CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fa∣thers of Families.

(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 Usurpers of the Right of such Fathers. (9) Of the Escheating of Kingdoms. (10) Of Re∣gal Page  2 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 Page  3 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 Jesuites, 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 •atter in his Book De jure Regni apud Page  4 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 John Heyward, Adam Blackwood, John 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.

Page  5 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 Page  6 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 •• 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 Page  7 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 Page  8 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 Page  9 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.

Page  10 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?

Page  11 Thirdly, He concludes, that if there be lawful Cause, the Multitude may change the Kingdom. Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause? •f 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 •s 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. Page  12 And indeed not only Adam, but the succeeding Patriarchs had, by Right of Father-hood, Royal Authority over their Children. Nor dares Bellarmie 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, wh• is Lord-Paramout over his Children 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 i• by Divine Institution, but even the As∣signment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents, which quite takes away tha• 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.

Page  13 This Lordship which Adam by Com∣••nd had over the whole World, and Right descending from him the Pa∣•••archs did enjoy, was as large and •ple as the Absolutest Dominion of •y Monarch which hath been since the •eation: For Dominion of Life and •eath, we find that Judah the Father •onounced Sentence of Death against •amar his Daughter-in-law, for play∣••g the Harlot; Bring her forth (saith 〈◊〉) that she may be burnt. Touching •ar, we see that Abram commanded an •rmy of 318 Souldiers of his own Fa∣•ily. And Esau met his Brother Jacob •ith 400 Men at Arms. For matter of •eace, Abraham made a League with ••imelech, and ratified the Articles with • Oath. These Acts of Judging in Ca∣•al Crimes, of making War, and con∣••uding Peace, are the chiefest Marks of •overeignty that are found in any Mo∣narch.

(5) Not only until the Flood, but •fter it, this Patriarchal Power did con∣••nue, as the very name Patriarch doth •• part prove. The three Sons of Noah •ad the whole World divided amongst Page  14 them by their Father; for of them •• the whole World over-spread, accord∣ing to the Benediction given to him a• his Sons, Be fruitful and multiply, a• replenish the Earth. Most of the Civil• Nations of the Earth labour to fet• their Original from some One of t•• Sons or Nephews of Noah, which we• scattered abroad after the Confusion Babel: In this Dispersion we must cer∣tainly find the Establishment of Reg• Power throughout the Kingdoms of t•• World.

It is a common Opinion, that at th• Confusion of Tongues there were •• distinct Nations erected, all which we• not Confused Multitudes, without Hea•• or Governours, and at Liberty to choo•• what Governours or Government the• pleased; but they were distinct Fami¦lies, which had Fathers for Rulers over them; whereby it appears that even i• 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 Son• Page  15 of Japhet, the Conclusion is, By these •ere the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands, every one after his Tongue, after their Families, in their Nations; so •t is said: These are the Sons of Ham •fter their Families, after their Tongues, •• their Countreys, and in their Nations. The like we read, These are the Sons of •hem 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 •ayled 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) •he Limits of which Three Parts are all •ound in that Midland Sea.

(6) But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain, yet it is most Page  16 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 n• doubt (as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was, by good Right, Lord or King over his Family; yet against Right did h• enlarge his Empire, by seizing violentl• on the Rights of other Lords of Fami∣lies: And in this sense he may be sai• to be the Author and first Founder o• Monarchy. And all those that do attri∣bute unto him the Original Regal Pow∣er, do hold he got it by Tyranny o• Usurpation, and not by any due Ele∣ction of the People or Multitude, o• by any Faction with them.

As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even until the Egyptian Bondage; so we find it a∣mongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau. I• 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 Page  17 their families & their places by their nations.

(7) Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but •ome petty Lords under some greater Kings, because the number of them are so many, that their particular Territories •ould be but small, and not worthy the Ti∣•e of Kingdoms; but they must consider, •hat at first, Kings had no such large Do∣minions as they have now adays; we find • the time of Abraham, which was about •00 years after the Flood, that in a little •orner of Asia, 9 Kings at once met in Ba∣••il, most of which were but Kings of •ities apiece, with the adjacent Territo∣•es, as of Sodom, Gomorrah, Shinar, &c. In •he same Chapter is mention of Melchise∣•ck King of Salem, which was but the Ci∣•• of Jerusalem. And in the Catalogue of ••e Kings of Edom, the Names of each •ing's City is recorded, as the only Mark • distinguish their Dominions. In the •and of Canaan, which was but a small cir∣•it, Joshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings; •nd about the same time, Adonibeseck had •o Kings, whose Hands and Toes he had * •t off, and made them feed under his Ta∣••e. A few years after this, 32 Kings came • Benhadad King of Syria, and about Seventy Page  18 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 th• Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Juris∣diction was intermitted, because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites ou• of Bondage, God out of a special Ca• of them, chose Moses and Josuah suc∣cessively to govern as Princes in th• Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time, h• raised up Judges, to defend his People in time of Peril. But when God gav• the Israelites Kings, he reestablished th• Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Suc∣cession to Paternal Government. And Page  19 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 •n 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 Ju∣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 •nto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus, Be Lord over thy Brethren, and •et the Sons of thy Mother how before thee. *

Page  20 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• Page  21 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; •herefore the wisdom of All or Most Prin∣ces have thought fit to adopt many times •hose 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∣•al Favours. All such prime Heads and •athers have power to consent in the Page  22 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  23 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  22 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 Universal 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 suc• cases, the Judgement of God, who ha•• power to give and to take away King¦doms, is most just: yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgment without Commission, is sinful and dam∣nable. God doth but use and turn men Unrighteous Acts to the performance o• his Righteous Decrees.

(10.) In all Kingdoms or Common wealths in the World, whether th• Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such Page  23 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 •y a Natural Law, and Subjection to •rinces, but by the Mediation of an •umane Ordinance; what reason is there •hat the Laws of Nature should give •ace to the Laws of Men? as we see he power of the Father over his Child, Page  24 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.