Consult God's Sacred Oracles it will be found that He sufficiently provided for the Safety and Happiness of those upon whom He hath Stamped his own Image by instituting a particular form of Government immediately upon the Creation of the First Man the great Fore-Father of Us all I know I shall here be told that 't is granted me God did institute Government in General but as to the distinct Species thereof He left it to the choice of Men as they should think most Convenient for themselves but Did not God know better than they what was most fit and requisite for them And Is it not then very likely that they should be accordingly Provided for And not to insist that it is hardly conceivable how Government could be instituted by God and yet none of the particular Forms be at that time existent not to insist I say how any thing can be in Genere and not in Specie I think 't is clear from ‖ 1.28 Genesis that God gave Adam the Dominion and Empire over all the World when he so solemnly blessed him Be Fruitful and Multiply and Replenish the Earth and Subdue and have Dominion over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowl of the Air and over ever living thing that moveth upon the Earth A Text so express and clear that even the great †Mar. Claus l. 1. c. 4. Selden is forced to acknowledge there could not before the Flood be any such thing as Community Gen. c. 4. v. 2. but that Adam is made hereby sole Proprietor of the World and by his Donation or Cession no doubt it was that we find Abel possessed of Cattle and Pastures and Cain Master of his Corn-Fields and certainly Cain cannot be supposed so very Foolish as to have Built a City and call'd it by the Name of his Son Enoch Gen 4.17 unless he could have lest it to his Posterity which he could not pretend to do if there had not been such a thing as Property But if Adam thus expresly had not been made Soveraign Lord of the Universe yet could not the Government of Mankind be denied him without offering force to Reason and bidding open defiance to Nature for all the World being sprung from his Loins the Tye of Filial duty would bind all to Obedience for no doubt as Father he might claim a Dominion and Regal Power over his Children and from hence we may very well derive the Original of Government and that particular form of it call'd Monarchy nor will it appear at all irrational upon that account to assert Monarchy to have been founded and instituted by God and Nature For no Man could be Born free since all Mankind must owe both their being and subjection to their Natural Parents by the Law of God and Nature So that upon this account Adam being invested with a Patriarchal and uncontrolable Power not only over his Children but those that were Descended from them during his Life which being transmitted to his Eldest Son after his Death and so on there could never be any time when there was no Government since there were any to be Governed Perhaps it may be Objected that though Adam might have a Power over his Children whilst they continued in his Family yet when that grew too Narrow for them and they were removed and had formed distinct Ones of their own he could not pretend to any Jurisdiction there But I would fain know of these Men whether the Obligation to be Obedient to Parents does not continue still in full force notwithstanding their removal and if it does as I am sure no Man in his right Wits can deny why the Father's Power of Commanding and Governing them as he shall see most convenient for the Interest of himself and the rest of his Children should be retrenched I cannot conceive nor can it reasonably be pretended that he should not have the same Jurisdiction over his Grand-Children c. that he had over their Fathers for it is very irrational to suppose them exempt from Obedience to the Commands of that Man their Parents were Naturally and Originally subject to And if we enquire but into the nature of this Paternal Power we shall find it to have been purely Monarchical We are told how Abraham made Peace and War and we shall see Jacob exercising the Power of Life and Death over his Daughter-in-Law Thamar or at least pretending to it without any question made of his Power and if these great Prerogatives were in their Hands 't is not to be doubted but they were Kings in their Families which we are not to suppose to be independent from one another but subject and subordinate to either the Father of them all or him whoever he be that is Successour to him and Lord of the eldest Family And that this is no new Opinion as some People would have us believe but at least Older than Aristotle appears from hence that he dates the Original of all Society from hence The First Society sayes he made up of many Houses for the sake of a lasting and durable Benefit is a Village 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot de Repub. l. 1. c. 2. which seems most agreeable to Nature as being a certain Colony of a House which some Men call Foster-Brethren or Children and Children's Children And therefore at first Cities were and now Nations are under Kings because such as came together were under Kingly Government for every House is under the Empire of him that is Eldest and so for Kindred sake it is in Colonies that is in more Families which Descended from the same House For which Reason Homer sayes Every Man gives Laws to his Wife and Children And this no doubt he had from his Master the Divine Plato in whose Judgment the True and Primary Reason of all Authority is That the Father ‖ A.H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Mother and generally all those that Engender Beget do Command and Rule over their Off-spring And this I think is both sufficient to vindicate this Doctrine from the Imputation of Novelty and Recommend it too since those Great and Excellent Philosophers were Patrons of it And I am sure if that be true which the Roman Orator sayes Cicero 3. de Legib. In re consensio omnium gentium lex Naturae putanda est That the Consent and Agreement of all Nations is to be reputed the Law of Nature every one must allow Monarchy to have been Founded by vertue of that For without Vanity I dare confidently aver That there was no other Government seen unless perhaps at Sicyon for the First Three Thousand Years Nay the Learned Priest of Belus the true and genuine Berosus gives an Account of Ten Kings of Chaldea before the Flood of whom Xisuther in whose time they say the Deluge happen'd was the last And the Egyptian Records could surnish us with a Catalogue of Kings that would reach as high as the Creation
†In Baeoticis Pausanius tells us That Greece so Fruitful afterwards in Aristocracies and Democracies that teeming Africa never bred more Monsters was Antiently under Regal Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his Words But Tully goes further and boldly asserts if for a certain Truth That all the Nations of Old were under Monarchial Regiment ‖ Cicero 3. de Leg. Certum est sayes he omnes antiquas Gentes regibus paruisse And when the Vniversal Deluge had put a Period to all Mankind except Noah and his Three Sons by whom the World was to be Re-peopled I think we may with Reason enough look upon Noah as the Universal Monarch notwithstanding the Learned Selden would have us believe that God by his Blessing recorded Gen. 9.2 made him Tenant in Common with his Children For besides that this Benediction seems most-likely to be rather an Enlargement of the Charter that was given to Adam than any thing else It appears something Unreasonable to suppose that God Almighty should Disinherit Noah whom for his Justness and Piety he had Chosen to be the Restaurator of Mankind Nor do the Words necessarily imply any such thing since the Promise of God would no doubt be fulfil'd if his Sons after his Death or in his Life time by his Consent enjoy'd and possess'd the World as their Property which 't is certain they did Gen. 10.9 By these sayes the Divine Historian were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations Which is not to be understood as a * Mr. Med◠Learned Man in his Discourse upon this Place assures as if it were a Scattering and Consusion but a most distinct and orderly Division because the Original Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes bears the latter Signification And that there was such a Partition and that made by Noah we are assured also from Eusebius and Cedrenus who tells us That Twenty Years before his Death ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedren f. 9. according to an Oracle Received from Heaven he Divided the whole World amongst his Sons assigning to every one his several Share And this he Confirm'd by his Last Will and being about to Dye he gave it into the Hands of Sem and admonished them to Live peaceably and not to Invade one anothers Territories I might now proceed to those Texts of Scripture wherein Monarchy is declared to have been instituted by God But they have been so often insisted on by Others and those learned Persons that I shall pass them over only there is one which I cannot but take notice of wherein God by the Royal Prophet sayes of Kings Psalm 82.7 I have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Gods or more consonant to the Original and expresly according to the Chaldee Paraphrase Angels by which Phrase is not only signified the Office of Princes viz. That they are God's Vicegerents but the manner of their Mission that is by the immediate Commission and Constitution of God Almighty from whom alone and not from the People they derive their power Which origine of theirs I think is further evident from hence that the Supreme Governour is invested with such an Authority as does include in it a Power of Life and Death for which single Prerogative we must have recourse to the Fountain and Source of all Power for seeing we neither have nor ever had a power over our own Lives but on the contrary God has expresly told us That he that sheddeth Man's Blood of Man shall his Blood be shed it is impossible that Kings should derive their Power from the People for 't is an infallible Maxim Nemo plus Juris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet So that it must necessarily follow from hence That Kings must have been instituted by God for 't is He and He only could bestow this great Priviledge upon them and since we find the Fathers of Families Exercising this Power we may assure our selves that originally Patriarchal and Regal Jurisdiction were all one as likewise appeares from this that Obedience and Submission to Magistrates is commanded us by the Fifth Commandment where it is only said Honour thy Father c. So that as Paternal Power was from the Begining so must Regal too Besides from hence I take it to be plain that even at that time that God gave his blessing to Noah Gen. 9.6 there was a Regiment established which could be no other than Monarchy for else that command of putting the murderer to death given at that very time could not have been put in Execution but must needs for a long time have continued ineffectual for had any private man assumed that Power he must necessarily have been guilty of the same crime so that either we must allow of Magistracy at that time or else make God command a thing and not appoint means for the execution of it And I cannot see why we should date the original of Government any later than the Creation for certainly we cannot perswade our selves that Nature that so carefully provides for the preservation and well-being of all Creatures should only be defective in her care for the noblest Animal in the universe since nothing can be more necessarily required for the happiness of any thing than Government for mankind Cicero 3. de Leg. for sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest without Empire neither the whole nor any the least part of the world could be conserved in peace and order but all would immediately run into Ruin and Confusion And now if I had a mind to enter into so large a Common-Place it were very easie to cloy even the most greedy of such kind of Pedantry with sentences from the Fathers and other Primitive writers to show with what full Cry they all assert Monarchy to be sounded by God and Nature but waving a thing so obvious to every body I shall take notice that this opinion is so far from being a Stranger to our Laws that it is expresly resolved by all the Judges in England in Calvin's case that subjection is from no Humane Law Co. 7. Rep. 1. but from the Law of Nature and if so then of necessity must Regal Right be from the same Law because no man supposeth subjection where he does not presuppose power Besides you cannot but have observed above Rot. Parl. 39. H. 6. Rot. Parl. 2. E. 4. Rot. Parl. 1. R. 3. how many Parliaments of different Interests and Tempers have agreed in this that the Kings of England hold their Crowns by the Laws of God and Nature and therefore cannot be reputed of Humane Institution and hence it is that the King is stiled in our Statutes our Natural Liege Lord and his People likewise Natural Liege Subjects and the fidelity owing to the Crown
time after left the Crown to this Young Prince another of our unfortunate Kings †P. Virg. lib. 19. 20. and so far is it from being true that his Title to the Crown was questioned by John of Gaunt the great Duke of Lancaster that he was at the latter end of his Father's Reign intrusted with the Lieutenancy of the Realm and after his Death was Protector to the Young King during his Minority which certainly had never been if John of Gaunt jure propinquitatis had claim'd the Crown it being dangerous to put so great a Trust and Power into the hands of a Competitor Nor was ever the Succession confirm'd to him by Parliament any otherwise than I have mentioned Neither can Polydore's Regem dicunt if you leave out this Gentleman 's disingenuous Addition of by their Common Suffrages for there is no such thing in the Original signifie any more than that he was proclaimed King But it would be well for this unhappy Prince if he might but as quietly quit as he enter'd into the Throne but alas it fell out quite otherwise For King Richard being made Prisoner by his Cousin Henry of Lancaster a Parliament was Summoned by him in the King's Name in the one and twentieth year of his Reign to meet at Westminster An action certainly illegal in it self for if the Kings Summons were necessary as it appears it was I would gladly know how it can be pretended in this Case that this Parliament did convene by his Authority for tho' the Writs were issued out in his Name yet was he so far from consenting to it that if it had lay'n in his power he would have prevented it But this Assembly or Parliament call it what you will being got together I would fain be inform'd upon what Law or Authority I mean Legal they grounded their following Proceedings for if the Breath of the Kings Nostrils was necessary to give them their Being it is a little irrational to suppose they could thence derive a Lawful Power to destroy the Author of their Life besides how can it be supposed they could proceed justly to pass a Final Sentence upon Him whose concurrance was absolutely required to give birth to any Law which might concern his meanest Subjects tho' they thought it ne're so convenient and why should we believe it in the Power of the Estates of the Realm to impose any thing upon the King when he could bind them to observe nothing without their consent first obtained and yet our Pamphleteer is not ashamed to avouch this as a President of Parliamentary Power in the Point of Succession But if we do but examine the matter a little more narrowly we shall find it makes very little for his purpose unless it be his Design and a man must have a great deal of Charity to believe it is not to instruct the people how to proceed in case their King will not do as they would have him for we shall find that tho' they usurped the exorbitant Power of Deposing Richard yet did they not pretend to the power of Electing who they pleas'd but thought themselves in duty bound to submit to him to whom by Right of Blood the Crown did belong And this evidently appears from Henry Duke of Lancaster's manner of laying Claim to the Crown for no sooner was the Throne void by the pretended voluntary Resignation of King Richard but Henry first having fortified himself with the sign of the Cross stood up and made his demand of the Crown in his Mother-Tongue in this form of Word as I have extracted them out of the * Rot. Parl. 1 H. 4. memb 20. Parliament Roll In the Name of the Fader Sonne and Holy Gost I Henry of Lancastre challenge this Rewme of Ynglonde and the Corone with all the Membres and the Appurtenances al 's I that am descendit by ryght line of the blode comyng fro the gude Lord King Henry therde By this you may see vvhat it vvas he laid the stress of his Claim on and thorghe that Right that God of his Grace hath sent me He it seems acknovvledges God and not the people for the Author of his Right with the help of my Ryn and of my Friendes to recover it the which Rewme was in point to be ondone for defaut of Governance and undoyng of the gude Lawes After which Chalenge and Claim says the Record as well the Lords Spiritual as Temporal all and all the States there present being severally and all interrogated what they thought of the aforesaid Challenge and Claim The above-named States with all the Commonalty without any difficulty or delay unanimously agreed that the aforesaid Duke should reign over them And this being the Naked Truth of the matter I cannot imagine with what propriety of Speech this can be called an Election or what reason this Gentleman had for to say that the above-mentioned Title was the least of all insisted on when it appears from the Roll as I have faithfully translated it that no other was so much as mentioned And thus we have heard how the poor and unfortunate Prince Richard the Second from whose Actions if they be but examined with an impartial Eye we cannot conclude him to have been either very insufficient or evil if we soberly weigh the Imputations that were objected against him we shall find nothing of any truth or at least any moment was in a tempestuous Rage deprived of his Right and upon what Grounds Henry 4. mounted his Throne But how justly even in the Opinion of some at that time you will best be inform'd from Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle a wise and Learned man and of no less Courage who when it was moved in Parliament what should be done with King Richard He boldly stood up and spoke to this Effect as it is set down by * Bak. Chron. f. 158. Sir Richard Baker and since it is so much to the purpose I hope the reader will not be displeased with the length of it My Lords The matter now propounded is of marvellous Weight and Consequence wherein there are two points chiefly to be considered The First Whether King Richard be sufficiently put out of his Throne The Second whether the Duke of Lancaster be lawfully taken in For the First How can that be sufficiently done when there is no Power sufficient to do it The Parliament cannot for of the Parliament the King is the Head and can the Body put down the Head You will say the Head may how it self down and may the King resign It is true but what force is in that which is done by Force And who knows not that King Richard's Resignation was no other But suppose he be sufficiently out yet how comes the Duke of Lancaster to be lawfully in If you say by Conquest you speak Treason For what Conquest without Arms And can a Subject take up Arms and not be Treason If you say by Election of the State you
speak not Reason For what Power hath the State to elect while any that is living hath Right to succeed But such a Successor is not the Duke of Lancaster as descended from * So call'd from a Cross he used to wear upon his Back Edmund Crouchback the Elder Son of King Henry the Third tho' put by the Crown for Deformity of his Body For who knows not the Falseness of this Allegation Seeing it is a thing notorious that this Edmund was neither the Elder Brother nor yet Crook-back'd but of a goodly Personage and without any Deformity And your selves cannot forget a thing so lately done who it vvas that in the Fourth year of King Richard vvas declared by Parliament to be Heir to the Crovvn in case King Richard should die without Issue But why then is not that Claim made because Silent Leges inter Arma what disputing of Titles against the stream of Power But however it is extreme injustice that King Richard should be condemned without being heard or once allowed to make his Defence And now my Lords I have spoken thus at this time that you may consider of it before it be too late for as yet it is in your Power to undo that justly which you have unjustly done Thus spoke that Loyal and Good Prelate but to little purpose though there was neither Protestation nor Exception made against this Speech which certainly there would have been had there not been as much Truth as Boldness in vvhat he said And tho' Henry the Fourth did afterwards get the Inheritance of the Crown and Realm of England setled upon himself for Life and the Remainder entailed upon his four Sons by Name and the Issue of their Bodies yet that cannot at all make for my Adversaries purpose since it amounted to no more than a Confirmation of him in the Throne or if it did vve may vvell suppose that a Prince that vvas conscious to himself hovv unjustly he had gain'd his Crown would not be very unwilling to take such a way tho' in derogation to his Prerogative to secure himself if possible tho' not out of an Opinion that they could give him a better Right than they had but because 't is natural to suppose they would upon any occasion be ready to defend what they so solemnly had enacted Come we next to Henry the Fifth who this Gentleman says was Elected But how notoriously false that Assertion of his is will appear from hence that first there was no Parliament called till after his Coronation and in the next place that if the Act of Parliament made in the Seventh Year of Henry the Fourth had so great a Force and Vertue as he says it had it was needless nor can he prove any such thing from that careless and negligent Historian Polydore For Concilium Principum with him does not always signifie a Parliament as any one that has read him which I dare say he never did will perceive nor does his Phrase creare Regem import any more than the King's Coronation besides 't is most untrue which he affirms that Allegiance was never sworn before his Time till after a King was Crowned For the contrary appears from King John and Edward the First Nay 't is undeniably true that the Kings of England have exercised all manner of Royal Jurisdiction precedent to all Ceremony or any Formality whatsoever and that the Death of one King has in that very Moment given Livery and Seisin of the Royalty to the next Heir and by vertue of that Richard the First as a Mark of his Sovereignty immediately on his Father's Death restor'd the Earl of Leicester to his whole Estate Henry the Fifth being dead he was without any Opposition admitted to the Throne although but an Infant but in the Thirty Ninth Year of this King in open Parliament Richard Duke of York the true and rightful Heir to the Crown of England and France made his Challenge and Demand of it as being next Heir to Lionell Duke of Clarence Elder Brother to John of Gaunt from whom descended the House of Lancaster but to this Claim of his it was answered by the King's Friends That the same Crowns were by Act of Parliament Entailed upon Henry the Fourth and the Heirs of his Body from whom King Henry the Sixth did lineally descend * Rot. Parl. 39 H. 6. n. 10. c. The which Act say they as it is in the Record is of Authority to defeat any manner of Title made to any Person To which the Duke of York answerably replies That if King Henry the Fourth might have obtained and enjoyed the said Crowns of England and France by title of Inheritance Descent or Succession he neither needed nor would have desired or made them to be granted to him in such wise as they be by the said Act the which taketh no place nor is of any Force or Effect mind that against him that is Right Inheritor of the said Crowns as it accordeth with God's Laws and all Natural Laws And this Claim and Answer of the Duke of York is expresly acknowledged and recognized by this Parliament to be Good True Just Lawful and Sufficient and 't is agreed that Henry shall hold the Crown during his Life and the Duke of York in the mean time to be reputed and proclaimed Heir Apparent So that we have here as much as can be desired a Parliament not only declaring that a Title to the Crown ought to derive it self only from the Laws of God and Nature and not from any Civil Sanction and acknowledging in at the Bargain that it is beyond the Reach of any Humane Legislative Power to debar and exclude any one that justly claims by such a Right But to â— proceed upon Edward the Fourth's coming to the Crown a Parliament conven'd in the first year of his Reign does acknowledge and recognize his Title in these words as the * Rot. Parl. 1 Ed. 4. n. 8. c. Record has it Knowing also certainly without doubt and ambiguity that by Gods Law and Law of Nature He h. e. Edward the Fourth and none other is and ought to be true right-wise and natural Liege and Sovereign Lord. And that he was in Right from the Death of the said Noble and Famous Prince his Father very just King of the same Realm of England So here again we have another Parliament of the same mind with the last and I doubt not but we shall meet with more of 'em e're we have done When King Edward the Fourth was droven out of his Kingdom by Henry the Sixth 't is true the Crown was again entail'd if it may be properly so call'd upon him and his Heirs c. but still the proceeding was grounded upon the same Bottom with the former Here our Pamphleteer is pleased to make this drowsie Observation that both the Families of York and Lancaster claim'd a Title by Act of Parliament 't is true the latter did because they
for her establishment will clearly appear to any one that considers the state of Affairs and the History of those Times the only true Touchstone to try matters of this Nature by For if we consider how questionable Her Birthright was then generally esteemed we cannot at all admire if for her own Interest and Security she attributed much more to an Act of Parliament than otherwise she would have done For tho' in the Act of Recognition 't is said that her Majesty is and in very deed and of most meer Right ought to be by the Laws of God Queen of this Realm yet the dubiousness of her Legitimacy and her being solemny Bastardiz'd by her own Father by Act of Parliament might very well necessitate her to call in the Aid and Assistance of her people for her defence and establishment since the greatest part of Europe did not only look upon the Title of Mary Queen of Scotland to be much the clearer and juster than Hers and therefore since Queen Elizabeth's Title depended so very much upon Statute Law the most part of the World allowing her no other and a great many too disputing the validity of that she was necessitated to make that as strong as possibly she could and therefore made it Treason for any one during her Life to affirm That Our Sovereign Lady the Queen's Majesty that now is with and by the Authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient Force and Validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Limitation Inheritance and Government thereof which tho' as we shall afterwards endeavour to prove was not in their power to do yet she knew very well that her people would be very apt to defend what they had then so solemnly Enacted and so thereby she should gain her end viz. her Preservation which was the great thing she aimed at as appears by this that the punishment to be inflicted upon them that broke this Law was to abate very much of its rigor after her death for then it was but to be forfeiture of goods a certain Argument that it was only Temporary Enacted pro re nata for if the Reason of it did continue the same so ought surely the Punishment since they should alvvays stand and fall vvith one another tho' no doubt another tho' less considerable reason might be the Malaversions she inherited from her Father to the House of Scotland vvhich thereby she did certainly endeavor for ever to deprive of the Imperial Crown of England As evidently appears from this Clause in it viz. That every person or persons of what Degree and Nation soever they he shall during the Queens Life declare or publish that they have any Right to enjoy the Crown of England during the Queen's Life shall be dis-inabled to enjoy the Crown in Succession Inheritance or otherwise after the Queen's Death For this was most apparently contriv'd against Mary Queen of Scots and her Son K. James For since almost all Europe spoke openly of the greater Right that Mary had to the Crown than Elizabeth it might very probably be expected that not only as she thought so so she might upon an occasion offer'd not only speak but act up to her Persuasion and then by this Statute she was as much disabled as Statute could do it But besides all this I am inclin'd to believe there was something more in the bottom of it than this of the contrivance of that subtle and cunning Statesman the Earl of Leicester which I gather from this Clause That whoever shall affirm during the Queens Life either in Writing or in Print that any one is or ought to be the Queens Heir or Successor besides the NATURAL ISSUE OF HER BODY BEGOTTEN c. SHALL c. For in Law none are call'd the Natural Issue of any one but those that are Illegitimate Vit Eliz. Adeo ut sayes Camden tunc juvenis audiveram dictitantes verbum illud à Leicestrio in Legem ingestum eo consilio ut aliquem ipsius filium spurium pro reginae Sobole naturali Angles tandem aliquando obtruderet Insomuch that when I was a young man sayes he I have often heard it said that Leicester caused that expression to be foisted in that thereby he might have a pretence to impose one time or other upon the English one of his own Bastards for the Queens Natural Issue A Design truly not unlikely for him to have who always measured the Publick by his proper Interest and sacrificed every thing else to his own ends and then certainly it will never be denied but such an Act of Parliament was necessary to give colour of breaking so ancient and fundamental a Law of the Land as the advancing a Bastard must needs be How contrary to all the Obligations of Justice and Humanity the unfortunate Queen of Scots was treated by her Kinswoman Queen Elizabeth upon the pretended breach of a Statute made in the 27th of her Reign I shall not trouble my Reader or my Self with the recital of which rigorous proceeding as it was chiefly grounded upon her violent hatred to the House of Scotland so I could heartily wish for the Honour of that Great and Glorious Queen under whose Reign this Island so long and happily flourished were razed out the Annals of Time so that there might be nothing left to stain the Reputation of that otherwise unblemishable Princess But tho' the Mother had the misfortune to fall so ignominiously yet the Son King James had not the wisdom to strive fruitlesly against the Stream but prudently never gave an opportunity of finding a colour to resist him who never laid Claim to a Crown till Heaven call'd him to the Enjoyment of it But no sooner was he come into England but having call'd a Parliament his Title to the Crown is solemnly acknowledged and recognized in these words 1 Jac. c. 1. We being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and man do with unspeakable Joy recognize and acknowledge That immediately upon the decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England c. did by inherent Birth-right lawful and undoubted Succession descend and come to your Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm And thereunto we most humbly and faithfully do submit and oblige our selves our Heirs and Posterities for ever And now if King James came to the Crown by inherent Birth-right and undoubted Succession I cannot see any thing that makes more against this Gentleman than this for 't is plain the old Entail made by Henry the Seventh cannot be pretended because that Act was tho' not expresly yet tacitly effectually repeal'd by 28. H. 8. c. 7. 35 H. 8. c. 1. for King Henry could not have a power to appoint who he vvould for his Successor if that Act of Henry the Seventh remain'd in