HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE CAROLUS SECUNDUS Dei Gratia Angl Scotiae Franciae Et Hiberniae Rex Fide Defensor etc. F. H. Van Houe Sculp Patriarcha non Monarcha THE Patriarch Unmonarch'd BEING OBSERVATIONS ON A late Treatise and divers other Miscellanies Published under the Name of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet IN WHICH The falseness of those Opinions that would make Monarchy Jure Divino are laid open AND The true Principles of Government and Property especially in our Kingdom asserted By a Lover of Truth and of his Country LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens-head-Alley in Pater-Noster-Row 1681. THE PREFACE To the READER IT may not be unknown to those that have been conversant in Books and Pamphlets published during the late unhappy times that all the Treatises except the Patriarcha which are the subject of the ensuing Observations were published at first in single Tracts without Name though they have since come out under that of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet deceased All which though I hope they might be written with an honest designe and in defence of Kingly Government and of his then Majesties lawful and just Rights then trampled upon by a domineering Faction and may contain some things useful enough to confute divers levelling Notions then too much in fashion yet whilst this Gentleman as violent men commonly do ran into the other extream and must needs assert an Absolute Monarchy Jure Divino so that no other Government can be lawfully exercised nor the least Limitations set to it without Sacriledge and diminution of that Soveraignty which is derived from no less an Original than God himself and by denying that Princes can ever be obliged by any Fundamental or after-Contracts or Concessions or by any Coronation-Oaths to abstain from the Lives Liberties or Properties of their Subjects farther than as they themselves shall think it convenient so that there can be no such thing in nature as a Tyrant I leave it to the judgment of the impartial Reader whether what this Author might designe as Physick hath not served rather to inflame the Distemper and whether he hath not by such rash and ill-grounded Assertions given too much advantage to the Enemies of Kingship to retort That since all Government was ordained by God for the good of Mankind that could never be of divine institution which would render all things to be so much the Princes Right that the Subjects can claim a Property in nothing which he shall please to take from them and that however they use them yet they still exercise but their own Royal Rights and Prerogatives So that by thus taking away all distinctions between Kings and Tyrants and between Slaves and Subjects I fear that like Rehoboam's harsh Answer to his Peoples Complaints he hath not given many of his Readers a prejudice against that Government which temper'd by known Laws I take to be the best in the World For as Superstition can never serve to advance the true Worship of God but by creating false Notions of the divine nature in mens minds or render it not as it ought to be the Object of their Love and Reverence but servile Fear so I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Power in all Monarchs and such an entire Subjection as this Author exacts from Subjects can produce nothing but a Slavish Dread without that Reverence Esteem and Affection for their Princes Person and Government which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes and which they will have whilst they believe he thinks himself obliged in Conscience and Honour to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and Oppression according to just and known Laws And that contrary Notions of this Supreme Power are so far from setling mens minds in a sober and rational Obedience to Government that they rather make them desperate and careless who is their Master since let what change will come they are sure to be no better than Slaves as may be seen in all the Absolute Monarchies from France to China You may also consider whether most of the Arguments this Author makes use of for absolute Obedience to Vsurpers as representing the lawful Prince and Father of the People might not serve for the establishing of Oliver and the Rump-Parliament as well as a lawful Soveraign since I am sure Milton makes use of the same places of Scripture for this purpose which this Author and Salmasius do for another So that most moderate men nay the Author 's own Friends may wish that either these Treatises had never been published or at least have been left in private Studies and Book-sellers shops amongst those heaps of Pamphlets condemned to dust and oblivion since no man can imagine to what end this Patriarcha and other Tracts should come out at such a Time as they did unless the Publishers thought that these Pieces which printed apart could onely serve to ensnare the Vnderstandings of some unthinking Country-Gentleman or Windblown-Theologue could do no less being twisted into one Volume than bind the Consciences and enslave the Reasons of all his unwary Readers Since therefore short Treatises of this kind written in a gentile stile and a formal appearance of Law and Reason do more mischief among young men and those that have not leisure to look much into the grounds of this Controversie than tedious Volumes And that this Notion of the Divine and Patriarchal Right of absolute Monarchy hath obtain'd so much among some modern Church-men who cry it up as their Diana and consequently hath so much infected our Vniversities that are the Seminaries where the Youth of this Nation do commonly receive Principles both in Religion and Politicks which if they have not a mind large enough to overcome the prejudices of Education will mis-lead them as long as they live and so make them desire at least to alter that Government and give up those Priviledges which their Ancestors were so careful to preserve and deliver down to Posterity I thought my self obliged having perhaps more leisure though less parts and learning than a great many others to do God my King and Country this service as to lay open the weakness of the Reasons and the dangerous consequences of this Author's Principles And though men of greater abilities may either dispise such weak Arguments as this Author makes use of or else think it below them to spend so much time from their more useful and beneficial Employments and that indeed his Reasons are not so knotty or intricate that they require any more than honest sence and plain English to lay them open to the unprejudiced Reader yet since the Poyson hath spread so far among the men of Letters and in the Country among divers of the Gentry and Clergie I thought it not amiss to do my weak endeavour to undeceive them And in so doing I desire to be thought no other than what I really am a zealous assertor and defender of the Government establisht by Law
rate his power now encreases but that he may be so he threaten to cut their Banks and let in the Sea to drown them and their Country if they will not yeild it up to him may they not if they find they cannot resist him submit themselves to him and make the best terms they can for themselves and are they not then obliged by the Authors own Principles to continue his Subjects and yet here is no actual War or inundation but threats only to force them to this submission So that the Authors Supposition is false that no case can happen but an actual War only which can reduce a People to such terms of extremity as to compell them to an absolute abnunciation of all Soveraignity and so likewise is this consequence also which he assumes from thence then war which causeth that necessity is the prime means of extorting such Soveraignity and not the free gift of the People who cannot otherwise chuse but give away that Power which they cannot keep for they might either leave their Country or bury themselves in it But it seems the Author had forgot his Logick or else he would have remembred to distinguish between Causa sine qua non and Causa efficiens a cause which does not properly give being to a thing and yet without which it could not have been produced Thus a Slave at Argiers though it is the occasion of his servitude his being taken Prisoner yet the true Cause of his becoming a lawful Servant to his taker does not proceed from his conquering him but from his coming to Terms with him that he shall be dismist of his Fetters or Imprisonment upon Condition he will serve faithfully and not run away and all Moralists consider those actions they call mixt as when a Merchant flings his goods over into the Sea to avoid being cast away among the number of the Voluntary ones though they commenced from some kind of force since in this case the Merchant might if he pleased keep his goods if he would venture his life So in many cases may a Conquered People if they have never neither by themselves or their representatives owned the Conquerer But as much as the Author quarrells at the word usufructuary Right in Grotius as too base to express the Right of Kings and as derogatory to the dignity of Supreme Majesty yet the the French are not so scruplous but in the absolutest Monarchy of Europe plainly declare that their King hath but an usufructuary right to his Kingdom and the Territories belonging thereunto or that he can any way charge them with his debts or alienate or dispose of them without the consent of the States of France See Mezeray in the reign of this King 1527. and was so solâ—mnly declared by that great Assemby des notables called by K. Francis the First to give their Judgment of the Articles of Peace lately made with the Emperour Charles V. at Madrid their sense was that Burgundy which by those Articles was to be delivered up was an inseparable Member of the Crown of which he was but the usufructuary and so could not dispose of the one any more than of the other nor was this any new opinion but as old as St. Lewis who being desired by the Emperour Frederic III. to restore the King of England his just Rights To which the said King replyed whose words I will faithfully translate as they are in Matthew Paris p. 765. Anno Dom. 1249. By the holy Cross with which I am signed I would willingly do it if my Counsel i. e. the Estates would permit it because I love the King of England as my Cosen but it were hard at this very instant of my Pilgrimage viz. for the holy land to disturb the whole body of my Kingdom by contradicting the Counsels of my Mother and all my Nobles although the Intercessors are very dear to me neither is this to make a Kingdom all one with a Ferm as the Author words it since in the civil Law it signifies not only one that barely receives the rents or profits but likewise enjoys all other Prerogatives and advantages that may accrew to him as the true owner though he have not power to sell or give it away Nor I suppose will any French or English Subject unless such bigotted ones as the Author acknowledge any Forraign Prince or other Person can obtain an absolute Dominion over them by Conquest I am sure they were not of that opinion between two hundred and three hundred years agoe when the King of England brought a plausible Title into France and had it backt by almost an entire Conquest of the whole Kingdom and a formal setlement and acknowledgment from Charles VI. then King and the greatest part of the Nobility and Clergy of France at Paris and yet after all this the French had so little Conscience as to proclame Charles the Dauphin King of France and to drive the English out of the Country and renounce their allegiance which they had sworn to our Kings Henry V. and VI. and yet the Author will have it to be but a naked presumption in Grotius to suppose The Primary will of the People to have been ever necessary P. 69. to bestow Supreme power in succession But if the Author will not be content that Kings shall have any less than absolute Propriety in the Crown let us see the consequences of this Doctrine For the Crown must be of England in the nature of an absolute Fee Simple and is consequently chargeable by any act or alienable by the Testament of the King in being So that then King John had Power to make this Kingdom feudatary and tributory to the Pope and so the Pope hath still a good Title to it And since Religion with these Gentlemen diminishes nothing from the right and absoluteness of Monarchy the same King might have made over his Kingdom to the Emperor of Moroco as the Historians of those times relate he would and so the Sarracen Prince might have entred upon the non-performance of the Conditions and have turned out his Vassal and been King here himself which opinion how contrary it was to the notions which Kings themselves had of the right to dispose of their Kingdoms let any man consult Matthew Paris and he will see there what Phillip Agustus amongst other things tells Wallo the Popes Legate Anno 1216. P. 280. that no King could give away his Kingdom without the consent of his Barons who are obliged to defend it and all the Nobility there present began to cry out at once that they would assert this Priviledge till death That no King or Brince could by his sole Will give away his Kingdom or make it tributary by which the Nobles of the Kingdom might become Slaves Nor did the English Nobility think otherwise since this was one of the causes of their taking Arms against King John Matt. Paris 1245. p. 659. 666. and afterwards in his
reason and a sense oâ— their present appetites or desires yet not being able to make any judgment of the reasons or consequences of actions are not to be reckoned in the rank of rational creatures so that it is evident that God intended occupancy or possession should concern a right among men to things that were before in common 〈◊〉 yet so that this occupancy does not give a man a right to more than is really necessary and which he can apply to the necessities of himself and Family 〈◊〉 Therefore this natural Propriety in things much less that which is introduced by Law or common consent cannot exclude that natural right every man hath to his own preservation and the means thereof so that no man can be obliged in Conscience or commits a sin if in a case of extream necessity even ready to perish he makes use of some of the superfluous necessaries of life which another man may have laid by for the future uses of himself and Family and that were without his consent if it can by no other means be obtained 〈◊〉 that the things the necessitous person takes are not â—…mediately necessary for the preservation of the lives of the Possessors and his Family for in this case this necessity is to be preferred before all others therefore this right of self preservation is still supposed in all humane compacts or laws about the division and distribution of things so that when our own and all other laws are so favourable that they do not esteem those guilty of theft that take only victuals in case of extream necessity though without the owner's consent and though the person that takes them be so poor that he cannot make satisfaction for what he hath so taken it being sufficient that he is supposed willing to do it if ever he comes to be able So likewise since the Earth was first Peopled by distinct Families or companies of men all of whom had a right to the necessities of life which are indeed no other than the products of the Earth these coming to inhabit such and such tracts of ground it was in their power either to live in common upon such things as the earth produced of it self or else to divide to every man his share which another should have no right in Thus the Indians in America as I said before have all the Country in common among them except the sites of their houses and Gardens but our Planters rather chuse to allot every man his share it being that which suits best with that way of life they have been used to in their own Country and as they think will most conduce to their common Peace and advantage not but that they might if they had pleased have occupied such a tract of land which those Indians made no use of in common with them there being no more Obligation upon them to come to a more distinct division than there does upon the Indians themselves so on the other side after these Planters have divided thiâ—â—occupied land into as many shares as will serve tâ—…â—ecessities of each mans Family It is an injury not only in any of those that agreed to this division but in any Indian who is at peace with them that is hath never declared any war to break up this enclosure or take away any thing that is there planted without the consent of the owner For since the owner hath possessed himself of this land and bestowed his Labour and Industry upon it and that the other hath no right to any more of the products of the earth than that may serve for the subsistance of himself and his Family and that there is more ground lost where he may procure himself the like necessaries if he please he hath no right to take away this land from the owner without his consent since he hath the same right to this Field as the other hath to his Cottage or Garden And if such an occupancy will not create a Propriety certainly all the Nations in the world are in an ill condition For since none of them can now convey their Titles to the Country they possess from any one of Noahs Sons if occupancy or possession be no good Title then the rest of Mankind may upon the Authors own Principles come in for a share wherever they please for certainly all the land that then remained undiscovered which could not be less than two parts of three and consequently undivided amongst Noah's Sons must afterwards fall either to the first occupiers or all the rest of Mankind must still have a right in it So there is no need either of supposing the original of Property to have proceeded from Noah and his Sons or else from the common consent of all mankind at once since no man hath a natural right to any more things than he could make use of nor any right at all to those he had no need of nor had actualy seised for his own use This being I hope thus far cleared I will not take upon me to maintain what Grotius asserts that after Property was once introduced it was against the law of nature to use community since neither community nor Property are by the absolute law of nature God having bestowed the fruits of the Earth on the Sons of Men for their uses but as for manner of using them whether in Propriety or in common he left it to the discretions of those several parcels of Mankind who agreed to live together in civil society or common-wealth as it might either way conduce to their particular way of living or common safety and interest For as where a Country is thinly peopled and produces all the necessaries for life only by the labour of the Inhabitants in hunting fishing and the like imployments of that life which we call barbarous because it does not exercise it self in day Labour and that the People do neither need nor desire those superfluous things that others doe there is no need of enclosing or appropriating any more Land than they really make use of more being but a burthen to them so likewise where the People are more than the Country can well maintain from its own Products there will presently arise a necessity of division of lands in the first place and of Trade abroad in the next or else the People must either discharge themselves into their neighbours territories or live by robbing or playing the Pyrates upon their neighbours as appears by Tartars Arabs and Algerines and consequently when a Country is once divided and a great many are without any share of land there must bâ— laws made to maintain this Propriety and punishments ordained for them that disturb it and this iâ— the true reason why there is an absolute necessity for a division of lands in Holland but not so in Surinam The nature and original of Propriety being thus layd open the other small Objections against this Primitive Community which some men draw out of
although it look fine yet examined to the bottom signifies little for it is not true that every the least transgression of the bounds of Law is a subversion of the Government it self since if done perhaps only to one or a few persons it does not follow that therefore it must be a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick Liberty in all cases Neither does the Subjects bearing with it not contribute otherwise then accidentally to this breach of Liberty Since he is obliged to bear it not because it is just but because he either may hope to have redress by the ordinary course of Law or else by petitioning the Assembly of Estates when they meet who are partly ordained on purpose to remonstrate the Grievances of Subjects to their Prince and thereupon to have them redressed Nor is this limited Monarch as the Author would infer less obliged to govern according to Law in smaller or private matters then in great and publick ones Only in many smaller matters Princes or their Officers may through ignorance or inadvertency sometimes transgress the true bounds of Law which they would not do perhaps if they were better informed And so likewise if the Subject bear it it is not from the Legality of the Act but from this great Maxime in Law and Reason that a mischief to some private men is better than an inconvenience in giving every private person power that thinks himself injured by the Prince or his Officers to be his own Judg and right himself by force since that were contrary to the great duty of every good Subject of endeavouring to preserve the common peace and happiness of his Country which ought to be preferred before any private mans Interest So on the other side if the oppression or breach of Laws be general and extend to all the People alike if the reason of the case alter why may not the practicedo so too ' But Mr. H. gives us another remedy in this case that if the Monarchs Act of Exorbitancy or Transgression be mortal and such as suffered dissolves the Frame of the Government and publick Liberty then the illegality is to be laid open and redressment sought by Petition Which is true for an Appeal to the Law from the violence of subordinate Ministers is really a Petition for Justice to the King himself who is by the Law supposed present in the persons of his Judges that represent him and this the Author himself in a better humour does confess in his Patriarcha P. 93. The people have the Law as a familiar interpreter of the Kings pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the presence and Majesty of the King also the Judges and Magistrates are restrained by the common Rules of Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judg according to the Laws and not to follow their own Opinions And because it might so happen that the King may be sometimes surprised or importuned to write Orders or Letters to the Judges to direct them to act contrary to the Law The King himself in Parliament hath declared See the Oath of the Justices 18. E. 3. what Oath these Justices shall take when they are admitted into their Office where among other things they swear thus And that ye deny no man common right by the Kings Letters nor none other mans nor for none other cause and in case such Letters do come to you contrary to the Law that ye do nothing by such Letters but certifie the King thereof and proceed to execute the Law notwithstanding the same Letters and concludes thus And in case ye be from henceforth found in default in any of the points aforesaid ye shall be at the Kings will of Body Lands or Goods thereof to be done as shall please him as God help you c. And the Lord Chief-Justice Anderson and his Fellow-Justices in the Common-Pleas who upon so great a point as Cavendishes Case was 35 El. having consulted with all the Judges of England delivered their Opinions solemnly in writing that the Queen was obliged by her Coronation-Oath to keep the Laws and if they should not likewise observe them they were forsworne Anderson p. 154 155. Which Will of the Kings is supposed to be as well declared by the House of Peers his supreme Court of Justice as by any other way See the Judgment upon Tresillian and the rest of his Brethren 21 Rich. 2. and the Impeachment of the House of Commons against the Judges that gave their Opinions contrary to Law in the case of Ship-money Vide the subsequent Act of Parliament 17 Car. 1. Chap. 14. declaring that upon the Tax called Shipmoney and the Judgment Entr. 1. H. 7. 4. b. the judicial opinions of the said Justices and Barons were and are contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and the Liberty of the Subjects c. which if it be truely observed there can never be any fear of a Civil War or popular Commotion since our Law supposes the King can do no wrong that is in his own person And therefore Sir John Markham when Chief Justice told King Edward the 4th That the King cannot arrest any Man himself for suspition of Treason or Fellony as other of his Lieges may for if it be a wrong to the party grieved he has no remedy Therefore if any Act or thing be done to the Subject contrary to the Law the Judges and Ministers of Justice are to be questioned and punished if the Laws are violated and no reflection made upon the King who is still supposed to do his Subjects Right Si factam fuerit injustum says Bracton per inde non fuerit factum Regis And thus much will serve for a further Answer to the Authors Query before mentioned Whether it be a sin for a Subject to disobey the King if he command any thing contrary to his Laws since all the Subjects both great and small are supposed to know what the Rights and Priviledges of the Subject are as well as what are the Prerogatives of the Crown nor are these reserved Cases so many or so difficult as the Anthor would make us believe but that they may be easily understood without Appealing to any other Judg then the Conscience of every honest man And though the King may for our common defence in time of War make Bulwarks upon another mans Land or command a House to be pull'd down if the next be on Fire or the Suburbs of a City to be demolished in time of War to make it serviceable though men may justify their obedience in such Cases yet it were folly and madness from thence to argue that the King were as much to be obeyed if he commanded us to pull down a whole Town for his Diversion or to take away all mens Lands or Goods at his Pleasure Since if he should be so weak as to command it it were his unhappiness
Confessors days Since whose time the Kingdom of England hath remained as it does In which passage the Author hath discovered either a great deal of Ignorance or inadvertency in the History and Government of his Country For first he Confesses that the English Saxons had a Meeting which they called the Assembly of the Wife termed in Latine Conventus Magnatum or Praesentia Regis Procerumque Prelatorum Collectorum or in general Magnum or Commune concilium c. All which Meetings may in a general sence be termed Parliaments yet he will not allow there could be any Parliaments assembled of the general Estates of the whole Kingdom for the reason he gives us before What he means by until about the time of the Conquest I know not but this is certain that from the time of King Egbert who is reckoned the first Monarch the great Council or Wittena Gemore consisted of the General Estates of the West-Saxon-Kindom and if the whole people of England had not their Representatives there it was because they were represented by their Tributary Princes or Kings who Governed Subordinately to this Monarch until the coming of the Danes Thus the West-angles had their particular Kings in the time of King Ethelwolf St. Edmund the last King being Conquered by the Danes So likewise had the Mercians their King Beorced their last King being driven out by the same Invaders about the same time and after the Kingdom was at Peace again and the Danes in great part subdued or quiet King Alfred Re-conquering the Mercian-Kingdom gave it in Marriage to a Saxon Nobleman called Etheldred who had Married his Daughter Elsteda who was long after her Husbands Death Lady or Queen of the Mercians Rerum Anglick Scriptores post Bedam Ed Fra. p. 857. yet did these feudatory Princes always appear and make a Part in the Wittena Gemore or great Council of the Monarch thus we may find in Jugulphus that Withlafe King of the Mercians made a promise of the Lands and Liberties of the Abby of Croyland which he after confirms by his Charter in Prisentia Dominorum meorum Egberti Regis Westo-Saxoniae Athelwolwafij filij ejus coram pontificibus proceribus totius Angliae in Civitate Lundini ubi omnes Congregati sumas pro consilio capiendo contra Danicos Pyratat Littora Angliae infestantes which certainly was a great Council And that these Kings were tributary to the West Saxon Monarch the same Author tells a little further that Bertulph Brother of Witlafe succeeded his Nephew Wimund Id. p. 860 861. and was Tributary to Athelwolf King of West Saxony and by his Charter confirms the same Lands and Liberties to the said Monastery which had been granted by his Predecessors and this was done and confirmed unanimi consensu totius praesentis concilij hic apud Kingsbury Anno incar Domini 881. c. pro Regni negotis congregati and is thus subscribed Ego Olflac Pincerna Legatus Domini mei Regis Ethelwolf Filiorum suorum nomine illorum omnium Westsaxonum istum Chirographum Regis Bertulphi plurimum Confirmavi Ego Bertulphus Rex Mericorum palam omnibus prelatis Proceribus Regni mei Which shews us that besides the General Council of the whole Kingdoms these Mercian Tributary Kings had a Particular Council or Parliament of their own Kingdom without whose consent as also of their Paramount Monarch they could not part with the Lands and Royalties belonging to their Crown So likewise in the same Author Beorced King of the Mercians Anno Domini 868 confirms his Charter to the same Monastery at Snotringham coram fratribus amicis omni populo meo in obsidione Paganorum Congregatis To which likewise his supreme Monarch Elthred King of the West Saxons gives his consent and subscribes after the Bishops the like form we find in the passing of all the other Charters to this Monastery quoted by the said Author which are all of them confirmed by the King then Reigning in praesentia Archiepiscop Episcop Procerum or optimatum Regni Collectorum And before the Kingdom came to be united under one supreme King or Monarch there was also one great Council or Synod of the whole Kingdom where the chief and most powerful King or Monarch of the Heptarchy presided and in which they made their general Ecclesiastical Canons and also Civil Laws that were binding to the whole People of England and to which Persons that had been grieved or wronged by their particular Kings appealed and were righted and to this general Wittena Gemote that antient Writer Will. Malmsbuny speaking of the antient Customs and Laws of England says were made per generalem Senatum populi Conventum edictum therefore we find the first Synod or Council of Clovesho Anno Christ. 747. called by Ethelbald King of the Mercians who was then chief King or Monarch as they called him of the English Saxons and at which were present the said King with all his Princes and great Men Malm. de gest pontific as also all the Bishops of this Island but it more plainly appears in the second Council held at the same place called by Beornulf King of Mercia who presided therein Spelman Council p. 332. You will find one of the first things they did was to inquire whether any person had been unjustly dealt with or unjustly spoil'd or opprest whereupon Wulfred Arch-Bishop of Canterbury complain'd of the violence and Avarice of Kenwulf late King of the West Saxons which beingfully proved the said Council ordered Kenedrith the Abbess the daughter and Heir of the said King to make satisfaction to the said Arch-Bishop which was done accordingly out of the Lands of the said King see it at large in Spelmans Councils and Mr. Somner that Learned Antiquary in his Glossary to the decem Scriptores is clearly of opinion Spelman Council pag. 393. that this was all one with a Parliament Synodus magna Parliamentum nuncupatur So likewise the Canons of the Synode or Council of Catchyck Annol were confirmed by Offa King of the Mercians then Chief Monarch of this Island Tam Rex quam Principes sui cum senatoribus terrae decreta signo Cracis firmarunt And further that each of the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy had its particular Councils or Wittena Gemotes appears by that famous Council called by Ethelbert King of Kent about Six Years after his Reception of the Christian Religion which was called commine concilium tam Cleri quam Populi And no doubt this custom came not in with Christianity the Clergy onely here succeeding in the room of the Pogan Priests who among the Germans had always a place in their common Councils as we find in Tacitus See the passage before Cited p. Spelman Con. pag. 126. So likewise the first Laws we have extant were made by Ina King of the West Saxons Per commune concilium assensum omnium Episcoporum Principum Procerum
those things that are contrary to the safety of the Common-wealth or against the Laws of Nature And if he endeavours any such thing without doubt he transgresses the bounds of his power Let us also consider the Arguments by which the same Author in his De Cive Cap. 6 § 17. endeavours to prove that all limitation of Soveraign power is absolutely vain he says that assembly which prescribed the Laws to the future King must have had absolute power either habitually or vertually If the Assembly remains constantly or adjourns their Meeting from Time to Time to a certain day and place their power will be perpetual and so the King will not have the Supream power but will be only a bare Magistrate Which we grant to be true if that Assembly can meet by its own Right and Decree of any Affairs of the Common-wealth and that the King be liable to give them an Account of his Actions But if it absolutely dissolve it self unless the Commonwealth be likewise dissolved there must in like manner a power be left somewhere of punishing those that transgress the Laws which without absolute power cannot be performed Which is false as also the Argument by which he would prove it for he who hath granted him by Right so much power that he can compel any of the Subjects by punishments hath so great power that greater cannot be conferred by them But for all this whoever will but consider the end of all Common-wealths and that those Subjects by the submission of their Wills and powers did not immediately become senceless Machines so that since they could grant the use of their united Forces to another upon condition and are able to judg whether this condition be performâ—d or not so they can likewise withdraw their Forces again upon the breach of the condition as likewise this is apparently false that there is no better provision against the abuse of Authority when it is granted limited then when it is left absolute for it is not who that he who hath power enough to defend all Men. which all that are not Fools will easily grant their Prince as also power enough to destroy them The Commands of a General which are sufficient to make the Souldiers stout to venture their Lives against an Enemy yet would be found of no force if he should command them to draw their Swords against each other So that prudent and worthy Princes though absolute will comply with the Genins of their Subjects and â—…t-times will be sparing to urge them too far though for their own advantage when they cannot be compelled to their Duty without some hazard to the Common-wealth But those Subjects are not less discreet who when they are satisfied what is not expedient for their Common-wealth have provided by Fundamental Laws that they should not be compelled to it by their Princes power So far speaks the judicious Mr. Pusendorf upon this Subject which though somewhat prolix I have thought fit to translate verbation because I would not be thought by going about to contract it to put my own sence upon his words and besides I know no man that hath writ more clearly of this Subject in avoiding on one side an absolute despotick Monarchy without falling into that Solacism in Politicks the division of the supreme power which he supposes truly inconsistant with Monarchy So that if the Reader is not satisfied with what I have here writ upon this Subject I am sorry his understanding and mine are not framed alike nor shall be angry with him if he like an absolute Monarchy better then that we live under Provided he will never Act any thing to produce publick disturbances or to introduce it either by force or fraud in this Kingdom Yet shall wish him no greater Prerogative then that of enjoying his own opinion without imposing it upon others who are not yet weary of their Estates and Liberties which since the People of this Nation are not yet weary of The World is wide enough and there are Countries where this which they admire as the primitive Government of the World and that which they perhaps Reverence as the Primitive Religion is practised in its full splendor and indeed are most suitable to each other All the hurt I wish those Gentlemen that they were all setled in any of them even which they like best Whilst all plain hearted English-men notwithstanding such subtile discourses as thofe of our Author are resolved to return the same Answer to them as the Temporal Lords did to the Bishops long since upon another occasion Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari of which I hope there is as little fear as there is or ever will be just occasion for it And so I shall quit my hands of this ungrateful task without troubling my self with his Discourse of Witches Since his other writings sufficiently assure us that whatever he was in other Learning he was no Witch in Politicks though he had Read Aristotle might perhaps be better read in the Fathers and Schoolmen or Civil-Law than in the Laws of Nature or those of his own Countrey FINIS ERRATA PReface Page 2. l. 14. dele not l. 18. hy r. by p. 5. r. despise observe p. 8. l. 32. compore r. compare the p. 15. l. 30. of Fathers r. of a Father l. 31. more true r. more certain l. 36. to r. thereto l. 37. dele without the help and assistance of others p. 24. l. 24. should make r. should have l. 26. in r. or in p. 29. l. 16. dele fourth p. 32. l. 33. d. not p. 37. l. 33. for excellent Pufendorf r. Mr. Pufendorf a late judicious Writer p. 40. l. 17 d. often p. 42. l 20. d. of p. 43. l. 17. ought quit r. ought to puit p. 44. l. 10. for a priviledg r. a liberty l. 21. and if r. for if l. ead have such r. have only such l. 31. fatherly r. or fatherly p. 37. 57. l. 28. puzzle r. distract p. 67. l. 14. require r. acquire l. 32. as I r. and p. 70. l. 13. d. perhaps p. 72. l. 25. d. goods p. 74. l. 5. or at their own dispose include within a Parenthesis p. 77. l. 8. upon r. upon them p. 83. l. 8. on r. than l. 31. r. without any stop after legat l. 32. owe his r. owe its p. 86. l. 32. the r. those l. 35. change r. charge p. 87. l. 29. it is r. they are p. 88. l. 20. his r. this p. 89. l. 6. consting r. consisting p. 90. l. 26. r. representative and d. body p. 92. l. 34. many r. so many p. 93. l. 7. but of r. but part of l. 13. d. from p. 95. l. 16. for an r. but an l. 24. d. hatred p. 99. l. 7. both of d. both p. 102. l. 3. at mans r. a mans p. 107. l. 20. Laws d. s ead l. 1. d. Custome p. 112. l. 32. r. misuse him p. 113. l. 25. most r. many p. 117. l. 30. all