Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	law_n	work_n	2,920	5	6.2264	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86917	A treatise of monarchie, containing two parts: 1. concerning monarchy in generall. 2. concerning this particular monarchy. Wherein all the maine questions occurrent in both, are stated, disputed, and determined: and in the close, the contention now in being, is moderately debated, and the readiest meanes of reconcilement proposed. Done by an earnest desirer of his countries peace.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1643 (1643)	Wing H3781; Thomason E103_15; ESTC R5640	60,985	86

three undertake to doe them it is invalid it is no binding Act for in this case all three have a free Negative voice and take away the priviledge of a Negative Voice so that in case of refusall the rest have power to doe it without the third then you destroy that Third and make him but a Looker on So that in every mixed Government I take it there must be a necessity of concurrence of all three Estates in the production of Acts belonging to that power which is committed in common to them Else suppose those Acts valid which are done by any major part that is any two of the three then you put it in the power of any two by a confederacy at pleasure to disanull the third or suspend all its Acts and make it a bare Cypher in Government Assert 3 Thirdly in such a composed State it the Monarch invade the power of the other two or run in any course tending to the dissolving of the constituted frame they ought to employ their power in this case to preserve the State from ruine yea that is the very end and fundamentall aime in constituting all mixed Policies not that they by crossing and jarring should hinder the publike good but that if one exorbitate the power of restraint and providing for the publike safety should be in the rest and the power is put into divers hands that one should counterpoize and keep even the other so that for such other Estates it is not onely lawfull to deny obedience and submission to illegall proceedings as private men may but it is their duty and by the foundations of the Government they are bound to prevent dissolution of the established Frame Assert 4 Fourthly the Person of the Monarch even in these mixed Formes as I said before in the limited ought to be above the reach of violence in his utmost exorbitances For when a People have sworne allegeance and invested a Person or Line with Supremacy they have made it sacred and no abuse can devest him of that power irrevocably communicated And while he hath power in a mixed Monarchy he is the Universall Soveraigne even of the other limiting States so that being above them he is de jure exempt from any penall hand Assert 5 Fifthly that one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no Constituted Legall Authoritative Judge of the fundamentall Controversies arising betwixt the three Estates If such doe arise it is the fatall disease of these Governments for which no salve can be prescribed For the established being of such authority would ipso facto overthrow the Frame and turne it into absolutenesse So that if one of these or two say their power is invaded and the Government assaulted by the other the Accused denying it it doth become a controversie of this question there is no legall Judge it is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government The Accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience In this case which is beyond the Government the Appeale must be to the Community as if there were no Government and as by Evidence mens Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their utmost assistance For the intention of the Frame in such States justifies the exercise of any power conducing to the safety of the Universality and Government established PART II. Of this particular MONARCHY CHAP. I. Whether the Power wherewith our Kings are invested be an Absolute or Limited and Moderated Power Sect. 1 HAving thus far proceeded in generall before we can bring home this to a stating of the great controversie which now our sins Gods displeasure and evill turbulent men have raised up in our lately most flourishing but now most unhappy Kingdome Wee must first looke into the Frame and Composure of our Monarchy for till we fully are resolved of that we cannot apply the former generall Truths nor on them ground the Resolution of this ruining contention Concerning the Essentiall Composure of this Government that it is Monarchicall is by none to be questioned but the enquiry must be about the Frame of it And so there are seven great questions to be prosecuted Quest 1. stated First whether it be a Limited Monarchy or Absolute Here the question is not concerning Power in the Exercise but the Root and being of it for none will deny but that the way of Government used and to be used in this Realme is a designed way Onely some speake as if this Definement were an act of Grace from the Monarchs themselves being pleased at the suit and for the good of the People to let their power run into act through such a course and current of Law whereas if they at any time shall thinke fit on great causes to vary from that way and use the full extent of their power none ought to contradict or refuse to obey Neither is it the question Whether they sin against God if they abuse their power and run out into acts of injury at pleasure and violate those Lawes which they have by Publike Faith and Oath promised to observe for none will deny this to be true even in the most absolute Monarch in the world But the point controverted is punctually this Whether the Authority which is inherent in our Kings be boundlesse and absolute or limited and determined so that the acts which they doe or command to be done without that compasse and bounds be not onely sinfull in themselves but invalid and non-authoritative to others Now for the determining hereof I conceive and am in Sect. 2 my Judgement perswaded Assert that the Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited and not onely in the Use and Exercise of it And am perswaded so on these grounds and Reasons First Because the Kings Majesty himselfe who best Reas 1 knowes by his Councell the nature of his own power sayes that a Declar from Newmarket Mart. 9. 1641 the Law is the measure of his power which is as full a concession of the thing as words can expresse If it be the measure of it then his power is limited by it for the measure is the limits and bounds of the thing limited And in his Answer to both the Houses concerning the Militia speaking of the men named to him sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted to them then by Law is in the Crowne it selfe His Maiesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some Law first vested in him with power to transferre it to the these persons c. In which passage it is granted that the Powers of the Crown are by Law and that the King hath no more then are vested in him by Law Reas 2 Secondly because it is in the very Constitution of it mixed as I shall afterwards make it appeare then it is radically limited for as I shewed before every mixed Monarchy is limited

evident that a Court is the seat and subject of Authority and power and not barely of counsell and advice Object 2 Secondly the two Houses together with the King are the supreme Court of the Kingdome but taken divisely from the King it is no Court and consequently hath no power Sol. Suppose them no entire Court divided from the King yet they are two Estates of the three which make up the supreme Court so that they have a power and authority though not complete and sufficing to perfect an Act without the concourse of the third For it appeares by the Acts of that Court that every of the three Estates hath a Legislative power in it every Act being enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and by the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Sect. 3 Thirdly they have an authority but in subordination to Object 3 the King and derived from him as his Parliament Indeed this is a maine Question and hath very weighty Arguments on both sides Whether the authority of the two Houses be derived from the King viz. Whether the authority of both the Houses be a subordinate authority and derived from the King as its originall Three Reasons seeme strong for the affirmative First because it is his Parliament so called and acknowledged If his Court then the power whereby they are a Court is his power derived from him as the power of other Courts is Secondly because he hath the power of calling and dissolving it Thirdly because he is acknowledged in the Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy to be the Head and of supreme authority in the Kingdome and all subject to him And whereas some make answere that he is Singulis major but Vniversis minor Treatise entitituled A fuller Answer to Dr. Ferne. so the Answerer to Doctor Ferne I wonder that the Proposition of the Observator that the King is Vniversis minor should be so much exploded Every member scorsi●● is a subject but all collection in their houses are not And hee sayes simply the Houses are co-ordinate to the King nor subordinate that the Lords stile Comites or Peeres implies in Parliament a co-ordinative society with his Majesty in the Government I conceive this Answerer to avoid one extreme falls on another for this is a very overthrow of all Monarchy and to reduce all Government to Democracy For looke where the apex potestatis is there is the Government Also it is against Common Reason For the King is he not King of the Kingdome and what is the Kingdome but all united all the particulars knit together in one body politick so that if he be King of the Kingdome he is Vniversis major too for the King is major and the Kingdome is the united universe of the People Thus those expressions are some of them false some though secundum quid true yet spoken simply and in that manner are scandalous and incompatible to Monarchy Thus you see what may be said on the one side to prove the King to be the originall of all power even of that which is in the Houses of Parliament assembled On the other side are as weighty Arguments to prove the contrary viz. That the two Houses authority is not dependent nor derived from the Royall power First the authority of the Houses being Legislative is the supreme and so cannot bee derived Three concurrent Powers producing one supreme act as con-cause joint causes of the same highest effect cannot have a subordination among themselves in respect of that casualty it not being imaginable how a power can cause the supreme effect and yet be a subordinate and derived power Secondly the end of constituting these two Estates being the limiting and preventing the excesses of the third their power must not be totally dependent and derived from the third for then it were unsuitable for the end for which it was ordained For to limit an Agent by a power subordinate and depending on himself is all one as to leave him at large without any limitation at all Thirdly that which hath beene spoken of a mixed Monarchy doth fully prove that the two other powers which concurre with the Monarch to constitute the mixture must not be altogether subordinate to it and derived from it I must professe these Reasons to prevaile with me that I cannot conceive how the authority of the two Houses can in the whole being of it be a dependent and derived power That we may find out the truth amidst this potent contradiction Sect. 4 of both sides Resolution of the Question recourse must be had to the Architecture of this Government whereof I must declare my self to be so great an Admirer that what ever more then humane wisedom had the contriving of it whether done at once or by degrees found out and perfected I conceive it unparalleld for exactnesse of true policy in the whole world such a care for the Soveraignty of the Monarch such a provision for the liberty of the People and that one may bee justly allayed and yet consist without impeachment of the other that I wonder how our Forefathers in those rude unpolished times could attain such an accurate composure First then suppose a people either compelled to it by conquest or agreeing to it by free consent Nobles and Commons set over themselves by publike compact one Soveraigne and resigne up themselves to him and his heires to be governed by such and such Fundamentall Lawes there 's a supremacy of power set up though limited to one course of exercise Secondly then because in all Governments after cases will come it requiring an addition of Lawes suppose them covenanting with their Soveraigne that if cause be to constitute any other Lawes hee shall not by his sole power doe that worke but they reserve at first or afterwards it is granted them which is all one a hand of concurrence therein that they will be bound by no Lawes but what they joyne with him in the making of Thirdly because though the Nobles may personally convene yet the Commons being so many cannot well come together by themselves to the doing of such a worke it be also agreed that every Corporation of the Commons shall have power to depute one or more to be for the whole in this publike legislative businesse that so the Nobles by themselves the Commons by their Deputies assembling there may be representatively the whole body having Commission to execute that reserved authority for establishing new Lawes Fourthly because the occasion and need of making new Lawes and authentick expounding the old would not be constant and perpetuall and it would carry an appearance of a Government in which were three Heads and chiefe Powers they did not stablish these Estates to be constantly existent but occasionally as the causes for which they were ordained should emerge and happen to be Fifthly because a Monarchy was intended and therefore a Supremacy of power as farre as possible must be

did altogether crosse those ends of their Ordination he had taught them rather a Doctrine of Resistence then Subjection shall we conceive that hee would presse subjection to Powers in the hands of Heathens and Persecutors if he had not intended they should passively be subject unto them even under those Persecutions Rather I approve the received Doctrine of the Saints in ancient and moderne times who could never finde this licence in that place of the Apostle and doe concurre with Master Burroughs Answ to Dr. Ferne Sect. 2. professing against resistence of authority though abused If those saies he who have power to make Lawes make sinfull Lawes and so give authority to any to force obedience we say here there must be either flying or passive Obedience And againe We acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Lawes of the land be against it But what doe they say against this In making such Lawes against Religion the Magistrates are not Gods ordinance and therefore to resist is not to resist Gods ordinance As an inferiour Magistrate who hath a Commission of Power for such ends is resistible if hee exceed his Commission and abuse his Power for other ends so Princes being Gods Ministers and having a deputed Commission from him to such ends viz. the promotion of godlinesse Peace Justice if they pervert their power to contrary ends may be resisted without violation of Gods ordinance That I may give a satisfactory answere to this which is the summe of their long discourse I must lay it downe in severall Assertions First I acknowledge Gods ordinance is not onely Power Assert 1 but Power for such ends sc the good of the People Secondly it is also Gods ordinance that there should be Assert 2 in men by publike consent called thereto and invested therein a power to choose the meanes the Lawes and Rules of government conducing to that end and a power of Judging in relation to those Lawes who be the well doers which ought to be praised and who the evill doers who ought to be punished This is as fully Gods ordinance as the former for without this the other cannot be performed Thirdly when they who have this finall civill Judicature Assert 3 shall censure good men as evill doers or establish iniquity by a Law to the encouragement of evill doers in this case if it be a subordinate Magistrate doth it appeale must bee made as Saint Paul did to the supreme if it be the supreme which through mistake or corruption doth mis-censure from whom there lyes no Civill Appeale then without resistence of that Judgement wee must passively submit And he who in his owne knowledge of innocency or goodnesse of his cause shall by force resist that man erects a Tribunal in his owne heart against the Magistrates Tribunal cleares himselfe by a private Judgement against a publike and executes his owne sentence by force against the Magistrates sentence which hee hath repealed and made void in his owne heart In unjust Censures by the highest Magistrate from whom there is no Appeale but to God the sentence cannot be opposed till God reverse it to whom we have appealed In the meane time vvee must suffer as Christ did notwithstanding his Appeale 1 Pet. 2.23 and so must wee notwithstanding our Appeale 1 Pet. 4 19. for he did so for our example If an Appeale to God or a censure in the Judgement of the condemned might give him power of resistence none would be guilty or submit to the Magistrates censure any further ●hen they please I desire those Authors before they settle their judgement in such grounds which I feare will bring too much scandall to weigh these particulars First their opinion takes away from the Magistrate the chiefe part of Gods ordinance sc povver of definitive judgement of Lawes and Persons who are the good and who the bad to be held so in Civill proceedings Secondly they justifie the Conscience of Papists Heretickes and grossest Malefactors to resist the Magistrate in case they be perswaded their cause is good Thirdly they draw men off from the commands of Patience under persecution and conforming to Christ and his Apostles in their patient enduring without verball or reall opposition though Christ could not have wanted power to have done it as he tells Peter Fourthly they deprive the Primitive and Moderne Martyrs of the glory of suffering imputing it either to their ignorance or disability Fifthly it is a wonder that sith in Christs and his Apostles time there was so much use of this power of resistence they would by no expresse word shew the Christians this liberty but condemne resistence so severely Sixthly there is in the case of the Parliament now taking up Armes no need of these offensive grounds Religion being now a part of our Nationall Law and cannot suffer but the Law must suffer with it Sect. 2 Now to the proposed Question I answere first Negatively sc 1. 1. When arms ought not to be assumed It ought not to be done against all illegall proceedings but such which are subversive and unsufferable Secondly not publike resistence but in excesses inducing publike evils for to repell private injuries of highest nature with publike hazzard and disturbance will not quit cost unlesse in a private case the common Liberty be strooke at Thirdly not when the government is actually subverted and a new forme though never so injuriously set up and the People already engaged in an Oath of absolute subjection for the remedy comes too late and the establishment of the new makes the former irrevocable by any justifiable power within the compasse of that Oath of God This was the case of the Senate of Rome in Saint Pauls time 2. When they may be assumed Secondly affirmatively I conceive three cases when the other Estates may lawfully assume the force of the Kingdome the King not joyning or dissenting though the same be by Law committed to him First when there is invasion actually made or imminently feared by a forraigne Power Secondly when by an intestine Faction the Lawes and Frame of government are secretly undermined or openly assaulted In both these cases the Being of the Government being endangered their trust binds as to assist the King in securing so to secure it by themselves the King refusing In extreme necessities the liberty of Voices cannot take place neither ought a Negative Voice to hinder in this exigence there being no freedome of deliberation and choice when the Question is about the last end Their assuming the sword in these cases is for the King whose Being as King depends on the Being of the Kingdome and being interpretatively his act is no disparagement of his Prerogative Thirdly in case the Fundamentall Rights of either of the three Estates bee invaded by one or both the rest the wronged may lawfully assume force for its owne defence because else it were not free but dependent on the pleasure of the other Also the suppression of

either of them or the diminishing of their Fundamentall Rights carries with it the dissolution of the Government And therefore those grounds which justifie force to preserve its Being allowes this case which is a direct innovation of its Being and Frame CHAP. VII Where the Legall Power of Finall judging in these cases doth reside Quest 7. in case the three Estates differ about the same IN this Question for our more distinct proceeding some Sect. 1 things are necessarily to be observed First The Question stated that we meddle not here with the judicature of Questions of inferiour nature viz. such as are 'twixt subject and subject or the King and a subject in matter of particular right which may be decided other way without detriment of the publike Frame or diminution of the priviledges of either of the three Estates Secondly difference is to be made even in the Questions of utmost danger First for it may be alledged to be either from without by invasion of forrain Enemies or by a confederacy of intestine subverters in which neither of the three Estates are alledged to be interessed and so the case may be judged without relation to either of them or detriment to their priviledges Here I conceive a greater latitude of power may be given to some to judge without the other for it inferres not a subordinating of any of the three to the other Secondly or else it may be alledged by one or two of the Estates against the other that not contenting it selfe with the Powers allowed to it by the Lawes of the Government it seekes to swallow up or entrench on the priviledges of the other either by immediate endevours or else by protecting and interessing it selfe in the subversive plots of other men Thirdly in this case wee must also distinguish betwixt first authority of raising Forces for defense against such subversion being knowne and evident secondly and authority of judging and finall determining that the accused Estate is guilty of such designe and endevour of subversion when it is denied and protested against This last is the particular in this Question to be considered not whether the People are bound to obey the authority of two or one of the Legislative Estates in resisting the subversive assaies of the other being apparent and self-evident which I take in this Treatise to be cleare But when such plea of subversion is more obscure and questionable which of the three Estates hath the power of ultime and supreme judicature by Vote or sentence to determine it against the other so that the People are bound to rest in that determination and accordingly to give their assistance eo nomine because it is by such Power so noted and declared Determination of the Question For my part in so great a cause if my earnest desire of publique good and peace may justifie me to deliver my minde I will prescribe to the uery Question for it includes a solecisme in government of a mixt temperature To demand which Estate may challenge this power of finall determination of Fundamentall controversies arising betwixt them is to demand which of them shall be absolute For I conceive that in the first part hereof I have made it good that this finall utmost controversie arising betwixt the three Legislative Estates can have no legall constituted Judge in a mixed government for in such difference he who affirmes that the people are bound to follow the Judgement of the King against that of the Parliament destroyes the mixture into absolutenesse And he who affirmes that they are bound to cleave to the Judgement of the two Houses against that of the King resolves the Monarchie into an Aristocracie or Democracie according as he places this finall Judgement Whereas I take it to be an evident truth that in a mixed government no power is to be attributed to either Estate which directly or by necessary consequence destroyes the liberty of the other Yet it is strange to see how in this Epidemicall division of Sect. 2 the Kingdome the Abettors of both parts claime this unconcessible Judgement But let us leave both sides pleading for that which we can grant neither and weigh the strength of their Arguments First Dr. Ferne layes downe two reasons Dissolution of Arguments placing it in the King why this finall Judgement should belong to the King● 1. Monarchie saies he Sect. 5. settles the chiefe power and finall Judgement in one This Position of his can be absolutely true no where but in absolute Monarchies and in effect his book knowes no other then absolute government 2. Seeing some one must be trusted in every State It is reason saies he Sect 5. the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and Supreame power I presume by finall trust he meanes the trust of determining these Supreame and finall disagreements and accordingly I answer It is not necessary that any one be trusted with a binding power of Judicature in these cases for by the foundations of this government none is yea none can be trusted with it for to intend a mixed government and yet to settle the last resolution of all judgement in one is to contradict their very intention Neither in a constituted government must we dispose of powers according to the guesse of our reason for mens apprehensions are various The Dr. thinkes this power fittest for the King His answerers judge it fittest for the two Houses and give their reasons for it too Powers must there reside where they are de facto by the Architects of a government placed he who can bring a fundamentall Act stating this power in any saies something to the matter but to give our conjectures where it should be is but to provide fuell for contention Dissolution of the ●rguments placing it in the two Houses On the contrary The Author of that which is called A Fuller Answer to that Dr. hath two maine Assertions placing this Judgement in the two Houses 1. The finall and casting result of this States Judgement concerning what these Lawes dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament saies he p. 10. 2. In this finall resolution of the States Judgement the people are to rest ibidem pag. 14. Good Lord What extream opposition is between these two sorts of men If the maintenance of these extremes be the ground of this warre then our Kingdome is miserable and our Government lost which side soever overcome for I have more then once made it good that these Assertions are destructive on both sides But I am rather perswaded that these Officious Propugners overdoe their worke and give more to them whose cause they plead then they ever intended to assume Nay rather give to every one their due give no power to one of these three to crush and undoe the other at pleasure But why doth this Answer give all that to the two Houses which ere while they would not suffer when the

Judges in the case of Ship-money had given it to the King sure when they denied it to him they did not intend it to themselves 1. Hee tells us In them resides the reason of the State And that the same reason and Judgement of the State which first gave this government its being and constitution therefore all the people are to be led by it and submit to it as their publique reason and Judgement I answer If by state he meane the whole Kingdome I say the reason of the two Houses divided from the King is not the reason of the Kingdome for it is not the Kings reason who is the head and chiefe in the Kingdome If by state be meant the people then it must be granted that as farre forth as they represent them their reason is to be accounted the reason of the Kingdome and doth binde so farre forth as the publique reason of the Kingdome can binde after they have restrained their reason and will to a condition of subjection so that put case it be the reason of the state yet not the same which first gave this Government its being for then it was the reason of a State yet free and to use their reason and Judgement in ordaining a Government but now the reason of a State bound by Oath to a Government and not at liberty to resolve againe Or to assume a supreme power of judging distructive to the frame of Government they have established and restrained themselves unto Their reason is ours so farre as they are an ordained representative body But I have before demonstrated that in this frame the Houses could not be ordained a legall Tribunall to passe Judgement in this last case for then the Architects by giving them that Judicature had subordinated the King to them and so had constituted no Monarchie 2. He argues the Parliament being the Court of supreme Judicature and the Kings great and highest Councell therefore that is not to be denied to it which inferiour Courts ordinarily have power to do viz To judge matters of right betweene the King and Subject Yea in the highest case of all The Kings power to tax the subject in case of danger and his being sole Judge of that danger was brought to cognizance and passed by the Judges in the Exchequor I answer 1. There is not the same reason betwixt the Parliament other courts In these ●he King is Judge the Judges being deputed by him and judging by his authority so that if any of his Rights be tried before them it is his owne Judgement and he judges himselfe and therefore it is fit he should be bound by his owne sentence But in Parliament the King and People are Judges and that not by an authority derived from him but originally invested in themselves So that when the two Estates judge without him in any case not prejudged by him it cannot be called his Judgement as that of the other Courts being done by his authority and if he be bound by any Judgment of the two Estates without him he is bound by an externall power which is not his owne that is he is subordinated to another power in the State where he is supreme which is contradictory Secondly in other Courts if any case of right be judged 'twixt him and the subject they are cases of particular Rights which diminish not Royalty if determined against him Or if they passe cases of generall right as they did in that of Ship-money it is but declaratively to shew what is by Law due to one and the other yet their Judgement is revocable and liable to a repeale by a superiour Court as that was by Parliament But if the Kings Prerogatives should be subjected to the Judgement of the two Estates the King dissenting then he should be subject to a sentence in the highest Court and so irremediable a Judicatory should be set up to determine of his highest Rights without him from which he could have no remedy Thus maine causes may bee alledged why though other Courts doe judge his Rights yet the two Estates in Parliament without him cannot and it is from no defect in their power but rather from the eminency of it that they cannot If one deputed by common consent of three doth by the power they have given them determine controversies betweene those three it is not for either of them to challenge right to judge those cases because one who is inferiour to them doth it Indeed if the power of the two Houses were a deputed power as the power of other Courts is this Argument were of good strength but they being concurrents in a supreme Court by a power originally their owne I conceive it hard to put the power of finall Judgement in all controversies 'twixt Him and them exclusively or solely into their hands If it be demanded then how this cause can be decided Sect. 3 and which way must the People turne in such a contention What be done in such a Contention I answere If the non-decision be tolerable it must remaine undecided whiles the Principle of legall decision is thus divided and by that division each suspends the others power If it be such as is destructive and necessitates a determination this must be made evident and then every Person must aide that Part which in his best Reason and Judgement stands for publike good against the destructive And the Lawes and Government which he stands for and is sworne to justifies and beares him out in it yea bindes him to it If any wonder I should justifie a power in the two Houses to resist and command aide against any Agents of destructive commands of the King and yet not allow them power of judging when those Agents or commands are destructive I answere I doe not simply deny them power of judging and declaring this but I deny them to be a legall Court ordained to judge of this case authoritatively so as to bind all People to receive and rest in their judgement for conscience of its authority and because they have Voted it 'T is the evidence not the power of their Votes must bind our Reason and Practice in this case We ought to conceive their Votes the Discoveries made by the best eyes of the Kingdome and which in likelihood should see most But when they Vote a thing against the proceedings of the Third and supreme Estate our Consciences must have evidence of Truth to guide them and not the sole authority of Votes and that for the Reason so oft alledged CHAP. VIII The contention now in being is debated and the readiest meanes of Reconcilement proposed THus have I for my owne satisfaction and the Conscience Sect. 1 of every moderate and impartiall man who will peruse the same set downe what I verily conceive to be the truth concerning those high matters first of Monarchy in generall and then of this of England and have given my determination concerning all the weighty Questions which