he be found innocent or something fall out more to his advantage than his Majesty's approbation of what he has done If therefore the King cannot interpose his authority to hinder the course of the Law in contests between privat men nor remit the debts adjudged to be due or the damages given to the persons agriev'd he can in his own person have no other power in things of this nature than in some degree to mitigate the vindictive power of the Law and this also is to be exercised no other way than as he is entrusted But if he acts even in this capacity by a delegated power and in few cases he must act according to the ends for which he is so entrusted as the same Law says Cum magnatum sapientum consilio and is not therein to pursue his own will and interests If his Oath farther oblige him not to do it and his Ministers are liable to punishment if they advise him otherwise If in matters of Appeal he have no power and if his pardons have bin of no value when contrary to his Oath he has abused that with which he is entrusted to the patronizing of crimes and exempting such delinquents from punishment as could not be pardoned without prejudice to the publick I may justly conclude that the King before whom every man is bound to appear who dos perpetually and impartially distribute Justice to the Nation is not the man or woman that wears the Crown and that he or she cannot determine those matters which by the Law are referr'd to the King Whether therefore such matters are ordinary or extraordinary the decision is and ought to be placed where there is most wisdom and stability and where passion and privat interest dos least prevail to the obstruction of Justice This is the only way to obviate that confusion and mischief which our Author thinks it would introduce In cases of the first sort this is done in England by Judges and Juries
force or fraud to usurp a Power of imposing what they pleased Others being sottish cowardly and base have so far erred in the Foundations as to give up themselves to the will of one or few men who turning all to their own profit or pleasure have bin just in nothing but in using such a people like beasts Some have placed weak defences against the lusts of those they have advanced to the highest places and given them opportunities of arrogating more power to themselves than the Law allows Where any of these errors are committed the Government may be easy for a while or at least tolerable whilst it continues uncorrupted but it cannot be lasting When the Law may be easily or safely overthrown it will be attempted Whatever virtue may be in the first Magistrates many years will not pass before they come to be corrupted and their Successors deflecting from their integrity will seize upon the ill-guarded prey They will then not only govern by will but by that irregular will which turns the Law that was made for the publick good to the privat advantage of one or few men 'T is not my intention to enumerate the several ways that have been taken to effect this or to shew what Governments have deflected from the right and how far But I think I may justly say that an Arbitrary Power was never well placed in any men and their Successors who were not obliged to obey the Laws they should make This was well understood by our Saxon Ancestors They made Laws in their Assemblies and Councils of the Nation but all those who proposed or assented to those Laws as soon as the Assembly was dissolved were comprehended under the power of them as well as other men They could do nothing to the prejudice of the Nation that would not be as hurtful to those who were present and their posterity as to those who by many accidents might be absent The Normans enter'd into and continued in the same path Our Parliaments at this day are in the same condition They may make prejudicial Wars ignominious Treaties and unjust Laws Yet when the Session is ended they must bear the burden as much as others and when they die the teeth of their Children will be set an edg with the sower Grapes they have eaten But 't is hard to delude or corrupt so many Men do not in matters of the highest importance yield to slight temptations No man serves the Devil sor nothing Small wages will not content those who expose themselves to perpetual infamy and the hatred of a Nation for betraying their Country Our Kings had not wherewithal to corrupt many till these last twenty years and the treachery of a few was not enough to pass a Law The union of many was not easily wrought and there was nothing to tempt them to endeavour it for they could make little advantage during the Session and were to be lost in the mass of the people and prejudiced by their own Laws as soon as it was ended They could not in a short time reconcile their various interests or passions so as to combine together against the publick and the former Kings never went about it We are beholden to H-de Cl-ff-rd and D-nby for all that has bin done of that kind They found a Parliament full of lewd young men chosen by a furious people in spite to the Puritans whose severity had distasted them The weakest of all Ministers had wit enough to understand that such as these might be easily deluded corrupted or bribed Some were fond of their Seats in Parliament and delighted to domineer over their Neighbours by continuing in them Others prefer'd the cajoleries of the Court before the honour of performing their duty to the Country that employ'd them Some sought to relieve their ruined Fortunes and were most forward to give the King a vast Revenue that from thence they might receive Pensions others were glad of a temporary protection against their Creditors Many knew not what they did when they annulled the Triennial Act voted the Militia to be in the King gave him the Excise Customs and Chimney-mony made the Act for Corporations by which the greatest part of the Nation was brought under the power of the worst men in it drunk or sober pass'd the five mile Act and that for Uniformity in the Church This embolden'd the Court to think of making Parliaments to be the instruments of our Slavery which had in all Ages past bin the firmest pillars of our Liberty There might have bin perhaps a possibility of preventing this pernicious mischief in the Constitution of our Government But our brave Ancestors could never think their Posterity would degenerate into such baseness to sell themselves and their Country but how great soever the danger may be 't is less than to put all into the hands of one man and his Ministers the hazard of being ruin'd by those who must perish with us is not so much to be feared as by one who may enrich and strengthen himself by our destruction 'T is better to depend upon those who are under a possibility of being again corrupted than upon one who applies himself to corrupt them because he cannot otherwise accomplish his designs It were to be wished that our security were more certain but this being under God the best Anchor we have it deserves to be preserved with all care till one of a more unquestionable strength be framed by the consent of the Nation SECT XLVI The coercive power of the Law proceeds from the Authority of Parliament HAVING proved that Proclamations are not Laws and that the Legislative Power which is arbitrary is trusted only in the hands of those who are bound to obey the Laws that are made 't is not hard to discover what it is that gives the power of Law to the Sanctions under which we live Our Author tell us that all Statutes or Laws are made properly by the King alone at the Rogation of the People as his Majesty King James of happy Memory affirms in his true Law of free Monarchy and as Hooker teaches us That Laws do not take their constraining power from the quality of such as devise them but from the power that giveth them the strength of Law But if the Rogation of the People be necessary that cannot be a Law which proceeds not from their Rogation the power therefore is not alone in the King for a most important part is confessed to be in the People And as none could be in them if our Author's Proposition or the Principles upon which it is grounded were true the acknowledgment of such a part to be in the People shews them to be false For if the King had all in himself none could participate with him if any do participate he hath not all and 't is from that Law by which they do participate that we are to know what part is left to him The preambles of most Acts of Parliaments