Patriarcha, or, The natural power of Kings by the learned Sir Robert Filmer.

CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fa∣thers of Families. (Book 1)

(1)THE Tenent of the Natural Li∣berty of Mankind, New, Plau∣sible, and Dangerous. (2) The Que∣stion stated out of Bellarmine: Some Contradictions of his noted. (3) Bel∣larmine's Argument answered out of Bel∣larmine himself. (4) The Royal Au∣thority of the Patriarchs before the Flood. (5) The dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel, was by entire Families, over which the Fa∣thers were Kings. (6) and from them all Kings descended. (7) All Kings are either Fathers of their People, (8) Or Heirs of such Fathers, or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers. (9) Of the Escheating of Kingdoms. (10) Of Re∣gal

and Paternal Power, and their Agreement.

SInce the time that School-Divinity began to flourish, there hath been a common Opinion maintained, as well by Divines, as by divers other Learned Men, which affirms,

Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection, and at liberty to choose what Form of Govern∣ment it please: And that the Power which any one Man hath over others, was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude.

This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools, and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity. The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it, and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it, as being most plausible to Flesh and Blood, for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude, who magnifie Liberty, as if the height of Humane Fe∣licity were only to be found in it, never

remembring That the desire of Liber∣ty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam.

But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath of late obtained a great Reputati∣on, yet it is not to be found in the An∣cient Fathers and Doctors of the Pri∣mitive Church: It contradicts the Do∣ctrine and History of the Holy Scrip∣tures, the constant Practice of all Anci∣ent Monarchies, and the very Principles of the Law of Nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in Divi∣nity, or dangerous in Policy.

Yet upon the ground of this Doctrine both Iesuites, and some other zealous favourers of the Geneva Discipline, have built a perillous Conclusion, which is, That the People or Multitude have Power to punish, or deprive the Prince, if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom; wit∣ness Parsons and Buchanan: the first un∣der the name of Dolman, in the Third Chapter of his First Book labours to prove, that Kings have been lawfully chastised by their Commonwealths: The latter in his Book De jure Regni apud

Scotos, maintains A Liberty of the Peo∣ple to depose their Prince. Cardinal Bellarmine and Calume, both look asquint this way.

This desperate Assertion whereby Kings are made subject to the Censures and Deprivations of their Subjects, fol∣lows (as the Authors of it conceive) as a necessary Consequence of that for∣mer Position of the supposed Natural Equality and Freedom of Mankind, and Liberty to choose what form of Government it please.

And though Sir Iohn Heyward, Adam Blackwood, Iohn Barclay, and some others have Learnedly Confuted both Bucha∣nan and Parsons, and bravely vindica∣ted the Right of Kings in most Points, yet all of them, when they come to the Argument drawn from the Natural Li∣berty and Equality of Mankind, do with one consent admit it for a Truth un∣questionable, not so much as once de∣nying or opposing it; whereas if they did but confute this first erroneous Principle, the whole Fabrick of this vast Engine of Popular Sedition would drop down of it self.

The Rebellious Consequence which follows this prime Article of the Natural Freedom of Mankind may be my Suffi∣cient Warrant for a modest Examinati∣on of the original Truth of it; much hath been said, and by many, for the Affirmative; Equity requires that an Ear be reserved a little for the Negative.

In this DISCOURSE I shall give my self these Cautions:

First, I have nothing to do to medle with Mysteries of State, such Arcana Imperii, or Cabinet-Councels, the Vul∣gar may not pry into. An implicite Faith is given to the meanest Artificer in his own Craft, how much more is it then due to a Prince in the profound Secrets of Government? The Causes and Ends of the greatest politique Actions and Motions of State dazle the Eyes, and exceed the Capacities of all men, save only those that are hourly versed in the managing Publique Affairs: yet since the Rule for each men to know in what to obey his Prince, cannot be learnt without a relative Knowledge of those Points wherein a Sovereign may

Command, it is necessary when the Commands and Pleasures of Superiours come abroad and call for an Obedience, that every man himself know how to regulate his Actions or his Sufferings; for according to the Quality of the Thing commanded, an Active or Pas∣sive Obedience is to be yielded; and this is not to limit the Princes Power, but the extent of the Subjects Obedi∣ence, by giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, &c.

Secondly, I am not to question, or quarrel at the Rights or Liberties of this or any other Nation; my task is chief∣ly to enquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what, or how ma∣ny these are; but whether they were derived from the Laws of Natural Liber∣ty, or from the Grace and Bounty of Prin∣ces. My desire and Hope is, that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample Privileges as any Nation un∣der Heaven; the greatest Liberty in the World (if it be duely considered) is for a people to live under a Monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this Kingdom, all other shews or pretexts of Liberty, are

but several degrees of Slavery, and a Liberty only to destroy Liberty.

If such as Maintain the Natural Li∣berty of Mankind, take Offence at the Liberty I take to Examine it, they must take heed that they do not deny by Retail, that Liberty which they affirm by Whole-sale: For, if the Thesis be true, the Hypothesis will follow, that all men may Examine their own Charters, Deeds, or Evidences by which they claim and hold the Inheritance or Free∣hold of their Liberties.

Thirdly, I must not detract from the Worth of all those Learned Men, who are of a contrary Opinion in the Point of Natural Liberty: the profoundest Scholar that ever was known hath not been able to search out every Truth that is discoverable; neither Aristotle in Philosophy, nor Hooker in Divinity. They are but Men, yet I reverence their Judgements in most Points, and confess my self beholding to their Errors too in this; something that I found amiss in their Opinions, guided me in the dis∣covery of that Truth which (I per∣swade

my self) they missed. A Dwarf sometimes may see that which a Giant looks over; for whilest one Truth is curiously searched after, another must necessarily be neglected. Late Writers have taken up too much upon Trust from the subtile School-men, who to be sure to thrust down the King below the Pope, thought it the safest course to advance the People above the King, that so the Papal Power might take place of the Regal. Thus many an Ig∣norant Subject hath been fooled into this Faith, that a man may become a Martyr for his Countrey, by being a Tray∣tor to his Prince; whereas the New∣coyned distinction of Subjects into Roy∣allists and Patriots, is most unnatural, since the relation between King and People is so great, that their well-be∣ing is so Reciprocal.

(2) To make evident the Grounds of this Question, about the Natural Liberty of Mankind, I will lay down some passages of Cardinal Bellarmine, that may best unfold the State of this Controversie. Secular or Civil Power (saith he) is instituted by Men; It is in

the People, unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the whole Multitude, as in the Subject of it; for this Power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this Power to no particular Man— If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason, why amongst a Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear Rule over the rest. — Power is given by the Mul∣titude to one man, or to more, by the same Law of Nature; for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power, therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One Man, or some Few.— It depends upon the Consent of the Multitude to ordain over themselves a King, or Consul, or other Magistrates; and if there be a lawful Cause, the Multi∣tude may change the Kingdom into an Ari∣stocracy or Democracy. Thus far Bel∣larmine; in which passages are compri∣sed the strength of all that ever I have read, or heard produced for the Natu∣ral Liberty of the Subject.

Before I examine or refute these Do∣ctrines, I must a little make some Ob∣servations upon his Words.

First, He saith, that by the Law of God, Power is immediately in the Peo∣ple; hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate; for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude. If this be true, not only Aristocracies, but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful, as being ordained (as he thinks) by Men, whenas God himself hath chosen a De∣mocracy.

Secondly, He holds, that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God, yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them, but only power to give away their Power; whereby it followeth, that there can be no Democratical Government, be∣cause he saith, the people must give their Power to One Man, or to some Few; which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate; which the Multi∣tude is tyed to do, even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power: And why then doth he say, the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy?

Thirdly, He concludes, that if there be a lawful Cause, the Multitude may change the Kingdom. Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause? If the Multitude (for I see no Body else can) then this is a pestilent and dange∣rous Conclusion.

(3) I come now to examine that Ar∣gument which is used by Bellarmine, and is the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People. It is thus framed: That God hath given or ordained Power, is evident by Scripture; But God hath given it to no particular Person, because by Nature all Men are Equal; therefore he hath given Power to the People, or Multitude.

To Answer this Reason, drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature, I will first use the help of Bellarmine him∣self, whose very words are these: If many men had been together created out of the Earth, they all ought to have been Prin∣ces over their Posterity. In these words we have an Evident Confession, that Creation made man Prince of his Poste∣rity.

And indeed not only Adam, but the succeeding Patriarchs had, by Right of Father-hood, Royal Authority over their Children. Nor dares Bellarmine deny this also. That the Patriarchs (saith he) were endowed with Kingly Power, their Deeds do testifie; for as Adam was Lord of his Children, so his Children under him, had a Command and Power over their own Children; but still with subordination to the First Parent, who is Lord-Paramout over his Childrens Children to all Generations, as being the Grand-Father of his People.

(4) I see not then how the Children of Adam, or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents: And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority, by the Ordination of God himself; It follows, that Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution, but even the As∣signment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents, which quite takes away that New and Common distinction, which re∣fers only Power Universal and Absolute to God; but Power Respective, in re∣gard of the Special Form of Government, to the Choice of the people.

This Lordship which Adam by Com∣mand had over the whole World, and by Right descending from him the Pa∣triarchs did enjoy, was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation: For Dominion of Life and Death, we find that Iudah the Father pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law, for play∣ing the Harlot; Bring her forth (saith he) that she may be burnt. Touching War, we see that Abram commanded an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Fa∣mily. And Esau met his Brother Iacob with 400 Men at Arms. For matter of Peace, Abraham made a League with Abimelech, and ratified the Articles with an Oath. These Acts of Judging in Ca∣pital Crimes, of making War, and con∣cluding Peace, are the chiefest Marks of Sovereignty that are found in any Mo∣narch.

(5) Not only until the Flood, but after it, this Patriarchal Power did con∣tinue, as the very name Patriarch doth in part prove. The three Sons of Noah had the whole World divided amongst

them by their Father; for of them was the whole World over-spread, accord∣ing to the Benediction given to him and his Sons, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth. Most of the Civilest Nations of the Earth labour to fetch their Original from some One of the Sons or Nephews of Noah, which were scattered abroad after the Confusion of Babel: In this Dispersion we must cer∣tainly find the Establishment of Regal Power throughout the Kingdoms of the World.

It is a common Opinion, that at the Confusion of Tongues there were 72 distinct Nations erected, all which were not Confused Multitudes, without Heads or Governours, and at Liberty to choose what Governours or Government they pleased; but they were distinct Fami∣lies, which had Fathers for Rulers over them; whereby it appears that even in the Confusion God was careful to pre∣serve the Fatherly Authority, by di∣stributing the diversity of Languages ac∣cording to the diversity of Families; for so plainly it appears by the Text: First, after the Enumeration of the Sons

of Iaphet, the Conclusion is, By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands, every one after his Tongue, after their Families, in their Nations; so it is said: These are the Sons of Ham after their Families, after their Tongues, in their Countreys, and in their Nations. The like we read, These are the Sons of Shem after their Families, after their Tongues, in their Lands, after their Na∣tions. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations; and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth, after the Flood.

In this Division of the World, some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it; others affirm he sayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years, and as he went about, ap∣pointed to each Son his part, and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia, Africa, and Europe, (according to the Number of his Sons) the Limits of which Three Parts are all found in that Midland Sea.

(6) But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain, yet it is most

certain the Division it self was by Fa∣milies from Noah and his Children, over which the Parents were Heads and Princes.

Amongst these was Nimrod, who no doubt (as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms) was, by good Right, Lord or King over his Family; yet against Right did he enlarge his Empire, by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Fami∣lies: And in this sense he may be said to be the Author and first Founder of Monarchy. And all those that do attri∣bute unto him the Original Regal Pow∣er, do hold he got it by Tyranny or Usurpation, and not by any due Ele∣ction of the People or Multitude, or by any Faction with them.

As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, even until the Egyptian Bondage; so we find it a∣mongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau. It is said, These are the Sons of Ismael, and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns, Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families. And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau, according to

their families & their places by their nations.

(7) Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but some petty Lords under some greater Kings, because the number of them are so many, that their particular Territories could be but small, and not worthy the Ti∣tle of Kingdoms; but they must consider, that at first, Kings had no such large Do∣minions as they have now adays; we find in the time of Abraham, which was about 300 years after the Flood, that in a little corner of Asia, 9 Kings at once met in Ba∣tail, most of which were but Kings of Cities apiece, with the adjacent Territo∣ries, as of Sodom, Gomorrah, Shinar, &c. In the same Chapter is mention of Melchise∣deck King of Salem, which was but the Ci∣ty of Ierusalem. And in the Catalogue of the Kings of Edom, the Names of each King's City is recorded, as the only Mark to distinguish their Dominions. In the Land of Canaan, which was but a small cir∣cuit, Ioshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings; and about the same time, Adonibeseck had 70 Kings,* 1.1 whose Hands and Toes he had cut off, and made them feed under his Ta∣ble. A few years after this, 32 Kings came to Benhadad King of Syria, and about

Seventy Kings of Greece went to the Wars of Troy. Caesar found more Kings in France, than there be now Princes there, and at his Sailing over into this Island, he found four Kings in our County of Kent. These heaps of Kings in each Nation, are an Argument their Territories were but small, and strongly confirms our Assertion, that Erection of Kingdoms came at first only by Distinction of Families.

By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Is∣raelites coming into AEgypt, where the Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Juris∣diction was intermitted, because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince. After the Return of these Israelites out of Bondage, God out of a special Care of them, chose Moses and Iosuah suc∣cessively to govern as Princes in the Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers: and after them likewise for a time, he raised up Iudges, to defend his People in time of Peril. But when God gave the Israelites Kings, he reestablished the Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Suc∣cession to Paternal Government. And

whensoever he made choice of any spe∣cial Person to be King, he intended that the Issue also should have benefit there∣of, as being comprehended sufficiently in the Person of the Father, although the Father only was named in the Graunt.

(8.) It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shews the con∣trary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Iu∣risdiction; 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: And there∣fore we find, that God told Cain of his Brother Abel, His Desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Iacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus,* 1.2 Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee.

As long as the first Fathers of Fami∣lies lived, the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them; but after a few Descents, when the true Father∣hood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more Significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriae.

(9.) It may be demanded what be∣comes of the Right of Fatherhood, in Case the Crown does escheate for want of an Heir? Whether doth it not then Devolve to the People? The Answer is, It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: for an Heir there al∣ways is. If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is cer∣tain that there is One Man, and but One in the World who is next Heir,

although the Knowledge who should be that one One Man be quite lost.

2. This Ignorance of the People be∣ing admitted, it doth not by any means follow; that for want of Heirs the Su∣preme Power is devolved to the Multi∣tude, and that they have Power to Rule, and Chose what Rulers they please. No, the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and inde∣pendent Heads of Families: for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made. By the U∣niting of great Families or petty King∣doms, we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected; and into such again, as into their first Matter many times they return again. And because the dependencie of ancient Families is oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge; therefore the wisdom of All or Most Prin∣ces have thought sit to adopt many times those for Heads of Families, and Princes of Provinces, whose Merits, Abilities, or Fortunes, have enobled them, or made them fit and capable of such Re∣gal Favours. All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the

uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign Authority on whom they please: And he that is so Elected, claims not his Power as a Donative from the People; but as being substituted properly by God, from whom he re∣ceives his Royal Charter of an Vniversal Father, though testified by the Mini∣stry of the Heads of the People.

If it please God, for the Correction of the Prince, or punishment of the People, to suffer Princes to be removed, and others to be placed in their rooms, either by the Factions of the Nobility, or Rebellion of the People; in all such cases, the Judgment of God, who hath power to give and to take away King∣doms, is most just: yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgments without Commission, is sinful and dam∣nable. God doth but use and turn mens Vnrighteous Acts to the performance of his Righteous Decrees.

(10.) In all Kingdoms or Common∣wealths in the World, whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such a

Father, or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation, or by Election of the Nobles, or of the People, or by any other way whatsoever; or whether some Few or a Multitude govern the Commonwealth: yet still the Authori∣ty that is in any One, or in Many, or in All these, is the only Right and Na∣tural Authority of a Supreme Father. There is and always shall be continued to the End of the World, a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude, although by the secret Will of God, many at first do most unjust∣ly obtain the Exercise of it.

To confirm this Natural Right of Regal Power, we find in the Decalogue, That the Law which enjoyns Obedi∣ence to Kings, is delivered in the terms of Honour thy Father, as if all power were originally in the Father. If Obe∣dience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law, and Subjection to Princes, but by the Mediation of an Humane Ordinance; what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men? as we see the power of the Father over his Child,

gives place, and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate.

If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all, but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Fami∣ly, so the King as Father over many Fa∣milies extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his Peo∣ple.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Kings 20. 16.
• * 1.2

  Gen. 27, 29.