Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	law_n	time_n	write_v	3,058	5	5.6338	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87530	A looking-glasse for the Parliament. Wherein they may see the face of their unjust, illegall, treasonous and rebellious practices, 1 Against Almighty God. 2 Against their King. 3 Against the fundamentall lawes of the kingdome. 4 Against their own oaths and covenants. Argued betwixt two learned judges, the one remaining an exile beyond the seas, the other a prisoner for his allegiance and fidelity to his King and country.	Jenkins, David, 1582-1663.; R. H.; Heath, Robert, Sir, 1575-1649, attributed name.	1648 (1648)	Wing J595; Thomason E427_17; ESTC R202656	43,342	52

consciences It being a certaine Axiome in Divinity Quod per sacramentum non tenemur nisi ad bonum aut legale By Oaths men are bound to the performance of nothing but what is good and lawfull Now to manifest that this Oath is against the Law of nature we are to consider what the Law of nature is which we finde among the learned to be distinguished into two kindes generall and speciall This generall by Vlpian de Justitia Jure L. 1. tit. 1. is thus defined Jus naturale est Quod natura omnia Animalia docuit Naturall Law is that which nature hath taught all creatures living which he distinguisheth thus from the speciall Jus istud non humani generis proprium sed omnium animalium Quae terra marique nascuntur avium quoque commune est The Law of Nature saith he is not proper to man alone but the same is common to all living creatures as well to birds as to those which the Land the Sea produceth and agreeable to this is the description of the Law of Nature set downe by learned and reverend Hooker in his first booke of Ecclesiasticall pollicie whereby he calls it That manner of working which God hath set for each created thing to keep he being a director of infinit knowledge to guide nature in her wayes But I meane not that this Negative Oath is against this generall Law of nature but there is a more speciall Law of nature proper to mankinde only which will steere us to the question in hand which speciall Law of nature proper to men St. Augustine in his Epistle ad Hil. 89. in Evangelium Johanes Tract. 49. defines thus Lex naturalis est impressio divini luminis in nobis participatio legis aternae in rationali Creatura The Law naturall saith he is the impression of divine light in us and a participation of the eternall Law in the reasonable creatures which distinction is strengthened by that expostulation which Moses makes in the person of God with Cain before any Law written Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted if thou dost not well sin lyeth at the doore for so is the Law of nature imparted unto us by illumination of the Law eternall that this is most cleare St. Paul witnesseth unto us Rom 2. 15. 14. For when the Gentiles saith hee which have not the Law doe by nature the things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a law unto themselves which shew the works of the Law written in their hearts their conscience also bearing witnesse and their thoughts mean while excusing or accusing them what other thing was this but the Law of nature or the impression of divine light in the hearts of the Gentiles which doctrine of St. Paul reproves the opinion of those who thinke that whatsoever proceedes of nature is sinne for if so it were that whatsoever proceeds of nature is sinfull how could the consciences of the Gentiles bear witnesse for them or excuse them of the breach of the Law Therefore St. Augustine in his third booke de doctrina Christiana Cap. 14 saith Omne vitium naturae nocet ac per hoc contra naturam est every vice doth wrong to nature and is therefore contrary to it and in his 12. booke de Civitate Dei Cap. 1. he saith Omnia peccata sunt in universum contra naturam legem naturae All sins are generally against reason and the Law of nature And Damascene L. 2. fidei Orthodox Cap. 30. agrees in this with him for saith he Homines facti sunt mali declinando in id quod contra naturam est Men are made evill by declining to that which is contrary to nature Nature therefore is Gods instrument and none other is her guide but only the God of nature for as S. Paul said in his Sermon at Athens when he found an altar directed to the unknown God Act. 17. 28. in him we live and move have our being being also of his off-spring as he told them their owne Poets said whereby it is clearly proved that though the Athenians being Gentiles and ascribing the being of all things to the Law and course of nature yet St. Paul could finde out another hand in those workes besides nature to whom nature was only subservient and an handmaid to obey his eternall Law decree and purpose according to that order hee hath set downe for the sonnes of men for ever to bee observed This short digression I have made only to take away this objection that many make That we are not bound to observe the Lawes of nature and also to let them know that the Law of nature is to bee observed and that as being a participation of the eternal Law it is both perpetuall and unalterable and not presumptuously to be violated The consideration whereof moved Pythagoras the heathen Philosopher to publish amongst his golden precepts this one nil turpe committas neque coram aliis neque tecum maxime omnium verere teipsum commit nothing foule or dishonest saith he neither to be known to others nor to thine own heart but above all things reverence thine owne conscience but to draw somewhat nearer to the thing in purpose and to prove that this Negative Oath is against the Law of nature I must observe with Hooker that as there is a Law naturall belonging to men as they are men in their kinde which Law directeth them in the means whereby they are to steere their actions as to their owne particular preservations so there is a Law naturall which toucheth them as sociable parts united into one body a Law which bindeth them to serve unto each others good and all to preserve the good of the whole before whatsoever their owne particular and from both those roots or branches of the Law of nature springs the allegiance subjection and loyall obedience which is due from a subject unto his King from this speciall Law of nature Man by the impression of divine light is bound to observe the Law naturall as it is written in his heart and is part of the Law eternall by which we are bound to obey and succour and assist our Parents whether our naturall parents or the parents of our Country and from this relative Law of nature as I may so call it or the Covenant of nature whereby we are bound as sociable parts by the Law of nature united into one body for the preservation of the whole the subject to obedience faith and allegiance the King to protection and to maintaine the Laws bodies and goods of his subjects and both together to maintaine the peace of all as Fortescue in his booke of the praise of the Lawes of England Cap. 13. observes and therefore Glanvil who wrote in Hen. 2. time L. 9. Cap. 4. saith Mutua debes esse domini fidelitatis connexio ita quod quantum debet quisque

the bottome of our hearts yield to the divine Majesty all humble thankes and praise not onely for the said unspeakable and inestimable benefits and blessings above mentioned but also that he hath further inriched your highnesse with a most royall progeny of most rare and excellent gifts and forwardnesse and in his goodnesse is like to increase the happy number of them And in most humble and lowly manner doe beseech your most excellent Majesty that as a memoriall to all posterities amongst the Records of your high Court of Parliament for ever to endure of our loyall obedience and hearty and humble affection It may be published and declared in this high Court of Parliament and enacted by authority of the same That we being bounden thereunto both by the lawes of God and man doe Recognise and acknowledge and thereby expresse our unspeakable joyes That immediatly upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth late Queene of England the imperiall Crowne of this Realme of England and of all the Kingdomes dominions and rights belonging to the same did by inherent birth-right and lawfull and undoubted succession descend and come to your most excellent Majesty as being lyneally justly and lawfully next and sole Heyre of the blood-royall of this Realme as is aforesaid and that by the goodnesse of God Almighty and lawfull right of descent under one imperial Crown your Majesty is of the Realmes and Kingdomes of England Scotland France and Ireland the most potent and mighty King and by Gods goodnesse more able to protect and governe us your loving subjects in all peace and plenty then any of your noble progenitors and thereunto we most humbly and faithfully doe submit and oblige our selves our heyres and posterities for ever untill the last drop of our bloods be spent And doe beseech your Majesty to accept the same as the first fruits in this high Court of Parliament of our loyalty and faith to your Majesty and your royall progeny and posterity for ever which if your Majesty shall be pleased as an argument of your gracious acceptation to adorne with your Majesties royall assent without which it can neither be compleat and perfect nor remaine to all posterity according to our most humble desires as a memoriall of your princely and tender affection towards us we shall adde this also to the rest of your Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits And by the statute of 3. Jaco cap. 4. by which statute the oath of allegiance is injoyned It is declared that if any person shall put in practice to absolve perswade or withdraw any of his Majesties subjects from their obedience to his Majesty his heires or successors or to move them or any of them to promise obedience to any other Prince State or Potentate that then every such person their procurers counsellers ayders and maintainers shall be adjudged Traytors And doe not the Parliament both in the first and third yeare of this King acknowledge King Charles nay even in the petition of Right and in every Parliament since to be their sovereigne Lord Can it then be doubted upon due consideration had of the fore-mentioned Acts of Parliament and the severall declarations made by the Parliaments of all ages that the right of the Crowne is an hereditary right and that King Charles is our lawfull Sovereigne Lord and supreame governour of the Realmes or that allegiance is not due to him from all states of this kingdome and from every one of his subjects within the same Surely no if you thinke that there can be any I desire you will please to returne me the legall reasous of your opinion therein upon consideration had of these Statutes and why the power of both Houses of Parliament is above the Kings neither are the prerogatives afore cited due to him by the acknowledgment recogniscions and declarations of Parliament onely but these are due unto him by the common fundamentall and municipall Lawes of this Realme according to the testimony of the learned Writers of the Law in all ages and by the continuall language and judgements of the Sages of the law in all preceding Kings Reignes since we have had Bookes and reports of the law published For first it appeares by the ancient Treatise called Modus tenend● Parliamentum which is a part of the Common law of the Land and as Sir Edward Coke 4. part of his Institutes page 12. observes was made before the Conquest and rehearsed unto King William at his Conquest who approved of the same and according to the forme of it held a Parliament as ti is reported to us in the yeare booke of 21. Ed. 3. fol. 60 that the King is Caput principium finis Parliamenti The King is the head the beginning and the end of the Parliament and by the booke of 21. Hen. 7 fol. 20. it is held that it is no statute if the King assent not to it and that the King may disassent and by Andrew Hornes Booke called the Mirrour of Justices which was written in the time of King Edward the second it is said that they are guilty of perjury that incroach any jurisdictions belonging to the King or ●alsifie their faith due to him Bracton who wrote in the time of King Henry the third a learned Author of the Lawes of England lib. 4. cap. 24 sect. 1. hath these words Rex habet potestatem jurisdictionem super ●mnes qui in Regnosuo sunt ea que sunt jurisdictionis pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Regiam dignitatem habet etiam coertion●m ●t delinquentes puniat coerceat The King saith he hath power and jurisdiction over all men which are in his kingdom those things which are either of jurisdiction or peace belong to none but to the Kingly dignity he hath like wise a constraining power to punish delinquents and lib. 3. cap 7. he saith that Treasons felonies and other pleas of the Crowne are propriae causae Regis are causes belonging to the Kings punishment onely and in his fift Sect. of the same fourth booke saith thus Omnis sub Rege ipse sub nullo nisitantum Deo non est inferior sibi subjectis non parem habet in regno in English thus Every man is under the King and he under none but God alone he is not inferiour to his subjects he hath no peere in his Realme And in his fift booke in his third Treatise of default cap. 3. he saith thus Rex non habet Superiorem nisi Deum satis habet ad penam quod expectat Deum ultorem The King hath no Superiour but God alone and it is sufficient punishment for him because he must expect God to bee the revenger if he doe commit wrong It is said in Plowdens Commentaries fol. 234. That the King hath the sole government of his Subjects and fol. 213. as also in Calvins case That allegiance is due to the naturall body of the King and fol. 242. it is

A Looking-glasse FOR THE PARLIAMENT Wherein they may see the Face of their UNJUST ILLEGALL TREASONOUS and REBELLIOUS PRACTICES 1 Against Almighty GOD 2 Against their KING 3 Against the Fundamentall LAWES of the Kingdome 4 Against their own Oaths and Covenants Argued betwixt Two Learned JUDGES the one remaining an exile beyond the Seas the other a Prisoner for his Allegiance and Fidelity to his KING and COUNTRY Printed in the Eighth yeer of the Parliaments Tyranny and Oppression 1648. To the Reader COURTEOUS READER WHosoever thou art that shalt peruse this insuing Discourse we desire thee to doe it with Candor and without prejudice of opinion before thou hast warily read it seriously consider it and advisedly weighed it and when thou hast so done if thou shalt approve of it practice it if thon doest not let us receive thy modest reproof in writing and informe us better by more learned and infallible Arguments of the truth in those grounds we have laid down to our selves and we shall hold our selves much obliged unto thee and remaine Studious to doe thee good D. I. R. H. Dated Feb. 7. An. D. 1648. A LOOKING GLASSE for the PARLIAMENT IVDGE SIR I Must confesse to you that I doe apprehend that there is a Legislative Power in the Parliament but I take it to be in sensu conjuncto not in sensu diviso in a sense when the KING is joyned to both Houses of Parliament not when he is divided from them either in his Will or Person For neither House by it self or both Houses together have Power to make a Law to binde the Subject without the Royall assent now the Legislative Power is nothing else but a Power to repeal old Lawes or to make new ones that shall binde the Subject neither can the KING by himself repeal any established or make any Law binding to the subject without the preparation or assent of both Houses not joyning with any one House make a Law or Ordinance to binde the other nor repeal any Law whatsoever and I am very confident you cannot shew me an authority in our Laws to the contaary But you will peradventure say That the KING will fully absent himself from both his Houses of Parliament and that thereupon his Power is inherent in and devolved to the Parliament If you should make this objection besides what you will finde hereafter expressed as touching this question the practice of all times shew the contrary for as on the one part if he be personally present with his Parl. yet he may be wilfully absent or absent in his will as if he answer to any bill promoted to him Le Roy s●avisera or the King will advise upon it it stands at present for a negation of the bill and thereby it is made incapable that Session to be an Act so on the contrary part if the King be absent from both Houses of Parliament in person hee may be present in his will that is if his person were at York and both Houses sitting at Westminster and they should send him Bills to signe which he should accept of and indorse this upon them Le Roy le Veut or the King wills this is an affirmation of those bills and makes them Acts of Parliament which not only proves that one or both Houses by themselves have not legislative power without the King for as to the making of Lawes they have but a preparatory power to frame and present bills for the Royall signature and approbation but also that if the King bee absent in person from them either willingly or by occasion of necessity his legislative power is not representatively lodged in or devolved unto one or both Houses of Parliament I will agree with that great lover of Parliaments and learned Father of the Law Sir Edward Cooke in the fourth part of his Institutes p. 6. That a Parliament cannot begin or be held but either in the Kings person or by representation By representation two wayes either by a Guardian of England by Letters-patents under the Great Seale when the King is in remotis out of the Realme or by commission under the Great Seale to certaine Lords of Parliament representing the Kings person he being within the Realme by reason of some infirmity so that we hereby conclude that the King is not represented in Parliament of common course but only by speciall Commission in one of these two causes in the first of which cases Edward Duke of Cornewall and Earle of Chester held a Parliament in 24. E. 3. for King Edw. the third And John Duke of Bedford brother and Lieutenant to the King and Guardian of England held a Parliament as Guardian of England in the fifth year of King H. the fifth and in the second case in 3. E. 4. a Parliament was begunne in the presence of the King and prorogued untill a further day And when William Arch-bishop of York the Kings Commissary by Letters-patents held the same Parliament and adjourned the same the cause of the said prorogation being because the King was inforced to goe into Glocestershire to represse a Rebellion there so in 28. Eli. Queen Elizabeth by her Commission did by her Letters-patents authorise John Whit gift Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Baron of Burleigh Lord Treasurer and Henry Earle of Darby to begin hold and prorogue a Parliament and this Commission is entred in the Journall booke of the Lords house over which is written Domina Regina representatur per comissionarios viz. That our Lady the Queene is represented by her Commissioners which precedents in both cases plainely prove that the King is not of course representatively in Parliament nor his power lodged there but by his speciall Commissions or Letters Patents which may suffice as to this point but for those parts of your motives that the power of both Houses is above the Kings you shall find answered unto hereafter And whereas you write that the Scots have delivered up the King and that he is a Prisoner and his Person at their disposition that the City and Parliament are united that the whole strength of the Kingdome is in their hands that Bishops will be rooted out their Lands sold and Presbyterian government setled which I conceive you alledge as arguments to perswade me to compound and take the Oathes you mention these are rather arguments of force and fraude by all zealous lovers of honour Justice and Piety to be resisted and withstood then of truth and reason tobe submittd unto and looke more like arguments of Sutors Hill then Westminster Hall but if you lay them before me as perswasions of feare and terrour I answer you in the words of King David that you may see how vaine these conceits are Psal. 2. The Princes of the earth stand up and take councell against the Lord and against his Anoynted saying Let us breake their bonds asunder and cast away their cords from us he that dwelleth in Heaven shall laugh them to scorne

domino ex homagio tantum debet illi dominus ex domino praeter solam ex reverentiam the knot of faith ought to be mutuall between the Lord his subject or tenant for look how much subjection or obedience the tenant or subject owes to his Lord so much doth the Lord owe to his tenant by way of protection reverence excepted which knot Aristotle in his first book of Politicks proves to be the duty of nature for saith he To command and obey is of nature for whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preservation of the society of man is due by the Law of nature Now Tully lib. 3. de legibus tells us that sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest which is That without command or government neither any house nor City nor Nation nor mankinde nor to conclude the world cannot stand but peradventure that will be confessed and yet it will be denied that the world cannot stand without Monarchy and objected that Monarchy is not that government that ought to be by the Law of nature to which I answer with Aristotle in his first booke of Ethicks That Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam That is the Law of nature which with all men hath the same power Now as Aristotle in his first booke of his Politicks Cap. 3. and Plato in his third book of Laws jump in this opinion that in the first beginning of time the chiefest person in every house was alwaies as it were a King so when numbers of housholds joyned themselves together in civill societies Kings were the first kinde of governours among them which is also as it seemeth the reason why Kings have alwayes been and are to this day called patres patriae or fathers of their Country and it is not unknowne to any man learned in Antiquity History or Chronologie that it was 3198 years after the creation before any Law was written or given in the world according to the computation of Ioseph Scaliger by the Julian account The Law being given in that year and delivered by God unto Moses on Mount Sinai and whether the old world before the floud were governed by Kings it is disputable but sure I am that Nimrod the sonne of C●sh the son of Cham the sonne of Noah was a King for I finde Gen. 10. 10. that the beginning of his Kingdome was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh in the Land of Shinar and according to the computation aforesaid began his reigne in the 2479 yeare of the world which was 720 yeares before the Law was given and 149 yeares after the floud in all which time it is more then probable that all the Nations of the world except the Jewes were governed by Monarchies or Kings and long after the Law was given to the Jewes which is proved unto us by that demand of the Jews made unto Samuel 1 Sam. 8. 5. And they said unto him behold thou art old and thy sons walke not in thy wayes make us now a King to judge us like all Nations And we see it yet continued to this day among all the Gentiles heathens upon the earth by which sort of people above twenty parts of thirty of the knowne world are now inhabited That the only government of each severall Nation among them is Monarchy and much more subjection and allegiance performed by the heathen subjects to their Gentile Kings then is amongst us towards ours which is a full argument to mee that Monarchy is not only a divine ordinance or institution of God Almighty from the beginning and a branch of the Law of nature but also the best of governments too because those Gentile Nations which guide their actions only by the Law of nature imbrace this forme of government and none other making good that maxime of their heathen Philosopher afore remembred Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentia which induces me to affect the opinion the more because I see the Gentiles ever submitted to Monarchy call regiment for with Monarchy I say non potest error contingere ubi omnes idem opinantur And with Teles● non licet naturale universaleque hominum judicium falsum vanumque existimare an error of judgement cannot be where all men are of the same opinion and we ought not to esteeme the universall judgement of naturall men to be false and vaine But I will dwell no longer upon the fringe of this particular but make this point evident by the Laws of this Kingdome which are a part of natures Law That this Oath is against the Law of nature and for that Cause only that if I take it I am thereby withheld from the execution of mine allegiance whereby I make violation of natures Law To make this cleare and evident it appeares unto us by Calvins Cas recorded in the seventh part of Sir Edwards C●●ks Reports that there are in our Law foure kinds of allegiance the first 〈…〉 all which is due from every subject bo●●e within his Majesties dominions to his Majesty as to his Sovereigne Lord and King The second is ligeantia legalis or legall Allegiance which is due by every subject to the King by reason of his suit Royall and this is not naturall but created by King Arthur for expulsion of the Sarazens and continued after by others for the Danes exile and is proper for the suppressing of insurrections and expelling invaders The third is Ligeantia acquisitia or purchased allegiance which comes by indenization The fourth and last is locall allegiance and that is due from strangers friends to Kings whilst they are in their dominions I meddle not with the two last and omit for brevity sake and because I shall not need to draw any argument from it to helpe my selfe withall to speake any thing of legall allegiance But for naturall allegiance it is absolute pure and indefinite that such an allegiance there is as naturall if you read the indictment of the Lord Dacres 26. H. 8. you shall finde it runne thus Quod praedictus Dominus Dacre debitum fidei ligeantiae suae quod prefato Domini Regi naturaliter de jure impendere debuit minime c. which in English is thus That the aforesaid Lord Dacre not regarding the duty of his faith and Allegiance which he did naturally and of right owe to and ought to pay to King Henry the 8. c. And Cardinall Poole 30. H. 8. being likewise indicted of Treason Contra dominum Regem supremum naturalem Dominum suum that is against the King his naturall and supreame Lord which indictments prove a naturall Allegiance to be not only due but of right due from every subject to his sovereigne King and as this allegiances is naturall so is it absolute so is it pure and indefinite

Quia nullis claustris coercetur nullis metis refraenatur nullis finibus premitur it ought not to bee constrained or bridled with any bonds nor restrained to any place for a man though he may abjure his Country or his Kingdome yet he cannot abjure his Allegiance nay he cannot alien give a way or withdraw his allegiance from his King by the Law of nature to his Kings prejudice though he should gaine his liberty freedome of estate and honour or advancement unto the bargaine for St. Augustine saith nemo jure naturae cum alterius detrimento locupletior fieri debet no man by the Law of nature ought to be made richer by the losse of another but if I withdraw mine allegiance the King hath lost a subject therefore I may not doe it neither can the King release it to any of his subjects it being an inseparable accident adherent in the person of a King and is due omni soli semper to every King under heaven from his owne naturall subjects It is due to every King and alwaies to Kings and only to Kings by the Law of nature And it is only due to his person and not to his office which is only imaginary and invisible and no where formally to be found but in his person as by the said case of Calvin more fully appeares Hereupon I conclude that allegiance being due by the Law of nature to the Kings person and that I neither can abjure it nor alien it or withdraw it from him nor he release it to me and that it is only due to him and to no other I cannot take this oath and keep it without violation of the Law of nature and manifest injury both to my selfe and Sovereigne King Quia jura natura sunt immutabilia the Lawes of nature are immutable as before is observed and is plainly held forth by Bracton L. 1. cap. 6. Docter Stud. cap. 5. 6. And so from this point of the Law of nature I come to shew that this Negative Oath is absolutely against the knowne setled and established Laws of the Land the reason is because if I take it keep it it withholds me from the performance of my duty of allegiance which is due to my King from me by the Law of the land and so I am informed by the books of Law this tearm or word allegiance is rendred unto us under divers names in our Law bookes as sometimes it is called fides or faith as Bracton l. 5. Tract. de exceptionibus cap. 24. fol. 427. And so Fleta l. 6. cap. 47. Alienigena repelli debet in Anglia ab agendo donec fuerint ad fidem Regis Angliae Aliens ought to be kept from acting in England till they shall be of the allegiance of the King that is by endenization so Glanvil l. 9. cap. 1. Salva side debita domino Regi heredibus suis That is saving our faith or allegiance due to the King and his heires so Littleton l. 2. in chap. Homage where I doe my homage to my Lord Salve le foy du a nostre senior le Roy saving the faith which I owe to our Lord the King and in the Statute of 25. E. 3. De natis ultra mare these words faith and allegiance are coupled together as signifying one thing sometimes it is called obedientia Regis our obedience to the King as in the bookes of 9. E. 4. 6. 7. 2 R. 3. 2. And in the Statutes of H. 8. 14. cap. 2. and 22. H. 8. 8. and in the booke of 22. Ass pl. 25. it is called ligealty but by what name soever it bee called whether faith obedience ligealty or allegiance all is one it is due still from us subjects to our sovereigne Lord the King by the Statute of 10 R. 2. cap. 5. and 11. R 2. cap. 1. 14. H. 8 cap. 2. and many other the people are called liege people and by the Statute of 34. H. 8. cap. 1 and 35. H. 8 cap. 3. and divers other the King is stiled liege Lord of his subjects and these that are bound under the Kings power are called his naturall leige-men as in the 4. H. 3. Fitz. title Dower and 11. E. 3. cap. 2. So that I may conclude upon these authorities that Ligeantia est vinculum fidei domin● Regi our allegiance is the bond of our faith to the King which being so wee may well say of it as Sir Edward Cooke doth that ligeantia est legis essentia our allegiance is the essence of the Law and so it hath been often and sundry times declared by many sundry wise temperate and well advised Parliaments of England The government of Kings in this Isle of Britain hath been very ancient even as ancient as History it self for those who deny the story of Brutus to be true doe finde out a more ancient plantation here under Kings namely under Samothes grandchilde to Japhet the son of Noah from whom the ancient Britaines that inhabited this Land are according to their conceits descended Kings or Monarchs of great Britaine had and did exercise far more large and ample power and did claime greater Prerogatives over the people under their government and jurisdiction then the Kings of England have done since the Norman conquest as it is to be seen at large both in the Brittish Chronicles and records of these times and in our English histories and may also be gathered out of the writings of the Romans who invaded this Island and lived here upon the place and I doe not finde that ever the people of Brittaine made any of their Kings by election of voices or put them out at pleasure but that the Kingly government and right of the Crowne descended alwayes by hereditary descent and succession though in that infancy of Law and right it may be suspected that there was not so much regularity of justice or observation of right as in these latter more refined ages hath or ought to be I may boldly affirm and it cannot be denyed by any ●●at hath read all the Chronicles and Statutes of this Realme that there hath beene any King of England since the conquest that hath not beene acknowledged by both houses of Parliament of their severall times to be soveraigne Lords of this Realme and their soveraigne Lords too although that some of those Kings were onely Reges de facto and not de jure Kings onely in fact and not of right and such as by the Lawes of England had no right to the Crowne and all the Parliaments since the conquest have acknowledged that the Crowne of England and the government of the Realme hath belonged to the Kings of hereditary right and not by election some of these Parliaments in more expresse and perticular manner then the rest and they of later times more amply then the ancient By the statute called Dictum de Kenilworth made 51. H. 3. King Hen. 3. is acknowledged to be

said That the naturall body of the King and his politique make but one body for as long as the naturall body lives the politique is inherent being meerely imaginary and invisible as it is said in Calvins case whereupon I inferre that the Kings politique capacity his body being absent is not in the Parliament And in 10. Eliz. Plowdens 316. it 's affirmed That the law makes not the servant greater then the Master nor the subject greater then the King for that were to subject order and measure since therfore the King hath so undoubted a right to the Crowne and is my lawfull Sovereigne and mine allegiance is due unto the Kings person by the Law of the Land Recognized and acknowledged in so many severall Parliaments in all ages and confirmed by so many undeniable authorities in Law reported in our Books and since it stands proved that mine Allegiance is due unto his naturall person both by the Law of God nature and the law of the Land and can neither be abjured released or renounced being inseparable from the person of the King and indispensably due from me to him I conclude that the Oath which binds me if I take it and keep it to withdraw mine Allegiance from my Leige Lord the King is against the law of the Land and in taking it I not only make an absolute breach upon the law of the Land but also in my judgement I doe thereby incurre the crime of perjury by the law in falsifying my faith and Allegiance to his Majesty King Charles Gods anointed and crowned my naturall liege Lord sovereigne and my lawfull King both by descent Coronation investure and undoubted right which is not onely due to him by the Law of the Land from every of his subjects but every one of them is to take this following Oath for performance of it Viz. You shall sweare that from this day forwards you shall be true and faithfull to our Sovereigne Lord King Charles and his heyres and faith and truth shall beare to him of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor heare of any ill or dammage intended unto him that you shall not defend so helpe me Almighty God Which forme of Oath every Subject by the Common Law is bound to take as appeares by Britton 5. Edw. 1. cap. 24. And by Andrew Horne in the Mirrour of Justices pag. 226. and in Calvins case as by perusall of their Bookes will appeare and by diverse others which for brevities sake I omit And now Sir I desire to know your opinion likewise whether that by the Common Law both houses of Parliament are in power above the King or where their legall power to dispose of his Majesties person other then to his honour and good according to their duty Oathes Protestations Covenants and Declarations and obedience is to be found I come now to prove that this Oath is against the Law of reason the Law of reason saith Doctor and Student cap. 2. is written in the hearts of every man teaching him what is to be done and what is to be fled And because it is written in the heart therefore it may not be put away nor is it ever changable by any diversity of place or time and therefore against this Law prescription statutes or customes may not prevaile and if any be brought in against it they be no prescriptions statutes nor customes but things done against justice and voyd and in this it differeth from the Law of God for that the Law of God is given by Revelation from God Almighty and this Law is given by a naturall light of understanding and is given principally to direct our actions by for the obtaining of felicity in this life so us we guide them onely by the rule of Justice This Law instract●th us saith the same Author that good is to be done and evill is to be avoided that thou shouldest do● to another that which thou wouldest another should doe to thee That justice is to be done to every man and not wrong that a trespasse is to be punished such like Is it so then that the law of reason directs me that good is to be done and evill is to be avoyded I then conclude that this oath is against this Law for if I by this Oath shall withdraw mine Allegiance and subjection to my King from him I lose the benefit or good I should have by his protection for the rule in Law is Quod Subjectio trahit protectionem quia Rex ad tutelam Legis corporum bonorum erectus est as Fortescue lib. de laudibus legum Angliae c. 13. Obedience of the Subject drawes protectiō from the King the King being ordained for the defence of the Law the bodies goods of his Subjects The holy Scriptures informe me that I must obey my King for conscience sake and this Law teacheth me I must avoid evill but it is evill for me to obey men in taking this Negative Oath which enjoynes me not to obey my King rather then God who enjoynes that duty of obedience therefore I conclude that this Oath is against the Law of reason This Law teacheth me to doe as I would men should doe unto me but if I were a King I would not be dispoyled of the duty and service of my Subjects therefore this Oath enjoynes me to a thing against the Law of reason It is injustice and wrong to take away the Kings right by this Law but this Oath bindes me to take away his right and doe him wrong therefore in this particular also this Oath is against the Law of reason And lastly this Law of reason teacheth me a Trespasser is to be punished it teacheth me also to understand that to take this Oath is to trespasse upon my Kings interest in me as I am his Subject to trespasse upon his Lawes as I am de jure under his government and to trespasse upon his patience and goodnesse if he doe not hereafter punish me for it Therefore I conclude this Oath is against the Law of reason The Law of reason generally taken is a directive Rule unto goodnesse of operation saith Hooker so that by this Law wee ought to direct all our actions to a a good end but by taking this Oath I direct not my actions to a good end therefore I am not to take this Oath by this Law the Law of reason saith Sophocles is such that being proposed no man can reject it as unjust and unreasonable but the King may reject this manner of imposing of Oathes upon his Subjects whereby he isdeprived of their aid and assistance without his assent And the Subjects may reject this Oath as unreasonable and unjust because if they take it they are thereby bound either to breake their Oath which is a grievous sin or to lose the benefit of protection which by the Lawes they may claime and ought to have from their naturall lawfull and sovereigne Liege