in Rufus Henry 1. Steven Henry 2. and Richard 1. did remain purum putum Monarchicum the power of even-down and unmixed Monarchy And though saith he in the reigne of King John that power was lessened yet was there nothing derogated from the King's supremacy and absolutenesse remaining unviolated untill the perjured English rebels at this day have altered and diminished the just greatnesse of the King of England Def. reg cap. 8. Ans I admire that this man knoweth nothing but to rail on them whom he knoweth not Well I cast him over into GOD'S hands and fall to examine what he alledgeth Sure I am notwithstanding all his railing it cannot abide the touch-stone It is known to be a manifest lie which he alledgeth concerning the immediat successours of the Conquerour It is reported in even-down terms that these kings of whom Salmasius expresly speaketh esteemed Norman Laws established by the Conquerour too rigorous and unjust And therefore before they got the Crown they promised to the people to abrogate them and in place of them to establish the Laws of the Confessour Yea every-one of them promised more then another and to keep themselves within the bounds of Law to the very heart's desire of the people This was not only promised by themselves but also by others in their name And unlesse they had so promised they could never have gotten the Crown They got it upon the expectation of the accomplishment of their promise as the English Histories do abundantly storie And it cannot be denied but Henry 1. did give the Englishes a free Parliament and made it the government of the kingdom So that he is called the first king in England in whose time the power of Parliament was established And as for John it is very well known that because he did not stand to his oath and promise at his Coronation for establishing the ancient Laws of the kingdom but endeavoured to governe after the manner of the Conquerour in an arbitrary and loose way therefore the people rose-up in arms against him and dethroning him did set-up another in his room And whereas this man saith that the ancient Lawes of the kingdom did not derogate from the supremacy and absolutenesse of the king the contrary of that is already proved It seemeth strange to me that he is not ashamed to affirm that what Laws were established by Edward the Confessour and granted by King John were preserved inviolable to this day derogating nothing from the absolutenesse of John's successours Who knoweth not that the liberties of Magna Charta and de Foresta subject the King to Law And because that Henry 3. did not stand to the maintenance thereof after he had given his Oath at a Parliament at Oxford to maintain them inviolable therefore the People took up Arms against him till after many debates between them they caused him often to promise that they should be inviolably observed as well by him as by all other Thus they tied not only him but also his heirs to govern according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom And because Edward 2. did act against these Laws following the counsel of Peter Gaveston and the two Spensers therefore he was imprisoned and dethroned after several conflicts between him and the People 'T is remarkable that the People refused to crown him till firstly he did put P. Gaveston from him And likewise Edward 5. was deposed after he had reigned two moneths and eleven dayes and was obscurely buried in the Tower of London Where then I pray you is the absoluteness of the King of England Inst 6. Vnder Edward 4. saith Salmasius it was enacted That the King might erect a publick Judgmet-seat by his Letters patent in any part of the kingdom he would Vnder Henry 7. it was enacted and declared That the King had a full power in all Causes in administring Justice to every one In the first year of Edward 6. a Statute was made declaring all authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be derived from the King Def. Reg. cap. 9. Answ I must needs say This hath more colour of probation then any thing the man as yet hath objected But notwithstanding this he will do well to observe this distinction 1. What is given to the King by way of complement and Court-expression 2. What is giving to him in reality and by way of action The truth is in the first notion there is as much ascribed to the King of England as if he had been indeed an absolute Prince On him you have these Court-Epithets The King of the Parliament The sovereign Lord of the Parliament Yea and the Parliament is called The Parliament of the King He is called The Original both of Spirituall and Temporal power having full power over all causes and persons and to erect Judicatories in any part of the kingdom where he pleaseth This is spoken But what then Examine the matter aright and you will find it but spoken What cannot Court-Parasites and flattering Councellors passe a fair compellation upon their Prince 'T is the least thing they can do to bring themselves in credit with him Read the Parliamentary Acts of Scotland and you will find just as much spoken if not more of the King of Scotland In Parl. 18. Jam. 6. Act. 1. 2. James 6. is called Sovereign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Estates Persons and Causes And yet who dare say but the King of Scotland according to the Law of the kingdom is a regulated and non-absolute Prince But according to the second notion let us examine the strength of these Epithets And so in the first place we fall a-discussing particularly these three Sanctions of which Salmasius speaketh The first saith That the King by his Letters patent may erect Court-Judicatories in any part of the Kingdom where he pleaseth This will never conclude that the King of England hath an absolute power This Act only speaketh of his power of calling inferiour Judicatories What is that to the purpose The King of England had power to call and dissolve the Parliament the highest Judicatory of the Land Yea Henry 1. did ordain and constitute the Parliament Yet notwithstanding that as is shewed already the King of England cannot be called absolute The King of Scotland hath power of giving-out Letters of Caption Parl. Jam. 2. chap. 12. Courts of Regalities are justified by the King's Justice chap. 26. And the Parliament petitioned the King to cause execute the Act anent the Establishment of Sessions for executing Justice chap. 65. The power of the Colledge of Justice is ratified and approved by the King Jam. 5. Parl. Edinb Mar. 17. 1532. But who will therefore call the King of Scotland an absolute King The second Sanction giveth the King full power over all persons and all causes But I pray you doth this give the King power over the Parliament and Laws No verily It only giveth the King power over all persons and estates separatim
Heroicism and gallantry of old some were of a simply vast and absolute power and in nothing subject to Law 29 The first erecters of Kingdoms and planters of Colonies were of an absolute power altogether unsubject to Law 34 Personal endowments and extraordinary gifts have drawn-on People to devolve an absolute and full power without all reservation upon some men 40 Conquering Kings in old were of an absolute power 47 Vsurping and tyrannous Kings in old had an absolute power 47 Except for some of these causes there was never any King so absolute but his power one way or other according to Law was restricted Ibid. SUBSECT 2. The wicked Kings of the Jews had an arbitrary power both over Religion and the People of GOD. 120 The tyrannous and usurping Kings of the Jews in all probability had an arbitrary power over the Republick Ibid. The good Kings of the Jews because of personal endowments had exemption and immunity from Law 121 The Kings of the Jews de jure had no arbitrary and uncircumscribed power 125 SECT II. Royal Power ectypically is the choicest of Governments 135 Monarchy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the best Government 136 Monarchy demotically in respect of the disposition of people is the choicest Government Ibid. Kingly Government consecutively in respect of its fruits and consequences may be hic nunc the best of all Governments 138 Regulated and mixed Monarchy per se and in it self is the sweetest Government 140 Monarchy consecutively in respect of the fruits and effects it may and doth produce simply absolutely is of all Governments most dangerous and least to be desired 141 SECT III. Democracy arightly constituted simply absolutely is the sweetest Government and most for the good of the People 152 Moses before the counsel of Jethro had a Kingly power 155 After the accomplishment of Jethro's counsel and the institution of the seventy Elders neither Moses nor any of the Judges had a Kingly power 157 No man by Nature in a formal and antecedent way is born subject to Government 165 Nature per accidens and in a secondary way intendeth Government 169 SECT IV. It is not lawful to resist the King as King nor the Kingly power as the Kingly power 171 It is lawful and commendable to resist the tyranny of the King and the abuse of his power Ibid. Kingly Government may very lawfully be declined that one better may be set-up 180 SECT V. We are tied by League and Covenant to maintain and espouse Christ's interest absolutely notwithstanding any thing may ensue thereupon Ibid. By no Oath or Covenant can we be absolutely tied to espouse the King's interest and preserve Monarchy involably Ibid. A SURVEY of POLICY OR A Free Vâ—NDICATION of the COMMON-VVEALTH of ENGLAND PROEME COURTEOUS READER I Beseech thee judge of me impartially Do not imagine I speak my mind more freely then is pertinent Let me tell thee my freedom is upon a good accompt I may hold my face toward Heaven and say what I speak it is from the simplicity of my spirit My record is from on high I do not speak from a by-assed principle and if I do so shall not my Lord try it out Why I pray thee wilt thou stumble at my freedome in expressing my mind against Kingly Government in behalf of that which is popular Verily I desire thee not to cleave to my judgment implicitly Yet would I have thee duly examining without prejudice what I speak and embrace that which is good wilt thou learn so much of that which the world cals Scepticisme as to suspend thy judgment a little and not sentence against me at the first Be not wedded to thine own opinion but try all things and hold that which is good Do thou kindly embrace any thing which is of GOD in this Book I do ingenuously profess I shal forthwith be of thy judgment if thou shew me better grounds inforcing the contrary of what I maintain Well the main subject in hand resolveth upon this Question Whether or not is the Commonwealth of ENGLAND an usurped power These Questions being put aside that follow it is easily answered 1. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute 2. Whether or not is Royall Government the choicest of Governments 3. Whether or not is a Commonwealth the best of Governments 4. Whether or not is it lawfull to resist the Royall Person and decline the Royall Authority 5. Whether or not doth the Covenant tye us to preserve Monarchy inviolably Of these as followeth SECT I. Whether or not is the power of the King absolute THe Court-Parasits and Nation of Royalists do plead much for an arbitrary and illimited power to the Royall Person But in this matter we do freely offer our judgment ASSERT I. The power of the King as it commandeth just and lawful things is absolute and in such a notion cannot be lawfully contraveened It is made good firstly from that which Solomon saith for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Eccl. 8. These words by Writers are diversly expounded 1. Some expound them concerning the absolutenes of the Kings power whether in things lawfull or unlawfull good or bad And in this we find none more willing then Salmasius the Humanist Defens Reg. cap. 2. 2. Others again who are no friends to absolute and unlimited Monarchy do interpret the words not de jure but de facto Regis i. e. they opinionat that Solomon doth not speak here of the power of Kings which according to Law and Reason doth belong to them but concerning the absolute way of governing which one way or other is conferred upon Kings whether by usurpation or tyranny or by a voluntary and free subjection of the people to an absolute and arbitrary power in the Kingly Person Yet 3. I do choose a way distinct from either of these And I expound the words concerning an absolute power in the King in things lawfull and honest This I make good from the Contexts 1. The Preacher saith I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of GOD. Now what power the Holy Ghost here giveth to Kings is such a power whose ordinances he exhorteth to obey and that under an obligation being tyed to obey it by a lawfull oath the oath of GOD. But we cannot obey the unjust Acts and Ordinances of an arbitrary and illimited power Unless you will say that it is lawfull for us to sin against the LORD and to do the will of man rather then the will of GOD which is contrary to that which is spoken Act. 4. and 5. Yea as afterward is shewed arbitrary Monarchy invested with a boundlesse power to do both good evill is sinful and unlawfull And therefore we cannot tye our selves by the oath of GOD to maintain it Sure we are we can not lawfully swear to maintain and obey
governed them most gently and amicably Rer. ant l. 2. c. 1. 3 Let it be so many of the Egyptian Kings in old did tyrannize over them and they notwithstanding were not punished and cut-off by the People and inferiour Judges What then That will never conclude their unwillingness and unreadiness to execute judgment on their tyrannous Kings but that they wanted opportunity and power to do such a thing So it went as is said already with the People and inferiour Judges under Amasis tyrannous yoke But so soon as they got the opportunity they verified the old Maxim Quod differiur non aufertur Yea Diadore telleth us That the People did withstand the Priests and those who with-held honourable and solemn burials from the bad Egyptian Kings in old Which affordeth us matter to aver That if the inferiour Judges in Egypt did not execute judgment on their wicked and tyrannous Kings it was not because they were unready to do so but because the People were refractory thereto No question they would much more have withstood the off-cutting of their Kings then the want of solemnities at their death for what is it I pray you that draweth People on to act and engage for their Princes but because they take them up in the notion of half-gods and far above the teach of ordinary men Whereupon they conclude that both their Persons and Authority are altogether inviolable They dote so much upon them that they think they should in no terms be resisted far less cut-off and punished according to their deserts This daily experience teacheth Therefore the People of Egypt would far more have withstood the inferiour Judges in cutting-off their Kings then in denying them sumptuous and stately burials for their offences 4 It is easie to be learned from Diadore that the Egyptians esteemed the want of honourable burials to their Kings more then any punishment could have been inflicted upon them Know this they were a most superstitious People tainted with a world of blind zeal And withall as Diadore storâ—eth the fear of the want of honourable and solemn burials provoked their Kings to live circumspectly and keep themselves within bounds Whereupon we conclude That both King and People thought no punishment more capitall and more hurtfull to the King then the want of an honourable buriall And so the inferiour Judges imagined that in with-holding from tyrannous Kings sumptuous and stately burials they executed more judgment upon them then if they should have brought them to the Scaffold and cause strike the heads from them Therefore if Salmasius shall not admit the third Reason which though it be true in general yet not in this particular case as is most probable though not demonstrative he must needs confess that the Praetors of Egypt not only in their apprehension but also in the up taking both of the King and People acted more against some tyrannous King or other in depriving him of an honourable and sumptuous buriall after his death then the Representative of England did in bringing King Charles to the Scaffold and causing his head to be cut-off As for that which Salmasius saith alledging that Aristotle saith that the Oriental Kings in old did not simply govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law Well let it be so If they were any wayes subjected to Law as Aristotle in even-down terms confesseth they were it is far from Salmasius his cui quod libet licet Qui legibus solutus est Yea and which is more Aristotle saith That the very government of the Heroes was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Law and in some things their power was determinat and not absolute This is far from Salmasius his mind who will have the King to be of an infinit and illimited power The man would have a care that he do not speak blasphemy and knoweth not of it I take infinacy in power to be only proper to GOD. And 't is not good to abuse it in applying it to the creature Howsoever I heartily subscribe to what Aristotle saith concerning the Orientall Kings I do not think but in old as namely in and about the dayes of the Heroës Kings as Gods were adored by men But Salmasius must give me leave to say that even then Kings were punished by the People We read how the heroick Theseus was banished by the Athenians Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Diod. Sic. rer an t l. 5. c. 5. Plut. in Thes I do not deny but as these Historiographers report as likewise Heraclid de Pol. Ath. Theseus before that time had restored liberty to the Subject and had put Power in the People's hand It is also reported that Agamemnon the King of Kings was thrust from his Charge because he would not suffer his eldest Daughter to be sacrificed to satisfie the fury of Diana for the Roe which he killed feeding about her grove Dict. Cret l. 1. That of Theseus and of Agamemnon were done about the time the Children of Israel did seek a king to reign over them We might also here alledge examples of other ancient kings who were brought into subjection to the sentence of inferiour judges But we pass them as not beseeming the purpose in hand for they are relative to after-ages of latter years then what Aristotle speaketh of Yet we find one example or two more then what we have alledged already answering to this purpose It is reported that Sardanapalus because of his beastliness and sensuality was dethroned by his Subjects Arist Pol. l. 5. c. 10. Metasth an Pers lib. Just l. 1. Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 7. Miltiades was incarcerated by the Athenians and died in prison Val. Max. l. 5. c. 3. Aemil. Prob. in vit Milt Plut. in vit Cim Albeit he was not the Athenian king yet was he their great Generall and crowned king of Chersonesus Herod l. 6. Aem. Prob. in vit Mil. It is needless to examplifie this any more for afterward it shall be shewed by multiplied examples how that kings in all ages have been brought to the Stage and punished by the People Therefore Salmasius shall do well not to imagine that in old times all Kings were absolute and the inferiour Judge did not sit upon the Bench against any of them And for my self I do not deny but in old Kings were of a vast and absolute power though I cannot be moved to think that either all of them were absolute or any of them so absolute as Salmasius dreameth of But more of this afterward And I do also think that the Assyrian Monarchy caeteris paribus was in it-self rather more then lesse absolute then either the Median or the Persian though by some accidental occurrents as afterward shall appear it was not Indeed it had the first start of them and was in the time wherein Royal Power was more in request then either before or after This makes Aeschylus to call the king of the Argives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a governour that
scarcely be called it 's own Which maketh me in reason conclude that then there was little time left for exercising Policy and putting Lawes in execution This Polydorus Virgilius telleth in a word whileas he saith that before Henry 1. there were few Conventions made by the Kings amongst the people for ordering according to Law the businesse of the Kingdom Angl. hist lib. 11. Although in an absolute notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may say that from Brutus unto Cassivelanus and from Cassivelanus unto William the Conquerour Kingly Government in England was non-absolute and without full power yet we cannot say so in a relative notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as afterward shall appear 3. As the Kingdom of England was about the dayes of the Conquerour whether a little before or afterward unto this time We deny not but under the reigne of the Conquerour himself Regall Government in England was of a most absolute and arbitrary power In this we take Salmasius by the hand He needed not Def. Reg. cap. 8. to have troubled himself to have cited any Authors for proof thereof Very reason it-self teacheth the point for he subdued England by strength of hand But sure I am a Conquerour may dispose upon a conquered Kingdom according to his pleasure It is an act of favour in him if he do not destroy all much more as an absolute Lord to rule over all In the interim I desire Salmasius to take a view of Polyd. Virg. Angl. hist lib. 9. where he shall find the point evidenced to his heart's desire beyond any Historian he citeth Although in this we go-along with him as we must needs do yet notwithstanding we cannot say so much whether concerning Edward who preceded or those who succeeded him Let it be so that those who succeeded the Conquerour had the same priviledges which the Conquerour did arrogat to himself Yet can it not be denied but according to Edward the Confessour his Lawes or as they are called the ancient Lawes of the Kingdom Kingly Government in England is regulated and not absolute We make the point good from these reasons Firstly because according to these Laws the King of England is not hereditary And therefore we read not that ever Edward did tie the Crown of England to Royall succession I confesse it is alledged that he promised the Crown after him to William the Conquerour who was of neer kinred and great credit with him if he had not children of his own But this is not only improbable in it-self but also it is so judged And why shall we think otherwayes of it seing the Conquerour came not to the Crown of England by blood-right but by meer Conquest having the whole Kingdom of England against him And Polydore saith Hinc colligere licet vel Edovardum non servasse fidem Gulielmo quam à principio de hereditate regni non satis considerate dedisset vel nullum quod verisimilius est fecisse promissum Angl. hist lib. 8. This he gathereth from that which Edward spake to Haraldus whileas he prayed GOD that either he would avert the comming of England into the Conquerours hand or else that he would keep him back from it so long as he lived Therefore to me it is more then apparent that the Confessour did not in his Testament assigne the Conquerour to the Crown albeit Salmasius alledgeth the contrary Def. Reg. cap. 8. What Doth not Polydore tell us that because Edgarus was of young and tender years he was not admitted by the people to reigne And fearing lest the Conquerour should succeed to the Crown they rejoyced greatly that Harald took upon him to reigne in Edward's room Whereat as may be learned from Polydore Edward was not displeased himself but very well satisfied that Harald should succeed to him Whereupon we fear not to say that not onely the power of enkiâ—ging was in the people's hands but also that the Confessour did not promise the Kingdom to the Conquerour after him although the contrary be alledged And is it likely that the people would have so much declined and withstood the Conquerour if Edward had assigned him to the Crown as his heir No verily for they adored him as their Law-giver It is known that Rufus was but third son to the Conquerour and yet he was created King Him the people preferred before Robert his eldest brother What Would they have done so if blood-right by the Law of the Kingdom had been the title to the Crown No verily It is remarkable that Rufus was ordained King and it was not so much as objected that Robert was elder then he he being but the third son to the Conquerour and Robert being the eldest Yea Rufus dying without children they appointed Henry the Conquerours fourth son King as yet passing-by Robert the eldest And which is more though Henry 1. had left in his Testament his daughter Mathildis together with her sons as heirs of the Kingdom yet notwithstanding the people created Steven Nephew to Henry 1. By the authority of Parliament it was ordained that Steven so long as he lived should enjoy the Kingdom of England and that Henry 2. son to Mathildis daughter to Henry 1. should succeed to Steven in the Kingdom of England passing-by any that was begotten by Steven Likewayes the people created John King although K. Richard dying without heirs had left Arthure son to Gaufredus who was elder then John heir to the Crown I might speak more for clearing this purpose but I forbear judging this sufficient Whence it is more then evident that the Crown of England since the dayes of Edward the Confessour by no Law of the Kingdom is hereditary I confesse since that time now and then the Kings eldest son did succeed and was holden as Heâ—r of the Kingdom But this was onely by custome through favour of the Race in which according to the manner of Nations which I must needs call an abuse very ordinarily the first-born is preferred as the onely lawfull Heir of the Crown Therefore seing the Crown of England since that time hath not been at least precisely hereditary to me it seemeth very probable that for that time it hath not been absolute and arbitrary for so the original and fountain-power of enkinging is in the People's hands And consequently in this respect the People are simply above the King as the cause is simply above its effect Philosophers say That causa est nobilior suo effectu And so seing the King of England dependeth from the People no question they have simply a power over him and not he an absolute power over them Secondly Because according to these Laws the liberty of the subject is vindicated and the Prince is subjected to Law Because in Henry 1. his time a Parliament was holden At which time Parliamentary Power by the Law of the Kingdom was declared the Supream and highest Authority for any thing of weight was referred to it So that whatsoever was done
Kingdome had or can be warranted by the Law of GOD Indeed I will not say so of Henry 8. for it is known that in his young years he did put the managing of the Kingdom into the hands of the Princes as did others of his predecessors before him And as for Edward 6. I must needs say his times were better then any times of his predecessors But it appeareth to me that as both Henry and he have encroached very far upon the liberties of the Church so called so did they encroach too far upon the liberties of the State But leaving Henry of whose power I find not so much spoken as of Edward I must tell you one thing concerning Edward and it is this Those who write of him and namely Foxe do crie him up beyond all the Kings of England for piety wisdom and learning And Foxe runneth so far out in his commendation that he esteemeth him inferiour to no King though worthy to be preferred to many Whereupon he feareth not to match him with Josiah and put the qualifications of both in one ballance Which maketh me imagine that the foresaid act emitted in Parliament under Edward's reign did passe in his behalfe because of his personall endowments The like act upon that same ground though in respect of him it was meerly pretended without any reality in his person did passe Parl. 18. upon K. Iam. 6. Thus the case is extraordinary We denie not but because of personall endowments Kings may be and have been advanced to greatest power What will this conclude an ordinary president thereof and a standing law therefore No verily There is no consequence from extraordinaries to ordinaries The standing ancient lawes both of England and Scotland are against absolute Princes Of Scotland and of England we have spoken already at length Verily the example of Edward 1. though there were no more may serve to clear our purpose He to repair what was done amisse by his father Henry 3. who was at variance with the people touching the liberties of Magna charta and de foresta did much gratifie the people restoring them to great liberty and abrogating all lawes which did make for the bondage and slavery of the people Howsoever the matter be sive sic sive non these sanctions above-cited by Salmasius do conclude the Parliament to have power above the King The reason is because if we look precisely on these acts what power the King hath is from them They not onely declare but also they enact and ratifie his power to be such such And so the king's power is the creature of the Parliament depending from it as the effect from the cause But sure I am causa est nobilior suo effectu And consequently if the king hath an absolute power by vertue of the Parliament then must the Parliament's power be more absolute for propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And nemo dat quod non habet Inst 7. Bractonus saith Salmasius doth averre that the King hath power over all that is in his kingdome And that those things which concern peace and power do only belong to the Royal dignity Every one saith he is under the King and he is inferiour to none but to GOD as reason requireth In power he ought to be above all his subjects for he ought to have none like him nor above him in the Kingdom De Angl. Monar lib 4. cap. 24. sect 1. lib. 1. cap. 8 sect 8. lib. 2. de Reg. In Rich. 2. stat 18. cap. 5. it is said Corona Angliae libera fuit omni tempore non habet terrenam subjectionem sed immediate subdita est DEO in omnibus rebus nulli alteri Act. 24 Parl. Henr. 8. Regnum Angliae est Imperium ita ab orbe fuit acceptum Act. Parl. 24 Hen. 8. Quod hoc tuae gratiae regnum nullum superiorem sub DEO sed solum tuam gratiam agnoscat Fuit est liberum a subjectione quarumcunque legum humanarum Cap. 9. Ans We stand not to glosse Bracton's words He lived in Henry 3. his dayes And finding the King and States at variance about superiority as a Court-parasit he wrote in behalf of the King as Royallists do now-a-dayes He did just so as they do now Bracton had that same occasion of writing in behalf of the King which Salmasius hath to-day As the late King was at variance with the people of England for claiming absolute power over them so the controversie stood just so in Bracton's time between Henry 3. and the people But I pray you was it not as free to Bracton to flatter Henry as for Salmasius to flatter Charles Leaving this man to himself I hasten to examine the strength of these Acts which Salmasius citeth And in a word they do not plead so much for the absolutenesse of the king as of the kingdom They do not speak de Rege Angliae of the king of England but de corona or Regno Angliae of the Crown or kingdom of England Howsoever none of them doth speak for immunity and exemption to the king of England from municipall but from forraign Laws And therefore they declare the Crown of England to be a free Crown and subject to no other Crown and the kingdom of England to be a free kingdom subject to the Laws of no other kingdom I confesse they declare the king to be above the kingdom and inferiour to none but to GOD. Which is true indeed taking the kingdom in esse divisivo but not in esse conjunctivo Indeed the King is above all in the kingdom sigillatim one by one And in this respect he is inferiour to none but to GOD though taking the kingdom in a collective body he be inferiour thereto Inst 8. In the first year of James his reign in England the Parliament acknowledgeth him to have an undoubted title to the Crown by blood-right And therefore they did swear alleageance both to him and his posterity Whereupon Camdenus saith that the King of England hath supreme power and meer empire De Brit. lib. And Edvardus Cokius saith That according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom the Kingdom of England is an absolute Kingdom Wherein both the Clergy-men and Laicks are subjected immediatly under GOD to their own King and head Cap. 9. Ans As for that concerning James we make no reckoning of it He was declared the righteous and undoubted heir of the kingdom through the defection and back-sliding of the times What other Kings of England hinted at before that he did execute Because he became King of Great Britain and entered the kingdom of England upon blood-relation therefore flattering Malignant and Antichristian Counsellours did declare his title to the kingdom of England to be of undoubted hereditary right I pray you friend were there not Malignants then as well as now I may say there were moe then then now at least they had greater
it was in and about his time 1. Because it is very unlike that ever he would have called the Roman Caesars Princes 'T is an epithet of lesse honour and power then Kings And so I imagine that he would rather have called the Kings of England Princes then them Sure I am the Roman Caesars were more powerful did reign in a more kingly way then the English Kings 2. Beause he contradistinguisheth in positive termes the Government of England as it was in old from what it was of late saying That in old Britain obeyed Kings but now saith he it is governed by many and divided into factions And Salmasius himself cannot get this denied Of which Princes Caesar speaks himself Principesque undique convenire se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt De bel Gal. lib. 4. Thus the kingdom was delivered-up into Caesar's hands not by one man the King but by many the Princes And lib. 5. he saith Summa imperii bellique administrandi communi consilio permissa est Cassivelauno On which words Camden noteth That Britain then was not governed by one but by many taking that same course by common consent in choosing Cassivelaunus General and chief leader to them as the Frenches did in choosing Divitiacus to repel Caesar Brit. chorogr de prim incol But what needeth us to stand here We shall make it more appear in proving the second particular The first is also confirmed by the testimony of Mela Fert Britannia saith he populos regesque populorum De sit Orb. lib. 3 cap. 6. And what power those Kings had I mind not to say precisely that it was so restricted as the power of the Lacedemonian Kings Neither will I say that it was so narrow as the power of the English Kings after the Conquerour Yet I may justly say That it was not boundless and arbitrary as Salmasius dreameth-of So saith Dio Niceus ex Xiph. epit Apud hos populus magna ex parte principatum tenet i. e. Amongst them viz. the Britains the People in a great part do govern This telleth that in old even in the time of Kings in Britain there was Popular Government Kings then in Britain were not sole Lords but the People did govern also Hence it is that Cordilla jussu populi was set to reign over the Britains So Gintolinus Populi jussu Rex dicitur Polyd. Ang. hist lib. 1. Because of the People's swaying power of old in Britain Kingly Government somewhat before the dayes of C. Caesar was altogether abrogated as in part is shewed already But Salmasius shall not think that of old England was singular in this There were in old other parts in Britain where the kingly power was limited and hemmed-in by Law Concerning the Aebuaan Isles Solinus thus speaketh Rex unus est universis Rex nihil suum habet omnia universorum ad aequitatem certis legibus stringitur Ac ne avaritia divertat a vero discit paupertate justitiam utpote cui nihil sit rei familiaris cap. 25. i. e. all of them have one King The King hath nothing proper all things belong to the people he is compelled to equity by certain Laws And lest avarice should withdraw him from the truth he is taught justice by poverty to wit as one that hath nothing belonging to himself The second particular is manifest from Strabo who saith Complures apud eos sunt dominationes lib. 4. In the original dominationes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Princes or Rulers Thus they were governed toward his time by many and not by one And Salmasius from this is made so to say albeit he endeavoureth to elude what Tacitus saith hist lib. 1. The words are already cited and vindicated But Diodore is most clear to this purpose speaking of Britain Reges principes que ibi sunt plures pacem invÃcem servantes Rer. ant lib 6. cap. 8. But sure I am Salmasius will not say that such had an absolute power over the people Their Kings had not such power Ergo far lesse they Yea the Heduan Vergobret who did reign over moe then any of them had not an absolute and arbitrary power Which maketh me think far lesse had they any such power And 't is observable what they did was communi concilio Caesar de bel Gal. lib. 5. So much touching the State of England in the second notion i. e. as it was from the dayes of Bretan Brito or Brutus 3. We come now to speak of England as it was under the Romans Saxons and Danes As it was under the Roman yoke speaking precisely England had no Kings but the Roman Emperours And what power they had is spoken already concerning the Roman Dictators And as for the power of the Danish and Saxonick Kings in England no question they had greater power then any of the Kings of England in old or since the dayes of the Conquerour if we except K. James But to say that their power was boundless and arbitrary is more then I dare affirm I will not deny but the first whether of the Danish or the Saxonick Kings had that same power which the Conquerour had over England As he subdued England so did they And it is the Conquerours priviledge to rule at random Such do ordinarily conquer against Law And I pray you why do they not also rule without Law But that all who succeeded these had the like power also I cannot be moved to affirm It cannot be denied but even under their reign there were Parliaments and Councels And I trow they were not cyphers I might enlarge this but I judge it needless for I care not which of the parts be affirmed Under these Kings England was not its own but a subdued and unsetled Nation Which maketh me say that it was no wonder albeit then there was no time for it to exercise the Laws against its Kings Thus at length I have offered my judgment freely concerning the power of the Kings of England both of old and of late And that we may shut up this whole purpose in a word for cutting-off all that Salmasius can object you shall be pleased carefully to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary Monarchy As for an extraordinary Regal power which was conferred on Kings whether for extraordinary heroicism personal endowments or such like we shall not stand to say that such had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-commanding power but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an all-willing and arbitrary power See Concl. 1 2 3 4. Yet we cannot say so much of ordinary Monarchy if we look to the precise and ordinary way of the power of Kings This by example is at length shewed already And so we come Secondly to prove it by reason Can any in reason imagine that people unlesse it be for some extraordinary cause or other will subject their necks to the pleasure and arbitrement of any Nay it is a combing against the hair for