A defence of Sir Robert Filmer, against the mistakes and misrepresentations of Algernon Sidney, esq. in a paper delivered by him to the sheriffs upon the scaffold on Tower-Hill, on Fryday December the 7th 1683 before his execution there.

A DEFENCE OF Sir Robert Filmer.

I AM not of the number of thoſe, who delight to rake in the Aſhes of the Dead; and had this unfortunate Gentleman ſpared the memory of Sir Robert Filmer, or treated him with more Truth and Generoſity, I would never have appeared againſt him, how much ſoever I deteſt the Cauſe of his Ruine; for I think Death a ſufficient Puniſhment even for Treaſon, and would rather commiſerate the miſery, and folly of Mankind, in being ingaged in ſuch lewd, and wicked Practices, as ſhould hurl them into an Ignominious and Untimely Grave, than inſult over them that are ſo unfortunate.

But when Perſons of Noble Birth, and great Eſtates, the Favourites of Heaven and Earth; whoſe infancy promiſeth a great Honour and Happineſs to their Country: When theſe Morning Stars, I ſay, degenerate, and become the Plagues and Miſeries of the Age; when they endeavour to undermine that Throne, which hath diſtinguiſhed them, or their Anceſtors from the Populace, and affixed deſcending Honours upon their Families, when ſuch as theſe prove not only ungrateful but unnatural, if it were in my power, their Memory ſhould periſh with them, that when-ever this happened, Poſterity might ſtand amazed at it, as a New and Monſtrous thing.

But this Gentleman might have claimed from me, a greater degree of Pity than ſome other, upon the account of the time of his Birth, and Education. For he was, as he tells us in the end of this Paper, engaged from his Youth in the Old Cauſe, and had according to the Cant of thoſe Times imbibed an Opinion, that God had often wonderfully declared himſelf for it. And ſome men, being once throughly ſeaſoned with any thing, become thereby ſo prejudiced, that they are never after able to deliver their Souls, and to ſay, is there not a Lye in my right hand! And tho' theſe may juſtly be cut off, they being the worſt, moſt incurable, and dangerous Members of a Society, yet Humanity will teach us to interr them with Silence, and Sorrow, as we do the Putrified and Gangreen'd Members of a Living Body.

But when ſuch as theſe, unſatisfied with the Miſchief they have done in their Lives, ſhall endeavour to intail their Ills upon Poſterity, and defame the Memory of Virtuous Men, who are dead, and not able to anſwer for themſelves, this is ſo Barbarous, and Deſtructive, that I think every man is obliged to defend the Common Intereſt, who would be willing to have his Good Name flouriſh after Death. And this, and nothing elſe, hath engaged my Pen on the behalf of a Gentleman, who was known to me by nothing but his Learned, and Ingenious Works, and in all probability died when I was an Infant.

I will be as ſhort, and put as little Gall into my Ink, as is poſſible, for the ſake of Mr. Sidney's Relations, and if I happen to ſpeak ſome things, that have been ſaid by others upon this very Paper before, I humbly beſpeak the Pardon of the World, for I have not ſeen one of thoſe Papers, that have been Printed upon it.

Tho' the Seaſon of the Year, the Infirmities of his Age, encreaſed by a cloſe Impriſonment of above five Months, might be allowed as reaſonable Cauſes, why he ſhould not ſpeak much at his Execution; yet in my poor judgment, they will afford him little excuſe either for what he hath, or what he hath not delivered in Writing, ſince he was pleaſed to take that way: For it had been as eaſy, and much more becoming a Chriſtian, a Subject, and a Martyr, as he ſeems deſirous to be thought, to have told the World, whether he were Guilty, or not, of the things laid to his Charge, than to Arraign his Judges; to have exhorted the People to Loyalty and Obedience towards their Gracious King, and to have prayed for the Peace, and Proſperity of his Prince, and Country, as to complain of the Age, and yet at the ſame time endeavour to make it worſe, by an unſeaſonable, and unbecoming Declamation.

We live, ſaith he, in an Age that maketh Truth paſs for Treaſon: I dare not ſay any thing contrary unto it, and the Ears of thoſe that are about me will probably be found too tender to hear it.

It is very ſtrange, that Truth and Treaſon ſhould of late become ſuch near Allies, that a cautious, a dying man ſhould fear they might be miſtaken one for the other on the Scaffold. A modeſt man at that time would have looked a little jealouſly however upon ſuch a parcel of Truths, and have ſuſpected them for falſhoods, and deluſions, or at leaſt have ſuſpended his Judgment for a few Minutes, till Death might have diſſipated that Miſt of Mortality, which as probably might have miſled him, as all thoſe that were about him.

But whatever his Opinion was, there was no reaſon for the Complaint, whatever he had ſpoken, or written could make his Condition no worſe in this World. And he knew, no man better, that the Age in which we live permits a licentious Liberty to all, Tacit. H. Lib. 1. —Rara Temporum faelicitate, ubi ſentire quae velis, & quae ſentias dicere licet, to think what they pleaſe, and to ſpeak (almoſt) whatever they think, at leaſt I believe this Rare Felicity, was never more abuſed, than in the Age in which we live; and if there were never another Inſtance to be given of it, the Printing his Paper would ſatisfie Poſterity, this Complaint was neither reaſonable nor well grounded.

But, alas! this Gentleman had taken up a Set of Opinions, which are, and ever will be accounted Treaſons in all Governments, but Pure Democracies, to the end of the World. And I am perſwaded the Pretended Common-Wealth of England would hardly have endured ſuch Doctrines, as he hath broached in this Paper: At leaſt I am ſure it was contrary to their Intereſt.

What he hath ſaid concerning the Evidence given againſt him, and the Lord Howard, I ſhall leave to others, my Chief concern being with the Papers, and not with them, neither as they were produced to prove Mr. Sidney Guilty, but as written againſt Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, or, the Natural Power of Kings.

This (the Teſtimony by word of Mouth) being laid aſide, (ſaith he) the whole Matter is reauced to the Papers, ſaid to be found in my Cloſet by the Kings Officers, without any other Proof of their being Written by me, than what is taken from Suppoſitions, upon the Similitude of an Hand, that is eaſily Counterfeit, &c.

But was it only ſaid, that they were found in his Cloſet? Was it not Sworn by a Gentleman, againſt whoſe Credit Mr. Sidney had nothing to object, at the Tryal? And was not all the care imaginable taken that no Counterfeit Papers might be foiſted in afterwards, by Sealing them up in a Trunk, Tryal. p. 21. and Mr. Sidney himſelf deſired to ſet his Seal too on them for his further aſſurance? Such groundleſs, and almoſt impoſſible Surmiſes as theſe, betray a bad Cauſe ſupported with much wilfulneſs.

But that which follows is much worſe. For tho' we ſhould grant it no very difficult thing to Counterfeit a Name, or a few Lines, who can think ſo large a Diſcourſe, as that Printed in his Tryal, and yet it was not the fiftieth part of the whole, that was produced, and not the tenth of that offered to be read, as he tells us in this Paper. Pag. 2. Can any man in his right Wits, think, any man could, or would counterfeit at this prodigious rate? He tells us in his Tryal, If theſe Papers are right it mentions 200 and odd Sheets. Pag. 34. A bold and unheard of Undertaking, to pretend to Counterfeit ſo much. And ſtrange muſt be the Legerdemain that could get them into the Study ſo opportunely. Quae ſic mihi narras, incredulus odi.

But the crafty Rogue did not only Counterfeit his Hand ſo exactly, that they, that were beſt acquainted with it, ſwore they believed it was all written by Mr. Sidney, but hit his Judgment too; ſo that he ſaid at his Tryal, I do not know whether they are my own or no, (which if they had been Counterfeit, he could not have ſaid) but theſe very Papers, ſuch as they are, do abhor, as much as any one can, ſuch a Deſign. Pag. 32.Which he could never have ſaid neither, if that had been the firſt time he had ever ſeen them: As he ſeems to inſinuate at his Tryal, p. 26. when he replyed, My Lord, let him give an account of it (the Libel) that did it. Nor hath he retracted one Title in this his laſt Paper, of that which was read at his Tryal, but rather confirmed it, and in all probability the Truths, he ſo feared would be taken for Treaſons, may all be found in thoſe Papers. I had not inſiſted ſo long on this, but to ſhew the temper of the man, and to ſhew the Reader how juſt it is, he ſhould not too eaſily believe the Account he gives of Sir Robert Filmer.

He goes on thus, But if I had been ſeen to Write them, the matter would not be much altered, They plainly appear to relate unto a large Treatiſe written long ſince, in Anſwer to Filmer's Book, which by all Intelligent men is thought to be grounded upon Wicked Principles, equally pernicious unto Magiſtrates and People.

Why, if there was ſo little in it, why was all this pains taken to inſinuate an Opinion into the minds of men, that they might poſſibly (for he no where affirms it poſitively) be Counterfeit? And it was much leſs excuſable to do it in this Paper, than at his Tryal: Here he ought to have laid by all his Arts, and Diſguiſes, and with the freedom of a dying man have told the world, whether that Libel were his, or no, for whatever he might think at the Bar, he was ſure on the Scaffold it could not hurt him any further.

But as nice as he is in this, he tells us pretty roundly, what his Opinion is of Filmer's Book, and no man muſt paſs for an Intelligent man, who ſhall preſume to be of another judgment. In very good time! Are all the Intelligent men in the world become Republicans? For I am confident no other man can approve of this Cenſure; and it will poſe a wiſer man, than he ever was, to prove any one of Sir R. Filmer's Principles (without wreſting) wicked or pernicious to any other Magiſtrates, or People, but ſuch as have itching Fingers to be plucking down their Princes, and calling them to account, and revenging their own ſuppoſed Wrongs on them. And for ſuch Magiſtrates, ſuch People, none but Traytors would concern themſelves in a Monarchy, any otherwiſe than to deteſt and abhor them and their pernicious Principles.

Having thus paſſed a general Cenſure upon Sir R. Filmer's Book, he comes in the next place to a more particular, which runs thus,

pag. 2. If he might publiſh unto the world his Opinion, That all men are born under a Neceſſity derived from the Laws of God and Nature, to ſubmit unto an abſolute Kingly Government, which could be reſtrained by no Laws or Oath; and that he, that hath the Power, whether he came unto it by Creation, Election, Inheritance, Uſurpation, or any other way, had the Right, and none muſt oppoſe his Will, but the Perſons, and Eſtates of his Subjects muſt be indiſpenſably ſubject unto it; I know not why I might not have publiſhed my Opinion to the contrary, without the breach of any Law, I have yet known.

Theſe are his words, and it is my duty to enquire how far he hath truly repreſented Sir Robert Filmer's judgment.

And as to his firſt Propoſition, That all men are born, &c. I believe he will not be able to ſhew it me in terminis any where in Sir R. Filmer's Works, but I think I can ſhew him the contrary, Patriarcha, p. 6.

I am not to queſtion, or quarrel at the Rights, or Liberties of This, or any Other Nation, my task is chiefly to enquire from whom Theſe firſt came, not to diſpute what, or how many theſe are; but whether they were derived from the Laws of Natural Liberty, or from the Grace and Bounty of Princes. My deſire and hope is, that the People of England may, and do enjoy as ample Priviledges, as any Nation under Heaven; the greateſt Liberty in the World (if it be duly 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.

And after this, pag. 53. he hath theſe words, Indeed the world for a long time knew no other ſort of Government, but only Monarchy. The beſt Order, the greateſt Strength, the moſt Stability, and Eaſieſt Government, are to be found all in Monarchy, and in no other Form of Government. And he doth every where prefer Monarchy before all other Forms, but that he hath any where condemned Ariſtocracies, or Democracies, as contrary to the Laws of God, and Nature, is not to be ſhewn in him; tho' at the ſame time he owns Monarchy, as Ariſtotle did, to be the Firſt, the Natural, and the Divineſt Form of Government, p. 53. But to infer from hence, That all men are born under a Neceſſity, derived from the Laws of God and Nature, to ſubmit unto an abſolute Kingly Government, is ſuch a Conſequence as nothing but paſſion could draw from thoſe Principles. Grotius de jure Belli & pacis. l, 2. Cap. 5. Sect. 9. n. 3. For tho' Monarchy ſhould be yielded to be the beſt, it will not follow, that all other Forms are unlawful, tho' it will, that they are not ſo natural, ſo eaſie, ſafe, and convenient.

Nor are all Monarchies equally abſolute, for tho' it is Eſſential to a Monarch to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , , That is free from Coertion and Puniſhment, and Legibus Solutus. Grot. de J. Belli. l. 2. Cap. 4. Se per modum Legis, id eſt ſuperioris, obligare nemo poteſt: & hinc eſt quod Legum Auctores habent jus Leges ſuas mutandi: This freedom from the Coactive power of Laws is common to all forms of Government. And belongs to the Perſon or Perſons in whom the Supreme Power is lodged, and is of Abſolute Neceſſity, becauſe no Government can ſubſiſt without it. Patriarch. pag. 99. Vide Suarez de leg. lib. 1. Cap. 8. Sect. 9. lib. 3. Cap. 35. Sect 3. Nullus poteſt ſibi ipſi praecipere, inducendo obligationem—quia praeceptum poſtulat dominum: Nullus autem poteſt juriſdictionem in ſe habere, nec ſibi ipſi eſſe ſubjectus. That is free from the Coactive Power of Laws, as Sir R. Filmer hath it p. 91. So that what ever he doth, his Subjects cannot call him to an account, or puniſh him. Tho' I ſay theſe things are Eſſential to all Monarches, as ſuch; yet it will not preſently follow, that all Monarches have equal Powers, becauſe tho' at firſt they were all equal, yet ſince ſome of them have granted to their Subjects greater Priviledges, than others have; and ſo, tho' the People cannot claim them, as Natural Liberties, nor reſiſt their Princes with Force, and Arms, if they be invaded: Yet they may petition them, to continue to them the Grace, and Bounty of their Anceſtors. And ſuch Princes are bound ſo to do, not out of Fear of puniſhment from their Subjects, but that they may have the Love, and Advance the Welfare of their Subjects, which is indeed their own.

That this is agreeable to Sir Robert Filmer, appears, pag. 93. (Sect. 6.) Now albeit Kings, who make the Laws, be (as King James doth teach us) above the Laws; yet will they rule their Subjects by the Law; and a King Governing in a Setled Kingdom, leaves to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, ſo ſoon as he ſeems not to Rule according to his Laws; yet where he ſees the Laws rigorous, or doubtful, he may mitigate, and interpret. And a little after, altho' a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws, yet he is not bound thereto, but at his good will, and for good example; Or ſo far forth as the General Law of the ſafety of the Common-weale doth naturally bind him; for in ſuch ſort, only Poſitive Laws may be ſaid to bind the King, not by being Poſitive, but as they are naturally the Beſt or Only means for the preſervation of the Common-Wealth. By this means are all Kings, even Tyrants and Conquerors, bound to preſerve the Lands, Goods, Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects, not by any municipal Laws of the Land, ſo much as the Natural Law of a Father, which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-fathers and Predeceſſors, in things neceſſary for the Publick Good of their Subjects.

Principem non ligari Legibus, ſcilicet, quoad vim Coactivam. 1. quia Coactio ex intrinſeca raticne ſua poſtulat, ut ab extrinſeco proveniat, Ergo Princeps non poteſt cogere ſeipſum per ſuam Legem. Nec etiam cogi poteſt a ſubditis, quia nullus Inferior poteſt violentas manus inficere in Superiorem, nec etiam poteſt cogi ab aequali, qui non habet in illum Juriſdictionem, not denique a Superiore, quia agimus de Principe, qui Superiorem non habet, &c. Suarez de Leg. 3. cap. 35. Sect. 15. Paena per ſe fertur in invitum & ideo ferri non poteſt niſi ab habente Superiorem poteſtatem in alium tanquam ſibi ſubditum. ibid.Theſe are the very words of that Author, and much more there is to the ſame purpoſe in this piece; ſo that tho' Mr. Sidney ſays, That the Regal Power could be reſtrained by no Laws, i. e. that it muſt of neceſſity be Tyrannical, according to Filmer's deſcription of it; yet this is a great miſtake,, for a Man may be as firmly bound by his Intereſt, by the fear of God, by Conſcience, &c. as by the fear of Puniſhment, and theſe are common to Princes with their Subjects; and indeed, even amongſt Subjects, where the fear of Puniſhment is the only motive, the Obedience is weak, irregular, unſteady, and for the moſt part of no long duration.

His next Complaint is, That, according to Sir R. Filmer, the Regal Power could not be reſtrained by any Oaths. Now let us ſee, in the next place, what Filmer ſaith for that, and we ſhall find it, Patriarcha, pag. 95. (7.) Others there be that affirm, that although Laws of themſelves do not bind Kings, yet the Oaths of Kings, at their Coronations, tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms. How far this is true, let us but examine the Oath of the Kings of England at their Coronation, the Words whereof are theſe. Art thou pleaſed to cauſe to be Adminiſtred in all thy Judgments indifferent and upright Juſtice, and to uſe diſcretion with Mercy and Verity? Art thou pleaſed that our upright Laws and Cuſtoms be obſerved, and doſt thou promiſe, that thoſe ſhall be Protected and Maintained by thee? Theſe are the Articles of the Kings Oath, which concern the Laity, or Subjects in general; to which the King anſwers affirmatively; being firſt demanded by the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, Pleaſeth you to confirm and obſerve the Laws and Cuſtoms of Anticot Times granted from God, by juſt and devout Kings, unto the Engliſh Nation, by Oath unto the ſaid People, eſpecially the Laws, Liberties and Cuſtoms, granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the Famous King Edward. We may obſerve, in theſe Words of the Articles of the Oath, that the King is required to obſerve not All the Laws, but only the Upright, and that with Diſcretion, and Mercy. The word, Upright, cannot mean all Laws, becauſe in the Oath of Richard the Second, I find evil, and unjuſt Laws mentioned, which the King ſwears to aboliſh.—So that in effect the King doth Swear to keep no Laws, but ſuch as in his Judgment are Upright, and thoſe not literally always, but according to the Equity of his Conſcience, joyned with Mercy, which is properly the Office of a Chancellor rather than of a Judge; and if a King did ſtrictly ſwear to obſerve all the Laws, he could not without Perjury give his conſent to the Repealing, or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament, which would be very miſchievable to the State.

But let it be ſuppoſed for truth, that Kings do ſwear to obſerve all the Laws of their Kingdoms, yet no man can think it reaſon, that Kings ſhould be more bound by their voluntary Oaths, than common Perſons are by theirs. Now if a private Perſon make a Contract, either with Oath, or without Oath, he is no further bound than the Equity, and Juſtice of the Contract ties him; for a man may have relief againſt an unreaſonable, and unjuſt promiſe, if either Deceit, or Errour, or Force, or Fear induced him thereunto; or if it be hurtful, or grievous in the performance. Since the Laws in many Caſes give the King a Prerogative above common perſons, I ſee no reaſon, why he ſhould be denied the Priviledge, which the Meaneſt of his Subjects doth enjoy.

Theſe are Sir R. Filmer's own words, and now let the Reader judge, whether Mr. Sidney have truly repreſented him in this particular. I come now to his next particular, which is about acquiring the Right of Dominion, wherein Mr. Sidney repreſents Sir R. Filmer's Opinion in theſe words: And that he, that hath the Power, whether he came unto it by Creation, Election, Inheritance, Ʋjurpation, or any other way, had the Right.

That is, had an equal right, for ſo it muſt be underſtood. Now of theſe, the firſt, Creation, is not mentioned in Sir R. Filmer, and is non-ſenſe, when it is applyed to a Soveraign Prince; the other two, Election and Inheritance, are not quarrel'd; but upon the laſt, Mr. Sidney ſpends all his forces: Before I conſider what he hath ſaid, I will repreſent Sir R. Filmer in his own words. Patriarcha, pag. 22.

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 Kingdoms, is moſt juſt; yet the Miniſtry of Men, who execute Gods Judgments without Commiſſion, is ſinful and damnable. God doth but uſe and turn Mens Ʋnrighteous Acts to the performance of his Righteous Decrees.

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 Ʋſurpation, 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 Common-Wealth; Yet ſtill the Authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all theſe, is the only right and natural 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 unjuſtly obtain the Exerciſe of it.

In a private eſtate the title is held good, if it came by Juſt deſcent, or elſe by Gift or Purchaſe, from thoſe who had that right thereunto, and if it hath quietly and happily paſſed the third and fourth Generation, he that hath read the 2d Commandment will be ready to yield him (the proprietor) Gods apprebation for it. But if it be made evident, that no good title can be produced againſt it, that it hath ſo continued time out of mind, without apparent uſurpation, the owner hath indeed Gods title to it.

The reaſon is the ſame and much ſtronger for Princes. The Doctrine of the Scripture concerning the Original of Dominion. pag. 76. Grotius de jure Belli & Pacis. lib. 2. c. 4.

I do not obſerve that he hath any where determined in this piece, when, and how far Subjects are bound to ſubmit to an Uſurper. But I will give the beſt judgment, I can, in it. Firſt then, I ſay, taking an Uſurper in the right Notion, for one that hath no lawful, or juſt Title, the Subjects are bound to reſiſt him, and ſtand for the Lawful Heir, and his Poſterity, as long as they are, or can be known, as far as is poſſible without apparent deſtruction. But if the Right Heir, or Family fail, or is extinguiſhed; then that Obligation fails, and the Event is to be taken as the declaration of the Will of God, and the Heirs of the Uſurper will have a good Title againſt any other Perſon, or Family, in the World; who can have no right to Uſurp upon them, becauſe their Anceſtors did ſo upon another preceding Family. And this is for the Peace, and Welfare of the World. And that Injury, which Uſurpers do, is reſerved to the Juſtice of a Righteous, and Almighty God, who will puniſh them ſeverely in the next world, if they eſcape in this: But on the other ſide, if there ſhould be left an Eternal Liberty to Subjects, and other men, to revenge from one Generation to another, one Uſurpation with another, the World would be turned into an Aceldama, a Field of Blood, to the ruine of many thouſands of poor innocent ſouls.

His laſt Complaint in this Paragraph is, That, according to Sir R. F. None muſt oppoſe His (the Princes) Will, but the Perſons and Eſtates of His Subjects muſt be indiſpenſably ſubject unto it. Now, if by Oppoſing be underſtood Reſiſting, I yield him the point; and I think it is the only point, in which he hath truly repreſented Sir R. Filmer's Judgment.

Now, in Anſwer to this, I ſay, 1ſt. That in every Society, or Community under Heaven, that is Licet ſingulae per ſe ſpectatae (Communitates) perfecta ſunt: tamen illa, quae eſt pars alterius, ſub hac ratiene imperfecta eſt, non abſolutè, ſed comparatè, ſeu reſpectivè. Suarez de leg. L. 1. c. 7. Sect. 19. perfect within it ſelf, and doth not depend upon another, there muſt be an abſolute and uncontrollable Power fixed ſome where, which may indiſpenſably, and irreſiſtably diſpoſe of the Eſtates, and Perſons od the Subjects within that Society, or Community. For if every man be left at liberty to diſpoſe of his own Eſtate, and Perſon, as he pleaſeth himſelf, then can he have no Protection but what his own Natural Force will afford him, and that will certainly be overpowred at one time or other, by others.

Without this, there can be no juſtice Adminiſtred within the Society; for if every particular man may be Judge in his own caſe, the right will certainly be aſſerted on both ſides, tho' it really can be but on one; no Malefactor will ever condemn himſelf, nor ſubmit to Juſtice, if he can and may reſiſt, and if a War happen, every man will be for ſaving his own Goods from the expence, his own Perſon from the danger of it. And the Conſequence muſt be, that that Society, or Multitude rather, muſt periſh, either by Internal diſorders, or External force.

2ly. This Power is, and muſt be One, in every Society, it is indiviſible; for ſuppoſing, that it ſhould be divided in the ſame Society into two, or more parts, as betwixt two men, or two Senates, or Councils, without any dependance upon one another, or any third thing;Rom. 13. 4. Both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Miniſter is in the ſingular Number, to ſhew God is not the Author of contending Powers, and the Inſtrument is ſo too, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Sword not Swords, to ſhew there ſhould be but one, in every Nation, nor can there be more of God's appointment. the Conſequence muſt needs be, that they differing, and oppoſing one another, and having no lawful Power fixed in either of them to oblige the other to ſubmit, muſt have recourſe to force and Armes, and ſo that Society can never reſt, till this Supreme Soveraign power be reduced to One.

Now whether it be in a ſingle perſon, or in many, or in all, where ever it is lodged, none muſt oppoſe, that is, reſiſt it. And yet no man can aſſure himſelf of more Juſtice from a Senate, or a Multitude, than from a Prince, or ſingle Perſon. So that this inconvenience of being liable to Oppreſſion, and Injury, is one of thoſe Levat dolorem communis quaſi legis, & Humanae conditionis, recordatio. Cicer. Fam. Ep. l. 6. Ep. 6. Humane Miſeries, that upon the Fall took poſſeſſion of the World, and can never be purged out of it, till the final Conflagration.

Nor would Reſiſtance, if it were lawful, cure, but increaſe the Miſchief; for upon that ſuppoſition, the injured Party muſt be his own Judge, and ſo muſt the other too, and the Tryal muſt be by dint of Blows, Force, and Arms: And ſo there could be no Law, but that of the Sword, no Execution, but Martial.

Rom. 13. 1.So that when God commanded every ſoul, by the Apoſtle, to be ſubject to the Higher Powers, and threatned Damnation to them that Reſiſt, it is not to be thought (nor can it without Blaſphemy) that he did not foreſee, that the Higher Powers would ſome times grievouſly injure, and oppreſs their Subjects, nor was it becauſe he did approve of their Injuries, and Oppreſſions, but becauſe he knew it was better for Subjects to ſuffer patiently, than to reſiſt rebelliouſly, to be Martyrs than Traytors; and he alſo thereby engaged himſelf, (who only is able) to revenge thoſe Wrongs, which Subjects neither might, nor could revenge without their own ruine.

Now if he (Mr. Sidney) did not know, that he might not publiſh his Opinion to the contrary of theſe things, he was very ignorant, but ignorantia Legis excuſat neminem, eſpecially when the ignorance is wilful, or but pretended, that a man may with impunity inſtill Seditious Principles into the Rabble.

I might as freely, and as publickly have declared my Thoughts, and the reaſons upon which they were grounded, and I perſwaded to believe: That God had left Nations unto the liberty of ſetting up ſuch Governments, as beſt pleaſed themſelves.

Now tho' this is directly contrary to Sir R. Pilmer and the truth of things, yet if Mr. Sidney had gone no further, he might poſſibly have died of a Natural death, but this would not ſerve his turn, except he left the Multitude at liberty to change the form of Government, which was ſet up, as often as they pleaſed, as I ſhall ſhew before I conclude.

But then this Propoſition gives the lie to the whole Hiſtory of the Creation, delivered by Moſes. For if God laid the foundation of Mankind, in one ſingle Perſon Adam, and out of him, and after him, and for him, made Eve, then was ſhe Subject naturally to him. And much more his, and her Children, and by Conſequence during his Life, there could be no other Form of Government ſet up, but that of a Natural Monarchy, or Supreme Father, which God himſelf had thus introduced, and took in all Mankind. Magiſtratum & civilem Ordinationem DEVS inſtituit ſub ipſum ſtatim creationis tempus, quande poteſtatem tradidit Adae in ea Omnia quae in Terra & Mari ſunt. Calvini Lexicon Jurid. verbo—Magiſtratus. It is obſervable, God gave Adam this Dominion before Eve was Created. Gen. 1. 26. So ſhe had no right but from Adam; and by his permiſſion and Gift.

And when Adam died, his Authority died not with him, for God had before determined on whom it ſhould deſcend, when he told enraged Cain, that his brother Abels Deſire ſhould be ſubject to him, and he ſhould rule over him, Gen. 4. 7. By which words, God gave the Elder brother the ſame Authority over all the younger Children, he had given Adam before over his Wife, Gen. 3. 16. Which muſt be underſtood to take place after the death of the Father. So that here is an Hereditary Monarchy ſetled by God himſelf in the very infancy of Mankind, as Sir R. Filmer hath proved more at large.

And it belongs to Mr. Sidney, and ſuch as he, to ſhew when, and how Nations, or, more properly ſpeaking, the Subjects in Nations, obtained this Liberty. The firſt Nations, after the Flood, had diſtinct Fathers, and are called the Children of their Founder, and were no otherwiſe ſubject to him, than as they were his Children, and it is apparent, that for many hundreds of years, all the Governments of the World were Monarchies, and that the firſt Kingdoms were very ſmall, and hereditary.

Now ſuch a beginning of Mankind, and ſuch a propagation of them, is not conſiſtent with Mr. Sidneys Liberty of ſetting up what Government beſt pleaſed themſelves; why were not Adam's Children left at liberty after his death? Why ſhould God ſubject Eve to her husband, Abel to Cain, if he were ſuch a lover of Equality? Was it not as eaſy to have made 20000 Men and Women as one, and would they not have peopled the World, in much leſt time than one Man, and his Wife? Nay, why did he not make one of either Sex here at firſt, as he did in all the other Creatures? Sir R. Filmer will give you the reaſon of this, p. 30. out of St. Chryſoſtom, God made all mankind of one Man, that he might teach the World, to be Governed by a King, and not by a Multitude.

Now if any man will pretend to oppoſe Reaſons, againſt plain matter of Fact recorded, he will diſcover nothing but his folly, if he own the Bible for the Word of God; his impiety, if he deny it.

I conclude then, if the Multitude have any ſuch liberty now, they had it not from the beginning, and therefore their Advocates muſt produce their Charter, and make good their Title, or elſe I can ſee no more reaſon to believe them, than the Devil, when he told our Saviour, Luk 4. 6. All this Power will I give thee, and the Glory of them, for that is delivered to me, and to whomſoever I will, I give it. The Devil hath put in his Claim too, and pretends a Deed of Gift, and, I believe, can as eaſily produce it, as the People can theirs.

2. That Magiſtrates were ſet up for the good of Nations, not Nations for the Honour or Glory of Magiſtrates.

This depends upon the former, and therefore doth not deſerve an anſwer, and yet becauſe much ſtreſs is laid upon it of late, I will reply to it: The Term of Magiſtrate is very improper in this place, becauſe it denotes a Subordinate Quibus imperium ita datum eſt, ut redderent, & ab iis legibus datum eſt, ad quas revertendum eſt. Cicer. loco infra citat. Governour, and is not applyable to a Soveraign Prince.

Ac mibi quidem videntur huc omnia eſſe referenda iis, qui praeſunt aliis, ut ii, qui erant eorum imperto, ſint beatiſſimi, &c. Eſt autem non modo ejus, qui ſociis & civibus, ſed etiam, ejus qui ſervis, qui multis pecudibas praeſit, eorum, quibus praeſit, commodis utilitatique ſervire, Cicer. Epiſt. ad Quint. Frat. l. 1. E. 1. Sure no man will hence infer, the Flock is to be preferred before the Shepherd.In the next place, I ſee no oppoſition between the two parts of his Adverſative Propoſition, becauſe they are both true in the copulative form. For Magiſtrates [Kings] are ſet up for the good of Nations, and Nations for the Honour, and Glory, and Service of Magiſtrates. Thus Eve, and all her Children, were produced for the Good of Adam. God ſaid, it is not good that the Man ſhould be alone: I will make him a help meet for him, Gen. 2. 18. And ſhe was the firſt Subject, and if ſhe were made for her Husbands ſake, not he for hers, the Children will appear by the ſame reaſon, to be born for the Honour, Safety, and Service of the Father, and not the Father made for theirs: And when Families grew to Nations, ſtill the Reaſon and Nature of the thing was the ſame.

In ſhort, if God be the Author and Giver of Kingdoms, this Argument is a ſham, a deluſion; if he be not, but they are of Humane Inſtitution, then there may be ſomething in it. But becauſe the firſt of theſe contradicts the whole current of Scripture, therefore it will take more time to prove it to an Unbeliever, than I can ſpair now; and to others it need not be proved.

3ly. That the Right and Power of Magiſtrates in every Country, was that, which the Laws of that Country made it to be.

Now this is juſt as wiſe, as that which went before, for how came Countiers by Laws? Were Princes before Laws, or Laws before Princes? did the Multitude firſt make Laws, and then chuſe Princes to execute them? Or did Princes give Laws to their Subjects? Were our Engliſh Laws for inſtance, made by our Princes or no? Go to the Heathen, and he will tell thee, Juſtin. lib. 1 At firſt the People were not under Laws: The Wills of Princes ſerved inſtead of Laws. Go to Spelmans Collection of Ancient Saxon Laws, and ſee if you can find one, that was made by the People without the Prince. So that this is a very ſilly Propoſition, and the Allegiance which we owe to our Soveraign, and our Anceſtors ow'd to his, is the cauſe of our ſubmiſſion to the Laws, and not the Laws, the cauſe of our ſubmiſſion to him, and them.

4ly. That thoſe Laws were to be obſerved, and the Oaths taken by them, having the force of a Contract between Magiſtrates, and People, could not be violated without danger of diſſolving the whole Fabrick.

Now ſuppoſe all this be granted, what follows? Why nothing, but that Princes ſhould be as careful, as is poſſible, to keep their Laws in exerciſe, and not to break their Oaths. Well, but ſuppoſe a Prince ſhould not obſerve his Oath or Laws: What then? Or ſuppoſe he do, and ſuch Subjects, as you, will not be ſatisfied, but will belie and ſlander him to his People, as one that hath thoſe about him, that intend to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Government? Well, ſuppoſe in the next place the poor People take the fright, and believe all this; what then? Why this will indanger the diſſolving the whole Fabrick. Tryal. p. 23. But will the People have right hereupon to riſe and puniſh the King? Muſt he expect that the performance will be exacted, or revenge taken by thoſe, he hath (as they pretend) betrayed? Here lies the difference betwixt you, and Sir R. Filmer. Declaratur jus Creditoris, ſed coactio ſequi non poteſt ob ſtatum eorum quibuscum negetium eſt: Nam Subditis, cogere tum cui ſunt Subditi, non licet, &c Grot. de Jun. Belli: lib. 2. cap. 14. Sect. 6. n. 2. Tho I muſt tell you, our Kings do not commence their Reigns from the time of their taking of the Oath, but from the moment of the Expiring of their Predeceſſors, and are Soveraigns before, and without this Oath. Which is an odd kind of Contract, given and made after the party concerned, and bound, is in full and peaceable Poſſeſſion, and which, if he ſhould deny, the other party have no power to exact. Upon the breach of which there lies no Action, but in Heaven: God being the only Judge. In ſhort, it is like the Oath God ſware to Abraham, a condeſcention to humane infirmity, to allay mens Fears, and excite their Love, Fidelity, and Gratitude.

That Ʋſurpation could give no Right.

This Propoſition, if it be joyned to what follows, viz. That if Pipins Uſurpation on the Merovean Race, Hugh Capets on the Caroline Family, being Acts of State, (i. e. made with the conſent of the People) be not good, there is not a King in the World, that hath any Title to the Crown he bears, &c. ſeems to be thus underſtood by Sidney. That no duration of time, be it never ſo long, can give a right to that Family, whoſe Anceſtor came in by Ʋſurpation. Than which nothing in the World is more falſe, except it be that propoſition, that all the Kings in the World are derived from Uſurpers. For it is apparent to all, that our King is not; this Family being derived from the Saxon Line, who were Princes before the Cerdicius primus Weſt Saxonum Rex Gente Germanus, amplis Majoribus, quippela Wodeno decimus, Will. Mal. • l. i: cap. 42. de cujus, ſtirpe m •• tarum Provinciarum regium genus orignem du • it. Bedae. Eccls H. l. 1. cap. 15. from theſe Weſt Saxon Kings his Maeſty is deſcended. H. the 2d. being the Grandchild of Matildis, which was the Daughter of Margaret Queen of the Scots, the Siſter of Edward, the laſt Male of the Weſt Saxon Line. Ailredi Ginealog. Regum Anglorum H. 2. •• diceta, inter Decent Scriptores. Pag. 350. Normans entered England, and although there have been ſeveral Uſurpations in the Line; yet the Line was never changed thereby, but His Majeſty is deſcended from all that ever had a Right to the Crown of England, whoſe Poſterity is not extinct. So that there is never a Perſon in the whole World, whoſe Anceſtor was put by, to make way for his Majeſties Anceſtor. And it may be, tis the moſt Antient Race of Kings, that is upon the face of the Earth, God preſerve it for ever.

He has another odd notion, which I believe is his own. That tho' a Prince, who hath no Title, puts by, or puts out one, that hath an undoubted Title to an hereditary Kingdom. Yet if he have the conſent of the People, (which he calls an Act of State) he is no Ʋſurper, becauſe he obtains the Crown by the conſent of a willing Nation, Grot ac 1 Bell. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 14. Than which there can be nothing more injurious to hereditary Kingdoms, where as the true Notion of an Uſurper, is, one that obtains the Poſſeſſion of a Throne, to which he hath no rightful Title, whether he come in by the conſent of the People, or without it, by Force, Fraud, or Faction.

And the moſt Dangerous of all Enemies unto Kings were they, who raiſing their Power to an exorbitant height, allowed unto Ʋſurpers all the Rights belonging to it.

This is oddly penn'd, and it is probable, when I have proved Sir. R. Filmer to be none of them, it will be pretended, ſome other Perſons were meant, though it can ſcarcely be underſtood of any other than he, and ſuch as found all Government in Paternal Power.

Sir R. Filmer thus declares his Judgment, pag. 23. The Authority that is in any one, (a Prince) or in many, (an Ariſtocracy) or in all, (a Democracy) is the only Right and Natural Authority of a Supreme Father. Which is as much, as if he had ſaid, Humane Power ought never to riſe above the Spring-head. The higheſt that God Ordained in the World amongſt Men, was Paternal Power: And this is no ſuch formidable, exorbitant thing, as Mr. Sidney would bear the World in hand. I cannot better expreſs this, than in the words of Seneca.

Ad Clem. lib. 1. cap. 14. What is the Duty of a Prince? That of kind Parents: Who uſe to chide their Children ſometimes ſweetly, and at other, with more ſharpneſs, and ſometimes correct them with blows. Did ever any wiſe man diſ-inherit his Son for his firſt Offence? Except many and great injuries Conquer his Patience, unleſs that which he fears for the future, he greater than what he Condemns as paſt, he doth not come to a final Sentence. He firſt tries by many ways to Reclaim his unſetled Manners, declining to the worſe; and only proceeds to extremities when he deſpairs. No Parents proceeds to Supplicia. Extirpation, till he hath in vain ſpent all other Remedies. That which becomes a Parent, becomes a Prince: Who is ſtiled THE FATHER OF HIS COƲNTRY, without flattery. In all our other Titles we conſult their Honour. We have call'd them the Great, the Happy, the Auguſt, and heaped upon Ambitious Majeſty all the Titles we could invent, giving theſe to them: But we have ſtyled him the Father of his Country, that the Prince might conſider the Power of a Father was given him. Which is the moſt Temperate of all Powers, conſulting the Welfare of the Children, and preferring their Good before its own. It is a long time before a Father can reſolve to cut off one of his own limbs, and when he hath unwillingly done it, could wiſh it on again; and in the Act groans, and delays a long time before he doth it. For he ſeems to Condemn willingly, who does it quickly; to puniſh unjuſtly, who doth it too ſeverely. The People of Rome, in our memory, almoſt ſlew Erixion, a Gentleman, in the Market-place, for having ſcourged his Son to death; for the Authority of Auguſtus Caeſar could hardly deliver him from the inraged Hands of the Roman Fathers and Children.

This was the Opinion of that great Philoſopher, and Miniſter of State, in that piece he writ on purpoſe to perſwade Princes to Olemency. And for my part, I have ever thought Gods love and kindneſs to Mankind, did never appear in any thing more, except in mans Redemption, than in Creating only one Man, and out of him, only one Woman Filiam non filiam Urorem du • i Eman. Theſaur. de Adamo.: So that Adam was a kind of Father of his Wife. That Marital as well as all other Power, might be founded in Paternal Juriſdiction. That all Princes might look upon the meaneſt of their Subjects as their Children: And all Subjects upon their Prince, as their common Father: And upon each other, as the Children of one Man, that Mankind might not only be vnited in one common Nature, but alſo be of one Blood, of one Family, and be habituated to the beſt of Governments from the very Infancy of the World.

Were this well conſidered, as there could be no Tyrants, ſo neither would there be any Siquidem eſt arccius Patriae parentem, quam ſuum eccidere: Cicero Philip. 2d. Traytors and Rebels, but both Prince and People would ſtrive to out do each other in the Offices of Love and Duty.

And now let any man read Sir R. Filmer's Patriarcha, and ſee if he have aſcribed one dram of Power to Princes, which will not naturally ſpring, and ariſe from Supreme Paternal Power. Which how much ſoever Mr. Sidney may diſlike it, is no Exorbitant height.

As to the ſecond period, or member of this Paragraph, the allowing unto Uſurpers, all the rights belonging unto Princes, upon which Mr. Sidney ſo enlargeth himſelf, in diſplaying the miſchiefs that follow it, I have formerly ſet forth Sir R. Filmer in his own words, by which it will appear, how little reaſon, he hath given for ſuch a declamation.

For firſt he calls it a judgment of God, for the correction of the Prince or a Puniſhment of the People.

2ly. Tho' in this he acknowledgeth God's juſtice, yet he declared the Act to be ſinful, and damnable in them that do it.

Now if this will make a Man a moſt dangerous Enemy unto Kings, how yet can Mr. Sidney pretend to correct him, who in this very paper allows the expulſion of Tarquin, the inſurrection againſt Nero, the Slaughter of Caligula, and Domitian, to be good Acts of State; and will not allow Pipin, and Hugh Capet to be Uſurpers, becauſe they did it by the Conſent of Willing Nations? So that we may ſet our hearts at reſt, for there never was, nor ever ſhall be an Uſurper, except ſuch as having good Titles do not think it neceſſary to Cajole the People, but preſuming upon that, enter the Government without the Leave of Mr. Multitude.

He concludes his reaſons againſt Uſurpers, Thus. This is the Scope of the whole Treatiſe; (viz. That, part of which was at the Tryal produced againſt him) the Writer gives ſuch reaſons as at preſent did occur unto him to prove it. This ſeems to agree with the Doctrines of all times, Nations, and Religions; the Beſt and Wiſeſt of all Kings have ever acknowledged it.—the Scriptures ſeem to declare it; &c.

Now it is a little wonderful, that he ſhould be ſo well acquainted with a piece that was Counterfeit, and laid in his Study; but yet it is much more wonderful, that there ſhould even ſeem (tho' but to him) to be ſuch an Agreement about the power of the People, in ſetting up ſuch Governments as beſt pleaſed them; that the People are judge of all differences that happen between them and their Prince; that he muſt be content to ſubmit his Intereſt unto theirs, ſince he is no more then any one of them, in any other, Reſpect than that, he is by the Conſent of all, raiſed above any other. Tryal p. 23.

Now if theſe, and ſeveral other be ſuch doctrines as he deſcribes, i. e. Approved in all Ages, Nations and Religions, then will I never truſt my Eyes more. Let but the Reader conſult Sir R. Filmers Patriarcha' and he will ſtand amazed at the confidence, prejudice, or partiality of this man.

Indeed the Heathen Philoſophers, and Hiſtorians, being ignorant of the true Hiſtory of the Creation, do generally ſeem to think, that Regall power (which they all own to have been the firſt form of Government,) was introduced by the conſent of the People, and thus Cicero expreſſeth it, de leg. lib. 1. cap. 2. All the Ancient Nations obeyed Kings, which ſort of Dominion (Empire) they (the people) gave at firſt to the moſt Juſt, and Wiſeſt men.

But with Chriſtianity this Doctrine expired; and all the Fathers and Ancient Chriſtians without exception, looked upon God as the Author of Kingly Government, and the Giver of Kings, I will quote only one, St. Auguſtin. De Civit. dei li. 4. cap. 33. God, the Author and Giver of Happineſs, becauſe he only is the true God, gives himſelf earthly Kingdoms both to the Good, and to the Bad, and this not inconſiderately, and as it were by chance, becauſe he is God, and not Fortune; but according to the Order of things and times, which is ſecret as to us, but moſt perfectly known to him. And this was the Doctrine of all Chriſtians, till Pope Zachary revived the old Heathen Doctrines, to juſtifie the Depoſition of Childerick, and Election of Pipin in France. The King (ſaith he) Aven. l. 3. Annal. Boiariae is Obnoxious to the People by whoſe favour he injoys whatſoever he hath, that is, he received from them his Power, Honour, Riches, Glory, and Dignity. The Multitude (Plebs) makes a King, and may DEPOSE him. Sacro Sancta regum Majeſtas p. 26. A Learned man of our Country, cites this paſſage, and ſaith, that for ought he knew, he was the firſt Divine, or Pope of Rome either, that ſaid ſo, or writ ſo. So in all probability, here is the firſt Chriſtian Author of Mr. Sidneys Doctrine about the middle of the 7th Centry. How, and for what ends it was imbraced by the School-men, and after them by the Presbyterians, you may find in the beginning of the Patriarcha.

The reſt deſerves juſt as much Credit as this doth, and might moſt eaſily be anſwered, if it were worth the while.

There is one thing more he quarrelled Sir R. Filmer, for at his Tryal. p. 33. He ſaith, it is the ſame thing, whether (a Prince be) of Age or no, a Man, or a Child, of Senſe, or out of Senſe.

And ſo doubtleſs it is, as to the right, tho' not as to the exerciſe of that right, thus Sir R. expreſſeth it, by this means (Succeſſion) pag. 20. 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. Eſt tamen to quoque tempore Filius out Filia, capax Dominii in res ex jure gentium, Sed Exercitium impeditur ob judicii imperfectionem, &c. Grot. de jur. Bell, l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 1. n. 2.

Of this the Scriptures give ſeveral Examples, and ſome of them have proved excellent Princes, But then ſuch Princes have ever had Guardians, or Protectors.

But this Gentleman ſeems to yield the Point, when he ſaith, unleſs be (any Prince) could deduce his pedigree from the Eldeſt Son of Noah, and ſhew, that the ſucceſſion had ſtill continued in the Eldeſt of the Eldeſt Line, and been ſo deducted to him.

Why, what if a Prince could do this? then it ſeems Mr. Sidney would allow him a right to his Crown without the conſent of the people, which muſt be by the right of Primogeniture, and Nature. Well, there is certainly ſuch a man in the World, how came the people in every Nation by his right?

If any Prince ſhould pretend a Right to an Univerſal Monarchy, I think it were but reaſonable, he ſhould be put to make out his Title, according to Mr. Sidney's Rule; but ſeeing no body does ſo, to the beſt of my knowledge, it is but reaſonable that all Princes ſhould in the mean time enjoy what they are in lawful poſſeſſion of, till this Heir of Noah hath make out his Pedigree and Title, and then they may conſider further of it.

And in the interim, Mr. Sidney will certainly be wiped out of Mr. Multitudes Calendar of Saints, and Martyrs, for thus betraying their Caſe to the Kings, and Princes of the World, who will never now willingly ſurrender their Crowns, and Scepters, but ſtill pretend (when all other Arguments fail) they keep them to the uſe of Noah's Heir general.

Thus I have, with as much brevity as I could, anſwered what ever I have remarked, in this Paper or the Tryal, that doth particularly relate to Sir R. Filmer; and if the Reader will but be pleaſed to read that piece himſelf, it will abundantly ſatisfie him, that all Mr. Sidney's Clamour againſt it is cauſeleſs, and unreaſonable, the ſole Effect of paſſion, intereſt, prejudice, and ſuch other humane infirmities.

For tho' this is a Poſthumous piece, and for want of the laſt hand of that Learned Gentleman, is not ſo full, and perfect as he might have made it, yet there are ſuch threads of Learning, Truth, Modeſty, Loyalty, and Prudence, run through every part of it, that the Reader will think his pains abundantly recompenſed.

FINIS.