rate his power now encreases but that he may be so he threaten to cut their Banks and let in the Sea to drown them and their Country if they will not yeild it up to him may they not if they find they cannot resist him submit themselves to him and make the best terms they can for themselves and are they not then obliged by the Authors own Principles to continue his Subjects and yet here is no actual War or inundation but threats only to force them to this submission So that the Authors Supposition is false that no case can happen but an actual War only which can reduce a People to such terms of extremity as to compell them to an absolute abnunciation of all Soveraignity and so likewise is this consequence also which he assumes from thence then war which causeth that necessity is the prime means of extorting such Soveraignity and not the free gift of the People who cannot otherwise chuse but give away that Power which they cannot keep for they might either leave their Country or bury themselves in it But it seems the Author had forgot his Logick or else he would have remembred to distinguish between Causa sine qua non and Causa efficiens a cause which does not properly give being to a thing and yet without which it could not have been produced Thus a Slave at Argiers though it is the occasion of his servitude his being taken Prisoner yet the true Cause of his becoming a lawful Servant to his taker does not proceed from his conquering him but from his coming to Terms with him that he shall be dismist of his Fetters or Imprisonment upon Condition he will serve faithfully and not run away and all Moralists consider those actions they call mixt as when a Merchant flings his goods over into the Sea to avoid being cast away among the number of the Voluntary ones though they commenced from some kind of force since in this case the Merchant might if he pleased keep his goods if he would venture his life So in many cases may a Conquered People if they have never neither by themselves or their representatives owned the Conquerer But as much as the Author quarrells at the word usufructuary Right in Grotius as too base to express the Right of Kings and as derogatory to the dignity of Supreme Majesty yet the the French are not so scruplous but in the absolutest Monarchy of Europe plainly declare that their King hath but an usufructuary right to his Kingdom and the Territories belonging thereunto or that he can any way charge them with his debts or alienate or dispose of them without the consent of the States of France See Mezeray in the reign of this King 1527. and was so solâ—mnly declared by that great Assemby des notables called by K. Francis the First to give their Judgment of the Articles of Peace lately made with the Emperour Charles V. at Madrid their sense was that Burgundy which by those Articles was to be delivered up was an inseparable Member of the Crown of which he was but the usufructuary and so could not dispose of the one any more than of the other nor was this any new opinion but as old as St. Lewis who being desired by the Emperour Frederic III. to restore the King of England his just Rights To which the said King replyed whose words I will faithfully translate as they are in Matthew Paris p. 765. Anno Dom. 1249. By the holy Cross with which I am signed I would willingly do it if my Counsel i. e. the Estates would permit it because I love the King of England as my Cosen but it were hard at this very instant of my Pilgrimage viz. for the holy land to disturb the whole body of my Kingdom by contradicting the Counsels of my Mother and all my Nobles although the Intercessors are very dear to me neither is this to make a Kingdom all one with a Ferm as the Author words it since in the civil Law it signifies not only one that barely receives the rents or profits but likewise enjoys all other Prerogatives and advantages that may accrew to him as the true owner though he have not power to sell or give it away Nor I suppose will any French or English Subject unless such bigotted ones as the Author acknowledge any Forraign Prince or other Person can obtain an absolute Dominion over them by Conquest I am sure they were not of that opinion between two hundred and three hundred years agoe when the King of England brought a plausible Title into France and had it backt by almost an entire Conquest of the whole Kingdom and a formal setlement and acknowledgment from Charles VI. then King and the greatest part of the Nobility and Clergy of France at Paris and yet after all this the French had so little Conscience as to proclame Charles the Dauphin King of France and to drive the English out of the Country and renounce their allegiance which they had sworn to our Kings Henry V. and VI. and yet the Author will have it to be but a naked presumption in Grotius to suppose The Primary will of the People to have been ever necessary P. 69. to bestow Supreme power in succession But if the Author will not be content that Kings shall have any less than absolute Propriety in the Crown let us see the consequences of this Doctrine For the Crown must be of England in the nature of an absolute Fee Simple and is consequently chargeable by any act or alienable by the Testament of the King in being So that then King John had Power to make this Kingdom feudatary and tributory to the Pope and so the Pope hath still a good Title to it And since Religion with these Gentlemen diminishes nothing from the right and absoluteness of Monarchy the same King might have made over his Kingdom to the Emperor of Moroco as the Historians of those times relate he would and so the Sarracen Prince might have entred upon the non-performance of the Conditions and have turned out his Vassal and been King here himself which opinion how contrary it was to the notions which Kings themselves had of the right to dispose of their Kingdoms let any man consult Matthew Paris and he will see there what Phillip Agustus amongst other things tells Wallo the Popes Legate Anno 1216. P. 280. that no King could give away his Kingdom without the consent of his Barons who are obliged to defend it and all the Nobility there present began to cry out at once that they would assert this Priviledge till death That no King or Brince could by his sole Will give away his Kingdom or make it tributary by which the Nobles of the Kingdom might become Slaves Nor did the English Nobility think otherwise since this was one of the causes of their taking Arms against King John Matt. Paris 1245. p. 659. 666. and afterwards in his
or Record the Prince in being hath onely a Right from Possession and can never create himself a Title by the continuation of his own Injustice or command any of his Subjects to fight against this true Heir since they are to obey this Vsurper p. 72. or his Heirs onely in such things as tend to their own preservation and not to the destruction of the true Governour By which Principle the Author at once renders the Titles of all the Crowns in Europe disputable and all Allegiance uncertain and questionable by their Subjects as I shall shew in several instances as I shall prove from Histories of unquestionable credit I shall begin with our own Country England If therefore as the Author will have it p. 69. the Usurper is onely then to be taken for the true Heir when the knowledge of the right Heir is lost by all the Subjects it will follow that all the Kings and Queens that reigned in England until the coming in of K. James were Usurpers for the Right of Succession to the Crown of England could not be obtained by Conquest alone And I suppose this Authour does not allow it to be bequeathable by Will as long as the right Heir was in being and could be known from authentick Histories and Traditions Now the Right of the Crown by Descent belonging after the death of Edward the Confessor to Edgar Atheling his Cousen he dying without Issue the Right fell to Mawd his Sister who married Malcolm III Buchanan de Rebus Scoticus lib. 7. King of Scotland and though her Daughter Mawd was married to Henry the first King of England from whom all our Kings are descended yet the Right was not in her but in Edgar King of Scotland her Brother from whom all the Kings of Scotland to King James were descended It is true the Kings of Scotland were too wise ever to set up this Title because they knew the Norman Race were quietly possessed of the Throne and had been admitted and confirmed for lawful Kings by many great Councils or Assemblies of the Clergy Nobility and People yet did not this absolve the People who might very well retain the traditional knowledge of this right Heir For divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away or barr'd by Prescription So that all Laws which were made to confirm the Crown either to Henry I. or any of his Descendants were absolutely void and unlawful by our Authors principles and so likewise all Wars made against the King of Scotland in person were absolutely sinful and unlawful since according to this Authors principle the command of an Usurper is not to be obeyed in any thing tending to the destruction of the person of the true Governour So by the same Principle all Laws made in France about the Succession of the Crown are absolutely void and it would be a mortal sin in the French Nation to resist any King of England of this Line if he should make War in person upon the French King then in being since according to the ancient Laws of Descent in that Kingdom he is true Heir of the Crown of France Nor can the French here plead ignorance since there is scarce a Peasant there but knows our King stiles himself King of France and quarters the Arms of that Kingdom and so ought to understand the justness of his Title So likewise in Spain Mariana de Rebus Hisp lib. 13 cap. 7. all the Kings of Castile are likewise by this Rule Usurpers since the time of Sancho III who succeeded to the Crown after the death of Alphonso V his Father who had bequeathed it to Alphonso and Ferdinand de la Cerda his Grandsons by Ferdinand his eldest Son who died before him Yet notwithstanding this Testament and their Right as representing their Father the elder Brother Sancho their Uncle was admitted as King by the Estates of Castile and his Descendants hold that Kingdom by no better Right to this day Nor is this a thing stale or forgotten for the Dukes of Medina Coeli on whom by Marriage of the Heiress of the House de la Cerda the right descends do constantly put in their Claim upon the death of every King of Spain and the answer is The place is full Nor can those of this Author's opinion plead possession or the several Laws that have been made to confirm the Crown to the first Usurpers and their Descendants for it will be replied out of this Author p. 70. That the right Heir having the Fatherly Power in him and so having his Authority from God no inferiour Power can make any Law of Prescription against him and Nullum tempus ocurrit Regi And this were to make the Crown elective and disposable according to the Will of the Estates or People I shall now return to the Author's distinction and shew that his distinguishing the Laws or Commands of Usurpers into indifferent or not indifferent signifies nothing for suppose that an Usurper as several have been in England and other Kingdoms either dares not or thinks it not for his interest to alter the form of the Government but is contented for his own safety to govern upon the same Terms his Predecessors did and so will not raise any Money or make new Laws without the consent of the Estates whom he summons for that purpose Now they must either obey his Writs of Summons or they must not if they do not obey them he will perhaps be encouraged to take their Goods by force perhaps by a standing Army which he may have ready in pay and then say it is long of their own stubbornness who would not give it him freely when they might have done it and they shall likewise be without these good Laws the Author supposes he may make but if they meet he will not let them sit unless they first by some Oath or Recognition acknowledge his Title to be good and own him as their lawful Prince Now what shall they do in this case they must either lose their Liberties and alter the form of the Government or acknowledge him to the prejudice of their lawful Prince But if the Laws are once made and they appear evidently for the good of the Commonwealth they then are no longer indifferent since all private Interests are to give place to the publick Good of the Commonwealth since in the instance before given of the Father of a Family 's being driven out of doors by a Robber no doubt but every Member of the Family ought to obey this Rogue in case the house should be on fire or ready to fall and he would take upon him to give orders for the quenching or securing it from falling for they did this not to own his Authority but from the obligation they owe to their Father or Master who would have done the same had he been at home So to obey Laws made by an Usurper that tend to the apparent benefit of the Commonwealth is not
and if that condescent be an act of Grace doth not this condesent to a limitation come from the free determination of the Monarchs will if he either formally or virtually as the Author supposeth desert his absolute or Arbitrary power which he hath by conquest or other right Which last words of Mr. H. though I confess they are ill exprest yet I see no down right contradiction in the sence Mr. H. meant them if any man please to consult him he there says That a Monarch may either be limited by original constitution or an after condescent therefore these words the sole means of Soveraignty is the consent and fundamental contract is not meant of a limited Monarchy any more than of another but of any Soveraignty whatever So likewife though these words a secundary original constitution may seem to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to destroy each other yet as the Author explains himself you will find they do not in sense for he only supposes that a Prince who hath an absolute Arbitrary power either by succession or election finding it not so safe and easie as he conceives it would be for him if he came to new terms with his people would desert some of that despotick power and govern by let rules or Laws which he obliges himself and his Successors by Oath or some other conditions never to make or alter without the consent of his Subjects I see not why this may not in one sense be called a second original constitution for he was at first an absolute King by which was the original constitution and his coming to new Terms with them may be termed in respect of this a secundary original constitution or agreement of the government though founded upon the former old right which the Monarch had to govern as for a King by Conquest it cannot indeed in respect of him be properly called a secundary constitution since the Conquerour had no right to clame an absolute subjection from the Subjects until they submitted to him so as that they might not drive him out again if they were able until he came to some Terms with them Thus I think no sober man but will maintain that the people of England might lawfully have driven out William I. called the Conquerour supposing he had claimed by no other title but Conquest alone which when he had sworn to observe and maintain all the Laws and liberties of the people of England and had been thereupon Crown'd and received as King and had quitted his pretensions by Conquest or force and had taken the Oaths and homage of the Clergy Nobility and People they could not then without Rebellion endeavour to do And certainly had he not thought his title by Conquest not so good as the other of King Edward's Testament he would never have quitted the former and sworn to observe the Laws of his Predecessor so likewise Henry I. Mat. Paris from whom all the Kings and Queens of England have since claim'd upon his Election and Coronation for other title he had none granted a Charter whereby he renounced divers illegal practices which Flatterers may call Prerogatives which his Father and brother had exercised contrary to King Edward's Laws and their own Coronation Oaths so that here is an Example of one of the Authors absolute Monarchs who by a right of Conquest might pretend to the exercise of an arbitrary power yet renounced it and only retained so much as might serve for the well governing of his Subjects and his own security It is not therefore true which this Author affirms that this accepted of so much power as the people pleased to give him since they neither desired nor did he grant them any more but those just rights they had long before enjoyed under their former Kings before his Father's coming into England However I conceive this wise Prince was of the opinion of Theopompus King of Lacedemon Plut. in Lycurgo who when his wife upbraided him that he would leave the royal dignity to his Sons less than he found it no rather replyed he greater as more durable and therefore Plutarch in the same place ascribes the long continuance of the Lacedemonian Kingdom to the limited power of their Kings in these words ' and indeed when Envy is removed from Kings together with excess of power it followed that they had no cause to fear that which happened to the Kings of the Massenians and Argives from their Subjects But because this Author tells Mr. H. that if we should ask what proofs or examples he hath to justify his Doctrine of a limited Monarchy in the Constitution he would be as mute as a fish we will shew two or three examples of the antiquity of such limited Monarchies though they were not of the same model with those that are at this day found among the Germanes and other northern Nations descended from thence In Macedon the Kings descended of Caranus as Callisthenes says in Arrian did obtain an Empire over the Macedonians not by force but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Law So Curtius Lib. IV. The Macedonians were used to Kingly Government but in a greater appearance of liberty than other Nations For it is certain the lives of their Subjects were not at their disposal as appears from the same Author Lib. VI. The Army by an antient custom of the Macedonians did judg of Capital causes i. e. in time of War but in peace it belonged to the People the power of their Kings signified litle unless his Authority was before of some force And this was by original constitution for we do not find that ever the Kings of Macedon altered any thing in their original constitution yet they had the Soveraignty in most things and their persons were sacred So likewise among the antient Romans where Romulus from a Captain of Volunteers became a King Dyonisius Halicar Lib. II. Tells us that after Romulus had made a speech to his Souldiers and followers to this effect that he left it to them to consider what Government they would chuse for whatsoever they pitcht upon he should submit to it and though he did think himself unworthy the Principality yet he should not refuse to obey their Commands concluding that he thought it an Honour for him to have been declared the Leader of so great a Colony and to have a City called by his name Whereupon the people after some deliberation among themselves chose him their King or limited Monarch since both the Senate and people had from the very beginning their particular shares in the Government the Senates making this great Counsel which yet were for the greater part of them chosen out of the Patricians by the Tribes Dyon Hal. Lib. 11. and Curiae with these he consulted and referred all business of lesser moment which he did not care to dispatch himself for be reserved to himself the last Appeal in causes and to be Pontifex Maximus or Cheif Priest and Preserver
of the Laws and Customs of their Country as also to be cheif General in War but to the people were reserved these three Priviledges to create Magistrates to ordain Laws and to decree Peace and War the King referring it to them So that the Authority of the Senate did joyn in these things though this custom was changed for now the Senate does not confirm the decrees of the people but the people those of the Senate But he added both dignity and power to the Senate that they should judg those things which the King referred to them by Major part of the votes And this he borrowed from the Lacedemonian Commonwealth for the Lacedemonian Kings were not at their own liberty to do whatever they pleased but the Senate had power in matter appertaining to the Common-wealth But because these examples may seem too stale or remote Let us now consider all the Kingdoms that have been erected upon the ruins of the Roman Empire by those Northern Nations that over-ran it and see if there were so much as one Kingdom among them that was not limited As for the Kingdoms of the Goths and Vandals erected in Italy Africk and Spain the Author confesses they were limited or rather mixt since their Kings were deposed by the people whenever they displeased them So likewise for the Successors of those Gothick Princes in Castile Portugal Arragon and Navarre and the other Kingdoms of Spain He that will read the histories of those Kingdoms will find them to have been all limited or rather mixt and to have had Assemblies of the Estates Mariana Lib. XVIII without whose consent those Kings could antiently neither make Laws nor raise mony upon their Subjects and as for Arragon in particular they had a Popular Magistrate called the cheif Justiciary who did in all cases oppose and cancel the Orders and Judgments of the King himself where they exceeded the just bounds of his power and were contrary to the Laws though indeed now since the times of Ferdinand and Isabella the Kings relying upon their own power by reason of the Gold and Silver they received from the Judges and the great addition of Territories have presumed to infringe many of their Just rights and Priviledges And as for the Kingdoms erected by Francks in Germany and Gaule which we now call German Empire and Kingdom of France As for the former any one that willread the ancient French and German Historians will find that the Kings of Germany could not do any thing of Moment not so much as declare a Successor without the consent of their Great Counsell of Nobility and Clergy and as to the latter as absolute as it seems at present it was a few ages past almost as much limited if not more than its Neighbours For the Kings of France could not anciently make Laws raise any publick War wherein the Nobility and people were bound to assist him or Levy Taxes upon their Subjects without the consent of the Estates but those Assemblies being at first discontinued by reason of the continual wars which Henry V. and Henry the VI. Kings of England made upon them Phil. Com. Livre VI. Cap. 7. to which Mezeray in his History tells us France ows the loss of its Liberties and the change of its laws In whose time they gave their King Charles VII a power to raise mony without them which trick when once found out appeared so sweet to his Successors that they would never fully part with it again and Lewis the XI by weakening his Nobility and People by constant Taxations and maintaining Factions among them bragged that he had metre les Roys du France Com. Liv. V. Chap. XVIII brought the Kings of France hors du Page or out of worship Whereas the Author last mentioned remarks that he might have said with more truth les mettredu sense hors et de la raison and yet we find in the beginning of the Reign of Charles VIII the Assembly of the Estates gave that King the sum of two Millions and an half of Francks and promised him after two years they would supply him again It seems Comines in the same place did not look upon this as a thing quite gone and out of Fashion since he then esteemed this as the only just and Legal way of raising mony in that Kingdom as appears by these words immediately after Is it toward such Objects as these meaning the Nobility and People that the King is to insist upon his Prerogative and take at his pleasure what they are ready to give would it not be more just both towards God and the World to raise mony this way than by Violence and Force nor is there any Prince who can raise mony any other way unless by Violence and Force and contrary to the Laws So likewise in the same Chapter speaking of those who were against the Assembly of the Estates at that time that there were some but those neither considerable for quality or vertue who said that it was a diminution to the Kings Authority to talk of assembling the Estates and no less than Treason against him But it is they themselves who commit that crime against God the King and their Country and those who use these expressions are such as are in Authority without desert unfit for any thing but flattery whispering trifles and stories into the ears of their Masters which makes them apprehensive of these Assemblies lest they should take cognizance of them and their manners But I suppose it was for such honest expressions as these that Katherine de Midices Queen of France said that Comines had made as many Hereticks in Politicks as Calvin had done in Religion that is because he open'd Mens Eyes and made them understand a little of that they call King-craft But however in some Provinces of France as in Languedoc and Provence though the King is never denyed whatever he please to demand yet they still retain so much of the shadow of their antient Liberties as not to be taxed without the consent of the. Assembly of Estates consisting of the Nobility Clergy and Burgesses of great Towns and Cities which however is some ease to them not to have their mony taken by Edict So Hungary which was erected by the Huns a stirp of the European Scythians by which you may judge the antient form of Government was much the same as that of the Germanes All Histories grant that Kingdom to have been limited and to be of the same form with that of the other Northern Nations nay which is more to have had a Palatine who could hinder the King from ordaining any thing contrary to the Laws and as for Poland the Author cannot deny but it is limited in many things but as he only takes notice of those things in which the King hath power so he omits most of those in which he hath none as in raising of mony or making laws without the consent of the Diet. So
Right ceased before that of the Legatees could begin So that it seems to me at present that the power of bequeathing either the persons of men or goods was but a consequence of an absolute Propriety in things which arises from Compact in a Common-wealth as I shall hereafter prove Therefore out of this State a Will cannot bind the persons of the Children or Servants so bequeathed And for this cause we find Abraham Gen. 24. v. 2 3. binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land And Gen. 49. v. 29. Jacob taking an Oath of Joseph not to bury him in Egypt because they doubted whether they could oblige them to do it by their Testament But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament as I will not deny but that some Kingdoms may have been so bequeathable by their Constitution and others become so by Custom yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Law of God or Nature but proceeds purely from a continued Custom of the Kingdom or Civil Law thereof else why had not Henry VIII or Edward VI power to limit or bequeath the Crown to whom they pleased as well as William the Conquerour And to look into other Countries what now renders Women uncapable of succeeding to the Crown of France yet capable of inheriting that of England Spain and divers other Kingdoms of Europe but the Customs or particular Constitutions of the Estates of these Kingdoms which no Will or Testament can alter What else hinders the Grand Seignior that he cannot disinherit his eldest Son if he survive him Vid. Mezeray Abregé Chron. An. 1317. Phil. le Long. but the Custom of the Ottoman Empire And what is this Custom but as the Author himself acknowledges in the case of England the Commom Law of the Country Freeholders Inquest p. 62. which is said to be Common Custom Thus to protect the Customs which the Vulgar shall chuse is to protect the Common Laws of England So that it was the Will of the People and not the Prince alone that made this a Law for if this Law of the Succession of the Crown depended upon his Will then if he be an absolute Monarch that when sufficiently declared being the onely Law might alter it when he would 〈◊〉 and so he might bequeath the Crown to whom he pleased But every one that understands the present Laws of Descent of the Crown of France or the manner of Succession in the Ottoman Empire knows that i◠the King of France or Grand Seignior as absolute as they are should bequeath their Kingdoms to any other than the right Heir this Will would signifie nothing and no body would obey this Successor of their appointing And if any man think to evade this by saying That the Succession of the Crown is a Fundamental Law of the Government and that a Prince may be Absolute and yet not have a power to alter that as he may every thing else I would ask him who made this a Fundamental Law at first whether the King then in being or the King with the Consent of the People upon the first institution of the Government If the King made it alone since he is supposed to have made it at first for the good of the People of which he is the Judge and is supposed in Law never to die why then is not he as competent a Judge of what is good for the People now as a King that lived a thousand years agone was what was fit for the People then and consequently hath as much Right of altering the Succession for the Peoples benefit as he that established it at first since every Law may be altered by the same Power that made it But if he say it is a Fundamental Law because long custom hath made it so then it is apparent such a Law hath its force from the Consent of the People at first or since Custom being nothing else Or lastly if he will acknowledge that the Consent of the People was necessary to make this a Fundamental Constitution then it can neither be altered without their Consent and so consequently no Princes Testament is good as to that farther than the People or their Representatives give their assent thereunto And the same Law holds in the Father of a Family since this Author will have no difference between him and a King but onely secundum Magis Minus If then there be no Right in the state of Nature for a Father to bequeath his Dominion over his Children by his Testament let us return again to that of Descent and see if that will prove a better foundation to build this natural Right of Princes upon For my part I think that it is not onely impossible to know who was Adam's right Heir of his Fatherly Power now after five or six thousand years but might likewise be as uncertain as soon as ever the breath was out of his body For supposing Eve survived him why should not her natural Right of governing the Children which she her self brought forth and which out of Wedlock would have belonged to her revive and take place before any Right of her eldest Son to whom upon this ground she must have become subject if she would continue part of the Family or natural Commonwealth which she could not avoid there being none but her Children or Grandchildren in the world and it being against the nature of Government to allow two Absolute Heads in the same Family or Commonwealth So that for ought I see the Mother of the Family hath the best Right to the Government in the state of Nature after the Husbands death upon the Authors own grounds For if the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother signifie more than bare Reverence and Respect as appears by the Apostles Exposition of this Commandment Ephes 6. v. 1. Children obey your Parents in the Lord which he makes the same with Honour thy Father and thy Mother then this Obedience which was due to the Father belongs likewise to her when his power ceases But passing over this difficulty and allowing this Fatherly Authority to descend to Adam's next Heir it might have been a great Question who this next Heir was supposing Cain to have been disinherited for the murder of Abel and to have gone away and built a City and set up a Government by himself Yet let us suppose Abel left a Son behind him who survived Adam his Grandfather which he might very well do and yet the Scripture be silent in it since the intent of Moses in his Genealogies being onely to give us the Pedigree of the Jews and therefore says little of his other Children but by the by I would ask the Author or any man else who was Adam's Heir after his death whether this Son of Abel or Seth whom we will suppose likewise to
Sons reign we find the Procurators of the Nobility and People of England declare in the Council of Lyons quod universitas Regni nunquam i.e. Patres nobilium vel ipsi never consented or would ever consent to the tribute unjustly extorted by the Court of Rome At which protestation his Holyness was so confounded that our Author tells us he never lift up his Eyes or had a word to reply And every Monarch hath as absolute a Propriety in his Kingdom as Noah had in the World as our Author supposes I know no reason why the King may not bequeath his Crown to which of his Sons he pleases no matter whether lawfully begot or not since Princes are above all Terms or positive Laws or he may divide it among them as Noah did the World to his three Sons So that upon these grounds the Testament of Henry VIII whereby he disinherited the Line of Scotland and that of Edward VI. whereby he excluded his Sisters from the Crown should have been valid but the Loyal Subjects of England beleived that neither of those Kings could disinherit the right Heir of the Crown by their Testaments alone but acknowledge them in the persons of Queen Mary and King James notwithstanding those pretended Wills I have been the larger upon this Subject that men that do not much consider nor are versed in these matters may see the absurd wicked consequences of this notion of an absolute Propriety and Dominion to be inseperable from Monarchy So that I doubt not but even those very men who love a smatch of arbitrary Government because it best suits with their tempers or interests cannot away with it unmixt when it comes to exert all its Prerogatives Thus some men think Musk and Ambergreece mixt whith other Ingredients makes an agreeable Perfume which if held to their noses in the Cod or whole Lump they are so far from thinking a good smell that they loath it I shall not affirm with Grotius That the Empire which is exercised by Kings doth not cease to be the Empire of the People For I suppose the People have passed over all their present interest in it to the Prince and his heirs and as long as that line lasts they have nothing to do with it and consequently cannot set up another Family over them and so on the other side the King hath no such absolute Property as that he can alter the succession otherwise than the fundamental laws of the Monarchy did first appoint which were made by consent of all the Estates and without which they cannot be altered nor is there any fear of a contradiction as the Author supposes That the Succession must either hinder the right of Alienation which is in the People or the alienation must destroy the right of succession which must attend upon elected Kings For we own no right of alienation in the People as long as there is a lawful Heir remaining and succeeding in his right to whom the Crown was first legally setled nor yet does therefore the succession diminish the right which the People had at first but that it may arise and take place again if the King should die without known heirs Having done with his observations upon Grotius Chap. VI. I am now come to his Anarchy of a limited or mixt Monarchy in which though I shall not undertake to maintain all which our Author if whom he writes against hath laid down in this treatise since many things in that it treats were written according to Irene's notions during the late Warrs yet I hope I may be able to shew that this Doctrine of a limited Monarchy is not but of Yesterâ—lay as our Author will have it But that all the learned men in the laws and constitutions of these Northern Kingdoms have held it to be no such damnable Doctrine but that the contrary would introduce â—ll Tyranny and Arbitrary Government among them which is at this day practiced in the Eastern parts of the world But it seems the Author allows 260. that there may be a mixt Government but not a mixt Monarchy because the word Monarchy is compounded of two Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one alone and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Govern or Rule and therefore Monarchy being the Government of one man alone cannot admit of any limitation or mixture But what if one should say that all this is nothing but wrangling about words since why may not he be called a Monarch who hath the Supreme though not the only Power in a Common-wealth if the custom of that Country allow it him though his Power be limited or mixt as well as for the Romanes to call their Monarch but Imperator or General or for the Florentines or Russians to call their Monarch great Duke Since it is not the names but the exercise of the power that creates the difference Nor is it any more a Bull or contradiction than to call that which I now write out of an Inkhorn though perhaps it is made either of Glass or Mettal So the first Monarch being absolute the Title of Monarch may now be by eustom well enough applyed to those that are not absolutely so but to pass by such Grammar niceties I shall endeavour to vindicate the writer of this Treatise of Monarchy whom the Author calls Mr. Hunton from giveing an Idea of a Government which is nothing but meer Anarchy and Fiction and that there hath been and yet is such a kind of Government as a limited Kingship which if the Author is so dogged as he will not allow it the name of a Monarchy we cannot help it let his Friends give it a more proper name if they please As for what he will prove out of that Authors words that every Monarch even his limited Monarch must have the Supreme Power of the state in himself so that his Power must no way be limitted by any power above his For then he were no Monarch but a subordinate Magistrate is true yet I do not see that the Author contradicts himself as the observatour will have him when he tells us in the same Page That in a moderate or limited Monarchy the supreme power must be restrained by some law according to which this power was given and by direction of which this power must act So that he will have his Supreme Power not limited and yet restrained Is not a restraint a limitation and if restrained how is it Supreme and if restrained by some law is not the Power of that law and of them that made it above his Supreme Power and if by the direction of such law only he must Govern where is the Legislative Power which is the cheif of supreme Powers when the law must rule and govern the Monarch and not the Monarch the law he hath then at best but a gubernative or executive Power and so proceeds to quote this Authors own words at large if his Authority transcends his bounds and if it command