which Word was then of a large extent Wherefore I submit it to Consideration whether these are any Exceptions to the General Rule or are not at least such as confirm it 11 H. 7. c. 1. 9. The Parliament 11 H. 7. declares That it is against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that Subjects should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance to their Prince or Sovereign Lord for the time being that is to the King de facto as appears by the occasion of the Law which was to encourage the service of H. 7. who had no Title but from his Subjects And there is a Provision That any Act or Acts or other Process of Law to the contrary shall be void Which if it relates to Acts of Parliament being built upon the Supposition That according to the Fundamental Law the Peoples Choice gives sufficient Title perhaps is not vain and illusory Lord Bacon's Hist of H. 7. f. 145. as the Lord Bacon would have it but argues strongly that the Parliament then thought the Monarchy fundamentally Elective at least with that Restriction to the Blood which I yield And if this be part of the Fundamental Contract for which it bids very fair then perhaps no body of any other Stock may be King within this Statute But I take it not to be evident that the Acts here mention'd must needs be Acts of Parliament For they might and by the word other seem to be such Acts as are of the nature of ordinary Process or whereon such Process is grounded as Ordinances of the Lords in Parliament Orders of the Privy Council Judgments or Decrees in Courts of Law or Equity and the like However admit this Clause should be vicious and insignificant My Lord Bacon I am sure gives no countenance to a certain Dissenting Bishop's Argument in publick Discourse who undertook from hence to prove That the Statute it self is of no force Yet such sort of Arguments are of great service to men resolv'd upon a Conclusion nor can better be expected from them To what I have offer'd on this Head the following are all the Objections of seeming weight which have occurr'd to me Object 1 The Maxim in Law That the King never dies Or to use the words of Finch ' The Perpetuity which the Law ascribes to him Finch's Description of the Common Law French Edit An. 1613. f. 20. b. 21. a. The same made use of in Reflections upon our late and present Proceedings p. 10. having ' perpetual Succession and he never dies For in Law it is call'd the Demise of the King Answer To which I Answer 1. That neither that Book nor any Authority there cited is so ancient as the Settlement of the Crown above observ'd And that the Death of a King is but a Demise transferring the Right immediately to a Successor may be owing to the Settlement but is no Argument of any Right otherwise 2. Even where there is an Election Dyer f. 165. Anderson f. 44. He has it Le Successeur le Heir Elsewhere Heir on Successeur ib. f. 45. tho never so long after the Death of the Predecessor yet by way of Relation 't is as if there were a Demise or Translation of Interest without any Inter-regnum as it was resolved by all the Judges 1 Eliz. Of which the words of Lord Dyer are ' The King who is Heir or Successor may write and begin his Reign ' the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies With which agrees the Lord Anderson But that to many intents a King dies in his Politick Capacity as well as Natural Vid. 1. E. 6. c. 7. 7 Rep. f. 30. appears by the discontinuance of Process in Criminal Causes and such in Civil as was not return'd in the Life of the former King till kept up by Statute the determination of Commissions and the like Agreement betwixt the present and former Government Suppos'd to be Doctor Fulwood's P. 42. A Learned Author that he may reconcile our present Settlement to this suppos'd Maxim which appears not to have any foundation in Antiquity will have it That by the Vacancy of the Throne no more was meant by the Convention than its being free from the former Possessor but that it was full of a Successor and that there was no Interregnum For says he such a Vacancy we have upon every Demise of the Crown And so there was a Vacancy of the Throne and no Vacancy at all For in ordinary Demises 't is manifest there is none Freedom from the last Possessor is not a Vacancy of the Throne Two Grounds this Doctor goes upon to justify his Equivocation in this for I can call it no better 1. That otherwise this would be inconsistent with the nature of our Ancient Hereditary Monarchy 2. That the Convention shew that they meant it no otherwise than in his Sense 1. As to the First It is observable 1. That the Notion which himself goes upon P. 40. is as inconsistent with the ordinary Rule For he makes the Heir to have only jus in re and to want Livery and Seisin And consequently till the Coronation there is an Interregnum Tho it may afterwards be supplied by relation to the Descent of the Right But herein the Doctor is certainly out For in ordinary Descents or Demises Hales's Pleas of the Crown p. 40. Treason may be committed against the Heir as in full possession before any Recognition or Coronation But since he will hardly affirm that it could have been so in our Case he must grant that there was a more absolute Vacancy than that for which he contends P. 54. It is his own Argument that our present Sovereigns are really King and Queen because Treason may be committed against them within the purview of the Statute 25 E. 3. And by the same Reason they were not King and Queen before they were declar'd so unless Treason could have been committed against them before such Declaration 2. But 2. The Doctor owns that though upon some extraordinary Revolution and some absolute necessary Reason of State for our common preservation a Stranger none of the Blood-Royal should be advanced to the Throne for one or more turns whilst that necessity continues the Constitution of the Government would not be alter'd And yet would suppose P. 56. V. p. 41. Where he speaks as his own Sense what in the other place is put by way of Objection that if our King and Queen come in otherwise than by Descent it would be a Design'd Alteration or Change of the Ancient Constitution of this Hereditary Monarchy And yet himself owns That by the Law of Nature Salus Populi is both the Supream and the first Law in Government and the scope and end of all other Laws and of Government it self Nay he yields That the Oath of Allegiance that Sign or Testimony between King and Subject is discharged or dispenced with when
Domini Regis vel Regni So Fleta de Crimine Laesae Majestatis c. 21 Vid. 26 H. 8. c. 2. 28 H. 8. c. 18. Traitors against the King and Realm Fortescue f. 6. temp H. 6. or Treason against the People of England is evident not only by Glanvil who wrote in the time of H. 2. and Fleta of Edw. 1. but by two Statutes made in the time of H. 8. who was as jealous of the Rights of Soveraignty as any Prince before or after him And is plainly enough suppos'd in the Statute 25. Ed. 3. which shews that there may be Treason against the Government as well as against the King or any of the other Treasons of which ordinary Judges are permitted to judg But since this Majesty of the People may have been given as well as reserv'd or left I shall not urge this as an undeniable Argument of the derivation of Power from them Nor yet shall I transcribe the many Passages in Fortescue proving such Derivation because tho his Book is of great Authority in our Law yet it was written in a King's Reign which some may think to stand in need of such a Justification Neither shall I here urge how far this Monarchy has been Elective because the particular Consideration of that will follow this I only observe of it here that so far as the Monarchy shall prove to have been Elective so far will it appear that all Power not ascertain'd by the Law of God contain'd in Scripture or the Book of Nature is mediately or immediately derived from the People But I think I may be able to shew from one of those Passages which seem the most to imply the absolute Authority of our Kings that whatever it is Crompt his Jurisdic of Courts p. 60. it was derived from the Consent of the People and that the Peoples Consent is still requisite for the Exercise of an Absolute Power according to the memorable Speech of H. 8. in Parliament where he thought himself to stand in his highest Estate Royal. The Civil Law of the Romans says Quod Principi placuit Legis habet vigorem that which has pleased the Prince has the force of Law Glanvil 's Prologom Bracton lib. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 19. but take this according to the Opinion of Glanvil Bracton Fleta and ancient Civilians who wrote about Bracton's time who as Mr. Selden informs us wrote according to what they found in the Governments establish'd throughout Europe The Principi placuit was no more than the Le Roy le veut with us The Civil Law shews that whatever Authority the Emperors had the ground of it was Selden ad Fletam f. 469. that the People in eum Imperium Potestatem conferret conferr'd Empire and Power upon him as Odofred a Civilian coeval with Bracton has it tho the following Copies have it omne suum as if the People conferr'd all their Power This may signify no more than all that Power which the Emperors had yet perhaps the other Sense was intended and may well be imputed to the Servility of later Times Saravia de Imp. Author f. 278. especially if we consider not only what Saravia says who besides the Majesty of the People above-mentioned out of him tells us that the Roman Emperors acted under the Peoples Authority which he proves in that their Acquisitions were in the Name of the People Sanderson 's Lectures Ed. An. 1660. p. 149 150 151. And even Bishop Sanderson having approved of the restrain'd Sense of the Roman Lex Regia us'd by our ancient Lawyers adds I do affirm and it is the common receiv'd Opinion that the Laws propounded and instituted by a Prince or Head of a Commonalty do not oblige Subjects nor have the Power of a Law unless they be received by the Commonalty themselves and are allowed by the Customs and Suffrages of those that use them According to Demosthenes the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Engagement of a City If peradventure his Authority be of less value because he lived in the Popular Common-wealth of the Athenians will you be pleased to hear the great Lawyer Julius who lived when the Roman Emperors had the fulness of Command his words in his 32 d Book De Legibus are these Ipsae Leges nullâ aliâ ex causâ nos tenent quà m quod judicio Populi receptae sunt The Laws do oblige for no other cause than that they are receiv'd by the Judgment of the People But if we observe how the Roman Emperors came by their Trust from the People and of what nature it was this I take in relation to the Legislation to which our Lawyers apply the Civil Law will appear to have been no more than the Tribunitial Authority The Tribunes of the People chosen by them were in their Name to deliver their placet or Consent to the Emperor or Senate nor did the greatest Emperors think it below them to court the Suffrages of the Populacy for this Before Julius Caesar arriv'd to an Imperial Power while the People of Rome govern'd all the Nations round about in all Emergencies they consulted Deputies Vid. Cic. in Catil Orat. 3. ut Comperi Legatos Allobrog belli transalpini tumultus Gallici excitandi causâ à P. Lentulo sollicitatos c. Tacitus Ed. Plant. p. 105. Tiberius vim Principatus sibi firmans Imaginem antiquitatis Senatui praebebat postulata Provinciarum ad disquisitionem patrum mittendo or Representatives of the several Provinces under them as appears in Cicero's third Oration against Catiline and after Julius even Tiberius then whom no Man could be more intent or more cunning to enslave his Subjects continued an Image of the ancient Usage by sending the Demands of the Provinces to the Disquisition of the Senate But the People of Rome were trick'd out of their Liberty by that artful Emperor by his removing the Comitia Tacitus in vitâ Tiberii Ed. Plant. p. 10. Tum primum è campo comitia ad patres translata sunt Nam ad eam diem etsi potissima arbitrio Principis quaedam tamen studiis Tribunorum fiebant neque populus ademtum jus questus est nisi inani rumore or Great Councils from the Fields where the Tribunes took their Directions from the People to the Senate-House where false Representations of the Sense of the People might be made behind their backs they vented their Resentments at this only in empty Murmurs and as the Satyrist has observed of them Qui dabat olim Juv. Imperium fasces legiones omnia nunc se Continet atque duas tantùm res anxius optat Panem Circenses They who their Laws and Magistracy chose Quietly gave up all for Bread and Shows Yet upon observing the steps by which the Emperors advanced to their Power with the People 't will be evident that it was but lodg'd as a Trust and Confidence that they would truly act according to
been split into the Constable Chancellour Treasurer and the Grand Maistre du France or Count du Palais which he seems to resemble to an High-Steward with us The Author of the Sighs of France shews Les soupirs Mem. 7. p. 167. that when Childebert was chosen King they chose Grimoald for Maire du Palais And says he Through all our History we may always see a very clear distinction between the Officers of the King's House and those of the Crown This distinction remains to this day as a Monument of the Ancient Liberty of the French For we say the Great Master of the King's Houshold the Great Chamberlain c. But we say the Constable of France the Admiral of France the Chancellour of France And these last Charges do not dye with the King whereas the Officers of the King's House dye with the King and may be changed by his Successour The Reason of this difference comes from this That that which is given by one King may be taken away by another But the Officers of the Crown being made by the People and by the Realm cannot be turn'd out by the King alone And it is very remarkable that these Offices of the Crown which the States of the Kingdom may give and which they alone can take away may extend to the whole to the War to Justice and to the Finances or Treasury In a Book published in Queen Mary's Reign which at least went under the name of Bishop Poinet one of our Confessors History of Passive Obedience p. 38. who fled to Germany from the Marian Persecution such a Power as is above mentioned is affirmed to have belong'd to the High Constable of England Treatise of Politick Power Anno 1556. As God says the Author has ordained Magistrates to hear and determine private Matters and to punish their Vices so also will he that the Magistrates doings be call'd to account and reckoning and their Vices corrected and punished by the Body of the whole Congregation or Commonwealth As it is manifest by the meaning of the Ancient Office of High-Constable of England unto whose Authority it pertained not only to summon the King personally before the Parliament or other Courts of Justice to answer and receive according to Justice but also upon just occasion to commit him to Ward Theloal in his Digest of Writs Printed in the year 1579. 21 Eliz. Collects what is in the year-Year-Books concerning Summoning the King Theloal's Digest tit Roy. p 71. This was H. 3. Vid. 22. E. 3. f. 3. b. Trin. 24 E. 3. f. 55. b 43 E. 3.22 a. Wilby Justice Fuit dit H. 22 E. 3. que en temps le Roy Henry devant le Roy fuit impled come serroit autre home de people Mes Edward son fits ordein que home sueroit vers le Roy per petition Et issint dit suit T. 43. E. 3.22 que en temps le Roy Henry le Roy ne fuit mes come comune person car a ceo temps home averoit brief d'entre sur disseisin vers le Roy touts autres maners d'actions come vers auters persons c. Et Wilby dit T. 24. E. 3.23 que il avoit vieu tiel brief Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae c. En lieu de quel est ore done petition pur sa Prerogative It was says he held Hil. 22 E. 3. that in the time of King Henry and before the King was impleded as any other Man of his people but Edward his Son ordain'd That a Man shall sue to the King by Petition And so it was said Trin. 43 E. 3.22 That in the time of King Henry the King was but as a common person for at that time a Man might have a Writ of Entry upon Disseisin against the King and all other manner of Actions as against other persons c. And Wilby said Trin. 24 E. 3.23 That he had seen such a Writ Precipe Henrico Regi Angliae in lieu of which now a Petition is given for his Prerogative Sir Robert Cotton of the Constable of England MS. in the Herald's Office It may be difficult to distinguish between the Office of the Earl of Chester and the Constable of England who as Sir Robert Cotton held is Second to the King and has the Custody of his Sword the carrying which as appears by Matthew Paris belonged to the Earl of Chester by reason of his Palatinate and yet at the same time Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford Constable of England was in full possession of his Office Dugdale 's Bar. 1. Vol. f. 180. 11 H. 3. he stood up with the Earl of Chester and others on the behalf of Richard the King's Brother and was alive and in England 20 H. 3. when the Earl of Chester carried the Sword as of Ancient Right so that one seemed to have the right to carry the other to keep the Sword The Office of Constable seems to have been no ancienter than the the time of W. 1. Vid. Patent to Earl Rivers Temp. E. 4. Vid. 2 d. Part. to which the Patents for the Office refer but the Earldom of Chester and its Rights were Ancienter Wherefore one would think that W. 1. erected the Office of Constable to ballance that of the Earl Palatine Sir Rob. Cotton Of Constable c. MS. sup The other Great Officers the High-Steward and Marshal are easily distinguishable from the Constable and as Sir Robert Cotton observes the Office of Constable was of Military that of the High-Steward of a Civil Jurisdiction The Marshal was in the nature of an High Sheriff Vid. Stat. 3. R. 2. Stat. 1. C. 2. Of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 60. Of the Steward and Marshal So Ryle 's Placita Parl. f. 126. 21 E. 1. Selden 's Bar. 2 d Part c. 5. f. 739 F. 743. to see to the Execution of the Process and Judgments of either and yet had a Judicial Power with both In some Cases all three acted with joynt authority as appears by the most Ancient Copies of the Modus tenendi Parliamenta which tho' it has been put into Latine since the Conquest and has the names of Things and Offices adapted to what was known and in use at the time of the Translation from the Saxon MS. yet certainly for substance gives a true account of what was before the Conquest Mr. Selden supposes it to have been no ancienter than about the time of E. 3. yet confesses that he had from Mr. Hackwel a Copy of an Inspeximus 12 H. 4. Exemplifying under the Great Seal most of the particulars that occur in the ordinary Modus for England fitted for Ireland as sent thither by H. 2. but it would have been very strange if there should have passed an exemplification under the Great Seal of what was a meer fiction The Modus says Modus tenendi Parl. Cum dubitatio vel casus difficilis pacis vel
dimittere But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justify the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavours to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Vid. Bellarm. how the Pope hooks in Temporals in ordine ad Spiritualia Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants had been disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there Vid. Leges S. Edwardi put into the Hands of the Native Papists nor is it now likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependance upon England without vast Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns Dr. Hick 's his Jovian p. 280. Ib. p. 192 193. that the King's Law is his most Authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperor had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government where the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. No Clergy-man of the last or foregoing Reign having treated of Civil Government with more Temper and Judgment and yet with greater Applause of the warmest Men of his own Gown Falkner 's Christian Loyalty Ed. An. 1679. than the Learned Mr. Falkner of Lyn I shall be the longer in giving an account of his Discourse of Christian Loyalty which will prove an Authority on my side beyond what could be hop'd for considering the time when his Book came out with License and a Dedication to the Archbishop of Canterbury it being when Mr. Johnson by way of Composition against a threatned Suspension was oblig'd to drink his Coffee at home lest he should inlighten his Brethren who fill'd all places of publick Resort with their pulpit-Pulpit-Law and the Dictates of their Guide Sir Roger. I must own that Mr. Falkner was in some things carried away with that Tide which if any of that Cloth besides Mr. Johnson had the Courage to stemm they had at least the good fortune to be less observ'd but the shewing wherein the Author of Christian Loyalty gave too much way to the Fashion or the Noise may yield farther strength and light to that Truth which will arise out of those very Clouds with which he might think requisite to obscure it His Treatise is in two Parts in the first he vindicates and endeavours to explain the Oath of Supremacy 1. In relation to the Regal Power as it is receiv'd in our Church or at least by Church-men or as it is acknowledged by our Laws 2. As the Oath renounces all Foreign Jurisdiction the last of which falls no otherwise under Consideration here than as it shews the King's Duty to preserve his Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Supremacy and not to alienate either In the second part this Worthy Author considers the publick Declarations against Subjects taking Arms. Page 14. 1. In the first he rightly affirms That the asserting the Supremacy of Government is never design'd meaning I supppose by the Law in any wise to violate either Divine or Christian Institutions or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that Authority and Right which is made particular thereby whether in Matters Temporal or Spiritual Where by Christian Institutions Page 3. 't is plain that we are to understand the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws of Christian States or the Laws of others not contrary to Christianity and thus he deservedly blames them who nourish false Conceptions and mistaken Opinions concerning the CIVIL POWER beyond due Bounds exalting it so high as not to reserve that Respect which belongeth to God and Christian Institutions Page 15. and rightly observes that the Supremacy does not exclude the Subject from a real Propriety in his own Estate And that there are some Kingdoms where without any Disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince Page 11. they are govern'd by the fixed Rules of the Civil Law and others where other Laws established by their Predecessors are standing Rules Page 391. And particularly in relation to the People of this Realm he says in the second Part The English Constitution doth excellently and effectually provide against injurious Oppressions Of which more in its place 1 Canon An. 1640. However I cannot but here observe that even the Canons of 1640. which he receives as speaking the Sense of the Church of England own that the Subject has a Propriety but withal say that Tribute Custom and Aid and all manner of necessary Support and Supply are due to Kings from their Subjects by the Law of God Nature and Nations yet tho it is the Duty of Subjects to supply the King it is part of the Kingly Office to support his Subjects in the Propriety and Freedom of their Estates Still it seems subject to the King's Judgment of necessity which is right Sibthorpism and Manwarinism afterwards eccho'd to by the Courts at Westminster in the Resolution about Shipmoney and of late in that of the Dispensing Power I think in two things what Mr. Falkner writes upon the first Head lies open to Exception 1. That generally by Civil Power Page 356. he seems to mean the Person of the King and that not according to his own Definition of a King which he says doth denote the Royal Person who governs which himself owns to be according to the respective Limitations in those places where they govern many having the Title of a King Page 339. who had not such Royal Power as is allowed by our Constitution but he ascribes to a King generally speaking and particularly to ours such a Soveraignty as carries with it the absolute and arbitrary Exercise of that Civil Power whereby a Nation is govern'd Thus he asserts with St. Austin That Subjests may and ought to obey their Prince's Commands where they are certain Page 302. that what he commands is not against the Command of God And hence he attributes to the Kings of England even more Power than he allows to the Roman Christian Emperors as will soon appear And it appears that this is not only a casual dash with his Pen Page 123. for having before in one place spoken of the business of the Civil Power describ'd by St. Peter Page 131. in another he mentions the Authority with which he supposes Kings and Princes to be
one that Reigns to profess himself bound by the Laws Our own Authority does so depend upon the Authority of Law And in truth for the Governing Power to submit to Law is greater than Empire And by the Promulgation of this present Edict we make known to others what we will not allow our selves That J. 2. had before his Departure broken the Fundamental Laws and that now he not only ceases to protect but before the Judgment pass'd upon the Breach was in a Kingdom which foments and strengthens a Rebellion in Ireland part of the Dominions belonging to the English Crown I think no body will deny Nor till they can answer what I have shewn of the mutual Contract continued down from the first Erection of the Monarchy here ought they to deny that he thereby broke the Original Contract which bound the People to him and him to them What results from this Breach is now more particularly to be considered That it is a Discharge from all Allegiance to him requir'd by any Law and confirmed by any Oaths is evident not only from the former Authorities but from the Condition going along with such a mutual Contract as I have prov'd to be with us between Prince and People Or rather to use the Words of the Learned Pufendorf The Obligation is not so much dissolv'd as broken off Peufendorf de Officio Hominis Civis p. 201. by the perfidiousness of either Party for when one does not perform that which was agreed on neither is the other bound to performance For the Prior Heads of things to be perform'd in Contracts are in the subsequent by way of Condition As if it should be said I will perform if you will perform first This he more fully explains in another Book Pufend. Elementa Juris prudentiae p. 85 94. Vid. Puf Supr de Interregnis p. 274. where he distinguishes between an Obligation imperfectly mutual as he supposes it to be between an Absolute Prince and his Subjects and one perfectly mutual as he takes it to be where the People have conferr'd a Power on any Terms Of such Obligations he says These since they have a mutual respect to the things agreed on Pufend. Elementa Juris prud p. 94. and suppose mutual Faith it is evident That if one Party violate the Faith which he plighted the other is no more bound And therefore he is not perfidious who stands not to those Contracts which the other has broken For all the Heads of one and the same Contract run into each other by way of Condition c. In that Book of his which is counted the Standard of the Law of Nations Pufend. de Jure Gentium p. 1105. he asserts it to be lawful for Subjects to oppose their Prince by Force which is a sufficient departure from Allegiance if he goes about Modum habendi potestatem immutare V. Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis de summitatem habendi plenitudine p. 62. Dissertationes de Interreg p. 272. Supra i. e. to change that Manner in which he by the Contract enjoys the Power from less to more absolute And in his Tract de Interregnis cited above he allows of this If the King abdicate all Care of the Commonwealth becomes of an hostile mind towards his Subjects or manifestly departs from those Rules of Governing upon the observance of which as upon a Condition the Subjects have suspended their Obedience Nor is the German Author Knichin less plain whose Words are If the Magistrate have absolute and full Majesty due Subjection ought by no means to be denied him thô he be impious Rudolphi Godofredi Knichen opus polit f. 1226. Nor may he be cast out and another substituted in his room Much less can a new form of Government be introduced But if he were Constituted by the People under certain Pacts and Promises sworn to him by the People and therefore is bound to certain Rules of Laws and either to do or avoid any thing contain'd in those Contracts whether Fundamental Laws or things particularly concerted as for Example the Emperor in our Empire They not being observ'd but studiously enormously and obstinately violated the hopes of amendment after many of the Subjects Prayers and Admonitions plainly vanishing he may rightfully be removed by the States and People c. The Reason is because he was Promoted to the Government by such Agreement and that sworn to according to the Laws of the Agreement or Contract The Nature of which consists in this That if that Party for whose sake or cause they are Constituted violate them the other Party of very Right is freed from the Observance of those things which are granted by such Laws Philippi Paraei Vindicatio p. 50 and 51. Nor does Philip Paraeus come short of this in his Defence of his Father David where he speaks very particularly of the Effect of the mutual Compact Sir R. Poyntz his Vindication of Monarchy Ed. Anno. 1661. What is said by the Learned Knight Sir Robert Poyntz to disable such Authorities as I have Cited in truth confirms them The Doctrine of the Civilians concerning the nature of Contracts he handles with Judgment but if he fails in applying their Distinctions the Foundation of our Government being different from that which he goes upon then he will prove an Authority on my side P. 86. The Doctors of the Law says he are much perplexed in debating these two Rules in Law One is That in vain he requireth the performance of a promise or contract to whom he refuseth the performance of that which he ought on his part to perform The other is That a Man is not bound to perform his Oath if that be not performed in consideration whereof he did swear And unto these Rules they assign divers Exceptions and Limitations One is That regularly ubi contractus est perfectus c. and a mutual Obligation arises 't is not rescinded by the failure of either Party And that in contractibus innominatis Innominal Contracts such as are without any Condition expressed it is not lawful agere ad resolutionem Contractûs P. 86. to act towards the Dissolution of the Contract by reason of a Contravention on one side sed vel ad implementum contractûs vel ad interesse but either towards the compelling performance or the obtaining satisfaction for the breach The Contract between Prince and People he supposes to be both 1. A perfect Contract and 2. An innominal one Consequently indissoluble notwithstanding any Breach on the King's side But if it be look'd on barely as a perfect Contract without Consideration of its being without Condition expressed by the same Reason even the Rebellion of a Subject would not discharge the King's Duty to protect him any more than the King 's subverting the Constitution will discharge the Subjects Allegiance Which shews that this is meant only of Instances which are not of the Essence of the Contract
upon the Innocent Prince E. 5. in whose Name he first took the Government upon him and either terrified or cheated the People into a Compliance with his Pretences Tho I have not the vanity to believe that any thing of my own can weigh with them who have thought otherwise before especially if they have listed themselves on a Side contrary to that which no Disadvantages can make me repent of Yet I cannot but hope that the Authorities which I have produc'd will occasion some consideration till they are either evaded or disprov'd And being all legal Objections are answered nor can any scruple of Conscience be here pretended without much less against Law What hinders but that we should exert our utmost in the Service of that Lawful Government from which we receive Protection and may expect Rewards for vertue at least the Defence of it if we do not madly quit the ground which we have gain'd from them who have hitherto made Vertue the greatest Crime Wherefore for us now to look back after we have set our hands to the Plow would be not only to distrust that Providence which has given such a wonderful Encouragement to Perseverance but were enough to tarnish all our Actions with the Imputation of making the publick Interest a Pretence for carrying on our own 'T is an happiness indeed when they are twisted and thrive together But the Cause is such as a man ought not to fear to dye nay to starve for it And how improsperous soever a man's endeavours for this may prove yet it may be a comfort to have sown that Seed which may grow up for the benefit of future Ages Nor ought he to repine because another man hath guilded over his Name by what he has got by the ruin of his Country or may have insinuated himself again into Opportunities to betray it Let it be enough for him how much soever slighted and contemn'd while he lives to embalm his Memory by a steddiness to Truth and the Interest of his Country not to be shaken by cross accidents to himself or the Publick Cause Let him still act uniformly while others live in perpetual Contradictions or Varieties their Actions and their Principles thwarting themselves or each other or varying with the State-weathercocks Let them violate the Laws out of Loyalty unchurch all Protestant Churches but their own out of Zeal against Popery narrow the Terms of Communion to spread the National Religion confine all advantages to that Communion for the Publick Good make their King the Head of a Party to strengthen his hands against his Enemies Deliver up Charters and Retake them gelt of their Noblest Priviledges in performance of their Oaths to preserve them fight against their King and yet urge the Obligation of Oaths requiring an unalterable Allegiance to his Person assert that the Power is inseparable from him and yet may in his Absence without his Consent be transferr'd to a Regent not to be Reassumed when he should think fit to return grant that he has broken the Contract yet contend that he retains that Power which he received from the Contract Or that tho the Contract be broken the Throne is not vacant Or if it be vacant yet an Heir has a Right and so it is vacant and not vacant at the same time Or that after one has broken a Condition upon which he took an Estate to himself and his Heirs in Fee-Simple or Tail another shall enjoy it as Heir to him and that in his Life-time invite a Deliverer yet reject the Deliverance Upon such Principles as these I find an Eminent English Prelate censur'd as a Deserter of his Church for going about Letter to the B. of L. according to his great Learning to justifie the Oaths taken to the present Government And thus the Cause of J. 2. is made the Cause of the Church of England Certain it is whatever is now pretended 't is more difficult to justifie the taking up or promoting Arms against a Deliverer than an Oppressor And if Arms against the last were lawful even with the prospect of involving Thousands in the Miseries of War much more are they in Defence of that Power which has restor'd those Liberties which the other Invaded and reassured the Publick Peace And whoever first engaged and now draw back not only brand themselves for Traitors but make it evident that Ambition Revenge or some ungenerous Design animated their Undertakings And as I doubt not but they will meet with their due Reward perhaps that Success which has attended the Heroical Actions of our present King may go further with such men to keep them to their Duty than the most demonstrative Proofs of Right which they generally measure by the Event And as no Cause or Action is just in their eyes which is not prosperous they in the language of the Poet are always on the side of the gods But few are in this Point such Philosophers as Cato Victrix causa Diis placuit sed victa Catoni FINIS APPENDIX N. I. Vid. sup CAP. I. F. 4. Thô those Authors which I have referr'd to in the Book have sufficiently expos'd Sir Robert Filmer's Notions yet the following Observations made by me some Years since upon the first applying of my Thoughts to such Studies may be more suited to meaner Capacities at least they who will not give themselves time to read those Elaborate Treatises may be diverted with this Summary of Inconsistencies which Numbers swallow down as blind Men do Flies Sir Robert Filmer and some of our Divines plaid against one another in relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and Sir Robert against Himself SInce Sir Robert Filmer's Writings are recommended to the World by the Elogium of the Infallible Dr. Heylin Vid. Heylin 's Ep. to Sir Ed. Filmer Certamen Ep. p. 208. Ut sup Cap. 1. that Man that professed in print that he could not reckon the early Death of the Wonder of his and following Ages Edw. the 6 th for an Infelicity to the Church of England Pref. to Hist of Ref. You cannot but think that this his Monarch in Politicks whose Death he laments was not so ill principled in himself nor inclin'd to embrace such Counsels but that his Affections to the Church were as exemplary as his Books have manifested them to be to the State But me-thinks Dr. Heylin by subscribing to Sir Robert's Judgment in Politiques and consequently to his Anarchy of a mixt Monarchy does thereby confess that the Church is wholly subject to the Law of the State and that the Civil Power is comprehensive of the Ecclesiastical the dividing of the Power being utter Anarchy and Confusion Nay that excellent Discourse call'd Patriarcha Ep. to Sir Edw. Filmer which the Doctor by way of Prophesy for I am sure 't is not to be imagin'd in the way of Nature tells us would when publish'd give such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Polity that all
mention had ben made it is lykely that the Parliament wold never have consentyd or agreid thervnto as at the makinge of the same Statute yf eny had gone about to have pennyd it in this sorte that such shuld succeede and enjoye the Crowne as K. Henry either by his Letters Patentes or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gracious Hand had namyd what Parsonnes soever they had ben although they were infamous madde impious or such other before rehearsed it is not lykely that in this maner or forme the Parliament wolde have allowed or passed such a Statute And that that is not lykely they wold have consentyd vnto by wordes in such sorte specially expressid It is not to be thought or understandid that such Persons shuld be capable and fit for that Callinge omni exceptione majores And it is playne and notoryous as is before-sayd that to be borne in Adultery or of eny other unlawfull sorte or matche is reputid and taken a Spotte and that a greate one not onely by the Lawes of Man but also by the Lawes of God (p) Sapien. 3 4. Deut. 2 3. and so unworthy and unfitte ar such to be thought capable of the Crowne that in all States where they use to gyve or graunte eny Seigniories Titles or Liberties in Fee as Baronyes Erleshippes Markeshippes and such other the Bastardes ar never thought worthy to be admittid unto the Succession although that they be made legitimate But they must specially be ablyd vnto the succession of the Fee by the Prince (q) Bartol Bald. in l. eam quam C. de fidei com And yf they cannot inherite or be capable of their Titles and Honours which ar not nor cannot be comparyd vnto a Royall Dignitie how shuld they be thought worthie or capable of a Crowne And that that is sayde of Bastardes is to be understandid also of those that pretendith the Succession as Heires of Bastardes And synce this Realme makith no lesse esteme of the Honour and Dignity of the same then eny other Nation doth of theires it is not lykely that specially they would graunt unto the Kinge Power or Authoryte to gyve or leve the Crowne to eny Person not legitimately borne or to their Children or to eny such Person upon whose Birth and Proceedinges there might growe such stryfe dispute or contention accordinge to the saying of Cesar and example of other a litle before remembryd And since it is not lykely that the Parliament wold haue condiscendid specially unto it it followith and we must conclude that such a Graunt cannot be comprehendid by general words But though he had Power or Authority to dispose of the Crowne to the Heires of the Lady Francys and the Lady Eleanor it is trewe yet notwithstandinge he could not do that but with the Condition and Forme that by Power of the Parliament was gyven him that is either by his Letters Patentes vnder the Greate Seale of England or ells by his last Will signed with his most Gratious Hande By Letters Patentes without doubt he hath not done it and so of the Will is the Controversy But beinge able to make a sufficient and perfect Will to all other intentes and purposes either in puttinge to his Hand or ells in not puttinge to his Hand yet yf the Kinge have made his Will without puttinge unto his Hand as ther be Wittnesses sufficient and some of those that subscribed the same Testament in that behalf can so truely and plainly testify that he hath as there is no such Cause left therfore either of such doubt or elles of such conferringe or comparinge the Prothocall with the Signe or Stampe as those that haue sette foorthe these Books wold seeme to make then it is playne and manifest that he hath not done it to this purpose accordinge to the forme and maner prescribed vnto him by the Statute And every Acte or Deede that is done without the Forme prescribed by Lawe is insufficient (r) L. 1. in pr. ff de stipula l. traditionibus C. de pac l. 1. C. de pred cur lib. 10. as well accordinge to th' Exposition and Rules of the Civill Lawe as ells by th' Exposition and Rules of the Common Lawe of this Realme for accordinge to the Civill Lawe it is playne and so taken though the Matters they entreate of be in favourable Causes yet the lacke of Forme is no wayes borne withall or excused (s) L. cum hi. §. si pretor ff de transa Bal. cons 324. volu 20. And much lesse heerin consideringe the Forme requyrid by the Statute is compiled with so meny greate goode important and probable Reasons For the Succession of the Crowne beinge a Cause of such greate weight and in which ther was so greate occasion to doubt so many hassardes of indirect or subtile dealinge they had goode cause to prescribe such a Maner and Forme to make the Will by as wherby they had least occasion to feare or suspect eny counterfetinge confuse or sinister behavour in the same And so accordinge to the Civill Lawe in that Testament that they call a Solempne Testament in the which there is required meny Circumstances yf eny of those do lacke the Testament or Will is of no force or valour (t) Justin de testa lege jube C. ibidem Besydes accordinge to the same Lawe all Statutes or Agreements made that takith away or correctith eny thinge of or from the Course or Body of the Lawe is reputed and taken as odious and ought to be taken strictly even accordinge to the Letter as the worde standith And this Statute wherof we now speake is such a One For wher the Succession of the Crowne shuld have gone whither the Common Lawe had apoynted or directid it as vnto the next by the Statute of 35 of Henry the Eighth K. Henry had Auctority to leve it to whome he lysted And therfore this Statute is to be interpretid strictly and precisely as the worde gyveth That is that Kinge Henry onely by his Letters Patentes vnder the Great Seale of England or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gratious Hand might name whome he would to the Succession of the Crowne and not otherwyse And lykewise by the Common Lawe of this Realme the Statute is most plainly a direct abridgement of the same by reason it takith from the Common Lawe the naturall limitation of th' Inheritance of the Crowne and appointith it owte of the Rule of the Lawe to the Order and Limitation of Kinge Henry beinge in this respect authorized but as a private Person And it is in some degree a Penal Lawe for it takith the Title of a Kingedome from those that by the Common Lawe have a Right and makith in poynt of execution a Subject of a Prince and contrarywyse a Prince of a Subject which is not onely penall as hauinge respect to the losse of their Title to the Crowne yf it shuld