sunt quatenus permitteret sibi leges proprias consuetudines Antiquas habere in quibus vixerant Patres eorum ipsi in eis nati nutriti sunt scilicet leges Sancti Edwardi Et ex illo die magna Authoritate veneratae per universum Regnum corroboratae conservatae sunt prae caeteris Regni legibus leges R. Edwardi Chron. Eccl. Lichsield apud Seld. ibid. p. 171. Chronicle of Lichfield doth informus That the whole Community of England sued to the Conqueror that he would permit them to have the proper Laws and ancient Customs in which their Fathers had lived and under which they were born and educated viz. the Laws of St. Edward and that the King consented to their Petition 2dly When they had fought for the Empress Maud against King Stephen and placed her upon the Throne they (h) Interpellata est a civibus Londinensibus ut liceret eis uti legibus Sancti Edwardi non legibus Patris sui H. quia graves erant sed illa non adquievit inde populus commotus illam capere Statuit Chron. Job Brompton p. 1031. Chron. Gervas p. 1355. Henr. de Knyght p. 2387. requested her to Grant to them the Laws of King Edward and upon her denial of that request they again thrust her from the Throne and forced her out of the Kingdom 3dly (i) Cum autem haec Charta perlecta Baronibus audientibus intellecta fuisset gavisi sunt gaudio magno valde juraverunt omnes in praesentia Archiepiscopi saepe dicti quod viso tempore congruo pro his libertatibus si necesse fuerit decertarent usque ad mortem M. Paris p. 167. When the Archbishop of Canterbury in the days of King John produced the Charter of Henry the First by which He granted the ancient Liberties of the Kingdom of England according to the Laws of King Edward with those Emendations which his Father by the Counsel of the Barons did ratifie this Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoiced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop That for those Liberties they would if need required spend their blood And 4thly They made this one part of the (k) Sequitur forma juramenti soliti consueti praeftari per leges Angliae in eorum Coronatione quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ab iisdem Regibus Exigere recipere consuevit Concedis justas leges consuetudines esse tenendas promittis per te esse protegendas ad Honorem Dei corroborandas quas vulgus elegerit Resp Concedo promitto Vid. Book of Oaths H. de Knyght p. 2746. Coronation Oath of the Kings of England That they should consent to the observation of the just Laws and Customs which the Community of the Realm had chosen and especially of the Laws of King Edward And in the time of Richard the 2d it is declared That the usual and customary Oath which the Kings of England took at their Coronation and which the Archbishop of Canterbury was wont to exact of them and receive from them was That they should grant that the just Laws and Customs which the Community had chosen should be observed and confirmed by them All which things put together seem to conclude an Original compact or establishment of Laws by which the Kings of England were to Govern and the Kingdom to be Governed and the Continuance and the Renewal of that Original Establishment by our succeeding Kings Add to this that Rule of Grotius That * Successio non est titulus imperii qui imperio formam assignet sed veteris continuatio jus enim ab Electione coeptum familiae succedendo continuatur quare quantum prima Electio tribuit tantum defert successio De jure Bell. l. 1. c. 3. §. 10. Succession is not a Title of Empire which gives the form to it but is only a continuation of the old Title the Right begun by the Election of the Family being continued by Succession and thence with him we reasonably may inferr That Succession only brings down to Kings what the first Election gave and makes them only Kings according to the Compact and with the Conditions agreed on at the first admission of their Progenitors to the exercise of the Royal Authority To this Historical Account of the present subject I add these words in the preamble of the Statute made 25. of H. 8. to forbid Impositions paid to the See of Rome Cap. 21. Your Grace's Realm recognising no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from Subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and obtain'd within the Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same not as to the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the customed and ancient Laws of this Realm Originally Established as the Laws of the same by the said Sufferance Consent and Cisstom and none otherwise In which words 1. There seems to be a plain distinction between ancient and accustomed Laws of this Realm which the People enjoy by Susferance of our Kings or were induced into it by the said Sufferance Consent and Custom and Laws made devised and obtained within this Realm for the wealth of the same these latter being Statute-Laws Leges istae vocatae sunt leges Sancti Edvardi non quia ipsas primo invenerat sed quia quasi sub modio positae in oblivione derelictae a tempore R. Edgari avi sui qui primo manum suam misit ad ipsas inveniendas statuendas Henr. de Knyght de Event Ang'l l. 1. c. 15. Chron. Lichfield ubi supra Sir Robert Atkyns Enq. into the Disp Power p. 9. the other being Laws Originally Establish'd and Ancient Customs of the Realm which the People of this Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them and our Kings finding thus established suffer'd them to enjoy And these the Histories and Records I have cited tell us were the Laws of St. Edward or rather of King Edgar renewed and confirmed by St. Edward which the Community of England desired of King William and his Successors that they might enjoy by his and their sufferance or permission and which accordingly He and they consented that they should enjoy as their proper Laws and ancient Customs swearing also at their Coronation to maintain protect and to corroborate them and which the Archbishop of Canter bury at his Coronation of them always exacted to be granted to the People To which may be added the Laws contained in Magna Charta which though they run in the stile of a Grant from the King
Allegiance which I have promised by Oath to him cease though he hath the same right to it 2dly When we say a King out of Possession hath righ tto the Allegiance of his Subjects we mean not an immediate right but mediate i. e. our meaning is That first he hath right to Possession and actual Government and by that to Allegiance he therefore must be first in Possession before we can exert the Allegiance due to him Accordingly though Edward the Fourth is by Act of Parliament in the First Year of his eign declared to have been in Right See Bagot's Case 9 H. 4. Term Trin. from the Death of the Right Noble Prince Richard Duke of York very just King of the Realm of England yet because he only took upon him to use his Right and Title to the said Realm of England on the Fourth of March A. D. 1460. and entered only then into the Exercise of the Royal Estate Dignity Preheminence and Power of the same Crown and to the Governance of the said Realm of England by the amotion of Henry the Sixth till then King in Deed though not of Right therefore is he said by the Act of Parliament to have been only on the Fourth day of March in the lawful Possession of the same Realm with the Royal Power Preheminence Estate and Dignity belonging to the Crown thereof and then only to be lawfully seized and possessed of the Crown of England in his said Right and Title and of all Prerogatives belonging to it Now what is only thus of Right may be both promised and performed to another whilst this other is in Possession though he be not de jure so provided he be so according to the Course of Law or the accustomed Rights of giving and receiving Possession as is apparent in the Case of a Lord of a Manor who is thus in Possession of what is the Right of another who is by Fraud or corrupt Verdict or Judgment outed of his Right for the Homage due of Right to the true owner is here by Law as occasion offers it self to be sworn to the unjust Possessor Nay we read of divers Acts of Parliament continuing the Name and Honour of a King to him who by their own Confession had not the just Title and only proclaiming him who had the right Title Heir apparent to the Crown as in the very Case of * In ipsa autem vigilia capta fuit conclusio differentiae hujusmodi viz. Quod Dux Filii sui Edvardus Comes Marchiae ac Edmundus Comes Rutlandiae qui ambo discretionis annos attigerant jurarent ipsi Regi fidelitatem quodque ipsum recognoscerent eorum Regem quamdiu ageret in humanis id enim Parliamentum ipsum jam decreverat addendo de ipsius Regis consensu quod quamprimum Rex ille in fata discesserit licebit dicto Duci suisque Haeredibus coronam Angliae vendicare possidere Hist Croyl Ed. Oxon. p. 550. Richard Duke of York and Henry the Sixth and in the Case of †Theobaldus Cantuariensis Utrosque demum ad concordiam emollivit in tantum quod Rex Juvenem Ducem in filium susceperit adoptivum juramenti attestatione Regni sui constituit Haeredem Regi tamen honorem debitum fidemque dum viveret Dux ipse promiserat se conservaturum Ibid p. 451. Vide Dunelm continuat p. 282. King Stephen and Henry Duke of Normandy Not to mention the Treaty of Peace made afterwards for the avoiding the shedding of Christian Blood ‖ Daniel 's Hist pag. 91. That Henry the First being invested with the Crown by the Act of the Kingdom should enjoy the same during his Life though the just Title was in Robert. This Assertion n. 17. Obj. 3. That actual Possession makes a Sovereign Lord the King for the time being destroys all Hereditary Successions in which the Heir is the power in being without farther Act done by him or passed by the People or others and without actual Possession Since it is certain that no person can now claim by a Paternal Authority uninterrupted from the beginning Answ 't is certain that all Kingdoms are now Hereditary by virtue of their own Consent and Compact or by their own Establishment that the Crown shall be continued in such a Line it therefore is Hereditary because they have consented and agreed it should be so If then all Parties concerned have consented also to a Law that a King in quiet Possession of this Government shall be looked upon for th etime being as the Heir that is shall be to all intents and purposes as much our Sovereign Lord the King as if he were so Cook 's Instit par 3. c. 1. p. 7. This Law can bear no Contradiction to such an Hereditary Succession but only be a wise Provision that in the interruptions of the Regular Succession Justice should never fail there being by the Law always a King in whose name the Laws are to be maintained and executed and therefore they who have the least acquaintance with our History must know that tho' our Kings de facto were more numerous before the Union of the two Houses than those de jure yet are they equally placed in the Catalogue of the Hereditary Kings of England and Allegiance was sworn to them by their subjects without any Scruple as well as to the Kings de jure 2dly That the Heir is of Right the Power without farther Act done by him than claiming of the Crown may be granted but that he is actually the Power in Being whilst he is uncapable by being out of Possession to exercise any Act belonging to the Supreme Power is denied For we find throughout the whole History of the Kings of England Vide Knighton Chron. l. 2 c. 5 8. That they who had the Right by Proximity of Blood but wanted Possession See the whole Pedegree of them in Bagot's Case 9 Ed. 4. Term. Trin. were never owned as Kings and Queens of England as is visible in the Case of Robert the Eldest Son of the Conqueror of Maud the Empress of Germany Prince Arthur and Elenor his Sister and of all the Issue of Lionel Duke of Clarence who by the Judgment of the High Court of Parliament in the Eighth of Richard the Second were declared Heirs Apparent to the Crown in case King Richard should die without Issue as he did On the other hand they who were Kings de facto and not of Right as unquestionably were King Stephen and King John Ed 4. 1º c. 1. and as Henry IV V and VI. by Act of Parliament were declared to be were always reckoned as true Kings of England and Allegiance was sworn and paid to them as such An Inferior Magistrate is not to be obeyed or owned as our Superior in opposition to a Superior Magistrate's Command n. 18. Obj. 4. because in such things he hath no lawful Call Warrant or Commission and for the same
in the word Concessimus for the honour of the King yet were they saith Sir Edward Coke the Common Laws and Rights of the People before 3dly It plainly is asserted That the whole Realm is subject to these Laws and to be Governed by them and no otherwise And agreeable to this Statute is that excellent Resolution of King James when his Subjects desired to know of him Whether he would Rule according to the Ancient form of this State and the Laws of this Kingdom or if he had an intention not to limit himself within these bounds but to alter the same when He thought convenient by the absolute Power of a King. Fourth Speech at White-hall A. 1609. p. 530 531. He Answers That the King was Lex loquens after a sort binding himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom tacitly as by being a King and so bound to protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation So as every just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereunto And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as He leaves off to Rule according to his Laws therefore all Kings that are not Tyrants or perjured will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their Laws and they that perswade them to the contrary are Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth CONSIDERATIONS Humbly offered for Taking the Dath of Allegiance TO King WILLIAM and Queen MARY SECT I. BEFORE I produce the particular Arguments which may be urged for taking of this Oath it may be useful to lay down some general Considerations relating to this matter viz. 1st That through the whole Series of our Kings it hath often happened that Ground sufficient hath been given to question the Right of their Succession and in the Cases of Edward the Second and Richard the Second the lawfulness of their Deposition and yet no scruple ever hath been made till now of taking an Oath of Allegiance to the King who had Possession of the Government That ever the Bishop of Carlisle refused the Oath of Allegiance I do not remember 2dly That all the Interests of the Protestant Religion plead for the taking of the Oath if lawfully it can be done it being reasonable to conceive that from the present King we may expect the Preservation of that Religion and the Defence of it to the utmost of his Power not only here but in the Neighbouring Nations against the Malice of the French King against it He being chosen the Head of the Protestant League for that effect whereas we cannot reasonably expect King James should by French Interests return to sway the Scepter without the outmost hazard of the Interest of Protestants in this and all the Neighbouring Nations 3dly If we comply with those who take this Oath we shall prevent that Division of the Church of England which may if it be not prevented give great Advantage to her Enemies we shall strengthen the Hands of King William and of the Kingdom against the Adversaries of Church and State we shall contribute to the Peace of the Nation which all good Men are bound to pray for and seek by all means lawful If we refuse compliance we shall accidentally at least give Advantage to Dissenters who generally comply against the Church we by our Example shall cause others to refuse compliance and so shall strengthen the Hands of the Papal Party and Minister to those Divisions which may cause our Ruine 4thly By refusing to take this Oath we shall deprive our selves of our Subsistence and of the ordinary means of providing for our Family which without absolute necessity we cannot do 1 Tim. v. 8. for saith the Apostle If any provide not for his own and especially for those of his own house he hath denied the faith and is worse than an Infidel We shall deprive our selves of the capacity of exercising our ministerial Function which without like necessity we cannot justifie 5thly We seem not well able to Answer the Question What it is we would have or what we would be at for if we be asked whether we would have King James return a Conqueror or whether we would have him put in statu quo we must in Conscience Answer No unless we would have Popery and Slavery entailed upon us And that he should return any otherwise as matters now stand is next to impossible Since then we cannot be willing that we should be reduced to a capacity of yielding him ctual Allegiance upon those sad terms we seem upon the matter to have renounced the Allegiance we swore to him which was 1st That we were then willing and inclined to yield him true Allegiance and 2dly That we hereafter would act suitably to that Inclination 6thly We all conceive it reasonable that we should live peaceably and quietly under the Government of King William that we should never be active to introduce King James or to disturb the Possession of King William and that whilst we enjoy his Protection we should pay him the Taxes imposed on us Now this is all that many of those who write for taking of the Oath and many of those who take it for taking of the oath and many of those who take it think is meant by swearing Faith and true Allegiance to King William and therefore according to the ordinary Sence imposed upon the Oath by many Wise Judicious Persons we our selves think it reasonable to take it and surely then there concerns of the Protestant Religion at Home and Abroad our love to the Church of England to the Peace of the Nation to our selves to those Souls to whom we minister must weigh much with us to engage us to do that which in the ordinary import put upon the words by many Wise and Judicious Persons we own we cannot rationally refuse to do SECT II. HAving premised these general Considerations I now proceed to those Arguments which seem to prove it lawful in our Circumstances to take the Oath imposed by the said Act. And First This seems to be self-evident That a legal Oath n. 1. or an Oath imposed by Law ought to be understood in a sence reconcilable to the Law and consequently no Man by virtue of a legal Oath can be obliged first to transgress the Laws and then to suffer for so doing It is also evident from the nature of the thing Cowel verbo ligeance and the determination of our ablest Lawyers that Ligeance or Allegiance is such a kind of duty as no Man may owe to more than one Lord. It is that duty which no man owes or by the Law should pay but to his Sovereign who in one Imperial Kingdom can be but one and it is agreeable unto our Saviour's
against the using of those terms Our most Gracious Sovereign our Sovereign Lord and Lady King William and Queen Mary they being only the terms which our Law gives to every one that is in Possession of the Government yea say our great Lawyers terms which belong to the King in Possession alone though he be King de facto and not de jure 2ly If Treason committed against a King in Possession though de facto only by any of his native Subjects be an offence against his natural Allegiance due to him and against that duty of Faith and Allegiance which he naturally and of right ought to yield to him then is Faith and Allegiance both his Right to challenge and our Duty to yield to him and then he by requiring us to swear it requires us only to give him his Right and we by so doing shall only engage our selves to the performance of our Duty If it be his Right because he is a King Regnant in Possession then it is his Right no longer than he is in Possession and then the Oath can require it no longer then he is in Possession and then we have no just Ground to fear that the Oath of Allegiance to King James doth bind us now he is not in Possession or that the Oaths we take unto King William and Queen Mary can bind us any longer than they are in Possession this Oath can therefore do no real Injury to King James for if he be not in Possession he hath not by these Expositions of Seignior le Roy a Right to actual Allegiance If he become again the King Regnant in Possession the duty of bearing Faith and Allegiance to him immediately returns without taking any new Oath Again if the King that hath Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act and therefore cannot be the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Statute and therefore not the King against whom Treason may be committed against this Act then can I not offend against my natural Allegiance or against any Duty of Faith and Allegiance which of right I ought to yield to him and then I do not so offend by taking of the Oath of Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary and therefore I may take that Oath notwithstanding my former Promise upon Oath to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King James because by doing so I offend not against any Faith and Allegiance due to him Moreover if the King in Possession be the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Act it must be Treason against him to compass or imagine his Death or to prepare by any Over-Act to depose him This being saith the Lord Coke Ibid. p. 12. a sufficient Over-Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the Death of the King for this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to dispose of his Kingly Office of Royal Government Then must it be High Treason against Him to Levy War against him in this Realm to be adherent to his Enemies within this Realm giving to them aid and comfort in this Realm or elsewhere for all these things are by that Act made Treason against the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Statute This Statute therefore as it is expounded by the Lord Chief Justices Coke and Hales must oblige the Subjects of King William and Queen Mary not to assist King James against them that being Treason against the 25th of Edward the Third which they cannot be obliged to commit If King James should he come again to the Possession of the Crown might punish me for any of these treasonable Acts committed against King William and Queen Mary but could not punish me by the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh for any Duty of Allegiance or faithful Service paid to them as my Sovereign Lord and Lady then sure Allegiance and Faith will be due to them whilst in Possession and to them only for were it due to King James I might be punished for not performing it to him If lastly no Pardon now given by King James can save me from the guilt of Treason against King William and Queen Mary and that guilt only be contracted by offending against that Duty of Faith and Allegiance which of right I owe to them sure I cannot offend by want of Faith and Allegiance against him who cannot pardon me but against them only against whom I commit that Treason and therefore unto them alone Faith and Allegiance must of Right be due and so to them by Oath and Promise may be given As an Addition to n. 4. or a Consideration strengthening the former Argument let it be observed 1. Sand. de juram prael 7. §. 7. That it is agreed on all hands that a promisory Oath ceaseth to bind when the matter of the Oath ceaseth Thus if a Man swears to appear at such an Assizes if there be no Assizes kept there he cannot be bound to appear because impossibilium nulla est obligatio there is no obligation to impossibilities and of the matrimonal Vow St. Paul declareth That the Woman is bound by the Law whilst her Husband lives 1 Cor. vii 39. but if her Husband die she is at liberty to be married to whom she will because then the matter or objectof her Vow is removed Others deliver the Rule thus Ames Quum aufertur Ratio formalis juramenti juramentum cossat When the formal Reason of an Oath ceaseth the Obligation of the Oath must cease Thus if a Man swears Residence on a Living his Oath only binds him whilst he is Incumbent because he only took and only was obliged to take it for that very reason because he was Incumbent Now the formal Reason of the Fidelity and Allegiance promised to King James was this That he was our Sovereign Lord King James saith the Oath of Allegiance the Supreme Governour of this Realm saith that of Supremacy and therefore when he ceaseth in the sence and meaning of the Law to be our Sovereign Lord and the Supreme Governour of this Realm my Oath to yield Faith and Allegiance to him must cease to be obliging to me If when another is King Regnant in possession he is legally dead for that time his politick capacity being then separated from the natural Person of the King then must the Subjects of England be free from their Allegiance to him for that time for though Ligeance is due as was resolved in Calvin's Case Cook 's Reports p. 438. to the natural Person of the King and not to the politick Capacity only yet is it only due to the natural Person of the King when it is accompanied with his politick Capacity for otherwise he could not possibly divest himself of it by any the most formal or voluntary resignation of the Government whatsoever nor by any other Act whatsoever viz. the entrance into a Monastery out of his Dominions and the
reason a King de facto is not to be owned or obeyed as our Superior in opposition to a King de jure because he cannot be supposed to have a lawful Call or Warrant to Exercise the Kingly Government If an Inferior Magistrate hath a Law to warrant his Commands Answ he is to obeyed even against the verbal commands of his Superior without law Now a King de facto in quiet Possession hath a Law to warrant his Acting as our Sovereign Lord the King and requiring our Faith and true Allegiance ot him for the time being he therefore is to be owned and obeyed as having a legal Call to the Government for the time being Secondly To give a satisfactory Answer to this and many Objections of the like nature it will be proper to consider what a Call or a Commission to be the Governor of any Nation doth import and for the Resolution of this Enquiry let it be noted 1. That God doth not now as in the Case of Saul and David by himself appoint and nominate the Person who shall sway the Sceptre in any Nation of the World. We see by plain Experience God doth not interpose in this extraordinary manner in the Election or Constitution of Superiors The Roman Emperors had no such Appointment but were Elected by the roman Armies or chosen and confirmed by the Senate whence it must follow That an immediate Appointment or Designation of the Person by God cannot be necessary to render any Prince God's Ordinance 2. By virtue of God's general Appointment or Ordinance that all Nations shall have some Government placed over them no Individual Person can claim a Right to be the Higher Power in any Nation moe than Others nor are the People tied to yield Subjection by it to this Man rather than to that As then the former Designation was more so this is less than reasonably can be required to make a Man the Individual Person who is God's Civil Ordinance in reference to such a Nation 3. It cannot be said of any Person or Family at present in the World That he or it claimeth or holdeth the Throne in any Nation by a Right of Fatherhood or Primogeniture derived from Adam I know no Prince on Earth who thus pretendeth to derive his Pedigree and am perswaded that if any hath the Vanity to make such an Extravagant pretence he cannot thus make out his Title It remains therefore 4. That Government be conveyed to this or that Individual Person or Family by Compact or Consent and Choice of the Persons governed that such a Person or Family shall Exercise the Government over such a Nation it therefore must be that Choice Consent or Contract of the Persons to be governed which renders any person the Ordinance of God to such a Nation that is it must be granted that all the present Governors of any Nation become God's Ordinance to them by the Consent of the Community Where therefore any person is invested with the Supemacy by them to whom God hath committed the Choice of a Superior or by their consent to have such Persons for their Superiors there is the Ordinance of God. And if they do admit that person to the Government who by Constitutions and antecedent Compacts hath a right to be so he is to them the Ordinance of God de jure If in this Choice they deviate substantially from these Constitutions he only is the Ordinance of God de facto but yet he truly is the Ordinance of God because he is so by the only means which God hath left for the Investing any Individual Person with that Office. Hence do we find throughout the History of our Kings that the Election of or else a Compact with the People hath generally been looked upon as a thing proper either to satisfie the People or to strengthen their Title to the Crown thus v. g. Of the Conqueror Dunelm p. 195. Hoved. par 1. p. 258. Simeon Dunelmensis and Hoveden inform us That Foedus pepigit he made a Covenant with his People and at his Coronation took an Oath to defend the Holy Church f God and the Rectors of the same to govern the Vniversal People Subject to him justly to establish equal Laws and see them duly executed Daniel p. 36. William the Second held the Possession of the Crown of England by the Will of the Kingdom Ibid. p. 52. the Succession in Right of Primogeniture being none of his * Dan. p. 61. Rich. Hugust p. 310. Henry the First was invested in the Crown by the Act of the Kingdom concilio Communi Baronum Regni Angliae saith the King. King Stephen declares himself to be chosen King †Assensu populi Cleri in Regem electum Malmesb. Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 101. b. Rich. Hugust p. 314. by the consent of the People and the clergy as he had good reason to do having no title at all saith Daniel but as one of the Blood by meer Election advanced to the Crown p. 69. King John received the Crown by way of Election as being chosen by the States saith Daniel The Succession of Edward the Second saith 1 Pag. 127. Non tam jure haereditario quam unanimi assensu procerum Magnatum Ed. Franc. 1602. P 95. Walsingham was not so much by Right of Inheritance as by the unanimous Assent of the peers and Great Men. Edward the Third was Elected 2 Dan. p. 217. Cui electioni consensit populus universus id p. 126. with the Vniversal consent of the People upon his Fathers Resignation Edward the Fourth on his entrance on the Government makes a solemn declaration 3 TRussel p. 179. of his Right to the Crown of England challenging it to belong to him by a double Right The first as Son and Heir to Richard Duke of York the Rightful Heir of the same The second as Elected by Authority of Parliament upon King Henry 's forfeit thereof And Henry the Seventh to all his other Titles by 4 Lord Bac. Hist of H. 7. p. 12. Marriage Conquest and from the House of Lancaster adds that of the Authority of Parliament This Principle makes Authority and Supreme Power inseparable from Actual Regency n. 19. Obj. 5. or Command investing him with the Supreme Power who hath it for the time being and making him incapable of being the Higher Power who is out of Possession whilst he so continues which seems clear contrary to the decision of the Holy Scriptures for though all Israel chose Absalom to be their King 2 Sam. xix 10. and anointed him over them though he had for the time the Kingdom in possession and David fled out of the Land leaving no Governor behind him yet the Power was in David he was even then the Supreme Governor and Higher Power to whom Subjection was due 2 Sam. xx 2. 2 Chr. xxij 12. So he was also when all Israel followed Sheba And though Athaliah possessed the
saith That no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance So can they from our Doctrine have no advantage so to do Lastly Our Principles do not concern themselves either with the supposed Title of the Prince of Wales or the supposed defect of Title in King William for do but grant what is plain matter of Fact that neither King James nor the Prince of Wales are in Possession of the Crown of England and that King William and Queen Mary are in Possession of it by the consent and approbation of the Parliament and Faith and true Allegiance for the time being must by our Principles be due unto the latter whatsoever Right or Title may being unto the former FINIS ERRATA PAge 18. line 16. for displeased read displaced p. 31. l. 32. dele of p. 46. l. 5. add resist Books lately Printed for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan at Amen-Corner THE Late Lord Russel's Case with Observations upon it Written by the Right Honourable Henry Lord De la Mere. fol. An Historical Account of Making the Penal Laws by the Papists against the Protestants and by the Protestants against the Papists Wherein the true Ground and Reason of Making the Laws is given the Papists most barbarous Usage of the Protestants here in England under a Colour of Law set forth and the Reformation Vindicated from the Imputation of being Cruel and Bloody unjustly cast upon it by those of the Romish Communion By Samuel Blackerby Barrister of Grays-Inn fol. Obedience Due to the Present King notwithstanding our Oaths to the Former Written by a Divine of the Church of England 4º A modest Enquiry Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome and Bishop of that Church wherein I. The Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine and others for the Affirmative are considered II. Some Considerations taken Notice of that render the Negative higstly Probable 4º The Spirit of France and the Politick Maxims of Lewis XIV laid open to the World. 4º Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parliament in Passing Bills Together with several Rules and Customs which by long and constant Practice have obtained the Name of Orders of the House Gathered by Observation and out of the Journal Books from the time of Edward VI. 8º Dr. Burnet's Tracts in Two Volumes Vol. I. Containing 1. His Travels into Switzerland Italy and Germany with an Appendix 2. Animadversions on the Reflections upon the Travels 3. Three Letters of the Quietists Inquisuion and State of Italy Vol. II. 4. His Translations of Lactantius of the Death of Persecutors 5. His Answers to Mr. Varillas In Three Parts 12º A Collection of Texts of Scripture with short Notes upon them And some other Observations against the Principal Popish Errors 12º The Fallibility of the Roman Church Demonstrated from the manifest Error of the Second Nicene and Trent Councils which Assert That the Veneration and Honorary Worship of Images is a Tradition Primitive and Apostolical 4º A Demonstration that the Church of Rome and her Councils have Erred by shewing That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ with an Appendix in Answer to the XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented 4º A Treatise of Traditions Part I. Wherein it is proved That we have Evidence sufficient from Tradition 1. That the Scriptures are the Word of God. 2. That the Church of England owns the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament 3. That the Copies of the Scripture have not been corrupted 4. That the Romanists have no such Evidence for their Traditions 5. That the Testimony of the present Church of Rome can be no sure Evidence of Apostolical Tradition 6. What Traditions may securely be relied upon and what not 4º A Treatise of Traditions Part II. Shewing the Novelty of the pretended traditions of the Church of Rome as being 1. Not mentioned by the Ancients of their Discourses of Traditions Apostolical truly so called or so esteemed by them Nor 2. In their Avowed Rule or Symbol of Faith. Nor 3. In the Instructions given to the Clergy concerning all those things they were to teach the People Nor 4. In the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination Nor 5. In the Ancient Treatises designed to instruct Christians in all the Articles of their Faith. 6. From the Confessions of Romish Doctor with an Answer to the Arguments of Mr. Mumford for Traditions and a Demonstration That the Heathens made the same Plea from Tradition as the Romanists do and that the Answer of the Fathers to it doth fully justifie the Protestants 4º All these four Books Written by the Reverend D. Whitby D.D. An Exhortation to Charity and a Word of Comfort to the Irish Protestants Being a Sermon Preached at Steeple in Dorsetshire upon occasion of the Collection for Relief of the Poor Protestants in this Kingdom lately fled from Ireland By Samuel Bold Rector of Steeple 4º THE END