were not so much as an essential part of the Parliament and it is certain that Edward the Confessor took the same course about his Laws as the Greeks and Romans formerly had done the first fetching their institutions from the Aegyptians and the latter from the Greeks So King Edward having gathered together the Laws of the Mercians West Saxons Danes and Northumbrians he selected the best and compiled them into one body which being approved in Councilâ— by his own authority he commanded they should be observed and they were the fountain of those which we call at this day the Common Law Canutus the Danish Vsurpeâ— called also a Council or Parliament at Oxford in which he made several good Laws but I do not find that the Commoners pretended any right in the Supreme authority at that time any more than afterwards But however I cannot believe that their example is any argument for us to forsake the present constitution of our English Monarchy to hunt after the polity of an Invader who with his Successors enjoyed not the Crown of England the fiftieth part so long as the Norman Line hath done Now Cousin you see what is become of those great expectations which we might have had from the noise and bustle which our Author makes of the Northern polities and their exact rules of Government but so it falls out that in our days mountains are no less apt to bring forth mice than formerly And that when there is a great cry there is not always the more wooll For in this case contrary to his undeniable Aphorism though it may possibly be true that the Saxons made some division of the Lands amongst the people for our present division of Lands and Tenures also were generally made and instituted by the Normans yet they retained the Soveraign authority themselves Merch. Sir I am obliged to you for remembring me of what I had read before but could not apply it so well to our present purpose as you have done But believing that you are clearly in the right I shall not trouble you any farther concerning those Northern polities but desire that you would proceed and let me know what you mean by the rational part Trav. By the rational part I mean this that granting all to be true which our Author hath affirmed concerning those Goths and Northern people and that in the original constitution of our Government the people had a share in the Supreme Authority and that the prerogative which our King at present lawfully possesses hath been by degrees gained from the people All which is so notoriously false that on the contrary the people have lately encroached upon the prerogative yet I say at this time and as our present circumstances stand it is more rational that all honest and sober men who laying aside ambition and malice consider impartially the just rights and liberties of the people together with the preservation of our Government and the general happiness of the Nation should rather endeavour by all lawful means to increase the power of his present Majesty than diminish it And supposing we were at liberty to choose what form of Government we pleased rather continue it a Monarchy as it is than set up such a Democratical form or phantastical model as our Author having stoln it in a great measure from the propositions of the Rebels sent to the late King in the Isle of Wight and the transactions of Forty Eight hath proposed to us Merch. The performance of this Sir will be such a full satisfaction to us all that nothing will remain farther for our consideration but to contrive a means how we may better secure our present Government and by enacting farther good Laws if necessary with a strict execution of them reduce our pestilent Republican disturbers of our peace unto a due obediencâ— to their Natural and Lawful Prince One thing more I must beg of you by the way which is to let me know why you suppose all along that ouâ— Author would set up a Common-wealth since he tells us plainly p. 209. That he abhorrs the thoughts of wishing a Democracy much less endeavouring any such thing during these circumstances we are now in that is under Oaths of obedience to a Lawful King Trav. I thank you Sir for putting me in mind of it but indeed I thought you had by this time sufficiently understood how to distinguish a Presbyterian or otherwise Phanatical Commonwealth man's publick declaration from his more private meaning I must therefore mind you of this observation by the way that I never yet met with any of those Authors who was not demonstrably a wilful malicious Knave in his writings But truly in this case I think our Author is frank and plain enough I shall therefore mind you of some passages which I shall leave to your own Interpretation He tells us p. 182. That our present estate inclines to popularity and I do not find but that he inclines as much to comply with our estate as they could wish but let us come to his declaration against it where he protests that he hates the thoughts of wishing a Commonwealth but yet insinuates from the story of Themistocles his firing the Grecian ships That nothing could be more advantagious and profitable for us which surely shews his good inclinations plain enough But I am fully perswaded that our Governours have taken no less care to secure us against the literal than the metaphorical sence of his â—ine tale and will as well preserve our Navy as our Government from his Diabolical designs But now he gives us the reason why he cannot think of a Common-wealth because conscientious good man he is loth to break his oath of obedience to a Lawful King But for this Lawful King himself it is no matter if he be perjur'd to the very bottom of destruction who having no less sworn and that solemnly too to maintain the antient Monarchical Government as at present by Law confirmed and establish'd with all the rights and prerogatives belonging to the Imperial Crown of England may break all betray his poor Subjects their rights and liberties abandon them to the mercy of unmerciful Tyrants and be damn'd if he pleases Nay our Author kindly advises him to it and rather than his cursed project should fail he perswades him it is the best thing he can do Whereas it is plain That the power of the Kings of England is restrained or limited as we may say in nothing more considerable than this viz. That they cannot by their own Grant sever their Prerogatives from the Crown nor communicate any part thereof to any one no not to the Princes their eldest Sons as may be seen more at large in Sir J. Davies upon Impositions cap. 29. besides many other good Authors Nay more he tells us there That neither the Kings Acts nor any Act of Parliament can give away his Prerogative and farther that no Act of Parliament in the Negative can take
away the Kings Prerogative in the Affirmative Yet notwithstanding this and ten times more that may be said to this purpose our King is advised and perswaded nay almost necessitated as our Author would have it not only to quit some One of his Prerogatives but to make short work to release and give them up all at once In the next place let us consider Plato's excellent new model it self and here like a wise Politician he hath made Three co-ordinate powers in being at the same time that is to say King Lords and Commons I confess for the King he says little of him and with great reason for indeed he signifies nothing more than a Cypher which as in Arithmetick is only to make the Commons more valuable But to do our Author right he hath yet a farther use to make of this his otherwise useless Prince that is to say whilest neither his own Right nor his Power nor our Laws can secure himself his Name nevertheless is to preserve these his Masters With that they hope to prevent all opposition and civil wars at home For should they forceably depose him they justly apprehend that his Loyal Subjects in England would endeavour to revenge such an insupportable wrong Nor can they believe that the Kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland would again tamely submit their Necks to the servile yoke of a few ambitious English Commoners or that foreign Princes themselves would even for their own securities sake quietly and unconcern'd countenance this horrid injustice and outrage done to the sacred dignity of Kings But if they can perswade his Majesty willingly to depose himself and at the same time disinherit his Heirs and Successors they imagine that none can pretend to disapprove much less blame or impute to them the volunry act of a King For as Volenti non fit injuria and by consequence no offence in them so they will certainly reserve to themselves the honour of punishing in the King as their master-piece and last act of justice the Treason which he shall have committed against himself To facilitate all this our Author hath taken from his Majesty his Militia and his Revenue that is men and monâ—y which are the strength and sinews of Power and in the Commoners he hath plac'd the Royal authority of Calling Proroguing and Dissolving themselves And left the King in this miserable condition should have yet any hopes left even of securing his own Person he hath taken from him the power of making his own Officers and bestowing those imployments which have always depended upon the Regal authority Nay the Lords themselves are no more to receive their Honours from the Fountain of all Honour but must lick the dust from the shooes of their once obsequious vassals So our poor Master having nothing now to give must lose the hopes even of a grateful friend who in his extremity might at least wish him well and speak a good word for him to his insolent Governours Mer. But Sir our Author leaves most of these things in the disposition of the Parliament by which he tells us that he ever understood the King Lords and Commons so that neither his Militia nor Revenue can be said to be so absolutely taken from himself as granted to the Parliament in general of which he is still to be the head Trav. Ah Cousin there is deadly poison in this his varnished treacherous Cup and you will easily perceive it when you consider Plato cares not so much that the Militia should be in the power of the Commons as out of the King For whilest the King cannot dispose of it without the consent of his Lower House judge you whether they will ever agree to the raising any force which they shall not themselves command If then any difference arise upon that or any other point which unavoidably and designedly will happen then are the Commoners become immediately masters of all For what can the King do though joyn'd with the House of Lords without a right of command or force against a multitude and that so unequal too that if the House of Commons in Parliament represent the whole Nation as they pretend they do then are they at least ten thousand men against one though all the Nobility be included with the King The necessary consequence of all this must be that if on the one hand the King and Lords agree with the Commons in all things then the Commons govern more absolutely than if there were neither the one nor the other because there is no pretence against them On the other hand if they in any thing differ from the Commons then undoubtedly the disagreeing Lords as formerly shall be turned out of doors the King set aside and the Votes made by the House of Commons Jan. 4. 1648 revived and confirmed which being very short but plain I shall here repeat First That the people under God are the original of all just power Secondly That the Commons of England assembled in Parliament being chosen by and representing the people have the Supreme Authority of this Nation Thirdly That whatever is enacted and declared for Law by the Commons of England assembled in Parliament hath the force of a Law Fourthly That all the people of this Nation are included thereby although the consent and concurrence of the King and House of Peers be not had thereunto What think you now Cousin of these four Votes even whilst the King and Lords were yet in being Do they not look as if they designed a Commonwealth or rather to establish an arbitrary Tyrannical power in the House of Commons and yet their propositions all along to the King were the same which Plato hath again offered us that is leaving the Militia the publick revenue nomination of officers and such like to the Parliament by which was always meant King Lords and Commons This is the politick web which our Author pretends to have spun out of his own shallow brains and indeed it is so very wondrous thin that if our present Statesmen could not with half an eye see through it I should be apt to agree with our Author p. 22. that they ought in conscience to excuse themselves from that sublime imployment and betake themselves to callings more suitable to their capacities as Shoomakers Tailors and such other mechanick professions Merch. Sir the Sun at noon day is never more clear than that he designs at best a Commonwealth And indeed where three co-ordinate powers are in being at the same time it is impossible they should continue long in that state but some one or two must certainly in time over balance and get the advantage of the other I think Lucan confirmed this long ago when he said Nulla fides regni sociis omnisque potestas Impatiens consortis erit And the King having neither power strength money nor officers it is ten thousand to one as you observe on the Commons side who are actually possessed of all Pray therefore proceed
did not expect and hesitating much without giving any satisfactory account of what was demanded he was cast into chains and punish'd according to the hainousness of the offence Mer. And may all the Manlii amongst us be alike confounded Next Sir I cannot approve of the liberty men take of publishing their private sentiments which are generally grounded upon nothing but conjecture and Enthusiastical follies Trav. Certainly nothing would conduce more to our quiet than that the liberty of the press should be restrain'd But since it is not our business to look into those liberties which we enjoy so much as into those which we want let us leave the consideration of these and many other such things to our prudent Governours I shall only note this one thing by the way that since the Act of Habeas Corpus I think I may confidently affirm that even at this time when there is so much danger of a pretended slavery the Subjects of England enjoy a greater liberty than was known to any of our Ancestors before us Pray therefore proceed to the second consideration which is our properties Mer. That is wholly unnecessary for all the world knows that whatsoever we possess is so secured by the Laws of the Land that the King himself doth not pretend in prejudice of those Laws which indeed are his own Laws to touch the least Chattel that belongs to us nor can any Tax be impos'd but such as shall be granted by Act of Parliament which is the very Government that our Author so much approves And in a word Plato himself has clear'd this point telling us p. 127 That the people by the fundamental Laws that is by the constitution of the Government of England have entire freedom in their lives properties and their persons neither of which can in the least suffer but according to the Laws And to prevent any oppression that might happen in the execution of these good Laws which are our Birthright all Trials must be by twelve men of our equals and in the next page lest the King 's Soveraign authority might be urg'd as a stop to the execution of those Laws he tells us That neither the King nor any by authority from him hath any the least power or jurisdiction over any English man but what the Law gives him And if any person shall be so wicked as to do any injustice to the life liberty or estate of any Englishman by any private command of the Prince the person aggriev'd or his next of kin if he be Assassinated shall have the same remedy against the offender as he ought to have had by the good Laws of the Land if there had been no such command given Now dear Cousin in the name of sense and reason where can be the fault and distemper of our Government as it relates to the ease and priviledge of the Subject if this be the constitution of it as at least our Author himself affirms Trav. Faith Sir I could never find it out nor any man else that ever I could meet withal And what is still stranger our great Platonick Physician hath not vouchsafed to give us any one particular instance in what part our disease lyes notwithstanding he alarms us with dismal news of being dead men and that without such a strange turn of Government as his pregnant Noddle hath found out we are ruin'd for ever 'T is true he tells us that the property being in the hand of the Commoners the Government must necessarily be there also and for which the Commoners are tugging and contending very justly and very honourably which makes every Parliament seem a present state of war Mer. But Sir if it be true that we enjoy all those benefits and blessings before mentioned that the Government it self secures these properties inviolably to us which we know to be most certain without the testimony of Plato or any man else what then does this tugging concern us or what relation has it to our happiness which is already as great as we can wish it to be Must the enjoyment of our properties put us into a state of war Must our health become our disease and our fatness only make us kick against our masters what can this contention for Government signifie more than ambition and what could their success produce less than Tyranny should the House of Commons become our masters what could they bestow upon us more than we already enjoy except danger and trouble And what can our present Government take from us except the fears of those fatal consequences which such a popular innovation would induce Let then the property be where it will and if we possess it securely we are the happier for it Trav. Your reasons are too plain and strong to be resisted I shall quit therefore this point and inform you how our Author seems in many places to insinuate that the want of frequent and annual Parliaments is the cause of our distemper and that calling a Parliament every year might prove a pretty cure according to a certain Act in the time of Edward the first and that then instead of hopping upon one leg we might go limping on upon three Mer. Faith Cousin you are now gotten out of my reach and you must answer this your self I can only proceed according to my former rule which is that if we be as happy as we can be a Parliament cannot make us more Trav. That answer is I think sufficient to satisfie any reasonable man However we will speak somewhat more particularly concerning this matter as we find it recorded in History Our Author informs us in p. 110. That by our Constitution the Government was undeniably to be divided between the King and his Subjects which by the way is undeniably and notoriously false for according to our ancent Constitution as well under the Saxon as our Norman Kings the Government or the right of Power was originally and solely in our Kings And that divers of the great men speaking with that excellent Prince King Edward the first about it called a Parliament and consented to a Declaration of the Kingdoms right in that point So there passed a Law in that Parliament that one should be held every year and oftner if need be The same he confirms in p. 159. and in other places Now Sir if after these fine Speeches by those great men whom undoubtedly our Author could have named to this excellent Prince it should happen at last that there was no such Act during the Reign of Edward the first what would you think of our Author Merch. In troth Sir it would not alter my opinion for I already believe him to be an impudent magisterial Impostor Trav. I fear indeed he will prove so for except he hath found in his politick search some loose paper that never yet came into our Statute books we must conclude that he is grossly mistaken For the first Act that is extant of that kind was in the
Fourth of Edward the Third and the words of it are these It is accorded that a Parliament shall be holden every year once and more often if need be Now Sir you must observe that this Act was made whilst the King was but Nineteen years of age and both himself and Kingdom under the care of Twelve Governours His Mother Queen Isabel and Roger Mortimer very powerful the Governours of the Pupil King divided amongst themselves and many other pressing affairs of the Nation oblig'd most people to propose that expedient of frequent Parliaments as the most probable means to secure the peace and prosperity of the Kingdom at least until the King should come of riper years and thereby many differences be reconciled After this in the Thirty sixth year of his Reign he called a Parliament and wanting money as generally he did the Parliament would grant nothing until an Act passed for maintenance of former Articles and Statutes there expressed And that for redress of divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen a Parliament shall be holden every year as another time was ordained by Statute These are the two Statutes intended by our Author when he tells us that the Statute of Edward the first was confirmed by that glorious Prince Edward the third Whereas in truth they were both made by the same King and both in a great measure revoked in his own time Having declared after the making this last Act that he yielded to it only to serve his own turn This Sir is the matter of Fact upon which our Author builds his great pretensions to the old constitutions of Annual Parliaments The first Act was made whilst the King was very young the second when he wanted money and had Twenty six shillings and eight pence granted him upon every sack of wool transported for three years And both first and second Acts were broken by several intermissions before he died Besides we must make this remark that a Parliament seldom met without giving the King some money which might encourage those Kings to assemble them oftner than lately they have done But the truth is Annual Parliaments were lookt upon as so great a grievance to the Nation that we find that about the Tenth year of Richard the Second his Successor it was thought a great Prerogative in the King that he might call a Parliament once a year And both Houses appointed the Duke of Glocester and Thomas Arundell Bishop of Ely to acquaint the King that by an old Statute the King once a year might lawfully summon his Court of Parliament for reformation of corruptions and enormities within the Realm And if we consider with our selves we shall find that if yearly Parliaments were imposed upon us they would become grievances equally insupportable as to have no Parliaments at all For if the Knights Citizens and Burgesses be chosen out of the Countrey Gentlemen and Merchants inhabiting those Countries where they are elected as sure they ought to be what inconvenience if not ruin must it bring upon their affairs when they shall be forced to run every year a hundred or two hundred Miles from their particular domestick affairs to serve in a formal Parliament in which it may be the greatest business will be to make business for the next Indeed for idle persons who live about Town and have nothing to do but to scrible knavish politicks to the disturbance of honest men such a constitution might do well enough if they could get to be chosen members But we find from experience and History that in those days when Ambition and Faction were not so much in vogue as at present men were so far from making parties to get into the Parliament that many Commoners and Lords too have petitioned and been excused their attendance The King 's Queen's and Prince's Servants have stood upon their priviledge of exemption So James Barner was discharged by the King's command Quia erat de retinentia Regis 7. R. 2 and the Lord de Vessey in Edward the Fourths time obtained Licence not to serve in Parliament during his life Rex concessit Henrico Bromflet Dom. de Vessey quod ipse durante vita sit exoneratus de veniendo ad Parl. Besides the very Writ of Summons shews that in the original institution and design of Parliaments a frequent meeting could not be necessary For they were only to treat concilium impendere de magnis arduis negotiis Now God help us if every year should produce such magna ardua negotia such difficult and weighty affairs that the King with his Judges and â—rivy Council could not determine them without assembling his great Council the Parliament I confess in our Authors Chimerical model I am perswaded our circumstances would be bad enough but I thank God we are not gotten there yet Thus you see Sir that this grievance in not having annual Parliaments is become no grievance at all Mer. I begin Cousin to lose all manner of respect for this mistaken Mountebank For I perceive notwithstanding his great words and pretences all is but wind emptinâ—ss and cheat Having therefore fully satisfieâ— me concerning our liberties properties and Parliaments pray forget not to say somewhat of our Religion Trav. Sir I shall not presume to meddle with the Doctrinal part of any Religion that being none of my Province Nor shall I say much concerning the Ceremonial part or discipline of our own that is to say the Church of England It is sufficient to mind you that both the Doctrine and Discipline in Church Government have been established and confirm'd by several Acts of Parliament and Statutes Which Parliaments being the most Soveraign power that our Author himself pretends to set up amongst us we ought all to acquiesce in and be concluded by what they have done until an equal authority shall repeal those Acts or otherwise determine concerning us Mer. There is no objection can be made against this answer But Sir since the difference in our Religion seems manifestly to occasion most of our troubles why may not the King by his own authority dispence with the penal part of these Laws or grant a toleration especially to Protestant Dissenters or encourage an Act of Parliament for uniting them into the Church of England or else why might not the same Church release some part of the rigour of the Discipline and Ceremony since 't is agreed on all hands that the observance or non-observance of them are not points necessary or absolutely conducing to Salvation Trav. Cousin I shall answer you all these questions as plain as I can And first I shall never believe that true and unfeigned Religion especially amongst men where the Doctrine agrees is ever the real cause of any troubles disturbance or disobedience to lawful authority such as is that which produces an Act of Parliament even in our Authors sence being so contrary to the Doctrine and Principles of Christian Religion that I may confidently affirm where
or subject to any other mans right or authority so as that they may be made void according to the will or pleasure or decrees of any other mortal man Potestas summa illa dicitur cujus actus alterius juri non substunt ita ut alterius humanae voluntatis arbitrio irriti reddi possunt De jure B. P. p. 47. But with submission to so great authorities These do not reach the definition of an absolute Monarch in a good sense as it ever ought to be taken For though they have given their Prince exemption from all Laws and power enough to command yet they have not excluded Tyranny which indeed is oftentimes mistaken for absolute power I confess it seems hard to destroy the Tyrant and yet preserve the absolute Monarch However I shall presume to give such a definition as may do both which I refer to the impartial judgment of those who shall consider it An absolute Monarch then is he who having receiv'd a just authority executes the Laws of God and Nature without controul By receiving a just authority I exclude one principal mark of a Tyrant which is intrusion or usurpation In the next place I oblige the absolute Monarch to execute the Laws of God and Nature and nothing contrary to them By this also Government is freed from Tyranny in the use or exercise of authority For he who governs according to the Laws of God and Nature I speak of a Natural Monarch or a Monarch in the state of Nature does no unjust thing and is by consequence no Tyrant And lastly as I have secur'd the absolute Prince from Tyranny so I have plac'd him above all conditional limited Governments by these words without controul For he who commands or governs as far as the Laws of God and Nature permit hath certainly as ample and as absolute a Jurisdiction as any mortal man can justly possess This is so large a power that he who acts beyond it that is contrary to it is deservedly esteem'd a Tyrant and in such case the people are not oblig'd to obey And the reason is because the Prince having never receiv'd an authority to command that which is unjust that is to say contrary to the Laws of God and Nature the people are acquitted from their obediences as to that particular command All that we have now to do is but to apply this definition to the Hebrew Kings and from thence we shall be able to judge of their absolute power And first it is certain that they receiv'd their right of power from God himself and no other which continued by Succession especially after David unto the Babylonish captivity I have not time at present to inlarge upon this point and answer those frivolous objections which some men have brought against it You will find this done more fully in another place and confirm'd by the authority of Josephus Grotius and the History of the Bible I know some have pretended that David received his authority from the people and would prove it by a passage in 1 Chron. 11. where it is said that the Elders anointed David King over Israel But we must observe that David was Anointed first by Samuel and that by the express command of God himself and next this second Anointing by the people signified nothing more than to exclude by this publick act the pretensions of Isbosheth eldest Son to Saul Who without the special reveal'd will of God would have succeeded his father And this was ever practised where there was any interruption or dispute in the Succession So Solomon was anointed because of the difference between him and Adonijah otherwise that Ceremony was not absolutely necessary and was many times totally neglected Besides in the case of David it is plain that he received no right of power from the people but from God and that by their own confession both before and after their anointing And the Lord thy God said unto thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel And again They anointed David King over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel 1 Chron. 11. 2 3. Hence Grotius observes that David gave God thanks for that God had subjected his people unto him David Deo gratias agit quod populum suum sibi subjecerit Taking it therefore for granted that David received no right of power from the people by consequence he depended upon none but God as all the most Soveraign Princes do and this is one great mark of an absolute Monarch In the next place he executed the laws of God and nature without controul I never heard any question made of this except in the case of judgment concerning a Tribe the High Priest and a Prophet Which judgments Grotius supposed were taken from the Hebrew Kings Aliqua judicia arbitror regibus adempta But I rather think under favour that they were more properly Principibus concessa which makes a considerable difference For I find no mention of any time or power who could take those judgments from the King On the contrary we read of several Kings erecting Courts of Judicature and making Judges both in Gods cause and in the Kings And these three points being of the highest consequence the judgment of them might most probably be granted by the King to the determination of the highest Court of Justice In the first of Chron. chap. 26. v. 5. We find David making Rulers over the Reubenites the Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter pertaining to God and the affairs of the King but more particularly in the second of Chron. chap. 19. Jehoshaphat does the same thing but in terms more plain And he set Judges in the Land through all the fenced Cities of Judah City by City And said to the Judges take heed what you do c. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chief of the Fathers of Israel for the judgments of the Lord and for controversies when they return'd to Jerusalem And behold Amariel the Chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zedekiah the son of Ishmael the Ruler of the house of Judah for all the Kings matters Indeed I should think that this is plain enough to prove that their Kings had in them the Supreme right of administring justice through their territories and made their Subordinate officers who wholly depended upon them and I am the more confirm'd in this opinion because I find both the High Priests and Prophets too judged condemned and pardoned even against the judgment of the Sanhedrim by the Kings single authority So Solomon banished the High Priest Abiathar Solomon Abiatharem Pontiâ—icem in exilium misit says Josephus lib. 8. so Jehoiakim slew the Prophet Vriah And they sent forth Vriah out of Aegypt and brought him unto Jehoiakim the King who slew him with the Sword Jer. 26. 23. The same did Joash
Soveraign power in the house of Lords either conjunctim or divisim joyntly or separately without the King therefore the Soveraign right of power can be no where but in the King right of council is in the Lords and Commons in Parliament duly assembled but right of command is in the King For he both calls the Parliament and dissolves it One Soveraign power cannot dissolve another Soveraign power could they be supposed together except by force But the Kings of England have ever called and dissolved Parliaments not by force but by right of power and command which belongs to them by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession A Bill which shall have regularly past both Houses and brought even to the Royal assent is no Act nor hath it any manner of force as such without the Kings will Le Roy le veult doth solely and necessarily transform a Bill into a Statute and is the essential constituent part of it His Will doth alone give life and being to that which is no more than a dead insignificant letter without it Nay though a Bill should pass both Houses with the unanimous consent and approbation of every individual Member yet the King may refuse it and it is indisputably the right of our Kings so to do if they shall so think sitting which prove evidently amongst other things that the Soveraign Power is solely in our Kings Merch. But Sir Plato Red. insinuates very strongly p. 123. that It is a violation of right and infringment of the Kings Coronation Oath to frustrate the counsels of a Parliament by his negative voice and that in his opinion the King is bound confirmare consuetudines or pass such laws as the people shall choose Trav. The Delphick Oracle did never impose Laws more peremptorily to the Greeks than Plato Red. would arrogantly obtrude his private opinions upon us for notwithstanding all the Laws are against him yet he alone would pretend to devest the King of this his undoubted Prerogative But Sir there is a difference between new modelling a Government and maintaining it according to its ancient institution If Plato designs the first he may as well pretend it is inconvenient that the Imperial Crown of England should be Hereditary and Successive and endeavour to make it Elective for the right of a negative voice in Parliament is as certainly the Prerogative of the Kings of England as their right of Inheritance or Succession is But having no design to dâ—…te so much at this time what â—lteration might be convenient for us as â—o maintain what the Kings Right â—â— and ever hath been according to the â—â—cient as well as present Consâ—…tion of the Government I must 〈…〉 do averr That the King enjoyinâ— â—â—reditarily and undeniably this Nâ—…tive voice in Parliament hath himself the Supreme power of England And this the English Gentleman and his Doctor seem to acknowledge p. 105. Besides If the Soveraign power of England were not solely in the King then when there is no Parliament there could be no Soveraign power in England which is ridiculous and absurd For there is no Free and independent Kingdom or Commonwealth upon earth in which there is not at all times a Soveraign power in being If the Soveraign power ceaseth for a moment the power which remains becomes dependent and at the same instant a higher power must appear But the Imperial Crown of England depends upon none but God Omnis sub Rege ipse sub nullo nisi tantum Deo says Bracton an ancient and a Learned Author and again Rex non habet superiorem nisi Deum The King has no Superiour but God Or as it was express'd under H. 4. The Regality of the Crown of England is immediately subject to God and to none other Mer. But since the King can neither make any Laws nor levy any Taxes without the consent of both Houses it shews sure that at least some of the Soveraign power resides in them Trav. I perceive Cousin you have forgot your Grotius for he tells you that you must distinguish between the Empire and the manner of holding the Empire or the Jus ab usu Juris Aliud enim est Imperium aliud habendi modus So that although the Kings of England do generally promise or swear not to alter the Government nor to make Laws or levy impositions but according to the ancient Constitutions of the Kingdom yet nevertheless this takes not from him his Soveraign right of power for that he hath in him by Birthright and Inheritance and according to the Original Institution of the Kingdom and which is antecedent and Superiour also to any Oaths or Obligations I 'll give you Grotius his own words as you will find them l. 1. c. 3. s 16. Non definit summum esse Imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturm est promittat aliqua subditis etiam talia quae ad imperandi rationem pertineant But he confesseth indeed that such a Constitution is a little limitation to the Supreme power Fatendum tamen arctius quodammodo reddi Imperium But it doth not follow from thence that there is any authority Superiour to his own Non inde tamen sequitur ita promittenti Superiorem dari aliquem And he gives you the example of the Persian Monarchs who though they were as absolute as any Kings could be yet when they enter'd upon the Government they sware to observe certain Laws which they could not alter Apud Persas Rex summo cum Imperio erat tamen jurabat cum regnum adiret leges certa quadam forma latas mutare illi nefas erat So also that the Egyptian Kings were bound to the observance of several Customs and Constitutions Aegyptiorum Reges quos tameâ— ut alios Reges Orientis summo imperio usos non est dubium ad multarum rerum observationem oblig abantur Mer. Very well Sir but pray why may not the Soveraign power remain still in the people especially if all be true which our Author boldly affirms p. 119. viz. That our Prince hath no authority of his own but what was first entrusted in him by the Government of which he is head Trav. Here Plato plays the Villain egregiously is a Traitor incognito and carries Treason in a dark lanthorn which he thinks to discover or conceal according to the success of Rebellion which he evidently promotes But we shall unmask this Republican Faux And first our King whom he calls Prince not understanding it may be the difference between Regnum and Principaâ—us hath no authority saith he but what was first intrusted by the Government Here Government is a word of an amphibious nature and can as well subsist under a Monarchy as a Commonwealth For if Rebellion doth not prosper then Government in this place signifies the Law of the Land and indeed the King's authority over us is establish'd by the Law that is to say the consent and acknowledgment of the People in due form That
the King hath inherently antecedently and by Birth-right a Soveraign authority over all his people and this is confirm'd to him both by Statute Common Law and Custom according to that of 19. H. 6. 62. The Law is the inheritance of the King and people by which they are rul'd King and people But if the Commonwealths men gain their point if the Association and its brat bloody murder had taken its damnable effect then Government had most plainly signified the People and that is truly our Authors meaning for the words which immediately follow are these Nor is it to be imagin'd that they would give him more power than what was necessary to govern them What can be the antecedent to They and Them but the word Subjects which precedes in the beginning of the Sentence This is the true Presbyterian or Phanatick way of speaking their most mischievous Treasons which like a Bizzare with a little turn of the hand represents ether the Pope or the Devil But since we are so plainly assured of his meaning I 'll take the liberty for once to put it plainly into words and I think it will then run thus That our King having neither by birthright nor by a long undoubted Succession of above six hundred years any Authority of his own but only that which the people have intrusted in him for they would give him no more than what was just necessary to govern them p. 119. the people in whom the Soveraign power resides may call this their minister otherwise called King to an account for the administration of this his trust and in case he should not acquit himself according to their expectation the Soveraign Subject might punish this their Subject King turn him out of his office as all Supreme governours may their subordinate officers nay and set up any other form of Government whatsoever without doing any manner of injustice to their King This is our Authors doctrine as appears not only by inevitable consequences drawn from this mâ—tuated or fide-commissary power which he hath placed in the King but from the whole context and course of his Libel Now though Hell it self could not have invented a proposition more notoriously false though the whole Association could not have asserted a more Traiterous principle though the Supreme power or Soveraign right of Government hath been fixed to the imperial Crown of England ever since the beginning of History or Kings amongst us or the memorial of any time though more than twenty Parliaments which are the wisdom and Representatives of the whole Nation have by several explanatory Acts and Statutes confessed declared and affirmed that this Soveraign Authority or power of England is solely in the King and his laâ—â—ul Heirs and Successors in exclusion to all other mortal power whatsoever Rex habet potestatem jurisdictionem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt Nay although all the Power Priviledges Liberties and even the Estates of the people proceeded originally from the meer bounty of our Kings as both ancient and modern Authors and Histories have evidently made it appear And after all notwithstanding our Author hath not produced one single authority or one little peice of an Act Statute or Law to prove that the Soveraign power is in the people or that the King held his authority only in trust from them as he plainly affirms or when they entrusted him with it or had it in themselves to grant yet by an unparallelled piece of impudence and vanity he dares to bring his own private opinion in competition with the wisdom learning practice decrees and justice of the whole Nation condemn our Ancestors as betrayers of the peoples rights and priviledges and by a single ipse dixit prove himself the only true Physician learned Statesman and except some who in most Ages have been Executed for their most horrid Treasons the only worthy Patriot of his Countrey and Defender of its rights Now lest some of our ignorant and infatuated multitude like the Children of Hamel should dance after our Authors popular and Northern Bagpipe until he precipitates them all into inevitable ruin and destruction I am resolved not to insist at present upon his Majesties Hereditary and undoubted Soveraign right of power which he now possesses not only by prescription and a Succession of more than eight hundred years but by all the Laâ—s of the Land as hath been already declared and the universal consent of all his good Subjects confirmed by their Oaths of Allegeance from which none but Rebels and perjured men can depart I will not I say at present urge those arguments which are sufficient to convince opiniastrete and wilful ignorance it self but will attack him in his strongest Gothick â—orts and the rational part upon which he seems most to value himself And first for these Goths I cannot find in any History when it was they came over into England nay I am confident that all Learned men will agree that there is no probable conjecture from any Author that they ever have been here or crost our Seas or came nearer us than Normandy one argument amongst others is the flourishing condition of our Island above France where the Goths and Vandalls had made some ravage in point of Learning and Sciences insomuch that Alcuinus an Englishman and Scholar to the Venerable Bede was sent unto Charles the Great to whom he became Doctor or Professor in Divinity Astronomy and Philosophy and by his direction erected the University of Paris But to return to our Goths it is certain that at first they travelled South-East which is very different from South-West such as iâ— our situation from theirs And yet our politick Author tells us positively according to his usual method that they establish'd their government in these parts after their conquest p. 93. And endeavouring to prove in p. 46. and 97. that according to their institution the people had an influence upon the Government he tells us that the Governments of France Spain and England by name and other countries where these people setled were fram'd accordingly Here we see our Country conquer'd and an excellent form of Government establish'd by the Goths so good and admirably just that we in this age must quit our happy Monarchy which hath subsisted most gloriously many Hundreds of years only to run a wool-gathering after these precarious Gothick Princes and yet no man could ever tell us when this conquest happen d nor by whom nor what became of them nor indeed any thing more than what the extravagant fancy of our Author hath imagin'd As for the Romans who conquer'd us sure they were neither Goths nor Northern people and so nothing can be pretended from that Conquest nor are the Saxons who next invaded us to be called Northern people by us at least who lye so much North to them our selves But forgiving Plato all his absurdities and incongruities the rather that we may find out the Truth and confound him with
whole Nation when joyn'd with so considerable a part as the Church of England they were both overcome by the Dissenters it was morally impossible Besides they had generally taken the Oath of Allegiance which for ought I can hear they have not broken generally I suppose for if there be any of them who refuse the Oath of Allegeance I look upon them as out of the Kings Protection and little better or full as dangerous as open enemies Nor can I imagine what other Government they could or were ever suppos'd to introduce contrary to that which was then establish'd and which they swore to maintain I am apt enough to believe that they might hope for some ease or exemption from the rigour of the penâ—l Laws which neither you nor I can blame in them if they had desir'd Mer. But though they have taken the Oath of Allegeance yet you see that they will not be prevail'd upon to take the Oath of Supremacy And you know that according to our Law the King is no less head of the Ecclesiastical than of the Civil Government Trav. True Sir But this is as much an argument against the Dissenters as the Papists For it is not a greater crime in them nor prejudice to the State to tolerate men who by the principles of their Religion are taught to submit their Consciences to another Spiritual guide in Spiritual matters as many Soveraign Princes themselves do at this day than those who owning the King to be Supreme head of the Church by their words disown him by their actions that is in not obeying his Laws or Rebelling against him as such Besides it is well known that the general opinion of the Popish Recusants the Laity I mean concerning the Pope's Supremacy hath no ill influence upon our Civil Government which is that which I chiefly intend in this discourse but that they think themselves indispensably oblig'd to defend our Lawful Kings and their Civil Authority not only against all temporal powers whatsoever but even against the Pope himself Mer. This Sir I have heard much controverted and the contrary opinion affirm'd by some of their own Writers that is to say That the Pope may and doth Excommunicate heretick Kings as he calls them By which act their Subjects are no more bound to pay them their obedience nay and can absolve the people from their Oath of Allegeance and impower them to depose their natural and lawful Prince and set up some other in his stead Now Sir this is such a doctrine as makes the Papists uncapable of ever being trusted under any Protestant Government Trav. I confess Sir I have heard that some private men have maintain'd some such erroneous and perniciouâ— Principles and flattering the Pope have endeavoured to raise his power to a much sublimer pitch than ever Christ himself or any of his Apostles pretended it should arrive But Sir as Temporal Princes have been ever usurping upon one another and by most unchristian ways sacrificed the innocent blood of many thousands of men for the promoting their own greatness and satisfying their ambitious designs so these Spiritual Emperours have follow'd too much the ill examples of Temporal Princes And being it may be more solicitous to extend their power than encrease the number of true believers have perverted the good use of St. Peters Keys and have rather opened by them the door of dissention and discord upon earth than the gates of the Heavenly Paradise For some years these holy Fathers exercised their arms against one another and how much blood and horrid troubles the dispute between the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople concerning Primacy hath cost Christendom is sufficiently recorded in History I may add farther that this their contention became at last the ruine of the Greek Empire but hitherto the Temporal Princes enjoy'd their rights and Prerogatives undisturb'd until Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh arrogated to himself a Soveraign authority over all Christian Kings and Emperours as may be seen at large in the History of Henry the fourth Emperour of Germany who was the first unfortunate example of the Papal usurpation which is confirm'd by a learned Roman Catholick Bishop and one who lived in the Reign of Fred. the first his words are these Lego relego saith he Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nunquam invenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno privatum nisi forte quis pro Anathemate habendum ducat quod Philippus ad breve tempus à Romano Episcopo inter poenitentes collocatus Theodosius à beato Ambrosio propter cruentam caedem à liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit Ottofrising c. 35. After this several encroachments were made upon other Princes and the Popes making use as well of St. Paul's Sword as St. Peter's Keys reduc'd most of them under their obedience and as the same Author expresses it destroy'd them by that very power which they had first receiv'd from the benevolence of the Emperours themselves seeming to imitate therein the Prophet David who first overcame the Philistine by the providence of God and then cut off his head with his own Sword Videntur culpandi Sacerdotes per omnia qui regnum suo gladio quem ipsi à regum habent gratia ferire conentur nisi forte David imitari cogitent qui Philistinum priâ—o virtute Dei stravit postmodum prâ—prio gladio jugulavit Now Sir after the Popes were in possession of these great Prerogatives and had perswaded the people to contribute as well to their own as their Princes slavery by granting them this universal right of power it is no wonder if some of their own Clergy have endeavoured by false arguments to maintain this usurp'd authority But Cousin it is well known that this is now become no more than an old antiquated title and gives him no right over Soveraign Princes at this day It is true those Princes who submitted themselves to the constitutions of the Council of Treâ—t permit the Pope to exercise some Spiritual Jurisdiction in their Kingdoms But it is universally and publickly declared that the Popes have no Civil or Temporal Authority over Soveraign Princes nor can they by their Spiritual power or authoritate clavium Ecclesiae depose any King or absolve any Subject from their Faith Obedience or Oath of Allegeanâ—e Mer. Can you give an instance of 〈…〉 made by any Popish Kings and consented to by the Roman Clergy Trav. Yes Sir and that so fully that there can remain no scruple or difficulty and it is by the most Christian King of France and eldest son of the Roman Church and a severe persecutor of the Protestant Religion I will give you the words of the Declaration it self as far as it concerns this particular that you may the better judge your self of the truth It is Declared by the Gallick Church Primum beato Petro ejusque successoribus Christi Vicariis ipsique
so necessary to be effected that it was morally impossible to succeed in the former until the latter was actually executed It being then most certain that our Authors intention was to establish a Common wealth I shall now give you my reasons why we ought not upon any terms to admit of it And first I shall not insist much upon those vulgar inconveniences which are visible to all men As for example the inevitable consequences of most bloudy wars For can any rational man believe that all the Royal family should be so insensible of their right and honour as never to push for three Kingdoms which would so justly belong to them or could they be supposed to leave England under their popular usurpation what reason hath Scotland to truckle under the Domination of the English Commonalty What pretence hath the English Subject supposing they were to share in the English Government over the Kingdom of Scotland All the world knows that that Kingdom belongs so particularly to our King that the late Rebells themselves did not scruple to call him King of the Scots Why should Ireland also become a Province to an English Parliament Or should both Kingdoms be willing to shake off the Government of their Natural Lawful and antient Monarchy why should they not set up a Democracy or an Aristocracy or what else they pleas'd amongst themselves Is there never a Statesman in the three Kingdoms but Plato Redivivus Can none teach them to Rebel but he No rules to maintain an usurpt Authority but what we find among his extravagancies I am confident you do not believe it Shall these people notoriously known to have hated one another whilst formerly they were under different Governours become the strictest friends when they shall return unto those circumstances under which they were the greatest enemies Will the French King take no advantage having so good a pretext of our Divisions Or should we unite against him under our popular Governours was it ever known that a Confederate army was able to defend themselves long against an Army of equal strength commanded by one sole absolute Monarch Can we foresee any thing but most desperate wars and can wars be supported but by most heavy taxes Were not our Thimbles and Bodkins converted in the late times into Swords and Mortar pieces and by a prodigious transmutation never before heard of were not our Gold and Ear-rings turn'd into a brazen Idol These consequences Cousin and dismal effects of a Commonwealth besides many other are so obvious that I shall not spend any more time to mind you of them Supposing then that none of those former horrid inconveniences might happen I must mind you by the way that one reason why our Author and the Associators desire a Commonwealth proceeds from the fear of a certain Arbitrary power which they pretend the King would introduce as may be seen pag. 161. 208 and in several other places Now Though nothing be more extravagant than such a groundless imagination our Author having assured us that his Majesty never did one act of Arbitrary power since his happy restoration And moreover pag. 176. That our laws against Arbitrary power are abundantly sufficient Yet that we may no more dispute this point I must produce Plato's own authority against himself in these words That the King fears his power will be so lessened by degrees that at length it will not be able to keep the Crown upon his head pag. 208. Nay farther in pag. 214. he shews us That it is impossible he should ever become an Arbitrary King For his present power as little as it is is yet greater than the condition of property can admit and in a word from his beloved Aphorism and the whole course of his Libel he endeavours to prove that Dominion being founded on the property and the property being in the people the King can have no manner of hopes upon earth of becoming absolute nor introducing an Arbitrary Government but by some Army of Angels from Heaven who must procure him an Authority which he cares not for The next and main reason why our Author would set up a Democracy at least as far as I can collect from the whole scope of his discourse is because the State inclines to popularity Now Sir for this last time I must make use of our Author 's own reasons against his own positions and do affirm that for this very reason were there no other all sober men and true Politicians ought to oppose with their utmost endeavours a Popular Government I will not recount to you the many mischiefs desolations and destructions which a popular power hath brought along with it whereever it goâ—â—he better of the antient Established Government of the place Somewhat hath been already said to this purpose in our discourse and much more may be read in the Histories of most parts of the world to which I refer you and shall only mind you of some inevitable consequences which will follow such an innovation amongst our selves And first if it be true that the King hath no power to make himself absolute then we have no cause to apprehend an Arbitrary power in him and by consequence no reason to change But if the inclination of the people be such that they will take advantage of the King's want of power and introduce their own Government what moderation may we expect from men towards those who are to become their Subjects who shaking off all sense of Justice Law Religion and temper dare usurp the Soveraign authority over their natural Governour Where shall we appeal for mercy when having cut the throat of the most merciful King in Europe we expose our own to our ambitious and unmerciful Tyrants Where shall we expect compassion towards our selves when we shall become Parricides and Regicides to our father and our King Where shall we seek after Eqâ—ity when the House of Lords the supreme Court of Equity are most unjustly turn'd out of doors and what end of our miseries can we ever hope for when our Tyrants by our villanous Authors constitution have not only got all the Wealth and Militia into their hands but have perpetuated their usurpation by annual Parliaments never to end Who being Judges of their own priviledges p. 254. may regulate elections as they shall think fit p. 249. Sit Adjourn Prorogue and Dissolve as they alone shall judge expedient What more barbarous villany was ever propos'd and publish'd under a lawful and peaceable Government besides our own upon earth But suppose our poor Country thus enslav'd and our antient Kingdom turn'd into a Common-wealth what can our new masters do for us more than is already done Can our libâ—rties be greater as to our persons and estates It is impossible to suppose it Will our properties be more secur'd all the Laws that ever were upon earth under any Government cannot make them more inviolable Nothing then can remain but liberty in Religion which we call of