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
comitum omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorum totius Regni And whoever will but examine the said Collection of Sr. Henry Spelman will find almost all the Ecclesiastical Constitutions confirmed if not made in the Wittena Gemote the Great Synode or Council So that what this Author says of the difference of the Laws and Customs of the several Kingdoms during the Heptarchy makes nothing against us as long as we can prove that in the main the Government of them all was alike in the three great Liberties of the Subjects viz. Trial by a Mans equals and absolute Propriety in Lands and Goods which the Kings could not justly take from them and a Right to joyne in the making of all Laws and raising Publick Taxes or Contributions for War So that without doubt these Wittena Gemotes or great Councils were Ordained for some Nobler and Higher purpose then either to give the King advice what Wars to make or what Laws to make or barely to Remonstrate their grievances as this and some other Modern Authors would have it for what King would call so great a Multitude those Antient Parliaments consisted of to be his Councellors Or would call together the whole Body of a Nation only to be made acquainted with their grievances which he might have known with greater ease to himself and less charge to the Subjects by having them found by the Grand Inquest in the County-Court And so to have been presented to him by the Earl or Alderman of each particular County whereas we find these great Councils imploy'd in businesses of a higher Nature such as the confirmation of the Kings Charters the Proposing of Laws the Election of Archbishops other great Officers So that the Higher any Man will look back the more large uncontroulable he will find the Power of this great Assembly Since before the Conquest and afterwards too we find them to have often Elected Kings when the Children of their last King were either Minors or supposed unfit to Govern So that whoever will take the pains to consult our Ancient Saxon and English Historians will find that there was never Anciently any Fundamental or unalterable Law of Succession nor was it fixed for any two Discents in a right Line from Father to Son without interruption until Henry the Third and then it lasted so but Four Generations reckoning him for the first And as for these particular Laws or Customs the Author mentions whether King Edgar or Alfred first Collected them as were also Corrected and Confirmed by both the Edwards to wit the Elder and the Confessor they still owed their Authority to the King Vi. Lambert de priscis Anglorum Legibus p. 1â—9 and his Barons and his People as Malmesbury before asserts As for the Danish Laws they never prevail'd but in those Countrys which the Danes intirely Conquered which consisted mostly of them as Norfolk Suffolk and Cambridge-shire but as for the rest of England it was governed by its own Laws and enjoyed its Ancient Customs in the Reign of King Knute and his Successors of the Danish Race See the Charter of K. Knute quoted by Mr. Peâ—yt in his said Treatise pag. 146. But to come to the Authors next Reason why there can be no Fundamental Laws in this Kingdom viz. Because the Common Law being unwritten doubtful and difficult cannot but be an uncertain Rule to govern by which is against the Nature of a Rule which always ought to be certain This is almost the same Argument as the Papists make use of against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith only their Reason is that the Scriptures are obscure because they are Written and need an Expositor viz. The Church or Tradition but with Authors it is contrary the Law is doubtful because unwritten whereas all that understand any thing of the Nature of the Laws of England know very well that the Common Law whose Authority depends not on any set Form of Words but the Sence and Reason of the Law is much less doubtful and makes fewer Disputes then the Statute-Law but though it be granted that many things in the Common Law are doubtful and difficult yet in the Main and Fundamental parts of it but just now recited it is plain enough As the Scriptures though doubtful or obscure in some things yet are plain and certain in all Points necessary for Salvation and why it is harder for an ordinary Countrey Fellow in a Civil Government to know when he is Condemned to be Hang'd without trial or to have his Goods or Money taken from him by a Fellow in a Red-coat without any Law then for him to judg in the State of Nature when another Man lies with his Wife or goes about to Rob or Murther him I know not His last Reason against making Common Law only to be the Foundation when Magna Charta is excluded from being according to Mr. H. a Fundamental Law and also all ' other Statutes from being limitations to Monarchy since the Fundamental Laws only are to be judg and these are Statute Laws or Superstructures This is also meer Sophistry since no Man in Metaphors or Similitudes ever expects an absolute Truth but what if the great part of the Magna Charta were Fundamental Laws before either King Stephen or King John granted it and that they did but restore what some of their Predecessors had before by oppression taken from their Subjects since there is little or none of it but was part of King Edward's Laws and consequently the Ancient Saxon Law before the Conquest and the like may be said of all other Constitutions in limited Monarchies as suppose in Denmark the Crown which was before Elective is now by the Concession of the Estates become Successive I believe no Men of this Authors Opinion will deny that this is not now a Fundamental Law in that Kindom and can never be altered without the Consent of the King and the Estates and yet this is a Law that follows after the Government was Instituted nor can I see any Reason why this Rule may not hold as well on the Peoples side as the Kings Why Rules of Play may not be made as well after the Gamesters are in at Play as when they first began and may not be as well called Fundamental Laws of the Game since if they are not observed it may be lawful for any of the Gamesters to fling up his Cards and play no more though he be at play with the Authors Natural Monarch his own Father But our Author will not leave off so but must give us one stabing Paragraph more against Fundamental Laws which is thus ' Truely the Conscience of all Mankind is a pretty large Tribunal for these Fundamental Laws to pronounce Sentence in It is very much that Laws which in their own Nature are dumb and always need a Judg to pronounce Sentence should now be able to speak and pronounce Sentence themselves Such a Sentence surely must
in Reuben to have spoke thus since he knew his Father had power to slay his Sons if he thought fit whether he gave him such an authority or not But if it be replied that Jacob when his Sons married might set them at liberty and so give them power of Life and Death that is make them absolute in their respective Families This is gratis dictum and no proof brought of it out of Scripture and therefore may as well be otherwise Nor is it likely that Jacob should thus manumit his Sons since it is apparent they did not then set up distinct Families for we finde Jacob still commanding them as Head of the Family to go down and buy Corn in Egypt saying Go down and buy us that is the whole Family whereof they were Members a little food And yet these Sons did not think their Fathers command so absolute but that they tell him plainly they will not go down unless he send Benjamin with them As for the other Examples of Abram's exercising the full power of a Prince in making War and Peace I will not deny that the Heads of separate Families being out of Commonwealths have many things analogous to them though they are not Commonwealths themselves And the reason why I do not allow them to be so is because the ends of a Family and a Commonwealth are divers and so many parts of a Monarchical Empire are not to be found in Families yet the Heads of such Families may notwithstanding exercise a power of Life and Death in great Offences and also of making War and Peace And this being for the good of the Family they govern and by their implyed consents no body will contradict him in the exercise of this power But this being matter of fact does not prove an absolute and unquestionable Right in the Father of such a Family of doing whatsoever he please and that no Member of the Family hath power in any case to contradict his will for it is rational to conceive that this Father of a Family having had an authority over his Children and Servants born perhaps in his house from their very Infancy and if he be a wise and a good man and hath carried himself as a good Father or Master ought to do toward them should even by their consents as knowing none more worthy than himself retain the exercise of that Authority after they are gown up to be men in which he cannot be contradicted without disorder and mischief to the whole Family So that indeed this submission of the Children and Servants is by a tacite consent to obey the Father or Master in all things tending to the common good of the Family But this proves not this absolute despotick power the Author contends for but onely the most reasonable way of acting for the Families good and whilst the Father exercises this Authority onely for that end which when he transgresses his Right to govern ceases for if this Author would have but considered the state of some parts of Africa he should have found that where the Father will exercise this absolute power and sell his Children for slaves the Children make as little scruple where they are strong enough to put the same trick upon their Fathers Nor can they be justly blamed for so doing until any man can shew me that the Father hath some better Right than meer Custom or Power I shall now proceed to the consideration of those other places he produces out of Scripture for the natural Right of Fathers to be Kings over their Descendants Patriarcha p. 16. First As for the example of Nimrod that makes against him for here the Grandson of Ham who ought to have been a Servant to the Children of Shem and Japhet interrupting this Paternal Empire domineers and tyrannizes not onely over his own Family but the Descendants of the elder Brethren But Sir Walter Rawleigh of which opinion the Author himself is will have him to be Lord over his own Family by Right of Succession but to enlarge his Empire against Right by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families But however after the confusion of Tongues the Author will have it revive again and the distinct Nations thereupon erected were not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it plainly appears that even in this confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families For so it appears by the Text Gen. 10.5.20.22 But these places will not prove what the Author quotes them for viz. the Monarchical or Kingly power of Fathers for neither does the Scripture or Josephus mention that this division of the World by Noah's Posterity was performed by the Fathers of these Families as absolute Monarchs but it rather seems that their Children and Descendants followed them as Volunteers as retaining a Reverence and Affection to their persons for their great age experience and care of their Families Which * Sir Will. Temple's Essay of Government p. 67. an ingenious modern Author conceives to be the natural original of all Governments springing from a tacite deference to the Authority of one single person And of this opinion is excellent Pufendorf And of this kind were those first Kings which Aristotle calls Heroical whom the People did obey of their own accord because they deserved well of them and either by teaching them Arts or by warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands among them Secondly If it were true that these Fathers of Families were so many absolute Kings yet it quite destroys the Author's Hypothesis who will have but one true Heir to Adam who if he could be known had a natural Right to be Monarch of the whole world And though Kings now Patriarch p. 19. are not the natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first natural Parents of the People and in their right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers Whereas we see here no such right of Eldership observed neither among the Sons of Noah nor their descendants but every one as appears from the words of the Text was an independant Head Leader of his own Family by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided c. and by these viz. the descendants of Shem were the Nations divided c. So likewise the other places he brings concerning the Sons of Ishmael and Esau do destroy the Authours notion of an Heir to the Authority of the Father or that any Son is more Lord of his Brethren than another For all the
Right ceased before that of the Legatees could begin So that it seems to me at present that the power of bequeathing either the persons of men or goods was but a consequence of an absolute Propriety in things which arises from Compact in a Common-wealth as I shall hereafter prove Therefore out of this State a Will cannot bind the persons of the Children or Servants so bequeathed And for this cause we find Abraham Gen. 24. v. 2 3. binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land And Gen. 49. v. 29. Jacob taking an Oath of Joseph not to bury him in Egypt because they doubted whether they could oblige them to do it by their Testament But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament as I will not deny but that some Kingdoms may have been so bequeathable by their Constitution and others become so by Custom yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Law of God or Nature but proceeds purely from a continued Custom of the Kingdom or Civil Law thereof else why had not Henry VIII or Edward VI power to limit or bequeath the Crown to whom they pleased as well as William the Conquerour And to look into other Countries what now renders Women uncapable of succeeding to the Crown of France yet capable of inheriting that of England Spain and divers other Kingdoms of Europe but the Customs or particular Constitutions of the Estates of these Kingdoms which no Will or Testament can alter What else hinders the Grand Seignior that he cannot disinherit his eldest Son if he survive him Vid. Mezeray Abregé Chron. An. 1317. Phil. le Long. but the Custom of the Ottoman Empire And what is this Custom but as the Author himself acknowledges in the case of England the Commom Law of the Country Freeholders Inquest p. 62. which is said to be Common Custom Thus to protect the Customs which the Vulgar shall chuse is to protect the Common Laws of England So that it was the Will of the People and not the Prince alone that made this a Law for if this Law of the Succession of the Crown depended upon his Will then if he be an absolute Monarch that when sufficiently declared being the onely Law might alter it when he would 〈◊〉 and so he might bequeath the Crown to whom he pleased But every one that understands the present Laws of Descent of the Crown of France or the manner of Succession in the Ottoman Empire knows that i◠the King of France or Grand Seignior as absolute as they are should bequeath their Kingdoms to any other than the right Heir this Will would signifie nothing and no body would obey this Successor of their appointing And if any man think to evade this by saying That the Succession of the Crown is a Fundamental Law of the Government and that a Prince may be Absolute and yet not have a power to alter that as he may every thing else I would ask him who made this a Fundamental Law at first whether the King then in being or the King with the Consent of the People upon the first institution of the Government If the King made it alone since he is supposed to have made it at first for the good of the People of which he is the Judge and is supposed in Law never to die why then is not he as competent a Judge of what is good for the People now as a King that lived a thousand years agone was what was fit for the People then and consequently hath as much Right of altering the Succession for the Peoples benefit as he that established it at first since every Law may be altered by the same Power that made it But if he say it is a Fundamental Law because long custom hath made it so then it is apparent such a Law hath its force from the Consent of the People at first or since Custom being nothing else Or lastly if he will acknowledge that the Consent of the People was necessary to make this a Fundamental Constitution then it can neither be altered without their Consent and so consequently no Princes Testament is good as to that farther than the People or their Representatives give their assent thereunto And the same Law holds in the Father of a Family since this Author will have no difference between him and a King but onely secundum Magis Minus If then there be no Right in the state of Nature for a Father to bequeath his Dominion over his Children by his Testament let us return again to that of Descent and see if that will prove a better foundation to build this natural Right of Princes upon For my part I think that it is not onely impossible to know who was Adam's right Heir of his Fatherly Power now after five or six thousand years but might likewise be as uncertain as soon as ever the breath was out of his body For supposing Eve survived him why should not her natural Right of governing the Children which she her self brought forth and which out of Wedlock would have belonged to her revive and take place before any Right of her eldest Son to whom upon this ground she must have become subject if she would continue part of the Family or natural Commonwealth which she could not avoid there being none but her Children or Grandchildren in the world and it being against the nature of Government to allow two Absolute Heads in the same Family or Commonwealth So that for ought I see the Mother of the Family hath the best Right to the Government in the state of Nature after the Husbands death upon the Authors own grounds For if the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother signifie more than bare Reverence and Respect as appears by the Apostles Exposition of this Commandment Ephes 6. v. 1. Children obey your Parents in the Lord which he makes the same with Honour thy Father and thy Mother then this Obedience which was due to the Father belongs likewise to her when his power ceases But passing over this difficulty and allowing this Fatherly Authority to descend to Adam's next Heir it might have been a great Question who this next Heir was supposing Cain to have been disinherited for the murder of Abel and to have gone away and built a City and set up a Government by himself Yet let us suppose Abel left a Son behind him who survived Adam his Grandfather which he might very well do and yet the Scripture be silent in it since the intent of Moses in his Genealogies being onely to give us the Pedigree of the Jews and therefore says little of his other Children but by the by I would ask the Author or any man else who was Adam's Heir after his death whether this Son of Abel or Seth whom we will suppose likewise to
he promised a share of his Conquests which he after made good to them Thus were the Goths Vandals and our Saxon Kingdoms erected by such Generals of Armies who not being Kings at home nor able to subsist there were forced to seek their fortunes abroad which when they had obtained they could have no farther Right over the men they brought with them than what sprung from their mutual Compacts and Consents And as for Proxies as there was no need of them in the instituting of those Commonwealths we read of since taking their Original from all the People of one City or Army they might easily give their Votes themselves but where the People or Masters of Families are more numerous and dispersed than can well meet all together it is impossible upon the Authors Concession of an Escheat of the Crown that ever a new Monarch can be chosen without their making Representatives As for what he says about the silent Acceptation or tacite Consent or non-contradiction of the People no man will say that it alone confers a Right where there was none before as in the case of Conquerours or Usurpers whom perhaps People dare not speak against So likewise a tacite Consent to a Government whether Paternal or Civil justly instituted does confer a Right as I have already granted and shall now farther shew in answer to the Authors Objections The Author urges farther That if Children under years of discretion and Servants are not absolutely and in Conscience obliged to submit to the Votes of their Fathers and Masters in the choice of the Government farther than they receive benefit and advantage by it then every man is at liberty that does not like the Government Anarchy of a mixt Monarchy p. 268. to be of what Kingdom he pleases and so every petty Company hath a Right to make a Kingdom by it self and not onely every City but every Village and every Family nay and every particular man would have a liberty to chuse himself to be his own King if he pleased and he were a madman that being by Nature free would chuse any man but himself to be his Governour and so no man would be tyed to obey the Government farther than he found it for his interest and advantage and consequently would think he might lawfully resist it whenever he found it impose upon him what he did not like or was contrary to his interest In answer to which I grant first That every Possessor of a propriety in Land or Goods in any Government is not onely bound to obey but likewise to maintain it since those that first instituted the Government did likewise tye themselves and all those that should at any time possess those Lands or Goods to the maintenance of the Government which they had establisht And it is just and reasonable that those that claim under such first possessors should if they like to enjoy the Lands or Goods perform the Conditions annexed to them since men may by their own private Deeds much more by a common consent change their Estates with what Conditions they please which those that afterwards come to enjoy the same under their Title are certainly bound in Law and Conscience to make good Secondly As for all others who possessing no share in the Lands or Goods of a Kingdom yet enjoy the common benefits of the Government I conceive they are likewise bound to obey and maintain it as first instituted for the reasons before given So on the other side if they do not like the Government they live under the world is wide enough and they may remove themselves elsewhere for I cannot think that the positive Laws of any Government do oblige any man in Conscience who is not a slave by his own act or fault never to go out of the Country where he was born or can oblige him to return again if he once go out of it or can hinder him from becoming a Subject to another Prince or Common-wealth unless he have taken an Oath of Allegiance to the Prince where he was born and then he is tyed by his Oath not to act any thing contrary thereunto And if one man may do this why not more and so on to an indefinite number But if any Lawyer tells me there is a native Allegiance due by the Laws of divers Countries precedent to any Oath and that in some Countries as anciently in England and in Russia at this day there are Laws that no man shall travel out of the Kingdom without leave I suppose these are but positive Laws and as such bind onely to a submission to the punishment as to forfeiture of Estate or the like but do not bind the Conscience to observe them farther than as it is convinced the thing commanded is more than indifferent in its own nature and conduces to the good of Mankind in general or of the whole Commonwealth in particular Nor indeed was this notion of a native Allegiance known to our Saxon Ancestors since they counted no man an absolute Subject until he was sworn in the Tourn or Court of Frankpledge and was entred into a decenary or Tything And if it be objected that upon these Terms the major part of a people may go away and leave the Government without defence that is not likely nor so much as to be supposed as long as the Country continues habitable and the Government tolerable for the Subjects to live under which if it prove otherwise I see no reason that God should have ordained any Country for a common Bridewel where men should be obliged in Conscience to drudge be oppressed and ill-used all days of their lives without remedy And as for the other part of the bad consequences the Author insists will follow if this natural freedom of Mankind be allow'd for which you may consult his Anarchy of a mixt Monarchy where you will see them at large p. 268 269. Every petty Company hath a Right to make a Kingdom by it self c. I shall answer him as briefly as I can The Author discourses after that rate that one would think if it were not for his Principle of Patriarchal Power men could not subsist his being the foundation of all Civil Government and Property As for the first absurdity that will follow upon the supposal of the Peoples power That any man might be his own King I would ask the Author What if any man being weary of the world will withdraw into some Desert I think he hath then no other Governour than Adam had Nor is this unlawful or else all the ancient Hermits who in times of persecution retired into Deserts sinn'd in so doing But for the absurdities that follow the supposal of a natural state of Freedom As that every particular City or Family may chuse what Government they please if they do not like what is already established I have already granted that where a Commonwealth is established and men are come out of the state of
to prove that Cain when he ran away for his brothers murder enjoyed the land of Nod where he built a City by his fathers settlement But though Mr. Selden and the Author agree very well about the distinct Dominion of Adam yet they do not so concerning that of Noah and his Sons whom Mr. Selden and I think with very good reason from Gen. IX 2. Will have to be joynt Commonors with their Father in the dominion of the world and all its creatures but the Author says that the Text doth not warrant it ' For though the Sons are mentioned in the blessing yet it may be best understood with a subordination or benediction in succession the blessing might be fulfilled if the Sons either under or after their Father enjoyed a private dominion It is apparent that the words rather warrant the contrary For the Text does not mention any blessing in subordination but is alike in present to Noah and his Sons for God spake to Noah and to his Sons and so is their power over the creatures as appears v. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb that is the fruits granted to Adam before have I given you in the plural number all things As for this Authors other argument from the private dominion of Adam it might be good against Mr. Selden who had admitted it before but is none against those that do not believe any such grant As for Noah's being sole heir of the world he takes that for granted which is no law of nature that in the state of nature one man is more an heir to his Father or any other relation than another but having confuted that opinion already I need say no more of it here Mr. Seldens account of the original of Propriety ' After Noah is that in distributing Territories the consent of Mankind passing their promise or compact which did also bind their Posterity did intervene so that men departed from their common right of Communion of those things which were so distributed to particular Lords and Masters But the Author replys that this distribution by the consent of Mankind we must take upon trust for there is not the least proof of it out of Antiquity If by Antiquity he means prophane Authors all of them both Historians and Poets that have writ of this subject are for a primitive Community of all things necessary for the life of Man As any man that considers what the Poets say concerning the golden Age whose cheif happiness they place in mens enjoyment of the fruits of the earth in Common nor does Lactantius Li. V. Inst Cap. 5. one of the learnedst of the Fathers interpret those passages otherwise If by antiquity he means proof out of Scripture that neither makes for or against this opinion the Scriptures not being written to shew us the originals either of Government or Propriety any more than to teach men Chymistry or Astronomy though there be some so sottish to think they thus find some grounds for their Fancies in those studies yet it appears that the land of Canaan was all or most of it in Common in Abrahams time or else he could never have lived and kept his flocks upon it as a separate Master of a Family without becoming subject to any other Prince But however I look upon this Tradition delivered by the Greek and Latin Authors every whit as good as that Jewish one which Mr. Selden quotes out of Eusebius and Cednenus though he does not lay any stress upon it But our Author admits it as an undeniable Record That Noah himself as Lord of all was Author of the distribution of the world and of all private dominion and that by an appointment of an oracle from God he did confirm this Distribution by ' his last Will and Testament which at his death he left in the hands of Shem his eldest Son and also warned all his Sons that none of them should invade any of their brothers dominions or injure one another because from thence discord and civil war would ensue It s not likely that the Antient Jews should know any thing of this Will of Noahs for if they had so diligent an Author and so well versed in the Jewish Antiquities as Josephus would not have omitted so famous a piece of history 2. The Rahbins themselves and consequently our Fathers of the Church are not agreed whether Shem or Japhet were the eldest For though it is true that St. Austin and those Fathers that follow the vulgar translation made Shem the eldest yet St. Chrysostom and all the Fathers of the Greek Church who therein follow the LXX Versior as of greater Antiquity and Authority are for Japhets being the eldest brother So that this Testament being left in Shems hands is a meer Rabinical invention it being much to be doubted whether Letters much more Wills in writing were in fashion in Noah's days and if Noah left no Will which no Jury can now decide then the world was left to Noahs Sons Grand-children in Common to be divided according to their several occasions since they all three had equal right to it But it seems a weak Hypothesis if it serve the Authors present purpose shall be received though it contradict his other Principles For in his Patriarcha and other of his treatises he makes Adam sole Monarch of the World and that this right descended wholy and entirely to Adam's right heir But here we find Noah turns the Propriety and Dominion of the world into an absolute gavel-kind and distributing the Earth among his three Sons makes them all Heirs and Monarchs alike so that Shem the elder is here disinhereted not only of his entire Dominion in the world but also of his natural right of Lording it over the rest of his bretheren so that whereas the whole world should have been his if his Father had not made this unlucky Will he is fain to be content with a third part I shall pass by other impossibilities in this fancy of Noah's Will as how Noah should by revelation make a distribution of the Earth among his Sons when he never had discovered a hundreth part of it Josephus and the Fathers not supposing him ever to have descended from the Mountains of Ararat into the Plains all his life time But to pass over such Romantick fancies let us come to the Authors more solid Arguments Why Dominion and Property could not be introduced by the voluntary consent of Men and therefore must needs P. 70. have begun from Noahs appointment Toward the end of these observations he puts this Quere ' If it were a thing so voluntary and at the pleasure of men when they were free to put themselves under subjection why may not they as voluntarily leave this subjection when they please and be free again If they had a liberty to change their natural freedom into a voluntary subjection there is a stronger reason that they may
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