of 600. years was alone called Soveraign had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects and was unquestionably taken by them for their King was notwithstanding never considered as their Representative that name without contradiction passing for the title of those men which at his command were sent up by the people to carry their petitions and give him if he permitted their advice G. L. This man deserves to be a perpetual slave his intention is to make men believe that the Kings of England were absolute Monarchs their subjects slaves without propriety of goods or liberty of person the Parliaments of England meerly nothing but shadows and the members thereof but so many carriers of letters and petitions between home and the Court What he means by subordinate Representatives I know not I think his intention is to oppose those who affirmed King Peers and Commons to be co-ordinate not subordinate powers and all of them joyntly to make up one supreme Subordinate Representatives or powers he may safely and must grant in all States The word Representative he either doth not understand or if he do he intolerably abuseth his unwary and unlearned Reader by that term A Representative in the Civil Law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one who by his presence supplies the place of another that is absent for some certain end as to act that which another should do but in his own person doth not yet with the consent of the person represented so far as that the thing is judged to be done by him And in this sense the person representing is Judged to be one with the person represented by fiction of Law And one may represent another as a Superiour who may represent another in any act so far as that other is in his power or as an inferiour by a power derived from his superiour or as an equal by consent so far as the person will undertake to act for him In all these representations the Representeé and the Representer are judged one person In a free-State a Parliament is a Representative of the whole body of the people this we call a general Representative The reason of this representation is because the whole body of a people cannot well act personally What kind of Representative the Parliament of England was is hard to know except we knew certainly the first institution which by tract of time and many abuses of that excellent Assembly is now unknown It was certainly trusted with the highest acts of Legislation Judgement Execution The whole body consisted of several orders and ranks of men as of King Peers Commons the Clergy Whether they might meddle with the constitution or no is not so clear it s conceived they could not alter it though they might declare it what it was Their power was great without all doubt yet not so great but that it was bounded and a later Parliament might alter and reform what a former had established which argues That the 40. Counties and the whole body of the people whence all Parliaments have their original and being as they are Parliaments were above them In this great assembly the Knights and Burgesses did represent the Connties and the Burroughs the Convocation the whole body of the Clergy the Peers by antient tenure their Families Vassals and Dependants But whom the King should represent is hard to determine If the Law did consider him as an infant and this according to the constitution he could represent no other person or persons And if this be so then there is plain reason why he never should have the title of Representative yet evident reason there is why the rest should be called a Representative and the people are not Representers as he fondly imagines but the persons represented It s affirmed by the Author 1. That our Government is a Monarchy 2. The King had the Soveraignty from a descent of 600. years 3. Was alone called Soveraign 4. Had the title of Majesty from every one of his Subjects 5. Was unquestionably taken by them for their King 1. Our Government is called a Monarchy is true and he himself in this Chapter confesseth that Elective limited Kings are called Monarchs and their Kingdoms Monarchies yet he saith they are not so Again Monarchy is Regal over free-men Despotical over slaves and servants not by a Legal but an Arbitrary power If he say its Regal then the King is no absolute Monarch as he would have him to be If he say its Despotical its false and we know it so to be false And the Doctrine of Dr. Sibthorp and Mannering or Martin affirming this was condemned by a whole Parliament and that by men who have been as great Zealots for the King in these civil wars as any other 2. The King of England had Soveraignty by a descent of 600. years But first what doth he mean by Soveraignty If he understand an absolute supreme power it s not true the Kings of England have no such thing It s true that many of them did challenge so much power as they could acquire and keep and as their sword was longer or shorter so their power in possession was more or less Yet by the constitution of Law and the best custom it was alwaies determined within certain bounds Secondly Whence will he commence the date of 600. years and how will he derive the Soveraignty If from the Conqueror the date of so many years is not yet expired the Succession is interrupted if not cut off by the sword upon a civil war If he derive this power from the Conqueror as Conqueror all free English men will deny it the Kings themselves durst not challenge it upon those terms and by consent they never had it Therefore the Soveraignty the time of the commencement the title it self doth vanish He saith something proves nothing that he was called Soveraign doth neither prove that he was really such nor that he was absolute and that by his own confession 3. The King had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects The title or name doth not prove the thing for we know very well that the title is constantly given to divers Princes who have not the thing no more then our Kings had the Kingdom of France though they had the title of the Kings of France France was so civil as to grant the title and the word but never part with the thing The Dukes of Venice as Contarene tells us had insignia sed non potestatem regis Majestas is sometimes maxima dignitas and this no subject denyed to the King He had his Scepter and his Throne his Robe and Diadem but all these are far short of supreme power Majestas is Personalis aut Realis Real he had not Personal he might have Yet personal Majesty might be his either in respect of dignity as it was or in respect of power and that also two waies either in respect of the whole power and all the
acts thereof or 2. in respect of the executive only so far as that all Commissions Judgements Executions determined by Law should run in his name as they did I remember I have read in the Mirrour something to this purpose That in the first constitution of this Government of England in the time of the Saxons the 40. Counts of the 40. Shires or Counties set up a King above them so that he had neither any one his Superiour nor his Peer Yet ex obligatione criminis by his mis-government the 40. Counts joyntly together might judge him whether in their own names or the name of the 40. Counties may be a question And in this sense I believe is to be understood that saying Rex singulis major universis minor Let these things be so or no for they are out of my sphere its certain the Kings of England had the title of Majesty yet that 's no argument at all that he was invested with the supreme and universal power 4. He was unquestionably taken by them for their King I grant he both was so taken and was so truly and indeed And when our Kings were such as were more tender of the peoples good then their own greatness and also governed by the direction of a wise and faithful Council they found them the most loving and loyal subjects of any in the world For the English alwaies desired to be governed as men not as Asses And this is the quality of all understanding people of other Nations Some are not capable either of a mild or moderate power Eminent Authors who take upon them to know Law and the power of Kings have said 1. That the King of England may be judged so Horn. 2. That he is in Law considered as Infans minorennis as a pupil alwaies in nonage and as his Courts and Officers can do nothing but in his name so he can do nothing but by their heads and hands and he cannot take away the formalities of judicial proceedings nor by all his power revoke or make null the Judgement of any Court. So several Authors 3. He hath not Regiam potestatem sed politicam â populo effluxam so Fortescue the great Chancellor 4. That he was a King by Law not above Law and could not exercise any power but according to Law 5. He was sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus eligeret where vulgus is populus and populus eligit leges and as the Law-giver so his Oath 6. No King made a Law without a Parliament nor could justly impose a Subsidy upon the people without a Parliament These two things forreign writers could observe 7. By the manner of their Coronation which was turned to a Formality he derived not his power from the first investiture as some tell us the Princes of Germany and the Kings of France do nor from his immediate predecessor but by Election and this is agreeable to Fortescue A populo effluxam 8. King Henry 8. desires by an act of Parliament to be empowered to design by will which of his children he should please for to succeed him What power either Kings or Parliaments have assumed and exercised de facto and not de jure might be observed by some men and brought into example yet to little purpose From all this every one may see what little credit is to be given to Arniseus and Besoldus and some other outlandish writers who affirm the Kings of England to be absolute Monarchs For they took their information either from partial or ignorant men or from unlearned Histories as many of our English be For few of our Historians have been either Antiquaries in Law or learned and experienced States-men such as Thucidides Xenophon Polybius Livy Tacitus Guiccardine Commeignes and such like have been These are men that could penetrate into the bowels of a State and discover the inward fabrick of the same T. H. Monarchy is the best form of Government G. L. This is the substance of the next part of this Chapter And in this particular I will not be tedious nor answer him word by word But 1. It s certain there is no absolute Monarch but one and that is the eternal glorious God 2. Monarchy well regulated may be a good Government amongst men 3. There are several kinds of Monarchies so called and some better then another 4. Monarchy may be good for some people bad for another and sometimes good for the same people sometimes not 5. To infer that Monarchy in general is the best kind of Government alwaies for all people because some kind of Monarchy is sometimes good for some kind of people is very absurd One of our learned Bishops in his answer to Bellarmine who affirmed Monarchical Government was the best and therefore the Government of the Church must be such saith that purple is the best colour yet not the best for the Cardinals face so it is in this case No man I think can demonstrate the Government of Angels to be Monarchical There may be amongst those blessed spirits primatus ordinis not jurisdictionis We do not read that God did ever immediately institute a form of Government to any people except to Israel yet that was not Monarchical And though Monarchy were supposed to be the best yet wise men having the opportunity did never institute that form of Government which in it self was best but the best the people were capable of I am no enemy to Monarchy and I desire all Christian States to be content with their present form of Government especially if they may enjoy peace and the Gospel If divine Providence bring them into such a condition as that they must or may lawfully and safely alter let them use their utmost power to make the alteration so that it may be a reformation To endeavour a change in a quiet State and that out of ambition or an humour of innovation or an high conceit of their own State-learning will much offend God and bring great misery on man Alterations in Government which though they be for the better if sudden are dangerous and should be made insensibly and by little and little yet so that if there be any thing in the former old constitution which is good it should be retained what wise Polititians have done in this kind Histories inform us as in England if the Common-Law which so many excellent Lawyers have so highly commended as next unto the eternal Law were introduced it would prove a wonderful compendium in the regulation of Justice and cut off a world of useless Statutes which are rather an impediment then a furtherance to Justice There may be many forms of Government and all good yet its certain that is the best which provides most effectually for good Officers in the administration If we may believe Contzen the Jesuite There are amongst others in the constitution of the Empire of China two excellent rules constantly put in practise The one is an Office or Colledge whose duty
good to deliver concerning the Nature of a Common-wealth civil The Distribution followeth Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is either by institution or acquisition G. L. This is not the distribution of a Common-wealth either into the integral parts which are two 1. The soveraign 2. The subject not into the kinds for those are usually taken from the several manners of disposing the supreme power in one or more to make it Monarchical or Polycratical but it s a distinction of the manner of acquiring supreme power And the ordinary way or rather means whereby it is acquired is either by force or consent Yet this distinction is imperfect for there be other means besides these neither when supreme Power is obtained either by force or consent is a Common-wealth framed The Power is alwayes derived from God as before and he takes it from one and gives to another either in an extraordinary or an ordinary way of Providence as by giving a finall victory or inclining mens hearts and that upon several reasons to submit and sometimes so that if they had liberty and power they would not consent at all And though men may be unjust in desiring and seeking yet he is just in giving it And by the way it s to be observed 1. That a Power acquired and held by force cannot govern without a tacit consent at least so that all Common-wealths are by consent 2. No man or men can govern any people long by force except it be the Will of God to punish and oppress them with an iron rod for their transgressions CAP. II. Of the Second Part and the Eighteenth of the Book Of the Rights of Soveraigns by Institution THis Chapter informs us what the rights of Soveraigns once constituted are In every Common-wealth there must be a supreme Power fixed in some certain Subject this is essential to it yet though this be a principal thing to be done yet it is not all neither being done doth it make a compleat Common-wealth His Covenant of every one with every one for to design a Soveraign is but an Utopian fancy For by the best Histories we may understand that many States have attained to a setled form of Regular Government by degrees in a long tract of time and that by several alterations intervening so that the Laws of their constitution are rather customs then any written Charter Some Communities come under a form of Government more suddenly and by a way fortuitous unto man though not so to God And in this point the practise of former times not the fancies and speculations of men must instruct us T. H. The first of the twelve Rights of the Soveraign is That Subjects cannot change the form of Government G. L. That Community which hath Power and Liberty to alter the form of Government to the better do not their duty or are not wise if they do it not And it were wisdom in any people to reserve the Power to the whole body to be used as occasion opportunity and necessity shall require As they are bound to reform the State when it is corrupted so they are bound to alter the form when without an alteration reformation cannot be obtained That the Subjects have no power to alter the form of Government may be granted for Subjects as Subjects must submit unto the Power established not take upon them the highest and most transcendent Prerogative of all others yet this is no right of the Soveraign nor to be reckoned inter Jura Majestatis For the Soveraign himself hath no right of himself to change the fundamental constitution Before this can be done the People must return unto the original State of Liberty and to a Community which in England is not a Parliament but the fourty Counties Upon this ground some have said that a Parliament cannot alter the Government what men may do upon a Dissolution and in a case of real not pretended necessity is another matter But let us hear his reasons T. H. The first upon supposition of no former Obligation is That it is a breach of that Covenant whereby they made themselves authours of every act the soveraign doth or shall judge fit to be done 2. If they depose the Soveraign that which is his own and they had formerly given him they take away unjustly 3. If any attempting to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished he is Author of his own punishment 4. A new Covenant pretended to be made with God cannot free them from offence and injustice in their disobedience unto their Soveraign because they can make no Covenant with God without his Leiutenant which is the Prince G. L. 1. I grant as formerly that a Subject as such cannot act to change the Government or depose his lawful Soveraign 2. They who set up a Soveraign and by Covenant advance him to the Throne must and ought to be free from all former superiour obligations which cannot stand with this But what is this to purpose The question is whether Subjects cannot change the form of Government in any case and whether the Subjects may not be freed and that lawfully from their allegiance and cease to be in the State of Subjects That it many times fals out so to be is evident For by civil wars by forraign invasions transmigrations and other wayes it comes to pass that Subjects are free from their Soveraigns who cannot protect them and in such cases if God give them Power they may alter the form of Government if it may be for the best But to come more close unto his first reason let us suppose as he affirmeth That a people by Covenant have set up a particular person to be a Monarch and so made themselves authors of all his acts whether is it lawful for you by a new Covenant to obey another or cast off Monarchy or transfer his person upon another without injustice He saith ye cannot without breach of Covenant do it But 1. He here presupposeth his former Utopian fancy of a Covenant of every man with every man whereas its plain few States of the world now in power were thus constituted 2. Soveraigns are of two sorts 1. Such as in whom the supreme power doth constantly and immediately abide 2. Such as are such only for execution and administration To these latter the subjects bind themselves to be faithful so far as they shall be faithful to the Kingdom and the Crown which is theirs not jurc dominii by absolute right with a power to alienate them or destroy them For every subject is first bound to be faithful to their Countrey then unto their King who swears to maintain the Laws Liberty and Religion by Law established These cannot bind us to do any thing against the Laws of God of Nature nor against our Countrey But with this Author every Monarch is absolute and in particular the Kings of England amongst the rest 3. Suppose a Covenant with a Soveraign absolute or limited be against the Laws of God
the first Scripture alledged by him we read it in Exod. 20.19 To understand these words we must consider 1. That cap. 19.8 That all the people answered together and said All that the Lord hath said that will we do This was an absolute subjection of themselves to God and a promise to obey him 2. That the Lord said unto Moses Lo I come unto thee in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses as a Messenger between God and Israel 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19 quoted by the Author are expounded Deut. 5.27 For thus there we read Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee and we will hear it and do it From all which it is apparent 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words subjected themselves to God and he was their Soveraign not Moses 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses not as they were the words and Laws of Moses but of God they will do them 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger between God and them not obey him as their supreme Lord. It s one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God and to yield him absolute obedience as a King Believe him as a Prophet they might obey him as their King they must not God was their King and Moses his Messenger and servant How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place how absurdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples promise of absolute obedience to Moses which was only due and promised unto God T. H. Concerning the right of Kings God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you he shall take your sons c. 1 Sam. 8.11 12 c. G. L. 1. The translation which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England is perverted For instead of This will be the manner of the King he turns it This shall be the right of the King There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just and manner or custom which is many times unjust 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns then its a very great misery to be subject to a King and that in two respects 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly that which justly is their own even the best things 2. Because by doing thus he will oppress them so grievously that having no remedy or redress from man they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King as a great and intolerable mischief 3. If it be the right of a King yet it is but the right of heathen Despotical Princes and not of the Kings of Israel But how can it be the right of heathen Kings seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made yet these acts here mentioned are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government delivered by God himself For he must have a copy of the Laws and read in it all his life that he may fear God keep his Laws not exalt himself above his Brethren c. Deut. 17.18 19 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power as is evident in the case of Naboths Vineyard 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil which is to do justice and judgement to preserve to every one his own to protect the good and punish the bad How shall he punish the Oppressor when he is the great Oppressor himself How can he do justice upon thieves when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel and of all Soveraigns then though the people of Israel were a free people yet if a King was once set over them they were meer slaves neither their Lands nor their goods nor their children nor their servants were their own and also by this reason there can be no subjects in any state under heaven that can have propriety or liberty but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves Kings may have potentiam but not potestatem force and fraud but no just power to oppress their subjects and do such things as are here mentioned Whereas some say That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do and in Deut. 17.18 19 20. what they ought to do is to little purpose as being more acute then solid For id quisque potest quod jure potest And no man no not the greatest Princes in the world have any power to do that which is unjust 7. It s a question whether they had such a King as they desired For they desired a King which would offend God and oppress them but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself and even in the time of Kings he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand It seems they understood not well what kind of King they had desired for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court and an army in constant pay was a vast charge and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people And this they did not consider neither would understand till it was too late and the yoak was upon their necks and the burden pressed them very sore When Princes are trusted with an absolute power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns but what they cannot obtain justly by the Laws and the constitution of the State they will force by the sword and so the Government proves military and in the end meerly arbitrary Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives That to go in and out before them and Judge the people contains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judicature as one man can possibly transfer unto another he is much deceived For both these may be had in a despotical or a Regal way or by Commission The first is absolute the two latter are not so The Kings of Sparta Poland Arraegon might have both these and yet be no absolute Soveraigns T. H. Solomon prayed that God would give him understanding to judge his people and discern between good and evil 1 Kings 3.8 therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute G. L. This is his meaning and thus he understands these words
God had conveyed it in common 4. It was for peace and order as also for to preserve the distinction of Tribes divided yet so as the Soveraign dividing it was God who ordered the lot Eleazer and Joshua were but Superintendents of the lot and no Soveraigns neither had they any the least propriety more then others of the people The Text expresly saith That when they had made an end of dividing the Land they gave Joshua Timnath Serah in Mount Ephra in for his inheritance Joshua 19.49 50. where it is to be observed That the people gave it him T. H. The propriety of the subject excludes all other subjects from the use of them and not the Soveraign G. L. It doth not only exclude other subjects but the Soveraign too For 1. The Soveraign is bound to observe the Laws of nature which are the moral Laws of God and propriety as by the Law of nature 2. Imperium nihil aliud esse sapientes definiunt nisi curam salutis alienae saith one very well For civil supreme power was never given by any people to destroy their propriety but to defend it Otherwise no intelligent people in the world would advance one person or more to take away their goods and so put themselves in a worse condition then they were by the Laws of nature 3. It may be granted that the Soveraign hath dominium eminens so far as to command not only the estates but the lives of the subjects for the publike safety but what is this to propriety properly taken 4. If his assertion were true then that distinction of Civilians and the Authors of Politicks whereby they put a difference inter res possessiones publicas and privatas were in vain and false but so it is not 5. By the Soveraigns in England he means the Kings who were no Soveraigns at all nor could at any time raise any moneys or impose any subsidy upon the people without their consent in Parliament as not only English men but forrein Ministers of State who have either read our Histories or our Laws or our practice do well know and have made it known to others 6. There may be a device in Law to pass all the land in England upon the Crown for to derive all tenures from thence or to confirm propriety to the subjects for that every one might not only know but keep and recover his own the better Yet this gives the King no more propriety then a Peoffee in trust may have and that is none T. H. The publick is not to be dieted in the Margint G. L. His meaning is that the Soveraign cannot be confined to a certain revenue as sufficient to defray the publick charge Yet the wisest States in the world have certainly defined a constant standing revenue for the publick use For we read of the Dominion of France which though the Kings could neither alienate nor justly impare yet Henry the fourth hath wofully mangled and given occasion of those heavy oppressions of the people of that State and also we are not ignorant of the Crown lands and revenue of England And this is but agreeable to Scripture where we read that God commanded in the division of the holy Land that the Prince should have his portion that he may no more oppress Ezek. 45.7 8. For the Land must be divided into three parts The first must be for God to maintain the Priests and Levites The second for the Prince the third for the people and thus some say the Land in England was divided in the time of the pious Saxon Kings Yet it must be confessed that sometimes the publick charge may be so great as that a standing revenue cannot defray it and then the subjects for the general good and safety are bound and may be commanded to contribute But if this in a time of peace and safety be embezelled and mispent by a prodigal Prince and his favourites and followers this will no waies warrant him to fly upon the spoyl and plunder his subjects What William the Conqueror here in England did it matters not much For if he did derive his title from Edward the Confessor as some Histories say he did pretend then he was no Soveraign If he did act as Conquerer then all compact and right upon Covenant is void as his successors who insist upon that title of conquest give full liberty to the English to fight against them and depose them if they can and deal with them as enemies As for making Laws for the regulation of Traffick Trade Exchange the value stamp and coining of moneys the sending out of Colonies for new Plantations as also to make them as Provinces or exempt them from subjection because they will not allow protection I grant all these are prerogatives of the Soveraign CAP. IX Of the Second Part. The 25. of the Book Of Counsel THE heads of this Chapter are 1. The difference between command counsel exhortation dehortation 2. The difference between counsel and command made evident out of Scripture 3. The qualifications of good Counsellors 4. To advise with Counsellors apart is better then to advise with them openly and in assemblies 1. The difference between counsel command exhortation dehortation is easily known For Counsel given is a declaration of the means which tend unto some certain end and also of the order and manner how they should be used to attain that end Command is the will of a Superiour made known whereby the inferiour is bound to obey or otherwise to suffer Exhortation presseth the practise of some good to be done as dehortation is the contrary Counsel directs command binds exhortation endeavours to stir up or incite the will dehortation keeps it back Command is of a Superiour Counsel exhortation dehortation are of a superiour inferiour equal For any of these may counsel exhort dehort as any of them may be counselled exhorted dehorted It s true that these words are not alwaies taken strictly That command should be for the benefit of the party commanding and counsel for the good of the party counselled is meerly accidental in waies essential to them And though sometimes both the intention and the event of both may be such as he determines yet we know it is many times otherwise For command may sometimes nay often be beneficial to the party commanded and intended to be so as counsel may be intended not only for the good of the party counselled but also counselling and also prove so to be The nature of exhortation and dehortation is as falsly loosely and impertinently defined as the former 2. Upon the former supposed difference between counsel and command he determines Thou shalt have none other Gods Thou shalt not make any graven image c. to be commands Yet these are not for the benefit of God but man keeping them For in keeping them there is great reward But Go and sell all thou hast c. is only a counsel with him because the party
another and be parts one of another I do not understand 6. A Law of Nature is only then a civil Law when it s declared to be so by the civil Soveraign yet it s a Law before 7. For the most part learned men do understand by the Laws of Nature certain divine principles imprinted upon the heart of man by the Laws of Nations more immediate by the Laws civil more remote Conclusions of constitutive Laws civil T. H. Seeing all Laws have their authority and force from the will of the Soveraign a man may wonder whence proceed such opinions as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Common-wealths directly or by consequence making the Legislative power depend on private men or subordinate Judges as for example That the Common-Law hath no Controuler but the Parliament Item That the Common-Law hath two arms Force and Justice the one whereof is in the King the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament G. L. The former Conclusion which is the fifth in order That the Laws of Princes and Countries subdued depend upon the Soveraign conquering is true And it is wisdom in the Conquerors to grant them the Laws and Customs of God and no waies prejudicial to their power For many are willing to change their Governors yet unwilling to change their Government But as concerning the two maximes of Law I might refer him to the Learned in that profession who no doubt can make them good against any thing he hath said They seem to him to be unreasonable partly because he is ignorant of the Constitution both of this and also of other States partly because they are inconsistent with his Utopian principles For he presupposeth 1. That the King of England is an absolute Monarch 2. That the Parliament as a Parliament is meerly a subject 3. That the King hath power at will and pleasure to call Parliaments and dissolve them yet these hath he not made good neither can he 1. That our Kings are not absolute Monarchs is well known the Laws and practice have made it manifest And whatsoever ignorant persons and parasites may say yet wise men both English and Forreign States-men who have dealt with England have been assured of the contrary especially when in certain leagues they have required the consent of the Parliament Again the Kings of England never made or repealed a Law nor levied a subsidie alone themselves without a Parliament And they are sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus elegerit For let Elegerit be what tense it will vulgus which is populus non rex eligit leges and the late King in his answer to the 19. Propositions did confess that the Lords and Commons had a share in the Legislative power And it were very much to be wondered at if that King who himself alone could never make or repeal a Law nor levy or impose a subsidie nor revoke the judgement of any Court nor alter a word or clause in any Law agreed upon in Parliament should be an absolute Monarch It s far more probable he was only trusted with the force for the execution of justice according to Law and Judgement according to the second maxime And if he was no absolute Soveraign then his second supposition that the Parliament as such is only an Assembly of private men and subjects and to be considered in no other capacity is false As likewise his third That the King can call and dissolve Parliaments at will and pleasure For by the Constitution the Laws and practise he was bound to call them once a year and oftner as the necessity and exigency of affairs either of peace or war should require And in such cases to dissolve them before the ardua Regni were dispatched was both dangerous and destructive and did argue either a bad constitution or a corruption of the same T. H. Law cannot be against reason neither is it the letter but the intention of the Law-giver that is the Law And this reason is not private of subordinate Judges but of the supreme Lawgiver G. L. All this is willingly granted if he understand by Reason not the meer conceit or will of the Soveraign but that reason which is a ray of divine wisdom shining in the mind of the Law-giver regulating his judgement and expressed in the words of the Law And the sense of a Law given by a learned Judge subordinate may be very true yet not authentick because he that makes the Law can interpret Law in that manner and none else I pass by his discourse concerning promulgation and interpretation of Law as also the qualification of Judges which belongs to that Chapter of Officers formerly mentioned He might have done well to have improved these excellent Treatises of other learned Authors who have informed us both more accurately and also more particularly of these things then he himself hath done But he conceits himself as far above them as they surpass ordinary men Neither is his distribution of Laws worth the examination as being very crude and indigested as also heterogeneous I proceed therefore to his two questions concerning what assurance may be had of and obedience ought to be given unto divine positive Laws The questions are T. H. 1. How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer of those Laws 2. How can he be bound to obey them The answer to the first By sanctity miracles wisdom success without particular revelation its impossible for a man to have assurance of a revelation made to another Therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another hath had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief G. L. This presupposeth 1. That there is a positive Law of God 2. This positive Law is declared and witnessed to be the Law of God 3. That this testimony concerning this Law is divine and infallible 4. That it is such because it s grounded on and agreeable to an immediate revelation from God of that Law to him that doth declare it as to Moses the Prophets or Apostles For God formerly spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets in the latter times to their children by his Son first and after by his Apostles The question here is not how we shall attain a demonstrative clear or intuitive knowledge of the matter of the Law nor of the manner of the revelation but how we may be assured that the declaration or testimony of him to whom the revelation was made is divine that we may believe it as divine and from God The means whereby the divinity of the testimony was made evident at the first were extraordinary as signs wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Heb. 2.4 But after that upon these divine attestations the Gospel was generally received in all Nations and the prophesies of the Old Testament in this particular fulfilled these ceased yet one thing
bound to obey God more then man and as his subjection unto man is but conditional and subordinate to his subjection to God so his obedience to man is limited and only to be performed in such things as his supreme and absolute Lord doth allow him And though man may suffer for his disobedience to humane Laws yet he had better suffer a temporal then an eternal penalty and offend man rather then God Neither doth this doctrine any waies prejudice the civil power nor encourage any man to disobedience and violation of civil Laws if they be just and good as they ought to be and the subject hath not only liberty but a command to examine the Laws of his Soveraign and judge within himself and for himself whether they be not contrary to the Laws of his God T. H. The third Doctrine That faith and sanctity are not to be attained by Study and Reason but by supernatural inspiration and infusion G. L. That divine faith wherby we believe on Jesus Christ and obtain eternal life in him and that sanctity of life whereby we please God and are accepted of him are no doubt both merited by Christ and inspired and wrought in us supernaturally by the power of the Holy-Ghost And there can be no doubt of this to such as believe the Scripture to be the Word of God written wherein we read That except a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And no man can come unto me except the Father draw him cap. 6.44 And to believe that Jesus was the Son of the living God was not from flesh and blood but by revelation of his heavenly Father Christ himself teacheth us Mat. 16.17 This revelation was an inspiration or infusion except we will quarrel with words and it was not natural for then it might have been by and from flesh and blood but it was supernatural and from God revealing not only outwardly but inwardly too It is also further taught us in Scripture That no man can say that Jesus Christ is the Lord but by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.3 Yet this faith and sanctity are so wrought in us as that ordinarily God makes use of the Scriptures taught explained applyed unto mans heart of hearing study and meditation which are acts of reason and such acts as man may naturally perform and also so neglect them as to give God just cause to deny the inspiration of his Spirit for to make the word taught heard meditated effectual upon his heart This Doctrine hath been believed and professed in the most peaceable Common-wealths of the world and did strengthen not weaken much less dissolve the same If he understand by the professors of this Doctrine the phanatick Enthusiasts of these times who pretend so much that Spirit which God never gave them and upon this pretence boast themselves to be spiritual men judging all and to be judged of none as they use to abuse the Scripture then its true that these are enemies to all Government and their Doctrine tends to the dissolution of all order Ecclesiastical and Civil and is to be rooted out of all Common-wealths T. H. A fourth opinion repugnant to the nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the Soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws G. L. There is no doubt but this is destructive of Government and contrary to the very nature and essence of a Common-wealth the essential parts whereof are imperans subditus the Soveraign and the subject take this difference away you confound all and turn the Common-wealth into a Community yet though Soveraigns are above their own Laws how otherwise could they dispense with them and repeal them wise men have given advice to Princes for to observe their own Laws and that for example unto others and good Princes have followed this advice Soveraigns are to govern by Laws not to be subject unto them or as Subjects obey them or be punished by them But what this man means by Soveraign in the hypothesis is hard to know For he presupposeth all Soveraigns absolute and all Kings of England such Soveraigns and so in general it may be granted that all Soveraigns are above the Laws civil yet the application of this rule to particular Princes of limited power may be false and no waies tolerable The question is not so much concerning the superiority of the Soveraign over the Laws but whether a Soveraign by Law for Administration who is not sole Legislator is not in divers respects inferiour to the Law or whether an an absolute Soveraign may not cease to be such and ex obligatione criminis ex superiore fieri inferior T. H. A fifth Doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is That every man hath an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Every man hath indeed a propriety that excludes the right of the subject which is derived from the Soveraign without whose protection every man should have equal right to the same G. L. 1. If the subject have propriety as the Author grants it must needs be absolute and must needs exclude not only the right of the fellow-subject but of the Soveraign too For propriety in proper sense is an independent right of total alienation without any license of a Superiour or any other 2. This propriety is not derived from the Soveraign except he be despotical and such indeed the Author affirmeth all Soveraigns to be and in that respect the subjects can neither have propriety nor liberty therefore he contradicts himself when he saith in many places that the Soveraign is absolute and here that the subject hath propriety 3. It s to be granted that even in a free-State the subjects proprity cannot free from the publick charges for as a Member of the whole body he is bound to contribute to the maintenance of the State without the preservation whereof he cannot so well preserve his own private right 4. Propriety is by the Law of Nature and Nations at least agreeable unto both And when men agree to constitute a Common-wealth they retain their proper right which they had unto their goods before the Constitution which doth not destroy but preserve propriety if well ordered For men may advance a Soveraign without any alienation of their estates No man hath any propriety from God but so as to be bound to give unto the poor relieve the distressed and maintain the Soveraign in his just Government yet this doth not take away but prove propriety because every one gives even unto the Common-wealth that which is his own not another mans nor his Soveraigns who may justly in necessary cases for the preservation of the State impose a just rate upon the subject But if the Reader seriously consider the Authors discourse in other parts of his Book he may easily know whereat he aims For 1. He makes all Soveraigns absolute 2. The Kings
of England to be Soveraigns And 3. in that respect to have a power to raise subsidies and moneys without a Parliament And 4. hath made that a mortal disease of our State which is a great preservative of our liberty For the people alwaies bear the purse and could not by the King be charged with the least without their consent by their Representative in the Parliament This did poise and limit the regal power prevented much riot and excess in the Court made the Prince frugal and hindred unnecessary wars Yet good Princes and frugal never wanted money were freely supplyed by their subjects whilest they required in their need any thing extraordinary above the publick revenue in a right way by Parliament T. H. There is a sixth Doctrine plainly and directly against the essence of a Common-wealth and its this That the Soveraign power may be divided G. L. The supreme power as supreme must needs be one and cannot be divided For as in a Natural so in a Political body there must be of necessity one only principle of motion One supreme will directed by one judgement and strengthened with one force of the sword must command judge execute Otherwise there can be no order or regular motion Yet this supreme power may be in many persons several and distinct physically but morally reduced to one by the major part agreeing in one suffrage That some have made in this State of England three Co-ordinate powers with their several Negatives and their several distinct rights of Soveraign power can very hardly be made good by any reason as I have hinted before Yet even these do place all the jura Majestatis in all joyntly Our form of Government is confounded by the different opinions of common Lawyers Civilians and Divines who neither agree one with another nor amongst themselves It hath been declared That the fundamental Government of this Kingdom hath been by King Peers and Commons yet this can satisfie no man because there is no certainty what the power of Commons what the power of Lords what the power of the King is Neither whether the house of Commons and of Lords be two distinct houses or no Or if they be distinct wherein they are so distinct For some affirm that in Legislation they ought to be but one though in Judicial acts two Yet suppose the Lords to have the Judicial power alone nevertheless it s a question what kind of Lords and Barons these should be We read first of the forty Lords of the forty Counties in the Saxons time after the Conquest we find three sorts of Barons in the higher house and they were Feudarii rescriptitii diplomatici Barons by Tenure by Writ by Patent Lords by tenure were the first but afterwards when any were called by the Kings Writ to Parliament they by that very Writ were made Barons with suffrage amongst the former the last were Lords by Patent and such were most yea almost all our Lords in latter times And to multiply the last was a policy in the King For by that means after the supremacy of the Pope was cast off the Bishops did wholly depend upon the King and the Barons by Patent were his creatures and by them he might carry any cause or at least hinder and cross the desires of the Knights and Burgesses And herein few of our ordinary Histories can help us because they relate only unto us matter of fact how sometimes the King sometimes the Barons sometimes the Commons were ascendant and predominant as now they all seem to be descendant Yet for all this a free Parliament of just wise and good men might rectifie all this and unite the supreme power so miserably divided to the hazard of the State T. H. And as false Doctrine so also often-times the example of different Government in a neighbouring Nation disposeth men to alteration of the sorm already setled G. L. That this may be a cause of the alteration and also of ruine too it s very possible and there seems to be some colour of reason in it because we are bound to follow the best examples And this may be powerful and prevalent with such as are given to Change and affect novelty Yet with wise and understanding men its of no force because they know full well that some form of Government which may be good to one may prove not to be so to another and that changes in this kind are dangerous For to unsettle that which is firm for to introduce that whereof we have had no experience may prove the ruine of a State T. H. And as to rebellion in particular against Monarchy one of the most frequent causes is the reading of the Books of Policy and Histories of the antient Greeks and Romans c. G. L. This hath been formerly examined The reading of these Books cannot do so much hurt as this Leviathan may do For it is far more dangerous and destructive of good government then any of their Histories which can do no hurt to any but such as are ignorant and ill-disposed In those Books they may read of Kings and Emperours and of Monarchies as well as free-States and few are so void of understanding but that they well know they are bound to their own form of Government and are not to covet every model they read of Such men as he do shamefully debase free-States as forms unlawful in themselves and so flatter limited Princes as though they were absolute Lords and advance Monarchy so high as though it were the only form of Government so instituted by God and commanded that all Nations were bound unto it and whosoever doth not bow unto it is a rebel against God Yet he never instituted immediately any Common-wealth but one and that was a free-State and when a King was desired he was offended and under a regal government it came to ruine Whereas he thinks these Books do teach Regicide and killing of Kings he is much mistaken For subjects to murther their lawful Soveraigns is an horrid crime and so much the more to be detested if done under the name of Tyrannicide To plead for Tyrants really such as such is to be abhorred They pervert the very end of all government abuse their power act contrary to the Laws of God and men to the ruine of the State are enemies of mankind the chiefest agents for the Devil The Question is Whether a people having power in their hands may not restrain or remove or put to death such men as being guilty of many crimes which the Laws of God have made universally capital so that no man in the world can plead exemption Some think that they are to be left to God and subjects must seek deliverance by prayers and tears and the truth is Christians as Christians have no other remedy others conceive they may be restrained and that by force and their own subjects do it Others give this power only unto Magistrates or to such as share with