And as anciently as the year 789. an Act was made in a General Convention of all England in Conventu Pananglico that their Kings should be Elected by the Clergy senioribus populi and Elders of the people that is such as were Members of their Great Councils or Witena Gemots Assemblies of Sage and Wise Men. This tho it was long before the reputed Conquest yet was never repealed or cut off by the Sword nay seems received with the Confessor's Laws as included in them 2. It appears by the several instances given in the fourth Chapter and the testimonies there both of Malmsbury and the Publisher of the life of King Alfred That no lineal Succession was observed here before the supposed Conquest 3. The Confessor's Law received by W. 1. Vid. Sup. and continued downwards as the noblest Transcript of the Common Law shews that the Kings of England were to be elected and the end for which they are chosen by the people After the same manner do the ancient Historians and Lawyers as well since that time as before commonly express accessions to the Throne and seem industriously to mind Kings of it that according to the caution given the Jewish Kings Deut. 17.20 their hearts be not lifted up above their Brethren 4. According to the usage from before the reputed Conquest downwards the People are asked Whether they are content to have such a Man King 5. The most absolute of the English Monarchs never believed Cambd. Brit. s 104. de W. 1 Neminem Anglici regi constituo Haredem sed a terno conditori cujus sum in cujus manu sunt omnia illud commendo non enim taâ—tum decus hereditario jure possedi c that then Children had a right to the Crown except the people consented that they should succeed as appears by King Alfred's Will and the Death-bed Declaration of William 1. And therefore some of our Kings against whom there has been no pretence of better Title in any particular Person or Family when they stood upon good Terms with their People have often prevail'd with them in their Lives-time to secure the Succession to their eldest Son and H. 2. to prevent hazarding the Succession endanger'd himself by getting his eldest Son Crown'd himself living But as the going no farther than the eldest argues that they looked on that as a Favour the pressing for a Settlement on their Issue in any manner argues That it was not look'd upon as a clear Point of Right without it Of later Times Settlements have been made in Tail which though they were occasion'd by Pretences to Titles are Records against an Hereditary Monarchy according to the common notion which is one that by the original Constitution descends to the next in the Line male or Female V. Leges W. 1. de Fide c. Statuimus etiam ut omnes liberi homines foedere sacramento affirment quod intra extra regnum Angliae Willielmo Regi Domino suo fideles esse volunt c. Leges S. Edw. tit Greve Vid. Juramentum homagii facti Regi 6. The Oaths of Allegiance required of all the Subjects were never extended to Heirs but were barely Personal till Settlements of the Crown were obtain'd upon the Quarrels between the Families of York and Lancaster and though H. 4. obtain'd in Parliament an Oath to himself the Prince and his Issue and to every one of his Sons successively and in the time of H. 6. the Bishops and Temporal Lords swore to be true to the Heirs of R. Duke of York yet perhaps no Oath of Allegiance to the King and his Heirs can be shewn to have been requir'd of the Subjects in general till that 26 H. 8. according to the Limitations of the Statute 25. 7. Even where the People had setled the Crown they seem'd to intend no more than to give a preference before other Pretenders not but that as Ideocy Frenzy or the like might set such an one aside so upon other weighty Reasons they might alter the Settlement Pryn 's Signal Loyalty p. 274. Pol. Virgil. 1. 22. sub initio as appears by Polydore Virgil who was never thought to lie on the Peoples side whatever Evidences for them he may have conceal'd or destroy'd whose words of H. 5. to whom the Crown had been limited by Parliament may be thus rendred Nota Proceres may take in the Nobiles minores Prince Henry having buried his Father causes a Council of Nobles to be conven'd at Westminster in which while they according to the Custom of their Ancestors consulted about making a King behold on a sudden some of the Nobility of their own accord swear Allegiance to him which officious Good-will was never known to have been shewn to any before he was declared King William 2. was elected during the Life of his eldest Brother who was set aside by the English against whom he had discovered Ill-will in spite of the Normans So H. 1. Stephen was elected while Maud the Daughter of H. 1. was alive and H. 2. succeeded in her Life-time upon an Agreement made with Stephen by the Peoples Consent R. 1. as within King John crown'd in the Life-time of his eldest Brother's Son Prince Arthur So was his Son H. 3. in the Life-time of Eleanor Prince Arthur's Sister E. 1. as within E. 2. elected E. 3. set up by the People in his Father's Life-time which the Father took for a Favour R. 2. declared Successor by Parliament in the Life-time of his Grandfather H. 4. of the younger House came in by the Peoples Choice upon their deposing R. 2. H. 5 6. Son and Grandson to H. 4. came in upon a Settlement E. 4. of the elder House came in under an Agreement made in Parliament between his Father who liv'd not to have the benefit of it and H. 6. His Son E. 5. was never crown'd R. 3. who set him aside was of the younger House H. 7. who vanquish'd him could have no Right of Proximity for the Daughter of E. 4. and his own Mother were before him All that came in since enjoy'd the Crown either under the various Settlements of H. 8. or that of H. 7. which took place again in J. 1. or from H. 6. at the highest 8. As the Practice of the Kingdom is an Evidence of its Right numerous Instances might be produc'd of Choices since the supposed Conquest not only so called by Historians but appearing so in their own Natures wherein no regard has been had to Proximity but barely to Blood And I believe no Man can shew me any more than Two since the reputed Conquest of whom it can be affirm'd with any semblance of Truth that they came in otherwise than upon Election express'd by the Historians of the Time or imply'd as they had no other Title or else a late Settlement of the Crown either upon themselves immediately or in Remainder The Two upon which I will yield
not be thought that I in the least derogate from the Honour due to him when I observe matter of fact not falling within his notice The Author of a late Paper in relation to these Times has this passage not to be neglected A Letter to a Friend advising in this extraordinary Juncture All Power is originally or fundamentally in the People formally in the Parliament which is one Corporation made up of three Constituent essentiating Parts King Lords and Commons so it was with us in England When this Corporation is broken when any one essentiating Part is lost or gone there is a Dissolution of the Corporation the formal Seat of Power and that Power devolves on the People When it is impossible to have a Parliament the Power returns to them with whom it was originally Is it possible to have a Parliament It is not possible the Government therefore is Dissolv'd Hence he would argue a necessity of having a larger Representative of the People Vid. Pufend. de Interregnis p. 267. sup in Marg. that the Convention may be truly National But had this Ingenious Person observed Pufendorf's two distinct Contracts by the first of which a Provision was made for a Monarchy before any particular Person was setled in the Throne he would have found no such necessity But if immemorially the People of England have been Represented as they were for this Assembly and no needful form or circumstance has been wanting to make the Representation compleat all men who impartially weigh the former Proofs of Elections not without a Rightful Power must needs think the last duly made Dr. Brady indeed with some few that led him the Dance and others that follow will have the present Representation of the Commons of England to have been occasioned by Rebellion 49 H. 3. But I must do him the honour to own him to be the first who would make the Barons to have no Personal Right but what depends upon a King in being for he allows none to have Right of coming to Parliament Brady's first Ed. p. 227. See this prov'd upon him in the Pref. to Jus Anglorum ab antiquo but such only to whom the King has thought fit to direct Writs of Summons Yet I dare say no man of sense who has read that Controversie believes him But were his Assertions true it might be granted that the Barons would have no more personal Right to be of any Convention upon the total Absence or Abdication of a King than they would have of coming to Parliament without His Writ Yet since the Right of the People in person or Representation is indubitable in such a Case what hinders the validity of the late Choice considering how many Elections of Kings we have had and that never by the people diffusively since the first Institution of the Government And the Representations agreed on tho I take them to be earlier setled for Cities and Burroughs than for the Freeholders in the Counties have ever since their respective settlements been in the same manner as now at least none have since the first Institution ever come in their own persons or been Electors but what are now present personally or representatively and their own Consent takes away all pretence of Error If it be said That they ought to have been Summoned Forty days before the Assembly held That is only a Privilege from the King which they may wave and have more than once consented to be Represented upon less than Forty days Summons Prynne 's Animadversions on 4 Inst f. 10. Mr. Prynne gives several Instances as 49 H. 3. 4 E. 3. 1 H. 4. 28 Eliz. and says he omits other Precedents of Parliaments Summoned within Fourty days after the Writs of Summons bear date upon extraordinary Occasions of publick safety and concernment which could not conveniently admit so long delay And Sir Robert Cotton being a strict Adherer to Form Vid. Rushw 1 Vol. f. 470. 3 Car. 1. upon an Emergency advised That the Writs should be Antedated which Trick could make no real difference To say however there ought to have been a Summons from or in the name of a King in being is absurd it being for the exercise of a lawful power which unless my Authorities fail the people had without a King or even against the consent of one in being Besides it appears That such Summons have not been essential to the Great Councils of the Nation Tacitus shews That the Germans Tacit. de Moribus German Coeunt nisi quid fortuitum subitum certis diebus c. V. Leges S. Ed. tit Greve In Capite Kal. Maij. Jus. Angl. c. 7. Vid. Append. from whom we descend had theirs at certain days unless when some extraordinary matter happened And by the Confessor's Laws received by W. 1. and continued downwards by the Coronaton Oaths requir'd to this very day the General Folcmot ought to be held annually without any formal Summons upon May-day By the time of E. 1. this custom to hold a Parliament upon May-day received a little alteration for the Pope having at the beginning of that King's Reign demanded eight years Arrears of an Annual payment which he claim'd for the Kingdom of England the King had put him off till the next Parliament which he said had us'd to be held in England about the Octaves of our Saviour's Resurrection This Parliament was held at the Octaves accordingly as the King acknowleges upon the Pope's second demand but pleads that it had been taken up with the great Affairs of the Nation till his want of Health occasion'd a Dissolution before they could consider oâ—… tt Matter which he promis'd should be brought before them at the next Parliament which he purposed to hold at Michaelmas then following The Statute 16 Car. 1. which our rigid Formalists must own to be in Force has wholly taken away the necessity of Writs of Summons from a King Stat. 12. Car. 2. c. 1. The Assembly of the Lords and Commons held Anno 1660. was summoned by the Keepers of the Liberties of England not by the Kings Writs yet when they came to Act in conjunction with the King they declare enact and adjudge where the Statute is manifestly declaratory of what was Law before That the Lords and Commons then sitting are and shall be the Two Houses of Parliament notwithstanding any want of the King 's Writ or Writs of Summons or any defect or alteration of or in any Writ of Summons c. Tho' this seems parallel to the present Case yet in truth ours is the strongest For the King then had been only King de jure no Authority could be received from Him nor could any Act of His be regarded in Law through defect either of Jurisdiction or Proof if not both Accordingly as not only the Reason of the thing but the Lord Coke shews 3 Inst f. 7. Sup. in Marg. a Pardon from one barely King de jure is of
eum qui judiciorum particeps sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and (d) Hermanni Conringii Exercitationes Acad. de Civibus Imperii p. 3. Ordines Imperii Incolae Conringius his Cives to be too restrain'd the first limiting it to them that have shares in the Judicature and Magistracy the other to the States and Orders of the Empire allowing no others to be more than Inhabitants or Strangers Whereas the Civitas must manifestly reach to that diffus'd Body who are either capable of being part of the Ordines or Great Council or of being represented in it for otherwise the common subject of Power must needs fail as often as there are Intermissions of the States or Great Council And 't is plain that Conringius his Reason why none but the Status vel Ordines Imperii are more than Inhabitants reaches farther Every Civis he says is a Companion of the Civil Society and it is the part of a Companion to give his Suffrage and Judgment of things belonging to the Society This certainly he does virtually who gives his Suffrage in the choice of them who conclude the rest and if this should not make a Citizen there could be no means of exerting any moral or lawful Power in any Society upon the determination of the Authority of those particular Persons who had constituted any dissolv'd Assembly of States unless the sole Power resided entirely and absolutely in the Person or Persons with whom they had lodg'd a Trust for summoning them together that is giving publick notice of the Time and Place for meeting Indeed if none but the Ordines were part of the Civitas Grotius his Distinction between the common 〈◊〉 proper or particular Seat of Power would be very vain wherefore I take his Cives to be the same with Pufendorf's Quorum coitione consensu primò Civitas coaluit aut qui in illorum locum successerunt nempe Patres familiâs Sam. Pufendorf de officio Hominis Civis p. 265. By whose Conjunction and Consent the Civil Society first came together or they who succeeded into their rooms to wit the Masters of Families Indeed if we consider it will appear that never any Empire or other Civil Society was founded but there was an Original Contract or Agreement among the People for the founding of it How was the most absolute Authority of a single Person ever rais'd or maintain'd but by the undisciplin'd Rabble or disciplin'd one of an Army and what could keep them together but a Contract or Promise of Pay or Spoil to the Leaders or Officers who were to be undertakers to the common People or the Souldiers I remember Mr. Hobbs in his History of the Civil Wars of England Hobbs his History of the Civil Wars blames King Charles the First for engaging in a War against the Parliament while at the same time he pretended to justify what he did by Law and to leave all that that assisted him to answer to the Law when he should have encouraged them to have been hearty on his side by hopes of the Spoil of the Nation but whatever may be the Inducements to fight for an Authority lawfully establish'd before surely no People ever submitted to any without a prior Obligation but where they had hopes or expectations of Advantage or Ease the obtaining of which if not made a Condition was ever implied Suppose a Colony of some hundreds of Men among which one is chosen General Head or Leader without any particular or express Contract and his Son suffered to succeed after him Is the Power either of Father or Son antecedent or obligatory before the free Consent of the rest has past Or is it to be imagined that either the Father or his Successor have this People as an Inheritance given them from above to dispose of their Lives and Fortunes without any regard to the Good of All The most sensible of them who utterly deny that any Power can be derived from the People as fighting against their fancied Divine Right of Kingship own that the People have a Right to design the Person Vid. Sacrosanct Regum Majest Potestas designativa personae vel collativa Potestatis tho not to confer the Power only these Men will have it that the extent of the Power of a King is ascertained by God himself which I must needs say I could never yet find prov'd with any colour But to avoid a Dispute needless here since the Question is not so much of the Extent of Power as of the Choice of Persons or Derivation of it Whether any Choice is allowable for us must be determined by the fundamental or subsequent Contract either voluntary or impos'd by Conquest and 't is this which must resolve us whether the Government shall continue Elective or Hereditary to them that stand next in the course of Nature guided to a certain Channel by the common Law of Descents or limited only to the Blood with a Liberty in the People to prefer which they think most convenient all Circumstances considered And if our Constitution warrants the last then we may cut the Gordian Knot and never trouble our selves with Difficulties about a Demise or Cession from the Government or Abdication of it for which way soever the Throne is free from the last Possessor the People will be at Liberty to set up the most deserving of the Family or whom they judg so unless there be subsequent Limitations by a Contract yet in force between Prince and People which being dissolv'd no Agreements take place but such as are or have been made among themselves Vid. infra cap. In which Case whatever ordinary Rule they have set themselves they may alter it upon weighty Considerations And that the People of England have lawfully and rightfully renounc'd their Allegiance sworn to J. 2. and transferr'd it to the most deserving of the Blood notwithstanding any Oaths or Recognitions taken or made by them I shall evince not only from the Equity of the Law and Reservations necessarily implied in their Submission to a King but from the very Letter explain'd by the Practice of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since CHAP. II. Of Equity or implied Reservations Who judges of the Equity The Lord Clarendon's Judgment of such Cases Cocceius his A short Reference to three late Treatises of great use upon this Question Some Reservations which Bp Sanderson will have implied in all Oaths Grotius his Opinion and Quotations out of Barclay in relation to the withdrawing the Allegiance which had been due to Kings Even the Author of Jovian of some Service here Mr. Falkner's Christian Loyalty set in a true Light and shewn notwithstanding his being misled by the Canons of J. 1. and of 1640. to be wholly on our side in what relates to our present Enquiry and to joyn with Grotius Barclay Bp Bilson Lessius and Becanus So Bp Bedell tho a Cloud has been endeavoured to be drawn over his Opinion
dimittere But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justify the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavours to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Vid. Bellarm. how the Pope hooks in Temporals in ordine ad Spiritualia Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants had been disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there Vid. Leges S. Edwardi put into the Hands of the Native Papists nor is it now likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependance upon England without vast Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns Dr. Hick 's his Jovian p. 280. Ib. p. 192 193. that the King's Law is his most Authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperor had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government where the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. No Clergy-man of the last or foregoing Reign having treated of Civil Government with more Temper and Judgment and yet with greater Applause of the warmest Men of his own Gown Falkner 's Christian Loyalty Ed. An. 1679. than the Learned Mr. Falkner of Lyn I shall be the longer in giving an account of his Discourse of Christian Loyalty which will prove an Authority on my side beyond what could be hop'd for considering the time when his Book came out with License and a Dedication to the Archbishop of Canterbury it being when Mr. Johnson by way of Composition against a threatned Suspension was oblig'd to drink his Coffee at home lest he should inlighten his Brethren who fill'd all places of publick Resort with their Pulpit-Law and the Dictates of their Guide Sir Roger. I must own that Mr. Falkner was in some things carried away with that Tide which if any of that Cloth besides Mr. Johnson had the Courage to stemm they had at least the good fortune to be less observ'd but the shewing wherein the Author of Christian Loyalty gave too much way to the Fashion or the Noise may yield farther strength and light to that Truth which will arise out of those very Clouds with which he might think requisite to obscure it His Treatise is in two Parts in the first he vindicates and endeavours to explain the Oath of Supremacy 1. In relation to the Regal Power as it is receiv'd in our Church or at least by Church-men or as it is acknowledged by our Laws 2. As the Oath renounces all Foreign Jurisdiction the last of which falls no otherwise under Consideration here than as it shews the King's Duty to preserve his Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Supremacy and not to alienate either In the second part this Worthy Author considers the publick Declarations against Subjects taking Arms. Page 14. 1. In the first he rightly affirms That the asserting the Supremacy of Government is never design'd meaning I supppose by the Law in any wise to violate either Divine or Christian Institutions or to assert it lawful for any Prince to invade that Authority and Right which is made particular thereby whether in Matters Temporal or Spiritual Where by Christian Institutions Page 3. 't is plain that we are to understand the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws of Christian States or the Laws of others not contrary to Christianity and thus he deservedly blames them who nourish false Conceptions and mistaken Opinions concerning the CIVIL POWER beyond due Bounds exalting it so high as not to reserve that Respect which belongeth to God and Christian Institutions Page 15. and rightly observes that the Supremacy does not exclude the Subject from a real Propriety in his own Estate And that there are some Kingdoms where without any Disparagement to the Supremacy of their Prince Page 11. they are govern'd by the fixed Rules of the Civil Law and others where other Laws established by their Predecessors are standing Rules Page 391. And particularly in relation to the People of this Realm he says in the second Part The English Constitution doth excellently and effectually provide against injurious Oppressions Of which more in its place 1 Canon An. 1640. However I cannot but here observe that even the Canons of 1640. which he receives as speaking the Sense of the Church of England own that the Subject has a Propriety but withal say that Tribute Custom and Aid and all manner of necessary Support and Supply are due to Kings from their Subjects by the Law of God Nature and Nations yet tho it is the Duty of Subjects to supply the King it is part of the Kingly Office to support his Subjects in the Propriety and Freedom of their Estates Still it seems subject to the King's Judgment of necessity which is right Sibthorpism and Manwarinism afterwards eccho'd to by the Courts at Westminster in the Resolution about Shipmoney and of late in that of the Dispensing Power I think in two things what Mr. Falkner writes upon the first Head lies open to Exception 1. That generally by Civil Power Page 356. he seems to mean the Person of the King and that not according to his own Definition of a King which he says doth denote the Royal Person who governs which himself owns to be according to the respective Limitations in those places where they govern many having the Title of a King Page 339. who had not such Royal Power as is allowed by our Constitution but he ascribes to a King generally speaking and particularly to ours such a Soveraignty as carries with it the absolute and arbitrary Exercise of that Civil Power whereby a Nation is govern'd Thus he asserts with St. Austin That Subjests may and ought to obey their Prince's Commands where they are certain Page 302. that what he commands is not against the Command of God And hence he attributes to the Kings of England even more Power than he allows to the Roman Christian Emperors as will soon appear And it appears that this is not only a casual dash with his Pen Page 123. for having before in one place spoken of the business of the Civil Power describ'd by St. Peter Page 131. in another he mentions the Authority with which he supposes Kings and Princes to be
Corporations the managing Juries and improving Religious and lawful Civil Assemblies into Riots nay Consults for Treason had not then been brought to Perfection And the Dispensing Power having been attempted but receded from he says The true Religion is established by our Laws Page 542. and no Law can be repealed or altered to the Prejudice of English Subjects by the Pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers and the Representatives of the Commons of England And indeed the good Man takes a great deal of Pains from the Duty Honour and Interest of the Prince the danger to evil Instruments and the like to prove that it ought not to be presumed that any such Case as we have known will happen which at this time looks like a Philosophical Argument against Motion and deserves the like Confutation However Page 532. looking upon such Violations as but simply possible he maintains that the Declarataion against taking Arms ought to be in general Terms for that such extraordinary Cases as may be put fall not under Consideration Page 361. I may add till they happen for then they must be put and remembred to justify what they have render'd necessary Nay himself restrains the general Terms to a Subject's taking Arms without any Command from his Prince Page 360. against those who act by virtue and in pursuance of his Commission REGVLARLY granted to them Page 346. I will yield to him that it would be an high Reflection upon the Laws of our Realm if there were need of consulting skilful Lawyers for the general Rule of Duty and to whom Men ought to yeild Obedience and Submission Yet if learned Men will confound the plain Rule of Submission to the Powers which are in being by setting up a supposed inseparable Right in a Power which once had a being but is become a meer Shadow and Spectre 't will be requisite to have recourse to them who have taken some pains in enquiring into the Constitution of the Government to see what Remedy is thereby allowed in extraordinary Cases Christian Loyalty p. 521. And whereas speaking of Officers suppos'd by some to have Authority of resisting in such Cases he seems to know of none but by Charter or Commission having their Authority depending upon the King a little Skill in the Law or in Antiquity would have inform'd him of several others at least such as were not so dependent Vid. inf of the Earl Marshall c. Vid. The Act of Pacification between the English and the Scots Temp. Car. 1. which provides that it shall be lawful for the Subjects of either Nation to fall upon the Forces which shall come out of one into the other without the Consent of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms not only hereditary Great Officers and other Great Men of the Kingdom but other Officers chosen by the People the Heretochii or Lords Lieutenants and the Sheriffs anciently and the Officers in Boroughs by Prescription and Constables at this day I will be as ready as he to maintain that for the future such Supposals as he touches with great Fear and Tenderness will be very remote Possibilities and being look'd upon in our Law as vain in the Apprehension are thought not to stand in need of any particular Provision but he mentions three Cases in which upon yeilding the Suppositions Page 531. he grants the Answer given by Barclay to two of them and to all three by Grotius to be true To the general Question May there no Cases fall out in which the People by their Authority may take Arms against the King Page 515. Barclay answers Certainly none as long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat which is pregnant with the Affirmative that there may be some Case wherein he by Law or of Right ceases to be King And Barclay manifestly allows of two Grotius adds a third branch'd into a fourth in which Mr. Falkner concurs with him as well as with Barclay and Grotius in the other two Pag. 525 527. The first particular Case upon which he delivers his own Opinion Voluntary Resignation or Cession or Abdication without referring to Authorities is of a King 's voluntarily relinquishing and laying aside his Crown and Government of this several Examples are mentioned and among the rest nine of our Saxon Kings Page 426. and he rightly observes that if such Persons should act against the settled Government of their respective Kingdoms after they are fixed in the next Heir in an Hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the Constitution of Elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Arms against the King but against him who now is a private Person If therefore the late King's Abdication were such a relinquishing as he means Vid. sup f. 13. which it must be if he receive Grotius or if he hold to the other Cases in which as it will appear he yields that he would be devested of Soveraignty in all such Cases every thing is lawful against the late King that would be lawful against any other private Person 2. The second Case agreed by all three and by Bishop Bilson Page 526. is of a Prince ' s undertaking to alienate his Kingdom Alienation of the Kingdom or to give it up to the Hands of another Soveraign Power against the Mind of his Subjects And he thinks Barclay Grotius and Bishop Bilson truly to assert that such an Act of Alienation or of acknowledged Subjection especially if obtained by evil Methods as was done in the Case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any Right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the King himself thereof But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new Supream Power who have no Right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdom to be thereby possess'd Grotius saith he doubteth not but he may be resisted in his undertaking but then says Mr. Falkner this Resolution must proceed upon this ground that this Action includeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects And Barclay who allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be devested of his Royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them Not to mention the notorious truckling to France and Pupilage under that bribing and imposing Monarch since the Kings of England are Supream in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs and the late King by Force and open Violation of the Laws against the universal Bent and Mind of his People renounc'd his own Supremacy in yielding to the Pope's and since the People might resist him therein but that which justified their resisting him devested him of his Soveraignty 't is evident that according to Mr. Falkner and the Learned Men whose Authority he receives the late King thereby ceas'd
lay to hold in Vassallage of the Pope as well as by other his Exorbitances yet was not set aside till the Nation was necessitated to it by the Success of his Usurpations and Ravages to which as he was encouraged and enabled by the Influence of the Pope's Authority over the less honest or less discerning so he thereby lost all means of gaining Trust from his People for the future The Earls and Barons of England having without any Writ from the King given one another notice of meeting demonstrated that they engag'd not out of any Affectation of Change but meerly to secure those Liberties which were their due by the Constitution for they agreed to wage War Mat. Pa. f. 339. and renounce Allegiance to him only in case that he would not confirm those Liberties which were contain'd in the Laws of Hen. 1. and the ancient Laws of King Edward the Confessor That they might proceed with such Deliberation as became them they appointed another Meeting for a peremptory Demand declaring that if he then refus'd them they would compel him to Satisfaction by seizing his Castles nor were they worse than their words and their Resolutions had for a while their desir'd Effect in obtaining a Confirmation of their Liberties which tho they were as forceable in Law before and his Promise to maintain them as little to be credited as ever yet his open Violation of them after his own solemn acknowledging them and granting that Petition of Right was likely to cast the greater Load upon him and his Courtiers when they should act to the contrary and to take from their side numbers of well-meaning Men who otherwise might be cheated with a pretence of Prerogative The Pope as was to be expected soon absolv'd the King and encourag'd him to break those legal Fetters which was ipso facto an Absolution to the People of more effect in Conscience than the Pope's ipso facto Excommunications They being thus discharged the wiser and sounder part of them stoutly casting off the Authority both of King and Pope proceeded to the Election of another King Lewis the Dauphin of France Mat. Par. lib. Addit An. 1216. The Account in Matthew Paris of a Debate which the French King and his Advocate or Attourny-General held with the Pope's Nuncio who would have disswaded the Dauphin's Expedition against King John the Pope's sworn Vassal is so exactly parallel to the Case now in question that many who will allow us no Precedent of ancient Times will be ready to say that some words at least were foisted in since our present happy Settlement The French King as became a Monarch spake his mind in few words Si aliquando fuit verus Rex postea Regnum forisfecit per mortem Arthuri de quo facto damnatus fuit in Curiâ nostrâ Item nullus Rex vel Princeps potest dare regnum suum sine assensu Baronum suorum qui regnum illud tenentur defendere If ever he were King he afterwards forfeited his Kingdom by killing Arthur of which Fact he was condemned in our Court. Besides no King or Prince can give his Kingdom without the Assent of his Barons who are bound to defend it That is to preserve the Kingdom against the King who has parted with it or any Demisee as appears by his Advocate 's Enlargement to whom he left the rest after himself had granted all Kingly Power to have this implied Limitation Mat. Par. Addit f. 281. The Advocate goes on addressing himself to the King Domine Rex Res notissima c. May it please your Majesty It is a thing well known to all that John called King of England was condemned to death in your Court for his Treachery to his Nephew Arthur whom he slew with his own Hands And was afterwards by the Barons of England for his many Homicides and other Enormities there committed rejected from reigning over them Whereupon the Barons waged War against him Ne regnaret super eos reprobatus ut ipsum solio regni immutabiliter depellerent that they might drive him from the Throne of the Kingdom never to return Moreover the said King without the Assent of his great Men gave his Kingdom to the Pope and the Church of Rome to receive it again to be held under the yearly Tribute of a thousand Marks Dare non potuit potuit tamen dimittere eam And altho he could not give the Crown of England to any one without his Barons he might demise it or devest himself of it which as soon as he resign'd he ceased to be King and the Kingdom was vacant without a King Therefore the vacant Kingdom ought not to have been administred without the Lords What difference between the Kingdoms being vacant without a King and the Throne vacant Vacans itaque Regnum sine Baronibus ordinari non debuit unde Barones elegerunt Dominum Ludovicum ratione Uxoris suae c. By reason of which the Barons chose Lord Lewis upon the account of his Wife whose Mother the Queen of Castile was the only Survivor of all the King of England's Brothers and Sisters This was so true and so convincing that the most plausible Return which the Pope's Nuncio could make to it was that King John had been sign'd with the Cross for the Service of the Holy Land and that therefore by the Constitution of a General Council he ought to have Peace and be under the Pope's Protection for four Years And you may be sure that the French King would not interrupt him in his Journey thither but was well satisfied that his Son should supply his place in England Who tho he had been received not only as one that rescued the Nation from King John's enormous Tyranny but as one that was in the Right of his Wife entitled to the Priviledg of the English Blood Royal and so duly chosen according to the standing Law of this Monarchy as has been mentioned and will hereafter more fully appear Vid. sup inf Yet the Clergy and all who were so weak as to be led by them in Civil Affairs being against Lewis Mat. Par. f. 384. as he stood excommunicated by the Pope besides it having been made known by the Death-bed-Declaration of one of Lewis his Confidents that his Master had evil Designs against those very Men who were the chief Instruments in his Advancement and that he look'd upon them who fought for him as Traitors he through the uncertainty and indifference of his Friends more than the strength of his Enemies was oblig'd to quit the Kingdom to Hen. 3. Object This would lead me to the particular Consideration of the Barons Wars with H. 3. were it not needful first to remove an Objection against their Proceedings with his Father which tho not founded on the Histories of the same Age may seem to have weight from the Authority of Divines of later times The Homilies pass this Censure upon
guerrae emergat c. Vid. Append. When any doubt or difficult case of War or Peace happens in the Kingdom or without let that Case be referr'd and brought in Writing into full Parliament and let it be treated of and debated among the Peers of Parliament and if need be let it be enjoyn'd by the King or in his Name to every degree of the Peers That every degree act by its self and let the Case be delivered to their Clerks in Writing and in the said place let them cause the said Case to be recited before them so that they may consider among themselves how it may in the best manner and most justly be proceeded upon as they would answer before God for the Person of the King and their own proper persons and also the proper persons of them whom they represent And let them report in Writing their Answers and Advice that all their Answers Counsels and Advices on all sides being heard it may be proceeded upon according to the better and more wholesom Counsel But if the Peace of the Kingdom or the Nation People or Commonwealth be weakned by reason of discord between the King and other Great Men so that it seems to the King and his Council What that Council was vid. 2d Part that the matter should be treated of and amended by the consideration of all the Peers of his Kingdom or if the King and Kingdom are disturbed by War or if a difficult Case arise before the Chancellor of England or a difficult Judgment is to be given before the Justices and the like And if it happen that in such deliberations all N 2 a Remedy where equally divided or at least the greater part cannot agree then the Earl Steward Earl Constable and Earl Marshal or Two of them shall chuse Twenty five persons from all parts of the Kingdom viz. Two Bishops and Three Proxies of the Clergy Two Earls and Three Barons Five Knights of Shires Five Citizens and Five Burgesses who make Five and Twenty Et condescendere in eos and they Five and Twenty may chuse Twelve out of themselves and be concluded by what they do The Twelve may chuse Six and be concluded by them The Six Three and be concluded by them But the Three cannot be reduced to fewer without leave of the King And if the King consent the Three may be brought to Two and the Two to One and so at last their Ordinance shall bind the whole Parliament and so by coming from Twenty five to One if the greater number cannot agree to an establishment at last one Person as is said shall Ordain for all because he cannot disagree from himself saving to the King and his Council That they may examin and amend such Ordinances after they are written if they can and will Provided they do this upon the place in full Parliament and with the consent of the Parliament and not out of Parliament According to which the High Steward Constable and Marshal being looked on as Hereditary Officers were entrusted with a means of composing the differences of the Nation when they should happen to be equally divided I find the Authority of the High Steward and Constable more express in a Translation of another Modus tenendi Parl. agreeing in substance with that which I have cited The MS. which I have used seems to be of the time of H. 7. MS. penes Authorem MS. penes Authorem thô Mr. Elsing says That which is in Sir Robert Cotton's Library was written temp E. 2. The Translation of the other was Printed with Royal Privilege in King James his time as I take it It was done in a very pedantick stile by one Anthony Bustard of Lyons-Inn He that wrote the Latine in his Preface speaks of it as the Order setled by W. 1. Pref. That Modus places the Power of chusing the Twenty five in the Steward and Constable It adds That if any of the Ministers act contrary to their Duty the King the Steward and others of the Parliament may remove them from their Office And says particularly That the Steward of England with the Constable and Nobles of the Realm shall send to evil Counsellors willing them to desist from giving Counsel and entreat the King not to listen to them and if they regard not such advertisement they were to send to the King to put such away from him And if King and Counsellors neglect such wholsom Advice then for the safety of the Commonwealth it hath been thought fit and lawful for the Steward and Constable and Nobles and others of the Commons of England with the King's Banner displayed the King's name omitted the said Counsellors to take and keep in Custody till the next Parliament and Seize their Goods Vid. Append. Lands and Hereditaments until they receive Judgment by consideration of the whole Parliament Sir Robert Cotton Of the High Steward c. There is no more in this than is warranted by Sir Robert Cotton's Letters in the Herald's Office part of which seem to be taken from a MS. joyn'd to the Modus in his Library under the name of Fleetwood The High-Steward's Office as I have before observed was annex'd to Land 4 Inst f. 127. Dyer f. 285. b. Kelway f. 170. and so was the Constable's of England as appears by our Law-Books in the Case of the Duke of Buckingham 6 H. 8. who pleaded That Humphrey de Bohun formerly Earl of Hereford was seiz'd in Fee of the Mannors of Harefield Newnam and Whitenhurst in the County of Glocester and held them by the service to be Constable of England which the Judges allowed of as a good Plea Dyer Indeed they held that thô the King might compel him who had the Land at his pleasure to execute the Office so he might at his pleasure resuse to have it Executed But as to that this being an honorary and profitable tenure by Grand Serjeanty it is to be considered 12 Car. 2. c. 4. that the Stat. 12 Car. 2. when it took away those Tenures of the Crown which were burthensom to the Subject provided that it shall not take away the Honorary Services of Grand Serjeanty But H. 8. Dyer thought it sufficient that he disclaimed the Service and the Reason of the disclaimer was because it was very high and dangerous and very chargeable to the King in Fees the last part of which shewed the Subject's property concerned in the question Upon the Duke of Buckingham's claim to this Office Kelway f. 171◠Nevil says it has been a common saying That the Constable of England by virtue of his Office in some case may Arrest the King himself and therefore held it necessary that the King should be appriz'd what Authorities belong to his Office Fineux Chief Justice says We know of no such Authority to belong to any Officer within the Realm by the Common Law of the Land Which he afterwards explains for
And this is implied in restraining the assertion with the word Regularly to Matters within the ordinarily Rule But consider these severally 1. By perfect Contracts must be meant such wherein the Obligations are fixed and compleated at the beginning or from the nature of the Relation entred into And he says notwithstanding The Distinctions and Limitations in Contracts and Obligations Civil all agree That in those Duties which are mutual by the Laws of God and Nature as between the Father and the Son the Husband and the Wife the Lord and his Vassal the Prince and his Subjects the breach of Duty in the one is no discharge unto the other Not to observe how extensive he makes that Law of God or Nature which ascertains the Lords right over his Vassal and the Princes over his Subjects I much question Whether all agree that his Rule holds in such Cases as destroy the very nature of the Relation as the Adultery of the Wife or the like However himself yields that there may be an Obligation superiour to these for having produced Examples of Passive Obedience P. 96. he says ' We cannot here ground an Argument ' for justifying obedience to all Tyrants and invaders of our Country Omnes enim omnium Charitates una Patria complexa supergressa est c. filius sine scelere Proditorem Patriae licet Pater sit occidit In omni tempore bellum gerendum sit pro Defensione suâ Patriae Legum Patriae For our Country alone comprehends and goes beyond all private affections A Son without sin kills a Traitor to his Country tho he be his Father At all times War may be waged in Defence of ones self ones Country and the Laws of ones Country He owns expresly that Obedience is so far from being due to a Tyrant that it is not justifiable And he could not but know that the Civilians whose Rules he receives and applies under this Apellation include as well one who (a) Vid. Comment de Regno aut quovis principatu rectè tranquillè Administrando Advers Machiavellum Ed. Ao. 1577. p. 248. Bartolus duas species tyrannorum Statuit quarum unam juris seu tituli alteram exercitii sive usûs vocat Tyrannus titulo is est inquit qui sine ullo jure aut iniquo minimè legitimo titulo Principatum invadit Tyrannus exercitio sive usu is est qui legitimum quidem jus ad principatum habet sed eum injustè contra Leges exercet Itaque demum Statuit ejusmodi Tyrannis obsequium non deberi Sed è Magistratu deturbandos esse Ib. f. 249. having a lawful Title to Power uses it unjustly as one who usurps Power without any Title or other than what is unjust and illegal Wherefore since he makes no Distinction of Tyrants 't is not to be doubted but he with the Civilians particularly the Learned Bartolus discharges all Obedience and consequently Allegiance the Legal tye of Duty to a Tyrant in the exercise of Power as well as in Title Of both these Bartolus as a Judicious Author represents his sense held That Obedience is not due to them but that they are to be thrust out of the Government And the deservedly esteemed Great Man Mornay du Plessis Tractatus de Eccles per Phil. Mornaeum p. 68. in his Treatise of the Church cites Zabarel Baldus and Bartolus for the same distinction of Tyrants Nay observes that these Lawyers thô Papists held that even Popes might be Tyrants in either of these respects 2. As to the innominal Contracts Sir Roger's Rule is That the Breach of one will not justify the other to proceed towards the dissolving of the Contract which comes not up to any Case which does ipso facto dissolve it Besides this notwithstanding there may be either a Dissolution of the Contract a compelling to perform or satisfaction taken According to which in all Cases wherein the two last are insufficient a Dissolution of the Contract ought or may follow But farther the fixt Obligation of the Subject whatever the King shall do contrary to the Contract is by him founded upon the supposition either that the People of England have transfer'd the Power of the Nation to their Kings as absolutely as he supposes that the People of Rome had done to their Emperors Vid. Sup. or rather that W. 1. made a Conquest of this Nation If says he we cannot find any Law or Reason Sir Roger Poyntz p. 123. that the Romans or any other People who had in them the Supream Power could after they had transferr'd this Power to Kings and elected them reassume this Power again and when it doth please them depose their Kings or limit and restrain their Power by vertue of an habitual Power still remaining in the People as is suppos'd then undoubtedly we can find no Right in the People Vid. the punishment which the Senate decreed against Nero More majorum or in any Societies or Communities of People to Depose Restrain or Limit Kings of hereditary Succession especially those who have not their Right from the People but by Conquest as in England From such Kings of Hereditary Succession and Right all Jurisdictions do proceed and in them reside and unto them they return say the Lawyers Rex est lex animata And his Office and Function is Indesinens consulatus All other Rights and Liberties whatsoever have been as in other Kingdoms at the Will and Mercy of the Conquerors of our Island the Romans Saxons Danes Normans Our Rights and Liberties contain'd in Magna Charta granted and confirmed by divers Kings after much effusion of Blood we nor our Ancestors did nor could ever claim by Virtue of any Reservation made by the People or any others when they were Conquer'd Neither by any Original Right inseparably inherent and vested in the People and from them deriv'd Here 't is observable 1. That thô Sir Roger will not have any Original Right to be inseparable from the People yet he owns that in some places they may have Elected Kings and have had Supream Power in them till they transferr'd it to their Kings Sherringham's Supremacy asserted Introduct p. 11. Contrary to Mr. Sherringham who to make his Court at the coming in of C. 2. held that all Authority is originally in Kings or other Supream Magistrates themselves immedidiately from God Tanquam in primo creato Subjecto as in the first created Subject 2. Sir Roger with that Divine holds that W. 1. obtain'd the Crown by Conquest Sher. p. 53. Vid. 2 d Part. Mr. Sherringham indeed owns that there was a composition and agreement but will have it that this was not till after a Victory as if the Victory over Harold made a Conquest of the Nation Of which more in its place 3. Sir Roger goes no more beyond our Case when he argues upon supposition of a total Translation of the Power whereby a People or Nation is
exaltationem Sanctae Ecclesiae pacem populi tenendam concessit c. King William being dead the Great Men of England not knowing what was become of Robert Duke of Normandy So R. 1. was call'd but Duke of Normandy till he was chosen King of England the deceased King's Elder Brother who had been five years at the Holy-war were fearful of wavering long without a Government Which when Henry the youngest Brother a very wise young Man cunningly observ'd the Clergy of England and all the people being assembled He promised an amendment of those Laws with which England had been oppressed in the time of his Father and his Brother newly deceas'd that he might stir up the minds of all to his promotion and Love and that they might receive him for King and Patron To these things the Clergy answering and then the Great Men That if with a willing mind he would Grant and Confirm with His Charter those Liberties and ancient Customs which flourish'd in the Kingdom in the time of Holy King Edward they would consent to have him and would unanimously consecrate him King And Henry freely consenting to this and affirming with an Oath that he would perform He was Consecrated King on our Lady day by the Consent of Clergy and People upon whose Head the Crown was immediately set by Maurice Bishop of London and Thomas Archbishop of York As soon as he was Crown'd He granted the under-written liberties for the exaltation of Holy-Church and preserving the Peace of the Kingdom Then follows his Charter containing some Alterations of the Law which had before obtained not only in relation to the Rights of the Crown but of the Subjects particularly whereas the Relief had been Cart. H 1. Siquis Baronum meorum Comitum vel aliorum qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit as Fines now in most Copy-hold Mannors at the Will of the Lords they were reduced to what was just and lawful according to St. Edward's Laws for which as should seem by the Charters of King John and H. 3. declaratory of the Common-Law there were known Rates and H. 1. restored all the Common-Law with the Statutes made for the amendment of it in the time of W. 1. He seem'd in two particulars wisely to have ingratiated himself with the people the first was in gaining to his side the Directers of their Consciences by a concession to the benefit of Church-men which was wholly new and that was That an Archbishop or Bishop or Abbat being dead Vid. Cart. H. 1. he would take nothing of the demean of the Church nor of its tenents until the Successor was inducted which was a departure from that Prerogative which belonged to the Crown upon the Vacancies as appears by the affirmation of H. 2. Vid. Anti. Brit. inf f. 135. Carta Johannis Haec omnia observentur de custodiis Arch. Episcopatuum Abbat Prior Eccles Dignitat vacantium quae ad nos pertinent c. Prerog Regis 17 E. 2. c. 14. the Charter of King John and the Statute of the King's Prerogative 17 E. 2. This Indulgence to the Church without special Provision for keeping it up was withdrawn by the next general Confirmation of the Confessor's Laws and therefore 't is no wonder that it is left out of subsequent Charters If he was not popular in this at least he was in another Action which was his imprisoning Ranulph who had been the great Instrument of oppression in the former Reign Mat. Par. f. 76. and that it was with intention of punishing him severely appears by Ranulph's making his escape out of Prison by means of those great Treasures which he had heaped up from the Spoils of the People Ranulph no doubt could at a much cheaper rate have applied himself to such a Lawyer as the Author of the Magistracy vindicated if such an one could have been found in that Age of less corruption Vid. the last part of the Magistracy and Government vindicated p. 8. I 'll not mention the Argument from the Vacancy that the Government was dissolved every thing reduced into its Primitive State of nature all Power devolved into Individuals and the particulars only to provide for themselves by a new Contract for if so there 's no new consent for punishment of Acts done before the dissolution and consequently revenge for that is at an end Vid. ib. p. 2. who might have advised him to rest satisfied that it would not be consistent with the Wisdom and Justice of a Prince who came in upon a Vacancy of the Throne as H. 1. did not standing next in the Line to punish any Criminals of the foregoing Reign but Ranulph was wiser in running away and perhaps more modest than to think that for his useful parts employed in the pillaging and destroying innocent men he might pretend to merit under the Successor H. 1. having truly shewn a Fatherly care of the people no man then raised any foolish scruple upon the manner of the Proceedings where the Substance was pleasing to all But that which has been done by them who could get together upon the intervals of Government has been held valid that the Vacancies might be as short as possible unless the general sense of the people has immediately appear'd against it and thus Harold having been Crown'd by surprize when the Friends of W. 1. were at the Confessors Buryal some Authors upon that very Account Vid. 2. part will have it that Harold was an Usurper But that it may be seen how little apt people are to dispute Forms when a King acts agreeably to the sense of a Nation I shall shew that H. 1. acted as King even before he was Crown'd immediately upon his Election for which Huntindon is my Author who having mentioned the death of W. 2. says Henricus frater ejus junior ibidem in Regem electus Hen. Huntin f. 216. b. de H. 1. dedit episcopatum Wincestriae W. Giffard pergensque Londoniam sacratus est ibi a Mauritio Londonensi Episcopo His younger Brother Henry being there chosen King gave the Bishoprick of Winchester to W. Giffard and going on to London was consecrated there by Maurice Bishop of London And I am much mistaken if what he did in relation to another Bishop Anselm who had been Archbishop of Canterbury in the time of W. 2. is not an additional evidence to what I have already produced that the Convention in which he was Crown'd was turn'd into a Parliament or acted as one Ordericus Vitalis says Anselmus enim Dorebornensis Archiep. exulabat Eadmerus f. 38 39 40. shews this was at a Council at Winchester ubi says he ex condicto venimus Mat. Far. f. 25. Trajacere quidem liberum esse sed inconsulte id facturum siquidem nullam revertendi spem in posterum ei futuram Eadmerus Anselm as appears by the circumstances of the story had been condemned to perpetual Banishment by Parliament in the time of
Honour Nature and Dewtie an inordinate seditious and slaundres Act was made agayns the most famous Prince of blessed memory Kinge Herrie the Sixte his Vncle in the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourth day of November the first Year of the Reigne of Edward the Fourth late King of England whereby his said Vncle contrary to due Allegianee and all due Order was attainted of High Treason Wherefore our same Soveraigne Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spirituals and Temporals and Comines in this present Parliament assembled and by Auctoritie of the same ordeineth enacteth and establisheth that the said Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfaiture and Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said late King Edward ayenst the said most blessed Prince King Herrie or against the right famous Princess Margaret late Queen of England his Wife or the right victorious Prince Edward late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed King Herrie and Margarett Jasper Duke of Bedford late Earl of Pembroke or Herrie late Duke of Somerset the which Jasper and Herrie late Duke of Somerset for their true and faithful Allegiances and Services done to the same blessed King Herrie were attainted of High Treason or any of them by what Name or Names they or any of them be named in any of the said Acts be ayenst the said blessed King Herrie Queen Margaret Edward late Prince and the same Dukes and the Heirs of every of them void annulled repelled and of no Force ne Effect N. X. Vid. CAP. F. 103. SAnctissimo in Christo Patri Domino Claus 3. E. 1. m. 9. Cedula In a Letter to the Pope Domino G. divinâ providentiâ Sacro-sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae universalis Ecclesiae summo Pontifici Edwardus ejusdem gratiâ Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae Dux Aquitaniae Cum reverentiâ honore salutem pedum oscula beatorum Mandavit nobis olim per literas Apostolicas quas pronâ mentis devotione recepimus vestra sanctitas reverenda ut annuum censum in quo Sacrosanctae Rom. Ecclesiae ratione Regni Angl. pro octo praeteritis annis asseritis nos teneri venerabili vestro Magistro R. de Nogeriis Capellano vestro assignari liberaliter ac integrè nomine pred Rom. Ecclesiae faceremus Nuper autem alias literas vestras recepimus cum Reverentiâ continentes quod cum nos respons Relationis solutionis Censûs annui memorati quam nobis pred Capel vester exposuit vestrae Ecclesiae Romanae Nomine diligenter Deliberatione Consilii Procerum Regni nostri in Parliamento quod circa Octabas Resurrectionis Dominicae celebrari in Angliâ consuerit pro eo duximus reservand quod tempore receptionis pred lit vestrae noviter ejusdem Regni gubernacula sumpseramus nunc de hujusmodi censu sine ulteriori procrast impendi faceremus eidem satisfac plen Capellano Fatemur enim S. Pater Domine ad Parliament nostrum in Octabis Resurrectionis Dominicae prox pret Regni nostri Praelatos Proceres evocasse ibique multa statuisse divinâ gratiâ favente quae meliorationem statûs Ecclesiae Anglicanae reformationem Regni ejusdem respiciunt communes profectus populi capiant incrementa Set antequam eidem Parl. propter negotiorum multitud quae reformationis remedio indigebant finem imponere valeremus Eodem Capellano vestro responsionem debitam sibi fieri instanter postulante quaedam gravis nos invasit sicut Domino placuit infirmitas corporalis quae perfectionem multorum aliorum negot deliberationem Petitionis Censûs annui supardict de quo dolemus non modicum impedivit Sicque cum occatione infirmitatis hujusmodi à quâ per Dei gratiam cujus est perimere mederi incepimus convalescere Idem Parl. fuerit dissolutum super hoc nequiverimus super Petitione Censûs ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Praelatis Proceribus antedictis sine quorum communicato consilio sanctitatae vestrae super predictis non possumus respondere Et jurejurando in coronatione nostra prestit sumus astricti quod jura Regni nostri servabimus illibata nec aliquod quod Diadema tangat Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisito consilio faciemus Reverende Benignitati vestrae humiliter supplicamus pro dono petimus spirituali quatenus molestè non ferat sanctitas vestra si ad praesens super pred sicut vellemus non possumus respondere Imo patientia vestra paterna si placet nos super hoc habere dignetur excutatos Pro firmo scituri pie Pater Domine quod in alio Parliamento nostro quod ad festum Sancti Michaelis prox fut intendimus dante Domino celebrare habito communicato Consilio cum Praelat Proc. memoratis vobis super praem ipsorum Consilio dabimus responsionem Conservet vos Dominus Ecclesiae Sanctae suae per tempora longaeva Teste meipso apud Westm 19. die Junii Anno Regni nostri 3o. The Present CONVENTION a Parliament N. XI Vid. CAP. 10. F. 111. I. THat the formality of the King 's Writ of Summons is not so essential to an English Parliament but that the Peers of the Realm and the Commons by their Representatives duly Elected may legally Act as the great Council and Representative Body of the Nation though not summon'd by the King especially when the Circumstances of the time are such that such Summons cannot be had will I hope appear by these following Observations First The Saxon Government was transplanted hither out of Germany where the meeting of the Saxons in such Assemblies was at certain fixed times viz. at the New and Full Moon But after their Transmigration hither Religion changing other things changed with it and the Times for their publick Assemblies in conformity to the great Solemnity celebrated by Christians came to be changed to the Feasts of Easter Pentecost and the Nativity The lower we come down in Story the seldomer we find these General Assemblies to have been held and sometimes even very anciently when upon extraordinary Occasions they met out of course a Precept an Edict or Sanction is mentioned to have issued from the King But the Times and the very Place of their ordinary Meeting having been certain and determined in the very first and eldest Times that we meet with any mention of such Assemblies which times are as ancient as any Memory of the Nation it self hence I inferr that no Summons from the King can be thought to have been necessary in those days because it was altogether needless Secondly The Succession to the Crown did not in those days nor till of late Years run in a course of Lineal Succession by right of Inheritance But upon the Death of a Prince those Persons of the Realm that Composed the then Parliament Assembled in order to the choosing of another That the Kingdom was then Elective though one or other of the Royal
Blood was always chosen but the next in Lineal Succession very seldom is evident from the Genealogies of the Saxon Kings from an old Law made at Calchuyth appointing how and by whom Kings shall be chosen and from many express and particular Accounts given by our old Historians of such Assemblies held for Electing of Kings Now such Assemblies could not be Summon'd by any King and yet in conjunction with the King that themselves set up they made Laws binding the King and all the Realm Thirdly After the Death of King William Rufus Robert his Elder Brother being then in the Holy Land Henry the youngest Son of King William the First procur'd an Assembly of the Clergy and People of England to whom he made large promises of his good Government in case they would accept of him for their King and they agreeing That if he would restore to them the Laws of King Edward the Confessor then they would consent to make him their King He swore that he would do so and also free them from some Oppressions which the Nation had groan'd under in his Brothers and his Fathers time Hereupon they chose him King and the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of York set the Crown upon his Head Which being done a Confirmation of the English Liberties pass'd the Royal Assent in that Assembly the same in substance though not so large as King John's and King Henry the Third's Magna Charta's afterwards were Fourthly After that King's Death in such another Parliament King Stephen was Elected and Mawd the Empress put by though not without some stain of perfidiousness upon all those and Stephen himself especially who had sworn in her Father Life-time to acknowledg her for their Sovereign after his decease Fifthly In King Richard the First 's time the King being absent in the Holy Land and the Bishop of Ely then his Chancellor being Regent of the Kingdom in his Absence whose Government was intolerable to the People for his Insolence and manifold Oppressions a Parliament was convened at London at the Instance of Earl John the King's Brother to treat of the great and weighty Affairs of the King and Kingdom in which Parliament this same Regent was depos'd from his Government and another set up viz. the Arch-Bishop of Roan in his stead This Assembly was not conven'd by the King who was then in Palaestine nor by any Authority deriv'd from him for then the Regent and Chancellor must have call'd them together but they met as the Historian says expresly at the Instance of Earl John And yet in the King's Absence they took upon them to settle the publick Affairs of the Nation without Him Sixthly When King Henry the 3 d. died his Eldest Son Prince Edward was then in the Holy Land and came not Home till within the third Year of his Reign yet immediately upon the Father's Death all the Prelates and Nobles and four Knights for every Shire and four Burgesses for every Borough Assembled together in a great Council and setled the Government till the King should return Made a new Seal and a Chancellor c. I inferr from what has been said that Writs of Summons are not so Essential to the being of Parliaments but that the People of England especially at a time when they cannot be had may by Law and according to our Old Constitution Assemble together in a Parliamentary way without them to treat of and settle the Publick Affairs of the Nation And that if such Assemblies so conven'd find the Throne Vacant they may proceed not only to set up a Prince but with the Assent and Concurrence of such Prince to transact all Publick Business whatsoever without a new Election they having as great Authority as the People of England can delegate to their Represantatives II. The Acts of Parliaments not Formal nor Legal in all their Circumstances are yet binding to the Nation so long as they continue in Force and not liable to be questioned as to the Validity of them but in subsequent Parliaments First The two Spencers Temp. Edvardi Secundi were banished by Act of Parliament and that Act of Parliament repealed by Dures Force yet was the Act of Repeal a good Law till it was Annull'd 1 Ed. 3. Secondly Some Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. and Attainders thereupon were Repealed in a Parliament held Ann. 21. of that King which Parliament was procur'd by forc'd Elections and yet the Repeal stood good till such time as in 1 Henry 4. the Statutes of 11 Rich. 2. were revived and appointed to be firmly held and kept Thirdly The Parliament of 1 Hen. 4. consisted of the same Knights Citizens and Burgesses that had served in the then last dissolved Parliament and those Persons were by the King's Writs to the Sheriffs commanded to be returned and yet they passed Acts and their Acts though never confirmed continue to be Laws at this day Fourthly Queen Mary's Parliament that restored the Popes Supremacy was notoriously known to be pack'd insomuch that it was debated in Queeen Elizabeth's time whether or no to declare all their Acts void by Act of Parliament That course was then upon some prudential Considerations declined and therefore the Acts of that Parliament not since repealed continue binding Laws to this day The reason of all this is Because no inferiour Courts have Authothority to judge of the Validity or Invalidity of the Acts of such Assemblies as have but so much as a colour of Parliamentary Authority The Acts of such Assemblies being Entred upon the Parliament-Roll and certified before the Judges of Westminster-Hall as Acts of Parliament are conclusive and binding to them because Parliaments are the only Judges of the Imperfections Invalidities Illegalities c. of one another The Parliament that call'd in King Charles the Second was not assembled by the King 's Writ and yet they made Acts and the Royal Assent was had to them many of which indeed were afterwards confirmed but not all and those that had no Confirmation are undoubted Acts of Parliament without it and have ever since obtained as such Hence I Infer that the present Convention may if they please assume to themselves a Parliamentary Power and in conjunction with such King or Queen as they shall declare may give Laws to the Kingdom as a legal Parliament ALLEGATIONS In behalf of the High and Mighty Princess THE LADY MARY NOW Queen of Scots Against the Opinions and Books set forth in the Part and Favour of the LADY KATHERINE And the rest of the Issues of the French Queen Touching the Succession of the Crown Written in the Time of QUEEN ELIZABETH London Printed by J. D. in the Year 1690. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER I Thought it not improper to subjoin the following Treatise written by a Lawyer in Queen Elizabeth's Time whether ever printed or no I cannot say in favour of the Title of the Queen of Scots against the Pretences of the Lady Katherine descended from the
Contempt and Scorn of the current Doctrine of Passive Obedience Some would ask whether he does not exclude himself from the glorious number of Friends Nor will they be shy of affirming that he does so when they observe that he contends that they forgot their Duty both as good Christians Pag. 3. and good Subjects who declared for the Prince of Orange his now Majesty before the late King actually left the Nation Yet he seems not aware that while he blemishes these with setting up themselves against the Doctrines of Christianity he condemns Pag. 36. not only some of our Clergy but the Church of England for maintaining a Doctrine which he does not deny to be destructive to the Constitution of our Government and to Mankind by which one would be tempted to think that his business is to make Men not only out of love with Crowned Heads but with Christianity it self Pag. 36. As to particular Persons he confesses that the heat of Controversy has misled some of the Church of England to write too much in favour of wicked and tyrannical Princes even to the encouraging them to do worse than otherwise they would Where he taxes their Doctrine of Non-resistance with encouraging Tyranny and such excesses of it as the Tyrant would not otherwise presume upon Pag. 31. Nor does he less condemn the whole Church The Disloyalty says he of two other Parties have made the Church of England take into the contrary Extream and as a Jesuit wish'd it might do her much good in scorn So she had like to have pay'd too dear for the pretence and they who would now again sacrifice her to their Interest and Reputation are to speak softly none of her best Friends They pretend we have not suffered enough for our Religion to justify our Resistance Why according to their Principles we are never to resist whatever we suffer but to suffer on till there is not one left to resist Herein I confess he makes a true Representation of that Principle which himself runs into so naturally that he is not sensible of it But is not this by him judged to be an Extream to be avoided Does he not yeild that the Church of England has been made to take into this Extream out of abhorrence to the other Nay does he not in effect admit that himself and others sacrifice the Church to their own Interest and Reputation while that they may justify their Extream they condemn those who avoided both Scylla and Charibdis in Making to an happy Port along with our Caesar and his Fortune God forbid that it should still be Mens Interest to justify that Extream and let them enjoy the Reputation of never acknowledging an Error tho the most gross and pernicious But what a miserable Defender has our Church which must needs reject such Doctrines and Defences If Church-men are the Church States-men the State Truth may profane or lybel else the Great This Gentleman pretends to have the Scriptures Pag. 35. and all Primitive Antiquity on his side Vid. inf f. to which he would draw in the Church of England which upon a rational Construction cannot be thought to mean more than that we are bound to obey the King 's Legal Commands and not to resist him while he continues King nor has that any thing against the Supposition of a Civil as well as Natural Death And as to the two other Topicks it is to be considered 1. That the Scriptures meddle not with particular Constitutions but give a general Rule for Obedience which is more than bare Non-resistance according to those Constitutions which are God's Ordinance as he authorizes Human Laws in Civil Affairs not contrary to his own And 2. Pag. 3. This Gentleman himself sets aside all Primitve Antiquity when he confesses that in those times the Religion was contrary to the establish'd Laws and so Men could not be persecuted for it against Law at least not so as to come up to our case especially if we take in what he acknowledges farther The Roman Emperors says he under whom they liv'd So Jovian p. 85 86. Julian did persecute them legally vid. p. 91. were absolute independent Princes whose Will was the Law and the Constitution of the Empire differed vastly from that of England so that we are not under the same Obligation they were because our Princes have not the same legal Power as the Roman Emperors had but then I doubt not but we are as much bound to submit to the legal Commands of the King of England as the Primitive Christians to the legal Commands of their Princes But says he this was no part of the Controversy under the Reign of James 2. who had as little Law as Reason for what he did If this be not a giving up all Primitive Antiquity I shall never pretend to understand how words ought to be taken Since therefore neither the Scriptures Primitive Antiquity nor the Doctrine of the Church of England are against them who embrac'd and assisted in the Deliverance which his present Majesty vouchsaf'd us it became not this Gentleman who takes such pains to purge himself from having any hand in it to censure those Worthies who had as not behaving themselves like good Christians and good Subjects Pag. 3. Pag. 3. And to call them a few is almost an equal Reflection upon the honour of the Nation which has never been backward in freeing it self from Tyranny and vvas ready as a Man to act in this King's Service before they were so just as to lay the Crown at his Feet nay before Success had crown'd his glorious Enterprize which almost all were eager to evidence as they had opportunity and I may say of many with Mr. Cowley in his Description of Envy They envy even the Praise themselves bad won That the Body of the Nation were thus forward is manifest in their declaring by their Representatives that the late King had broken the Original Contract vvhich must have been before the Judgment pass'd upon it or ortherwise the Judgment were not warrantable Pag. 25. When the Gentleman vvill allow of no Title in his present Majesty but real Conquest over the Nation as vvell as the late King and lawful meaning lineal Succession either of vvhich Titles he supposes he may claim by he would do vvell to consider 1. That he reflects upon the great Representative of the Nation which founds it upon the others Misgovernment 2. He sets it all aside when he owns that this King does not claim by Conquest nor in truth could he be a Conqueror who was not only invited by those who had a just Ascendant over the Minds of the People but was pray'd for and receiv'd with open Arms by the Nation in general tho indeed such an universal Consent with such Inducements from Gratitude and the common Necessity ought to subdue all Scruples as much as the most real Conquest And this Gentleman must yeild
omitted The Objections from the Oath against taking Arms and from the Declaration against a Coercive Power over Kings removed by Sherringham and the Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. Pufendorf's due Restraint of the Power of the People Instances of the like Power in other Nations particularly Denmark Swedeland and Norway when under the same King For France Hottoman Sesellius the Author of Les Soupirs de la France esclave Bodin explain'd and shewn to justify King William in his descent hither and the People of England in their asserting the true Constitution of the Government For the German Empire Bodin and Conringius An occasion taken from him to shew the Antiquity and Power of a Palatine in Germany and England Gunterus used to shew that Office in several Countries Loyseau concerning it in France The Distinction in the Author of Les Soupirs between Officers of the King's House and Officers of the Crown The Antiquity and Authority of the Offices of Constable of England of the High Steward and the Earl Marshal which with the Earl of Chester have been as so many Tribunes of the People pag. 57. CHAP. VIII The Third Head of Positive Law The Kingdom founded in Monarchy yet Elective sub modo The Form of Government not dissolv'd with the Contract between Prince and People The Argument from Election of Kings as it is used by the Author of the Sighs of France enslaved The Crown of England proved Elective sub modo 1. From the Saxon Pontifical and the Council of Calcuth An. 789. 2. From the Practice till the supposed Conquest 3. From the Confessor's Law received by W. 1. and the Expressions of Ancient Historians and Lawyers since the time of W. 1. 4. The Common usage in asking the People's Consent at Coronations 5. The Opinion of Kings themselves 6. The old Oaths of Allegiance 7. The Liberty even after a Settlement of the Crown 8. The Breaches in the Succession 9. The Statute 11 H. 7. Answers to the Objections 1. That the King never dies 2. The supposition of a Testamentary Heir 3. The Declaration temp E. 3. against consenting to the disherison of the King and His Heirs 4. The Claims of Right between two Families 10. A qualified Election of Kings of England confirmed by observing how it has been in other Nations descended from the same common Stock pag. 72. CHAP. IX The Fourth Head of Positive Law A short Recapitulation of what has been prov'd An actual Discharge of Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. shewn from the Authority of the Judgment past His usurping a Legislative Power leaving the Kingdom without providing for the Administration of Justice and going into France This confirmed by Rastal Lord Hobart Justinian's Digest The Rescript of Theodosius and Valentinian Pufendorf de Officio hominis civis His Elementa Juris prudentiae His Treatise de Jure Gentium Grotius Pufendorf de Inter-regnis Knichen's Opus Pol. Philip Paraeus A particular Consideration of what the Learned Knight Sir R. Pointz says seeming against these Authorities but shewn in truth to confirm them and to bring the Rules of the Civilians to our side That the Crown came not by Right of Descent to the next in Blood after the discharge of the Allegiance to J. 2. The Arguments for the People's being restor'd to the Liberty which they had before the Settlement of the Crown enforc'd from a particular Consideration of the State of the Settlement Where is it shewn how the word Heirs may be look'd on as restrain'd in the first Settlement on Heirs by Gomezius his Rule The Titles of H. 6. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. His several Settlements and their Effects in relation to the Queen Mary and Elizabeth and J. 1. The Recognition to J. 1. not extending to his Heirs And question'd Whether the Recognition was not his best if not only Title With a modest Inference pag. 84. CHAP. X. The Fifth Head of Positive Law The effect of the Dissolution of the Contract The use of the Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. against the necessity of common Form The Form and proceedings of the Convention assembled upon the Death of H. 3. The Dilemma used by the Formalists answer'd with a Distinction Pufendorf's Answer to Hobbs Another Passage of his applied to a Passage in a late excellent Treatise against Sir Robert Filmer And to a Letter upon this Juncture Tho what Dr. Brady says against the Rights of Lords and Commons were true yet it is shewn that the Acts of the late Assembly would be conclusive to the Nation Neither forty days Summons nor Writs nor yet Summons to a Parliament Essential And this confirmed not only by the Precedent 12 Car. 2. but by two Precedents of the time of H. 1. The Subjects in the time of E. 1. said to have held a Parliament by themselves and of their own appointing The Objection of want of Form answered out of the Civil Law and its Reasons applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elimenta Politica considered The Conclusion pag. 98. APPENDIX Among other things SIR Robert Filmer and some of our Divines plaid against one another in relation to Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and Sir Robert against Himself pag. 1. Allegations in behalf of the High and Mighty Princess the Lady Mary now Queen of Scots against the Opinions and Books in the Part and Favour of the Lady Katherine and the rest of the Issues of the French Queen touching the Succession of the Crown Written in the time of Queen Elizabeth Reflections on Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book THE Fundamental Constitution OF THE English Government PROVING KING WILLIAM and QUEEN MARY our Lawful and Rightful King and Queen CHAP. I. The Vniformity tho unprofitableness of Truth The Insufficiency of false Mediums to defend this Government us'd by Men who thereby seek only themselves Quietism in Allegiance advanced by some The Supposition of a Conquest made by his present Majesty or his Succession in the Line no way for his Service That Lawyers are the best Casuists in this matter Mr. Lessey's Protestation when he took the Oath of Allegiance Lord Clarendon's Complaint of Divines busying themselves in Matters of State Mr. Tirrel and the Author of two late Treatises about Government set against Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Dr. Heylin's Opinion of Sir Robert The Judgment of Hooker touch'd upon concerning the Derivation of Power The present Bishop of Worcester's Judgment Cragius his A large Account of the Derivation of Power from the People of Rome to their Emperors brought to explain what our ancient Lawyers mean when they receive the Roman Lex Regia The Sense of Grotius Plato Conringius Pufendorf of the Subject or Seat of Power That all Empires and other Civil Societies must have been founded in Contract A right to design the Person if not to confer the Power admitted in the People by the greatest Asserters of Monarchy The Dispute here chiefly of the Right to design the Person what that is referred to
their Sense and Interest which before was to be faithfully represented by their Tribunes When Lepidus was to incite the People against Sylla Oratio Lepidi Salustii op Ed. Par. An. 1530. p. 134. Jus judiciumque omnium rerum penes se quod populo Romano fuit he found nothing more moving than to tell them that the Tribunitial Authority would be overturned by him he adds in Explanation of it that he would have the Power and Judicature with him which did belong to the People upon which he pathetically enlarges If these things are thought by you Peace and Concord approve of the greatest Disturbance and Destruction of the Common-wealth yield to Laws impos'd upon you take Quiet with Servitude and transmit to Posterity an Example of betraying the Common-wealth at the price of ones own Blood It appears by Salust that the great Power to which Julius Caesar arrived was by siding with the Populacy of Rome Salust ad G. Caesarem de Rep. Ordinandâ p. 147. In te ille animus est qui jam à principio nobilitatis factionem disturbavit plebem Romanam ex Gravi Servitute in libertatem restituit p. 145. whose Rights had been invaded by the Senate 't was his great Mind which he tells him at the beginning disturb'd the Faction of the Nobility and restored the Populacy of Rome to Liberty from grievous Slavery and he reckon'd that upon his setling Affairs after his Victory renovata plebs erit the Plebeians will be renewed or have a new Life accordingly he advises him to cultivate good Manners among tnem and as Salust had express'd himself to Caesar a little before Magistratum Populo non creditorem gerere magnitudinem animi in addendo non demendo Reip. ostendere To shew himself a Magistrate and not a Creditor to the People and to evidence the Greatness of his Mind by adding to the Common-wealth and not taking from it This may give some tolerable account how Caesar came to be murder'd in the Senate-House and may raise his Character even above Brutus who has pass'd for the Hero of Common-wealths-Men Marcelli Donati Dilucidationes Ed. An. 1605. p. 392. Praeterea Caesarum temporibus Patritios Senatorios viros non modo Tribunatum appetivisse sed illos Imperatores inquam Tribunos Plebis factos Tribunitiam potestatem occupasse manifestum est Si quidem Julius Caesar teste Tacito per initia lib. 1. Annal. Consulem ferens ad tuendam Plebem Tribunitiâ Potestate contentus fuit Et Augustus ex Appiano l. 5. perpetuus Plebis Tribunus à Romanis dilectus fuit Et Suet. illum Tribunitiam Potestatem perpetuam recipisse scribit Quod Dion in illius vitâ confirmat Tacitus lib. Annal. 1. describens Pompam funeris Augusti ait de illo continuatâ per. 37. annos Tribunitia Potestate Et lib. 3. de Tribunitiâ Potestate loquens inquit Id summum vestigii vocabulum Augustus reperit ne Regis aut Dictatoris nomen assumeret c. Marcellus Donatus in his Comment upon Tacitus puts it out of doubt that the chief Power which the Roman Emperors had was as Tribunes of the People his Authorities for which are numerous and that sometimes they were entrusted with it for Years sometimes for Life sometimes the Consent express'd sometimes tacit and implied as it was assumed by the Emperors and permitted by the People The Application therefore will be easy to any one who reads our ancient Lawyers where they transcribe and comment upon the Roman Lex Regia Glanvil Bracton and Fleta differ from one another in very few words all to the same Sense The words of Fleta are these speaking of the King of England Fleta lib. 1. c. 17. Et licet omnes potentiâ praecellat cor tamen ipsius in manu Dei esse debet ne potentia sua maneat irrefraenata fraenum imponat temperantiae lora moderantiae ne trahatur ad injuriam qui nihil aliud potest in terrâ nisi id quod de jure potest Nec obstat quod dicitur quod Principi placet legis habet potestatem quia sequitur cum lege Regiâ quae de ejus Imperio lata est Quod est non quicquid de voluntate Regis tantoperè presumptum est sed quod Magnatum suorum Consilio Rege authoritate praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu rectè fuerit definitum And altho he excels all in Power yet his Heart ought to be in God's Hand and lest his Power should remain unbridled he ought to apply the Bridle of Temperance and the Reigns of Moderation lest he be drawn to Injustice who can do nothing else whatever but that only which he may do by Right Nor is it an Objection that it is said that which pleases the Prince has the force of Law Vid. Seldens Dissert ad Fletam f. 467. because it follows since by the Law of the King which was made concerning his Power as some render it with the Law of the King as others That is to say not whatever is only presumed of the King's Will but that which shall be in due manner determined by the Counsel of his Great Men the King giving them Authority thereto which seems to relate to the King's Counsel in Parliament advis'd with in drawing Bills in Points of Law and the like Vid. Conring p. 11. in verbis Taciti De minoribus rebus Principes consultant de majoribus omnes ita tamen ut ea quoque quorum penes plebem arbitrium est apud Principes pertactentur ubi tamen cum Hugone Grotio summo sane viro legendum forte praetractentur there being had upon it a Deliberation and Treaty Since in this our Lawyers receive the Civil Law and give the same reason for the Royal Power which the Roman Law does that it was conferr'd by the People it being contain'd in the Lex Regia what I have shewn to prove that the Roman Emperors deriv'd their Power from the People of Rome equally shews that our Lawyers besides what they say of Elections of our Kings believ'd that the Royal Authority here came from the People of England I need not therefore scruple to affirm that our Law agrees with (a) Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis l. 3. p. 52. summae Potestatis subjectum commune est Civitas So where the Statute says the People of the Counties shall chuse the Sheriff this is limited to Freeholders vid. 2. Inst upon the Statute Grotius who holds that the Civitas is the common Subject of Power This in the most restrained Sense is meant of People of Legal Interests in the Government yet if they are intitled to any sort of Magistracy they become part of his subjectum proprium the proper or particular Seat of Power which is narrower than the Civitas and therefore I take Plato's (c) Schelius de jure Imperii p. 32. Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definit
in his Life-time who with the Consent of the Nation had sent a Solemn Embassy to the Norman Duke to assure him of the Succession Vid. inf Vid. Leges W. 1. de fide obsequio erga Regem 5. If William I. did gain the Right of a Conqueror it was personal and he never exacted this for his Heirs as appears not only by his Declaration when he came to die but by the Fealty or Oath of Allegiance which he requir'd in his Laws 6. If our Ancestors had made as absolute a Submission to Will I. as some pretend Lord Clarend Survey p. 51. in the Judgment of the Lord Clarendon it would not extend to us For says he if it can be suppos'd that any Nation can concur in such a Designation and devesting themselves of all their Right and Liberty it could only be in reason obligatory to the present Contractors Nor does it appear to us that their Posterity must be bound by so unthrifty a Concession of their Parents The King's Oath is the real Contract on his side and his accepting the Government as a Legal King the virtual one and so it is vice versâ in relation to the Allegiance due from the Subject Jovian p. 244. Thus far the Author of Jovian is in the right As in the Oath of Allegiance the People swear nothing to the King but what they are bound to perform unsworn so the King in his Coronation-Oath promises nothing to the People but what in Justice and Equity he is bound to perform unsworn Vid. Dr. Stillingfl Irenicum p. 132 133. Saravia de Imperii authoritate f. 221. Grotius de jure Belli Pacis p. 59. Successio non est titulus Imperii sed veteris continuatio Lord Clarendon's Survey p. 74. The Description which Samuel made of the exorbitant Power of Kings was rather to terrify them from pursuing their foolish Demand than to constitute such a Prerogative as the King should use whom God would appoint to go in and out before them which methinks is very manifest in that the worst of Kings that ever reign'd among them never challeng'd or assum'd those Prerogatives nor did the People conceive themselves liable to those Impositions as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam on the Death of Solomon That he would abate some of that Rigor his Father had exercis'd toward them the rash Rejection of which contrary to the Advice of his wisest Counsellors lost him the greater part of his Dominion and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to Obedience God would not suffer him because he was in the fault himself Upon which account I will yield to Saravia That in Hereditary Kingdoms the Coronation-Oath confers no new Right and therefore there may be a King before his Coronation Yet we must attend to Grotius his Rule who rightly observes That Succession is only a continuance of that Power which the Predecssor had so that if the first Possessor comes into Power qualified by express Contract this binds the Successor and he is to be thought to come in upon those Terms Nay even Dr. Whitby Considerations humbly offer'd for taking the Oath Pref. who to save the Credit of some of his Brethren rather than the Reputation of the Government argues as if our King were barely King de facto yet says he does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the impos'd Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justify the Title of our present Governours And himself in answer to them who laugh at the Notion of an Original Compact shews very particularly that W. 1. was received upon Compact and that the same Compact has continued and been renew'd by our succeeding Kings One of the Terms before the time of W. 1. as appears by the Mirrour was that the King should suffer Right or Justice as well as his Subjects And St. Edward's Sword called the Curtana Vid. inf carried before our Kings at their Coronation was in the time of H. 3. as will afterwards more particularly appear a known Emblem and Remembrancer of this of the same nature with that Boy ordered every Morning to put Philip of Macedon in mind of his Mortality But surely whoever was entitled to carry the Curtana or to use a judicial Power in such Cases as above how much soever they continued their Allegiance to the King's Authority could not well be said to retain it to his Person Dr. Brady indeed says There never was any Pact between King and People no Fundamental Terms of Government agreed between them nor indeed says he ever was there or is it possible for any such thing to be in any Nation of the World Matter of Fact so long as we have any Memorials of it in these Kingdoms shews to the contrary If the Matter of Fact here could shew it not possible in any other Kingdom his might pass for an universal History but if the Authorities in this first Part do not take off from the Doctor 's Credibility in this Point as far as relates to England Vid. inf second Part throughout I will undertake before I have done with him in the second where his Notions fall more directly under Consideration to shew Jani Angl. facies nova that he deserves little more Credit than when he made my Tract maintaining the Rights of the Commons of England to be represented in Parliament Dr. Brady's Introd to his compleat History an Evidence of my being in a Plot against the Government CHAP. IV. The second Head of Positive Law The establish'd Judicature for the Case in question implied if not express'd in the Confessor's Law and asserted in Parliament 12 R. 2. with an account why the Record then insisted on is not now to be found Our Mirrour the foreign Speculum Saxonicum Bracton and Fletá explaining the same The Limitation of that Maxim The King can do no Wrong Precedents from Sigibert King of the West Saxons to the Barons Wars in the time of King John confirm'd by occasion of an Objection to the instances in the Northumbrian Kingdom How far this Monarchy was reputed Hereditary or Elective before the time of W. 1. there touch'd upon Instances of the Peoples Claims of their Rights in the times of W. 1. W. 2. H. 1. King Stephen H. 2. Leges St. Edward sup vid. ib. Rex debet omnia rite facere in regno suo de judicio Procerum suorum THere was and is an establish'd Judicature for the great Case in question as is implied by that part of St. Edward's Laws above-mention'd which supposes some Judg or Judges in the case and those Laws investing the Proceres with the supream Judicature withholds not this from them And the same Laws declare that a Folcmot or an Assembly of the People of every County Leges St. Ed. Tit. Greve Vid. second Part. as it is there explain'd was to meet every first of May in a
being ask'd by the King upon the report made by the Justices of their resolution for the Duke what things the Constable can do by reason of his Office Sir says he this Point belongs to your Law of Arms of which we have no experience nor cognizance This may shew what occasion Cardinal Wolsey had to strain a point of Law against that Duke and to have one who durst insist upon a Right to be Constable of England by inheritance Vid. Inf. 2d Part. to be taken off by an High Steward out of Parliament made for that turn And what Fineux says of the Power of the Constable may account for the silence of Bracton Fleta and other Ancient Common-Lawyers in relation to the Authority of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 31. yet Fleta shews that the Constable had a Seat in the Exchequer and overlooked Accompts relating to Soldiers Forts and Castles and gives a shrewd hint concerning the Earl Marshal speaking of the Exchequer The Justices says he sitting there were all Barons Fleta lib. 2. c. 26. because Barons used to sit in their places while the Earl of Norfolk and Martial of England had his Place and Seat there as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of England whose Place the Treasurer possesses at this day but he cannot occupy his Office This shews that in the Exchequer the Earl Marshal had place above the Constable accordingly when 25 E. 1. they came into the Exchequer to forbid the Levying of the Tax The Barons in their account of this to the King say There came to the Bar of the Exchequer Vid. Append. the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Hereford and the Earl-Marshal and the others declared they would not suffer it to be Levied That this Office was of extraordinary Authority Rot. Pat. 42. H. 3. M. 4. appears by a Record 42 H. 3. which shews That the Precept for executing the Provisions at Oxford were by the King and his Council in Parliament deliver'd to the Earl-Marshal and if we consider the Authority exercised by the Earls Marshal in the time of H. 3. and E. 1. with the approbation of Parliaments Vid. Mat. Par. 28 H. 3. it may be thought that he was an hereditary Conservator of the Kingdom notwithstanding which in the 28th of H. 3. the Parliament insisted upon it as their right to have four Conservators chosen by them This Office perhaps is the only one which was enjoyed in gross and went along with the name of Marshal till the time of H. 3. when Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk Bar. 1. Vol. f. 133. Married Maud the Daughter of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke Sir William Dugdale says the first mention which he finds of the Name and Family of Mareschal Ib. f. 599. was in the time of H. 1. but in all probability that Name and Office went together from before the time of W. 1. I am sure Roger Mareschal was a very considerable Proprietor in Doomsday-Book Vid. 2 d Part. Indeed the first contest about the Office was in the time of H. 1. when it was adjudged to belong to the Family of the Mareschals Vid. Appendix Rot. Pat. 1. Johan N. 85. M. 12. as appears by the Record of the Confirmation 1º Johannis CHAP. VIII The Third Head of Positive Law The Kingdom founded in Monarchy yet Elective sub modo The Form of Government not dissolv'd with the Contract between Prince and People The Argument from Election of Kings as it is used by the Author of the Sighs of France enslaved The Crown of England proved Elective Sub modo 1. From the Saxon Pontifical and the Council of Calcuth Anno 789. 2. From the Practise till the supposed Conquest 3 From the Confessor's Law received by W. 1. and the Expressions of Ancient Historians and Lawyers since the time of W. 1. 4. The Common usage in asking the People's consent at Coronations 5. The Opinion of Kings themselves 6. The Old Oaths of Allegiance 7. The Liberty even after a Settlement of the Crown 8. The Breaches in the Succession 9. The Statute 11 H. 7. Answers to the Objections 1. That the King never dies 2. The supposition of a Testamentary Heir 3. The Declaration temp E. 3. against consenting to the disherison of the King and His Heirs 4. The claims of Right between Two Families 10. A qualified Election of Kings of England confirmed by observing how it has been in other Nations descended from the same Common Stock THE Kingdom I own is founded in Monarchy and so is Poland which yet is absolutely Elective Nor is there any consequence that the dissolution of the Contract between the immediate Prince and People This objected by the Author of Elementa Politica Of the Magistracy c. vindicated and others Vid. Pufendorf de Interregnis p. 267. Post decretum circa formam Regiminis novo pacto opus erit quando constituuntur ille vel illi in quem vel in quos Regimen coetûs confertur should destroy the form of Government for that depends upon a Prior Contract which the People entred into among themselves And that by virtue of this to avoid endless competitions our Kings have generally from the first erection of the English Monarchy been chosen out of the same Family appears beyond contradiction If our Monarchy will appear from the foundation to be no otherwise an inheritance than as it is setled on a Family with a latitude for choice within the Family no Man can doubt but it will tend greatly towards removing objections against our present Settlement 't is certain the Learned Author of The Sighs of France improves the Argument farther than is needful for us Soupirs de France Mem. ' It is says he indubitable That they who have power to Chuse ' have power to Depose Every Nation says he that makes a King P. 81. preserves to its self a right to unmake him when he goes beyond the bounds of his duty and when he ruines the Estate instead of preserving it and this very thing makes it appear That Elected Princes neither are nor can be Soveraigns of an Arbitrary Power I know some talk of a Birthright and Inheritance in the Crown of England which is not founded in the statutes Jovian p. 87. but on the original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is thought to be an hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of blood But I would desire all Men of this Opinion impartially to weigh these following particulars 1. Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour shews us the form of Prayer used at the Coronation of Saxon Kings wherein they pray God to bless him whom they chuse for King and call him one chosen to be Crowned King Et hunc electum in Regem coronandum bene Titles of Honour f. 157. Out of the Saxon Pontifical At Calcuth Anno 789. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. f. 291. dicere consecrare digneris
the Crown is settled subject to such Conditions as the King should make according to the Power there given first upon Prince Edward and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder in like manner upon the Ladies Mary and Elizabeth and the Heirs of their Bodies successively without taking off their Illegitimations And the same Power is given of disposing by Letters Patent Vid. 28 H. 8. sup 35 H. 8. or by Will as by the Statute 28. for which a memorable Reason is given in both Acts Lest if such Heirs should fail and no Provision made in the King's Life who should Rule and Govern this Realm for lack of such Heirs as in those Acts is mentioned that then this Realm should be destitute of a Lawful Governour E. 6. succeeded according to both those Acts After him Queen Mary by the last who at her coming to the Crown could not be looked on as of the Right Line because of the Acts which Illegitimated her and besides she was but of the Half-blood to E. 6. to whom she succeeded But in the first of her Reign the same Parliament takes off her Illegitimation and repeals the Acts 25 28 H. 8. And in this the Parliament seems rather to provide for the Honour of her Descent Hist of Succession f. 34. than as Dr. Brady would have it to declare the Succession to be in Inheritance by Right of Blood Whatever might be the secret Intention 1 2 P. M. c. 9. I am sure there is no such authoritative Declaration And the Acts 28 35 H. 8. seem to say quite the contrary 1 2 P. M. though there is no direct Settlement it is made Treason to compass the Deprivation or Destruction of K. P. during the Queen's Life 1 Eliz. c. 3. or of the Queen or of the Heirs of her Body lawfully begotten Queen Elizabeth succeeded by vertue of the Limitation 35 H. 8. And though Bastardiz'd by the Statutes 28 H. 8. and 1 M. and but of the Half-blood both to E. 6. and Queen Mary yet her first Parliament declares That she is Rightly Lineally and Lawfully descended and come of the Blood Royal of this Realm to whom and the Heirs of her Body the Royal Dignity c are and shall be united And Enacts That the Statute 35 H. 8. shall be the Law of the Kingdom for ever But the Fee of the Crown not having been disposed of according to the Power given by the Statute 28 and repeated 35 H. 8. And the 25 whereby it was limitted in Remainder to the Heirs of Henry the 8th being repealed upon the Death of Edward the 6th and the Queens Mary and Elizabeth without Issue there remaining no Heirs of the Body of H. 8 in the Judgment of two Parliaments the Realm was destitute of a Lawful Governour Indeed according to the Act of Recognition 1 J. 1. 1 Jac. 1. c. 1. the Crown came to him being lineally rightfully and lawfully descended of the Body of the most Excellent Lady Margaret the eldest Daughter of the most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England Thô this pompous Pedigree to avoid all Objections goes as high as E. 4. the Derivation of Title as appears above can be no higher than from the Settlement 1 H. 7. Nor does this Act 1 J. make any additional Provision but indeed seems to flatter the King into a Belief that there was no need of any telling him That they made that Recognition as the First-fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever But neither then or ever after till that in this present Parliament did the People make any Settlement of the Crown but it continued upon the same Foot as it did 1 H. 7. when it was entirely an Act of the People under no Obligation but from their own Wills Sir Robert Filmer's Power of Kings f. 1. And if we should use Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Impossible it is in Nature for Men to give a Law unto themselves no more than it is to command a Mans self in a Matter depending of his own Will There can be no Obligation which taketh State from the meer Will of him that promises the same Wherefore to apply this Rule Since the People that is now Vid. Pufend. de Interregn sup p. 288.289 in common presumption is the same with that which first settled the Succession and so are bound only by an Act of their own Will they have yet as arbitrary a Power in this Matter as Sir Robert and his Followers contend that the Prince has whatever Promises or Agreements he has entred into But not to lean upon such a broken Reed nor yet to make those many Inferences which this plain State of the Settlements of the Crown might afford Three things I shall observe 1. If the Settlement made 1 H. 7. who was an Usurper according to the Notion of Dr. Brady and his Set of Men was of no force then there being no Remainders since limited by any act but what are spent and no descendants of the whole Blood from Elizabeth Daughter to E. 4. and Wife to H. 7. but by Daughters the eldest of which was Married into Scotland If Acts of Settlement could not alter the Right of Descent of the Crown neither Queen Mary nor Queen Elizabeth had Right but after the death of E. 6. it belonged to the Scotch Family And if Acts of Settlement could dispose of the Crown and it should appear that from the time that the limitation came to a Foreigner not nam'd in the Settlement nor the immediate issue of a King or Queen of England it was spent in the eye of the Law then of necessity the People must have had Power of Chusing or there could have been no lawful Government since Queen Elizabeth's time when the last Settlement was spent except what is now made 2. The Declarations of two Parliaments 28 and 35 H. 8. fully ballance the Declaration 1 Jac. 1. if they do not turn the Scales considering that the Judges in the later Times seem to have had less Law or Integrity than they had in H. the Eighth's I will not take upon me to determine which was the Point of Two that they might go upon 1. That a Government shall not pass by Implication or by reason of a dormant Remainder But there having been so many Alterations since the Settlement 1 H. 7. and the whole Fee once disposed of nor ever any express Restitution of the Settlement 1 H. 7. the People were not to think themselves obliged to a Retrospect 'T is evident at least that they did not Or 2. Perhaps they might question whether they were oblig'd to receive for Kings the Issue
of Foreign Princes That this was a Question in Q. Elizabeth's time appears by a Letter from Lethington Secretary of Scotland to Cecil Secretary to Q. Eliz. Appendix to Vol. 2. of the Hist of the Ref. f. 269. This appears farther from the Treatise at the end of the Appendix which seems to admit That the Right to the Crown would have been in the issue of the younger Daughter being born in England if the Birth had been without blemish since there was no means of being sufficiently inform'd of the Circumstances of the Birth neither the Common or any statute-Statute-Law affording any Means of proving it as appears by the Statute 25 E. 3. which for the Children of Subjects only born out of the King's Allegiance in Cases wherein the Bishop has Conusance allows of a Certificate from the Bishop of the Place where the Land in question lies if the Mother pass'd the Seas by the King's License But if our Kings or Queens should upon any occasion be in Foreign Parts 't is to be presum'd that they would have with them a Retinue subject to our Laws who might attest the Birth of their Children and be punish'd if they swear falsly Stat. 25. E. 3. Wherefore 25 E. 3. 't is declar'd to be the Law of the Crown That the Children of the Kings of England ENFANTZ DES ROYS as the Record has it in whatever Parts they be born be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the Death of their Ancestors Yet this is most likely to be meant of those private Inheritances which any of the Kings had being no part of the Demeasns of the Crown since the Inheritance of the Crown was not mentioned nor as has been shewn was it such as the King's Children were absolutely entitled to in their Order The most common acceptation of Children is of a Man's immediate Issue Vid. 1. Anderson f. 60 61. A Devise to the Wife after her Decease to the Children Vid. Wild 's C. 6. Rep. In Shelley 's C. 1. Rep. f. 103. A Gift to a Man semini suo or prolibus suis or liberis suis or exitibus suis or pueris suis de corpore As where Land is given to a Man and his Children Who can think any remote Descendants entitled to it Nor could it extend farther in the Settlement of a Crown 37 E. 3. c. 10. a Sumptuary Law was made providing for the Habits of Men according to their Ranks and of their Wives and Children ENFANTZ as in the former Statute of the same Reign Now altho' this should extend to Childrens Children born in the same House it could never take in the Children of Daughters Vid. Sir James Dalrimple's Institutions of the Laws of Scotland f. 52. forisfamiliated by Marriage nay nor to those of such Sons as were educated in a distinct Calling from their Parents Farther the very Statute of which the Question is cuts off the Descendants from Females out of the number of a King's Children when among other Children not of the Royal Family it makes a particular Provision for Henry Son of John Beaumond Vid. Dugdale 's Bar. 2. Vol. Beaumont who had been born beyond Sea and yet Henry was by the Mother's Side in the Fourth Degree from H. 3. for she was Daughter to Henry Earl of Lancaster Son of Edmund Son to H. 3. Had this Henry been counted among the Children of a King 't is certain there had not been a special Clause for him among other Children of Subjects Nor does the Civil Law differ from ours in this Matter for tho under the name of Children are comprehended not only those who are in our Power but all who are in their own either of the Female Sex or descending from Females yet the Daughters Children were always look'd on as out of the Grandfather's Family Just Inst lib. 1. tit 9. So Bracton l. 1. c. 9. Greg. Tholos Syntagma juris universi f. 206. Spiegelius tit Liberi Non procedere in privilegiis quae generaliter publicae utilitati derogant Vid. Antonii Perezi Inst Imperiales p. 21. Vid. Cujac ad tit de verborum significatione p. 147 230. according to the Rule in the Civil-Law transcribed by our Bracton They who are born of your Daughter are not in your power And Privileges derogating from Publick Vtility were never thought to reach them as a Learned Civilian has it A Daughter is the end of the Family in which she was born because the name of her Father's Family is not propogated by her And Cujacius makes this difference betweene Liberi and Liberi Sui Sui he says is a Legal Name the other Natural The former are only they who are in a Man's power or of his Family and Liberi strictly taken he will have to go no farther But in truth Considering the purview of the Statute which we are here upon Children in it seems to be restrain'd to Sons and Daughters without taking in the Descendants from either the occasion of the Law being the Births of several ENFANTZ in Foreign Parts which could be but Sons or Daughters to the immediate Parents whether Kings or Private Persons 3. But however this may be enough for my purpose That there is no colour of any Settlement in force but that 1 H. 7. And admitting that to have continued till J. 2. had broken the Original Contract yet that being broken the present Assembly of Lords and Commons had full as much Authority to declare for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY as the Parliament 1 H. 7. had to Settle the Crown For H. 7. could give them no Power but what he had received immediately from them Nor is it material to say He was Crown'd first since as I have shewn the Crown Confers no Power distinct from what is deriv'd either from an immediate or prior Choice But if there is reason from what I have shewn to believe that even the limitations in Henry VII th's Settlement were all long since spent then at least it is not to be doubted but the interest of J. II. being determined the People of England might lawfully and rightfully declare for King William and Queen Mary as being the most deserving of the Blood Royal which if they were free to do not to submit to be Gover'n'd by Their present Majesties would have been the highest Ingratitude that could be CHAP. X. The Fifth Head of Positive Law The effect of the Dissolution of the Contract The Vse of the Triennial-Act 16 Car. 1. against the necessity of Common Form The Form and proceedings of the Convention assembled upon the death of H. 3. The Dilemma used by the Formalists Answer'd with a Distinction Pufendorf's Answer to Hobbs Another passage of his applied to a passage in a late excellent Treatise against Sir Robert Filmer And to a Letter upon this Juncture Tho what Dr. Brady says against the Rights of Lords and Commons were true yet it is shewn that the Acts of
no force Besides the Keepers were an upstart Power imposing themselves upon the People without any formal consent at least not so fully received to the publick Administration as our present King was who at the request of a very large Representative of the People pursued the late Method of Calling a more solemn Assembly If that Anno 1660. had Power acting with the King to declare it self a Parliament Why had not this in defect of a King to declare or chuse one Sure I am prudent Antiquity regarded not so much the Person calling or the End for which a General Council was call'd as who were present That Notice which they complied with being always sufficiently formal Anno 1127. Vid. Spelm. Con. 2 Vol. f. 1. De modo habendi Synodos in Angliâ primaevis temporibus Vid. Jan. Ang. fac nov and Jus. Ang. Flor. Wigorn f. 663. Confluxerant quoque illuc magnae multitudines Clericorum Laicorum tam divitum quam mediocrium factus est Conventus grandis inestimabilis Quaedam determinata quaedam dilata quaedam propter nimium aestuantis turbae tumultum ab audientiâ judicantium profligata c. Rex igitur cum inter haec Londoniae moraretur auditis Concilii gestis consensum praebuit confirmavit Statuta Concilii a Willielmo Cant. c. celebrati Wherefore a General Ecclesiastical Council being Summoned in the Reign of H. 1. by William Archbishop of Canterbury thither according to the known Laws of those times the Laity came I cannot say they sate there for the Numbers were so great as they commonly were at such Assemblies before the Freeholders agreed to Representations That happy was the Man whatever his Quality that could have a convenient standing After the Ecclesiastical Matters were over in the Council I now speak of they fell upon Secular Some they determined some they adjourned some the Judges of the Pole or Voices could make nothing of by reason of the great Crowd and Din And when the King heard their Determinations and confirm'd them they had full Legal Force The consideration of the time and circumstances of the Coronation of H. 1. and the Force which the things then agreed on were reputed to have at that time and some of them ever since till alter'd by subsequent Laws may abundantly prove that there is no need of strict form for the doing what is agreable to the sense of a Nation tho not formally express'd at the time H. 1. did not stand next in the Line his eldest Brother Robert who was set aside for W. 2. was then alive Nor was it possible for all people of legal interests to have been conven'd at that time Collectively or by a regular Representation it being within four days after the Death of his Brother W yet hear what Malmsbury says upon that occasion Occiso Rege Willielmo in Regem electus est Itaque edicto statim per Angliam misso injustitias a fratre Ranulpho institutas prohibuit pensionum Malms f. 88. de H. 1. vinculorum gratiam fecit effeminatas Curiâ propellens lucernarum usum noctibus in Curiâ restituit qui fuerat tempore fratris intermissus Aliquarum moderationem Legum revocavit in solitum Sacramento suo omnium procerum ne luderentur corroborans Laetus ergo dies visus est revirescere populis cum post tot anxietatum nubila Serenarum promissionum infulgebant lumina Et nequid profecto gaudio accumulato abesset Ranulpho nequitiarum faece tenebris ergastularibus incluso Anselmum pernicibus nunciis directum Quapropter certatim plausu Plebeio concrepante in Regem Coronatus Londoniae nonis Augusti quarto post obitum fratris die Haec eo studiosius celebrebantur ne mentes procerum electionis quassarentur poenitudine quod ferebatur rumor Robertum Comitem ex Apuliâ adventantem jamjamque affore King William being slain He was chosen King whereupon by Proclamation presently sent throughout England He forbad the Injustices set up by Father Ranulph he remitted Debts and Imprisonments driving effeminate persons from the Court He restor'd the use of Candles by Night in the Court which had been intermitted in the time of his Brother He moderated some Laws according to former usage corroborating them by His own Oath and the Oaths of all His Peers that they might not be eluded upon any account A joyful day to the people seem'd again to flourish since the Lights of Serene Promises shone upon them after so many Anxieties And that in truth nothing might be wanting to their accumulated Joy Ranulph the Dregs of Villanies being sent to Prison Messengers were immediately sent for Anselm Wherefore He was Crown'd King at London on the Nones of August the fourth day after His Brother's Death with the eager acclamations of throngs of the Common people These things were celebrated with the greater earnestness least the minds of the Great Men should be shaken with repenting of their choice because there was a Rumour that Earl Robert was coming out of Normandy and that he would be here immediately Hereby it appears that the Honest Mob urg'd on and secur'd this Election which otherwise some of the formal Nobility would have disputed at the beginning or soon have repented of upon expectation of making some particular terms for themselves not regarding the Publick Good for which H. 1. had so largely provided To set the proceedings of that time in a true light it may be requisite to transcribe part of what Matthew Paris took from the Historians of the time and particularly from Sigebert Defuncto itaque Rege Willielmo Mat. Par. 81. Sigisbertus Gemblacensis Monachus huc usque cronica sua satis eleganter digessit Mat. Par. f. 74. cum Magnates Angliae ignorarent quid actum esset de Roberto Duce Normanorum Regis defuncti fratre primogenito qui jam per quinquenneum in expeditione Hierosolymitanâ moram pertraxerat timuerunt diu sine regimine vacillare Quod fratrum ultimus juvenis sapientissimus cum callidè cognovisset congregato Londoniis Clero Angliae populo universo promisit emendationem legum quibus oppressa fuerat Anglia tempore patris sui fratris nuper defuncti ut animos omnium in sui promotionem accenderet amorem ut illum in Regem susciperent patronum Ad haec Clero respondente Magnatibus cunctis quod si animo volente ipsis vellet concedere chartâ suâ communire illas libertates consuetudines antiquas quae floruerunt in regno tempore SANCTI REGIS EDWARDI in ipsum consentirent in Regem unanimiter consecrarent Henrico autem hoc libenter annuente se id facturum cum juramento affirmante consecratus est in Regem apud Westmonasterium favente Clero populo cui continuo a Mauritio Londinensi Episcopo a Thomâ Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Corona capiti imponitur Cum fuerat diademate insignitus has libertates subscriptas in Regno ad
Worship which though not contain'd in Scripture were us'd in the Primitive Church which is an Individium vagum which some confine to the Life-time of the Apostles some extend to the whole first three Centuries some even to this according to the Doctrine of Infallible Tradition Suppose for Example that in such Assemblies as are form'd with or without leave of the Civil Power the Sign of the Cross be used as a Symbol of dedicating to the Service of Christ those who are let into Catholick Communion and this they judg useful to the present and according to the Primitive Church it will be a Question Whether the retaining of this against a particular Interdict of the Civil Power which is supposable at least is to be justifi'd upon these Grounds Put this Argument into Form and you will find he has more or less in his Conclusion than in his Premises Rightly taken I conceive it lies thus If the Gospel contains a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth hath any right to prohibit But the Gospel does contain a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service Therefore such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth has Power to prohibit This being taken for granted he proceeds What no Authority upon Earth has right to prohibit may be done or perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But such Service ut supra no Authority upon Earth hath right to prohibit therefore it may be perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But he concludes contrary to the Laws of Arguing That those Christians who rightly worship God in the True Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship as appear useful for the Church's Good Now if hereby he means that they who worship God according to the Scriptures even though taking in the Practice of the Apostles have not this Right unless they do it in the manner us'd till or at the end of the first three hundred Years after Christ which is the modestest acceptation of Primitive Times Here by adding of Circumstances his Conclusion has really less than the Premises because it ties up them whom the Scripture has left free and takes from the Authority of Scripture where the Foundation was laid and undermines it by going to support it with the specious words of Apostolical and Primitive which still are of doubtful Acceptation Whereas some believe that no manner of Worship is to be term'd Primitive which was not truly Apostolical that is us'd by the Apostles themselves others call every thing within those three Centuries at least Primitive and therefore Apostolical But to be sure here is a very false way of Arguing if he uses any or else 't is gratis dictum But take it for an Argument and then to his purpose there is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises for the Premises are only of such Publick Service as is contain'd and establish'd in the Gospel and thence he would conclude that whatever has been practis'd in the Primitive Church in the Publick Service of God may be continued notwithstanding the Interdict Nay he would go farther That they may in their Assemblies practise according to their own Judgment of what is useful for the Church's Good If it be said that he means no more than that they may hold such Assemblies for Christian Worship as appear useful that is of Five besides a single Family 22 Car. 2. c. 1. or more as appears useful if he means not that they may assemble and worship in such a manner as appears useful he excludes the Worship out of the Assembly and then it may be a Silent Meeting if the Civil Power please and is less than his Premises warrant I must confess he seems to intend the amusing rather than satisfying his Readers by putting in the true Catholick Communion for he must mean either that what-ever Publick Service is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church is in true Catholick Communion and so vice versa that what-ever is in true Catholick Communion is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church so that the Church becomes the Rule to the supplanting of Scripture or else that to worship God rightly and warrantably notwithstanding a Civil Interdict 't is not enough to be according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church unless it be in the true Catholick Communion that is with such Terms of Communion as Christ himself or his Apostles made Catholick and universally obliging and indeed in this sense though he has not observ'd it he comes up fully to the Force of his Argument The great Sanderson whose Judgment where it was according to that lumen siccum the general want of which is to be deplored is of great Authority has gone about to split the Hair between two Extreams in relation to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and lays down what he says is most consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Church of England and moreover to the Laws of the Kingdom Sanderson de Obligatione Conscientiaa Pag. 209. Quod Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Regni insimul Legibus maximè sit consentaneum Which by the way is an insinuation that the Church of England holds some Doctrine not consentaneous to Law and it may be the Canons of 1640 might be instanced in Now his Notion is that the jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas that is the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is in the Bishops Presbyters and other Persons duly elected by the Clergy of the whole Kingdom and duly assembled in a lawful Synod Upon this I would be bold to ask the Question Pag. 188. How this agrees with his Concession That the King is Supream Head and Governour over all Persons and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil since his own Argument is That he who is Supream has the Power or Right to make Laws But the King is Supream wherefore P. 192. according to him the King and not the Clergy hath this Power This I think is the unforc'd Consequence from his other Assertion Potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est jus ferendi leges quae obligant totam communitatem esse penes eum solum Pag. 186. sive sit is singularis persona ut in statu Regiminis Monarchici sive plures ut in aliis qui cum summâ potestate toti communitati praest Nay he argues that it must needs be so in reason Praecipuus actus gubernationis praecipuam requiret potestatem c. Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive legum latio actus gubernationis supremus praecipuus Non ergo potest exerceri nisia persona habente aut saltem in virtute ex authoritate habentis supremam authoritatem jurisdictionem in communitatem sibi
French Queen Sister to H. 8. and married to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk The Author shews himself skill'd in the Civil as well as the Common Law and tho he had occasion to maintain a strict Right of Succession to the next in the Line according to which he will have it that H. 4. H. 5. H. 6. with-held the Crown by wrong Which I suppose proceeded from his not observing what Parliamentary Confirmations their Possessions had Yet himself says That we are all bound in Reason to have always more regard to the State and Dignity of the whole Weal Publick than of the private Preferment or Commodity of any particular Person Nay he says it appears from History that many Princes settled in their Kingdoms have been judged unworthy of their Callings for what would now be look'd on as a very slight Matter And many things he speaks with great Judgment which tend towards the justification of what has lately been done for the Publick-Weal and Preservation of the State and Dignity of this Realm THE AUTHOR TO THE READER AS every man may thinke it very necessary bothe for the greate weale and greate quyetnes of this State to know certenly to whome of right the Honour and Dignitie of this Imperiall State and Crowne of this Realme of England shuld fall or descend unto yf ought shuld happe to Queene Elizabeth our supreame and most graciouse Governour whome it may please God longe to prosper with longe Lyfe good Husband and meny Children to her Highnes contentation and the generall weale and reastfull dayes bothe of her Majestie and of the whole Realme So thinke I that none can lyke well that any with eny coloured or deceyueable meane or argument shuld go about to sette forth or perswade the naturall and lovinge Subjectes thereof that the Succession appertayned to those that in deede have no just Right Title or Interest to the same And therfore because some have endevored themselfes by wrytinge to shew that the Succession apperteyned unto the Lady K. Grey the which as may appeerr by no dyrect right or reason can pretend eny just Title or Clayme thereunto I have not thought it unfitt heerby to shew the state and troth therof more playnly to such that ells either by such practises or ells by such workes mought otherwyse rest deceyvid And that I shal be thus occasionyd to utter heerin neither is nor shal be with eny mynd or motion to offer eny injury or to stayne or spotte the Name or Honour of eny but onely to answer those Argumentes the which as they be grounded upon no truth ar so worthy of no favour And to answer therin without wrestinge or applyenge eny case otherwyse then the state of the mater doth most playnly and truely crave the pronunciation of the Law So that yf any thyng be sayd it is the very necessitie of the cause so necessarelie for this state and this tyme to be thus touched and the judgment of the Law towchinge the same that speakith or vtterith eny thinge and ells no other disposition And bicause our Bond and Duty is rather to haue regard of the State and Dignity of the whole Weale Publik and of the good successe prosperyte and quietnesse therof then of the undue title or interest of eny particuler person or persons I trust this travaile may the rather be acceptid and taken in better parte And so to the Matter First to the illegitimacion of the Lady K. and the reste of the Issues of the Frenche Q. And after of theyr Force or Interest by the Wyll Touchinge the First It is notorious and well inough knowne that when Charles Brandon Duke of Suff. maryed with the Lady Mary the Frenche Q. that he had then an other Wyfe lyvinge which was the Lady Margaret Mortimer with whome after mariage he lived dyvers yeres as lawfull Man and Wyfe and after upon certayn discorde betweene theim of his owne motion without any fourme or maner of lawfull judgement that he seperated him selfe from her and forsoke her And what rashnes or rather foly may it be comptid to reply or wryte against so manyfest a troth with conjectures as to say it is not likely that K. Henry wold ever have consented that his Sister should mary one which had an other Wyfe lyvinge Since that ther is yet so meny lyvely Wittnesses the which of certeyn knowledge can be Testes The saide Charles matchid with the Frenche Queene 1515. She died Anno. 1532. La. Mortimer died An. 1533. that Charles Brandon and the Lady Mortimer wer Man and Wyfe and have seene and did know the Lady Mortimer longe after the mariage yea and peradventure after the death of the said French Q. And touchinge the K. although it is to be thought that yf he had known that the Duke had had an other Wyfe lyving that he wold not have consentyd that his Sister shold have maryed him It might be notwithstanding full well and it is possible that yet he had one and that the Kinge mought not know thereof For as Princes have ben the greater or the mightier so much the lesse comonly have they ben wontyd to understand of the doinges in such maters of pryvate Persons But in this case ther be as perfecte Clerkes and of as goode understandinge as any were at th' advise of these Bookes abrode that ar of opinion certen that the French Q. and the Duke wer matchid before the Kinge was prevy thereof and some Pardon or Pardons obteyned for the same upon small search may happen to be founde that may testifye as much and of necessity we can no otherwyse thinke but that it was so Synce that as much as is sayd of the Lady Mortimer may be affirmyd by the sayd Witnesses as a thinge most certeyne and notorious The which beinge true then is it certeyn that the Lady Mary the said French Q. cold not be his lawfull Wyfe And that the said Charles Duke of Suff. could not lyve with her but in Adultery For the wordes of the Lorde be playne (a) Mat. 19. Marc. 10. Quicunque dimiserit uxorem nisi ob fornicationem aliam duxerit machatur Et qui dimissam duxerit maechatur Nowe that one borne in Adultery and notwithstanding is legitimate that cannot be And therefore the Lady K. beinge comme of one not legitimatly borne cannot inherite or be capable of the Crowne And heerin it is to litle purpose to cavill with Canons or Decretalles of the Pope against the playne and manifest Word of God from whose usurped Power as this Realme is most happely delyvered so hath his Lawes in the same loste their force and vigore But admitte that the Pope's Lawe had in England any Authoryte at least it shuld be an impious thing in what place soever it wer where the Worde of God is so cleere and certen to sticke rather to the Pope's Law then to the Lawe of God (b) Parnormi in ca. super illa
mention had ben made it is lykely that the Parliament wold never have consentyd or agreid thervnto as at the makinge of the same Statute yf eny had gone about to have pennyd it in this sorte that such shuld succeede and enjoye the Crowne as K. Henry either by his Letters Patentes or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gracious Hand had namyd what Parsonnes soever they had ben although they were infamous madde impious or such other before rehearsed it is not lykely that in this maner or forme the Parliament wolde have allowed or passed such a Statute And that that is not lykely they wold have consentyd vnto by wordes in such sorte specially expressid It is not to be thought or understandid that such Persons shuld be capable and fit for that Callinge omni exceptione majores And it is playne and notoryous as is before-sayd that to be borne in Adultery or of eny other unlawfull sorte or matche is reputid and taken a Spotte and that a greate one not onely by the Lawes of Man but also by the Lawes of God (p) Sapien. 3 4. Deut. 2 3. and so unworthy and unfitte ar such to be thought capable of the Crowne that in all States where they use to gyve or graunte eny Seigniories Titles or Liberties in Fee as Baronyes Erleshippes Markeshippes and such other the Bastardes ar never thought worthy to be admittid unto the Succession although that they be made legitimate But they must specially be ablyd vnto the succession of the Fee by the Prince (q) Bartol Bald. in l. eam quam C. de fidei com And yf they cannot inherite or be capable of their Titles and Honours which ar not nor cannot be comparyd vnto a Royall Dignitie how shuld they be thought worthie or capable of a Crowne And that that is sayde of Bastardes is to be understandid also of those that pretendith the Succession as Heires of Bastardes And synce this Realme makith no lesse esteme of the Honour and Dignity of the same then eny other Nation doth of theires it is not lykely that specially they would graunt unto the Kinge Power or Authoryte to gyve or leve the Crowne to eny Person not legitimately borne or to their Children or to eny such Person upon whose Birth and Proceedinges there might growe such stryfe dispute or contention accordinge to the saying of Cesar and example of other a litle before remembryd And since it is not lykely that the Parliament wold haue condiscendid specially unto it it followith and we must conclude that such a Graunt cannot be comprehendid by general words But though he had Power or Authority to dispose of the Crowne to the Heires of the Lady Francys and the Lady Eleanor it is trewe yet notwithstandinge he could not do that but with the Condition and Forme that by Power of the Parliament was gyven him that is either by his Letters Patentes vnder the Greate Seale of England or ells by his last Will signed with his most Gratious Hande By Letters Patentes without doubt he hath not done it and so of the Will is the Controversy But beinge able to make a sufficient and perfect Will to all other intentes and purposes either in puttinge to his Hand or ells in not puttinge to his Hand yet yf the Kinge have made his Will without puttinge unto his Hand as ther be Wittnesses sufficient and some of those that subscribed the same Testament in that behalf can so truely and plainly testify that he hath as there is no such Cause left therfore either of such doubt or elles of such conferringe or comparinge the Prothocall with the Signe or Stampe as those that haue sette foorthe these Books wold seeme to make then it is playne and manifest that he hath not done it to this purpose accordinge to the forme and maner prescribed vnto him by the Statute And every Acte or Deede that is done without the Forme prescribed by Lawe is insufficient (r) L. 1. in pr. ff de stipula l. traditionibus C. de pac l. 1. C. de pred cur lib. 10. as well accordinge to th' Exposition and Rules of the Civill Lawe as ells by th' Exposition and Rules of the Common Lawe of this Realme for accordinge to the Civill Lawe it is playne and so taken though the Matters they entreate of be in favourable Causes yet the lacke of Forme is no wayes borne withall or excused (s) L. cum hi. §. si pretor ff de transa Bal. cons 324. volu 20. And much lesse heerin consideringe the Forme requyrid by the Statute is compiled with so meny greate goode important and probable Reasons For the Succession of the Crowne beinge a Cause of such greate weight and in which ther was so greate occasion to doubt so many hassardes of indirect or subtile dealinge they had goode cause to prescribe such a Maner and Forme to make the Will by as wherby they had least occasion to feare or suspect eny counterfetinge confuse or sinister behavour in the same And so accordinge to the Civill Lawe in that Testament that they call a Solempne Testament in the which there is required meny Circumstances yf eny of those do lacke the Testament or Will is of no force or valour (t) Justin de testa lege jube C. ibidem Besydes accordinge to the same Lawe all Statutes or Agreements made that takith away or correctith eny thinge of or from the Course or Body of the Lawe is reputed and taken as odious and ought to be taken strictly even accordinge to the Letter as the worde standith And this Statute wherof we now speake is such a One For wher the Succession of the Crowne shuld have gone whither the Common Lawe had apoynted or directid it as vnto the next by the Statute of 35 of Henry the Eighth K. Henry had Auctority to leve it to whome he lysted And therfore this Statute is to be interpretid strictly and precisely as the worde gyveth That is that Kinge Henry onely by his Letters Patentes vnder the Great Seale of England or elles by his last Wyll signed with his most gratious Hand might name whome he would to the Succession of the Crowne and not otherwyse And lykewise by the Common Lawe of this Realme the Statute is most plainly a direct abridgement of the same by reason it takith from the Common Lawe the naturall limitation of th' Inheritance of the Crowne and appointith it owte of the Rule of the Lawe to the Order and Limitation of Kinge Henry beinge in this respect authorized but as a private Person And it is in some degree a Penal Lawe for it takith the Title of a Kingedome from those that by the Common Lawe have a Right and makith in poynt of execution a Subject of a Prince and contrarywyse a Prince of a Subject which is not onely penall as hauinge respect to the losse of their Title to the Crowne yf it shuld
so happe as God forbidd but also it is so penall that if such ill Chaunce shuld unfortunately befall it makith Traytors of those that will clayme their Inheritance although their intent were but to try their Titles And it is a Learninge by the Common Lawes of England that longe hath ben so receyvid that in every such case as eny of these happen no Exposition is to be allowed but the Lawe willith us to cleve to the Letter without eny further wrestinge therof then the Letter naturally and strictly will reache unto So that if it be not a stricte observation of the Letter according to his natural entent in any of these cases the Common Lawe allowith it not And the rather the Lawe is precise herin for that it is a newe Statute which seldome ar taken by equite in eny point because they ar all pennyd at large As for Example I will remember one or twoe which may suffice to such as be Learnyd to search for other of lyke effect wherof ther ar not a few In Anno 1. of Kinge Edward the 6 th ther was a Statute made That if eny were condemnid for the stealinge of Horses and Mares they should lose their Clergy and because the words Horses and Mares were the plurall nombre it was taken not to extende to one Horse or to one Mare And so for that cause a new Statute was made Anno 2. of the same K. that made lyke Lawe for stealinge one Horse or one Mare And the chief cause of this was because it is a Penall Statute in takinge from a Man that wherby his Lyfe might be savid In K. Richard the 3 ds Tyme there was a Statute made to Auctorize Cest a que use to enter vpon his Feoffees and make Feoffementes And it was in question in Anno 9. of H. the 7 th yf he made a Letter of Atturney whether this were good by the Statute and lefte therfore a doubtfull question by reason the Statute gyveth auctoryte onely which must in all poyntes be observed And ther is a greate deale more coulour to make that Feoffement goode being by Letter of Atturney then to make this Will to this purpose goode not signed with the Kinges owne Hande For if eny other put his Hande therunto and not the Kinge himself then it is signed with an other Hande and not the Kinges Hande And yf I gyve Auctorytie to my Executors to sell my Landes and say no further then yf they sell the same by Wrytinge or without Wrytinge it is sufficient but if I adde these wordes That they shall sell my Landes so that they do it by Wrytinge signed with their proper Handes yf now they sell the same and th' one cause the Residue in all their presence to wryte all their Names as thoughe every one had severally subscrybed I hold it no question but this Sale is not good for they must pursue their Auctorytie strictlye and otherwyse it is of no effect And consyderinge as is partly before remembryd how greate a mater it was to committe such a Trust it were a greate lacke and slander to the whole Parliament to thinke that they wold condiscend to the committinge of so high and weightie a Confidence as wherof the whole Estate and Weale of the Realme shuld depend but that they did forsee that their doinges therein shuld not be blynded by a Wrytinge signed with a Stampe The same thing was urg'd by Lethington the Secretary of Scotland in a Letter to Sir Will. Cecil Appendix to the 2d Vol. of the Hist of the Ref. F. 269. which might be put vnto either when the Kinge was voyde of Memory or els when he was deceassid as indeed it after happenyd as most manifestly appeeryd by open declaration made in Parliament by the late L. Paget and others that King Henry did not signe it with his owne Hande as it is playne and probable inough by the Pardon obteynid for one William Clerke for puttinge the Stampe vnto the sayde Will after the Kinge was departid and who doubtith but yf his meaninge had ben such so to haue disposed of the Crowne but that he wold have put this mater out of doubte by signifyenge the same with his owne proper Hande And touchinge the two chief Examples that ar brought foorth the one of the 21 and 33 of K. H. th' Eight wherby K. H. was aucthorized to gyve his Royall Assent to Actes of Parliament by his Letters Patentes and so foorth and th' other for that Queene Mary omittyd the style that was apoyntid by Parliament in 35 of H. th' Eight in her Parliament Writts howe little they make to the matter every Man may judge For the Statutes of 21 and 33 of H. 8. were only made in affirmance of the Common Lawe and such a Royal Assent wold suffice by Letters Patents without eny assurance thereof by the Signe And this Statute was but to put such matter out of question for if the Common Law had ben such before there is no doubt but that he must haue signed every Patent with his proper Hande and so these Cases are no way lyke And touchinge the seconde yf the Statute that conteynith the King's Style be well consyderid there wold be made thereof no such Collection For the same apoyntith a punishment to such Subjects as of purpose depryve the K. of the Realm of that Stile But there is no doubt but the Writts that wantyd the Stile were in Lawe sufficyent and the Parties that made the same punishable So that these Examples cannot be wrestid to serve eny whit for the purpose And where ther is made a great mater by reason the Will was inrollid in the Chancery and Constats thereof made under the Broade Seale and the Legacyes thereof in all poyntes performyd To that may be answerd That all that is therein affirmed may easily be confessed and yet it proovith nothinge to th' intent applied for it was his Will is ever he condescendid thervnto though he did never signe it with his Stampe nor with his Hande and a goode and a perfect Will to all Entents and Purposes whereof he had by Common Lawe Authoritye to make his Will of But it is not or cannot be the more a perfect Will to this respect or purpose vnlesse he did execute the auctoritie apoyntid by the Statute of 35 of H. 8. as is before remembryd Since then the Duke had a Wyfe lyvinge when he maryd the Frenche Queene and by the Statute ther is nothinge to be Claymid onles K. Henry had passed eny things either by his Letters Patentes under the Broade Seal of Englande or ells by his last Will signed with his most gracious Hande And that it is trewe that he had a Wyfe lyvinge when he maryd the Frenche Queene that so if it were requisite or hereafter may be there mought be avouchid more then one with much other matter touchinge that poynt of Illegitimacion and Inhabilitie as well in
to be the Doctrine of the Church of England equally proves that this is essential to the Controversies depending between the Friends of the late Government and the happy Subjects of this As a just Corollary from which we may affirm that no Man who is true to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience can bear Faith and true Allegiance to our King and Queen In consequence to which as I have above shewn such are bound to their Power to assist the late King and to maintain the Regal Rights which he still claims as King of England if they are entrusted with any of our King's Secrets to reveal them to the other and to employ all those Advantages which his Majesty's Favour may give them Preface to the Hist of Passive Obedience towards the advancing that Interest to which they believe themselves unalterably bound And tho our King with the Generosity of Alexander may trust himself with them of whose at least probable Designs he may have certain Information yet no Man need wonder that his Friends offer him the Notice and that they would have that Doctrine extirpated out of the World without vvhich it vvere impossible for him to have an Enemy in the English Nation but a Papist And even among them I dare say all but the bigotted Slaves to their Clergy are sensible of the benefit of his Protection and may encourage themselves in civil Obedience to him who is King over them from the Examples of St. Anselm with other holy Men and the generality of their Clergy who quietly obeyed the Power vvhich protected them without considering whether the Person who administred it stood next in the Line or no. And tho it may be excusable for a dying-Man to justify his own Sincerity to his private Friends yet when the matter vvhich he affirms is of such Consequence to the Peace of that Government which had rescued him and the Church in vvhich he had such a Trust from impending Ruin and afforded it and him sure Protection tho he had disabled himself from farther benefit he ought not certainly to have taken such Pains to transmit his Opinion to the knowledg of the unthinking Vulgar who vvere likely to be influenced by it unless he vvere certain beyond the least shaddow of doubt that this was not only a Truth but of such a nature that the Sin of Ignorance in others were damnable Or else that the Restoration of the late King were preferrable to Submission to this The last I hope his Admirers vvill not say and since the first evidently depends upon Points of Lavv tho ignorance of human Law cannot reasonably excuse before Men who know not the Heart and when the Plea ought to be allowed when not yet there is no doubt but it will before God But who would not be impatient to find our great Law-Casuist Dr. H. to justify his Disaffection to the Government under the Umbrage of the Bishop's Declaration and to boast himself a Confessor to this pretended Martyr vvithout producing more colour for it than a dying-Bishop's Belief that this is in Consequence of adhering to the Religion of the Church of England Had any one publish'd thus much in the Reign of Innuendoes when Dr. H. was the Trumpeter to the Imperial Power in Contradistinction to the Political one he vvould have met with Col. Sydney's Doom who suffered for publishing Hicksian Treason all over his own Study Jovian p. 236. And were Dr. H. to be judg'd by his own Law 't is certain he vvould be pronounc'd a Traitor if the Publication of this Paper vvere prov'd upon him For in his Jovian he says What tends to Treason is Traiterous The Lord Hollis his Book against the Bishop's voting in Capital Cases he says for the same Reason is an impious and treasonable Book because it abounds with Falsifications of Records c. and asserts that the King is one of the three Estates Pag. 237. And the Dialogue between the Tutor and Pulpit is a treasonable Piece because it misrepresents the English Government as if it were a Reciprocal Contract betwixt the King and the People and as if the Parliament ought whether or no the King pleas'd to sit till all Grievances were redress'd and Petitions answer'd By the last of which the Bishops were Traitors for their Proposals to King James And by the former Vid. the Bishops Proposals all those Passive-Obedience-Men are Traitors who publickly maintain an Opinion which necessarily implies that the Right of the last King could not be alter'd or diminish'd for any matter which induc'd King William to undertake our Deliverance If Men of the Doctor 's Opinion will be exasperated for being driven from their Coverts they should consider that they ought rather to be thankful that they are put to no further Mortification while they cease not to give jealousy to the Government by maintaining or patronizing what is inconsistent with that Peace vvhich they are bound to pray for But Dr. H. it should seem Jovian p. 104. now aims at the Glory of taking that boldness and liberty of speaking and acting vvhich he says was common among Confessors by which they shewed the greatness of their Zeal to suffer for God and how much they despis'd that Authority vvhich was over them in Competition with their Duty to God And this may be to retrieve his Reputation for not calling the late King an Idolater Ib. pag. 96 a Bread-worshipper a Goddess-worshipper a Creature-worshipper an Image-worshipper a Wafer-worshipper c. which we might have expected for the making good his Vapour before he came to the Trial. Did his then Silence agree with that supernaturul Courage Pag. 297. which he vvas fully perswaded God would inspire him with And does it not seem odd that the Inspiration should seize him to the Prejudice of that Government under which alone it can reasonably be expected that Protestancy can be supported but should be vvanting in a Popish Reign The Jews had a Divine Caution against receiving even those Prophets who vvrought Wonders if they labour'd to withdraw Men from the Worship of the true God And surely Protestants would not scruple to reject the Doctor 's Pretences to Inspiration Vid. Dr. H. his Raviliac Redivivus which some vvould be ready to ascribe to that Spirit vvhich himself had found out for the fluency of some Mens Prayers or rather to that lying Spirit in the Mouths of the Jewish Prophets which encouraged Ahab to go out to fight for what had formerly been in the Possession of the Crown of Israel 3. The Bishop will have this Doctrine of Passive Obedience to be the distinguishing Character of the Church of England and therein admits that she holds it in a manner differing from all other Protestant Churches And if this be so the acting or believing according to it can be incumbent only upon the unfeigned Assent and Consent-Men But we of the Laity vvho believe our selves to be
true Members of the Church of England may be allowed to act without any regard to that Principle which vvould distinguish us from all other Protestants And how much soever some may be concern'd to keep up the Distinction 't is to be hoped that we shall be more wise and more true to the Interest of the Church universal If as the Bishop says the Religion of the Church of England has taught this and this is the distinguishing Character of this Church vvill not Men say that he makes this Church to have a Religion as well as Ceremonies of its own The Mischief of Separation A Prelate more deservedly eminent tells us That the sign of the Cross is the Right of Admission into the Church of England as Baptism into the Catholick But according to this Bishop the Admission into our Church ought to be upon the Condition of subscribing this Doctrin Jovian p. 227. speaking of the Church of England and himself It is she that taught him to preach up Passive Obedience like a Parasite Sycophant and Murderer Poor Man he suck'd it in with his Mothers Milk which his God-fathers and God-mothers were to have promis'd and vow'd in his Name And then tho he had not like Dr. H. who perhaps herein played the Plagiary from Jovian suck'd in this Religion with his Milk he might well have been baptiz'd into it The Reasons of this Bishop's maintaining and endeavouring to propagate his Opinion to the Disturbance of our present Settlement next to his Obligations to the late King which the first misunderstanding was not to erace were apparently 1. The sourness of the Milk which he had suck'd in from his Nurse or Mother which is known to have a great influence upon the Constitution of the Body and that upon the Mind insomuch that Mr. Dreyden and some other such Philosophers have insinuated that the Soul is nothing else but the Temperament of the Body 2. The prejudice of his Education whereby he was taught to believe this to be part of his Baptismal Vow Which being the only Reason that he has thought fit to bless us with as judging it sufficient in following this Episcopal Authority he who was bred a Pagan ought to be a Pagan still And if we believe a topping Divine of the Church of England Vid. Warley's natural Fanatick dedicated to the then Chancellor of England F. the Pagans can produce better Reasons for their Infidelity not only than any we have yet had for this distinguishing Piece of Religion but than can be brought for Belief in the true God without having recourse to the Scriptures interpreted by the Church But the Church which he complemented being the Church of England the Popery of his Notion went down very glibly at that time as the Authority of this single Bishop does with many now 3. The Weakness of his Judgment which is obvious not only in the wording his dying-Paper in such a manner as either condemns his own Church of Singularity or all others of Corruption in departing from that Religion which she alone has the honour to profess but farther yet if he were in his sound Mind at the subscribing his own or Dr. H. his Confession of Faith he would have reflected that tho he might have done enough to quiet his own Mind he had not us'd due means for informing himself of what he ought to press upon others as a necessary matter of Belief having debated it either with Divines who are but second-hand Casuists for this or else with Lay-men of the Gentleman's Opinion who would maintain the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and yet exclude it out of the Controversy which it has rais'd and keeps up I speak not this without grounds for in debate with a Divine of our Church whose great Worth Learning Moderation and Integrity have justly rais'd him above all degrees in Station the Bishop did frankly confess that he believ'd the Question to issue in a Point of Law And for his Satisfaction he had discours'd with a certain eloquent Person whom he nam'd suppos'd to have suck'd in Law with his Milk as the Bishop did his new Divinity nurss'd up since Queen Elizabeth's days But this Person being one who has acted upon the same Principle and makes it his Glory not to have his Opinion alter'd by his place I think no Man who observes what lame work the Lay-Gentleman has made of endeavouring to reconcile the Doctrine of Passive Obedience with Submission to our present Government will wonder that he could not receive Satisfaction from one who held the same Premises with himself but denies the Conclusion This ground for the Bishop's Pertinaciousness I must own is not evident to all but his consulting Dr. H. is who I may well say is hardened and steel'd in his Profession beyond hopes of Conviction since by the Writer of this Vid. Letter to Jovian Ed. An. 1683. p. 14. he was long since admonish'd of having shamefully abus'd those Authorities on which he relied and of having by his Concessions and Contradictions fully set aside all that he would enforce and this at a time when this Writer ran the utmost hazard by exposing a Man thought so highly to have serv'd them who were in Power and called themselves the Government And when the Doctor by refuting the Objections might have had the Reward as vvell as boast of a Triumph Yet for the Comfort of them vvhom he then trampled upon he had disabled himself of his Sting vvhile he quitted the Authority of a Preacher of God's Law for a partial Reporter and Expounder of Man's His Errors or Perversions as far they concern our present Controversy and Government may be reduced to two Heads 1. The Estate in the Crown and Derivation of it 2. The Rights or Prerogatives of the Crown 1. For the first he says this Kingdom is originally hereditary Preface Pag. 13.11.9.78.5.53.60 Jov. p. 38. Pag. 25. Preface Pag. 55. in an inalienable indivisible lineal Succession by the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government ty'd to the next of the Blood Or as he has it elsewhere fix'd in one Family and lineally descending in Proximity of Blood With this Hereditary Monarchy an Interregnum or Vacancy of the Throne is inconsistent as also its descending upon two Heirs at once The Succession vvhich he describes he says is from God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordain'd that it should come to one of them after the Decease of another according to Birth-right and Proximity of Blood Pag. 58. But God's Providential Appointment of one to reign he grants not of it self to carry the Right beyond the Person in Possession by such Appointment Wherefore tho God's Providence had often given the Roman Empire to a Man and some of his lineal Descendants after him he contends Pag. 46. that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary but Elective by the Suffrage