trusted or at least supposed to be intrusted with sufficient power as well to regulate his authority as to controll his actions If Calvin be allowed to have common sense and to have wit and words enough to expresse his meaning as even his greatest Adversaries do confesse he had it must be granted that he did not take the King of what Realm soever to be any of the three Estates or if he did he would have thought of other means to restrain his insolencies than by leaving him in his own hands to his own correction Either then Calvin is mistaken in the three Estates if he be mistaken in designing the men he aims at may he not be mistaken in the power he gives them or else the King is noâ—e indeed can be none of the three Estates qui primarios conventus peragunt who usually convene in Parliament for those ends and purposes before remembred But not to trust to him alone though questionlesse he be ideoneus testis in the present case Let us behold the Assembly of the three Estates or Conventus Ordinum in France from whence it is conceived that all Assemblies of this kind had their first Original and we shall find a very full description of them in the Assemblie des Estats at Bloys under Henry 3. Anno 1577. of which thus Thuanus f Thuanus in histor sui temp l. 63. Rex insublimi loco sub uranisco sedebat c. The King saith he sate on an high erected Throne under the Canopy of State the Queen-mother and the Queen his wife and all the Cardinals Princes Peers upon either hand And then it followeth Transtris infra dispositis ad dextram suam sacri Ordinis Delegati ad laevam Nobilitas infra plebetus ordo sedebat that on some lower forms there sate the Delegates of the Clergy towards the right hand of the King the Nobility towards the left and the Commissioners for the Commons in the space below We may conjecture at the rest by the view of this Of those in Spain by those Conventions of the States which before we spoke of at Burgos Monson Toledo and in other places in which the King is alwaies mentioned as a different person who called them and dissolved them as he saw occasion For Scotland it is ordinary in the stile of Parliaments to say the King and the Estates do ordain and constitute g Statutes of Scotland for which I do refer you to the Book of Statutes which clearly makes the K. to be a different person from the Estates of that Kingdome And as for England besides what may be gathered from the former Chapter we read in the History of Titus Livius touching the Reign and Acts of K. Henry the 5th that when his Funerals were ended the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble together and declared his Son K. Henry the 6. being an Infant of 8 months old to be their Soveraign Lord h Tit. Liv. M. S. in Bibl. Bodl. as his Heir and Successor And in the Parliament Rolls of K. Richard the 3d. there is mention of a Bill or Parchment presented to that Prince being then Duke of Glocester on the behalf and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England that is to wit of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name which forasmuch as neither the said three Estates nor the persons which delivered it on their behalf were then assembled in form of Parliament was afterwards in the first Parliament of that King by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament I speak the very words of the Act it self and by authority of the same enrolled recorded and approved i Ap Speed in K. Rich. 3â— And at the request and by the assent of the three Estates of this Realm that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Land assembled in this present Parliament and by authority of the same it be pronounced decreed and declared that our said Soveraign Lord the King was and is the very and undoubted heir of this Realm of England c. And so it is acknowledged in a k 1 Eliz. cap. 3. Statute of 1 Eliz. ca. 3. where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled being said expresly and in terminis to represent the three Estates of the Realm of England did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true lawfull and undoubted Soveraign Liege Lady and Queen This makes it evident that the King was not accounted in the times before for one of the three Estates of Parliament nor can be so accounted in the present times For considering that the Lords and Commons do most confessedly make two of the three Estates and that the Clergy in an other Act of Parliament of the said Queens time are confessed to be one of the greatest States of the Realm l Statut. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. which Statute being still in force doth clearly make the Clergy to be the third either there must be more than three Estates in this Kingdome which is against the Doctrine of the present times or else the King is none of the Estates as indeed he is not which was the matter to be proved But I spend too much time in confuting that which hath so little ground to stand on more than the dangerous consequences which are covered under it For if the King be granted once to be no more than one of the three Estates how can it choose but follow from so sad a Principle that he is of no more power and consideration in the time of Parliament than the House of Peers which sometimes hath consisted of three Lords no more or than the House of Commons only which hath many times consisted of no more than 80 or an hundred Gentlemen but of far lesse consideration to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever than both the Houses joyned together What else can follow hereupon but that the King must be co-ordinate with his two Houses of Parliament and if co-ordinate then to be over-ruled by their Joynt concurrence bound to conform unto their Acts and confirm their Ordinances or upon case of inconformity and non-complyance to see them put in execution against his liking and consents to his foul reproach And what at last will be the issue of this dangerous consequence but that the Lords content themselves to come down to the Commons and the King be no otherwise esteemed of than the chief of the Lords the Princeps Senatus if you will or the Duke of Venice at the best no more which if Sir Edward Dering may be credited as I think he may in this particular seems to have been the main design of some of the most popular and powerfull Members then sitting with him for which I do refer the Reader to his book of Speeches Which dangerous consequents whether they were observed at
convocato n Rog. Hov. in Hen 2. the Clergy and people of the Realm were called to Clarendon anno 1163. by King Henry the second for the declaring and confirming of the Subjects liberties that in the year 1185 towards the later end of the said Kings reign Convocatus est Clerus populus cum tota Nobilitate ad fontem Clericorum o Matth. paris in Hen. 2. the Clergy Commons and Nobility were called unto the Parliament held at Clerkenwell and finally that a Parliament was called at London in which the Arch-bishop of Canterbury was present cum toto Clero tota secta Laicali p Quadrilog ap Selden Tit. of Hon. pt 2. c. 5. in the time of King John Hitherto then the Clergy of both ranks and orders as well as Populus or tota secta Laicalis the Subjects of the Laity or the Lords and Commons had their place in Parliament And in possession of this right the Clergy stood when the Magna Charta was set out by King Henry the 3d wherein the freedoms rights and privileges of the Church of England of which this evidently was one was confirmed unto her q Magna Charta cap. 1. of the irrefragable and inviolable authority whereof we have spoke before The Cavill of Excluso Clero which hath been used against the voting of the Bishops in the house of Peers comes in next for proof that the inferiour Clergy had their place or vote with the house of Commons if in those times the Lords and Commons made two houses which I am not sure of the Clergy could not be excluded in an angry fit or out of a particular design to deprive them of the benefit of the Kings protection if they had not formerly a place amongst them if we will not understand by Clerus the inferior Clergy which much about that time as before we shewed began to be the legâ—l English of the word we must needs understand the whole Clergy generally the Clergy of both ranks and orders But our main proofs are yet to come which are these that follow First it is evident that antiently the Clergy of each several Diocese were chargeable by Law for the expences of their Proctors in attending the service of the Parliament according as the Counties were by Common law since confirmed by Statute 23 H. 6. c. 11. to bear the charges of their Knights the Burroughs and Cities of their Representees which questionless the Laws had not taken care for but that the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had And this appears by a Record z Rotul Parent 26 Ed. 3. pt 1. M. 22. of 26 of King Edward the 3d. in which the Abbat of Leieester being then but never formerly commanded to attend in Parliament amongst others of the Regular Prelates petitioned to be discharcharged from that attendance in regard he held in Frank-Almoigne only by no other tenure Which he obtained upon this condition ut semper in Procuratores ad hujusmodi Parliamenta mittendot consentiat ut moris est eorundem expensis contribuat that is to say that he and his Successors did give their voyces in the choyse of such Procuratours as the Clergy were to send to Parliament and did contribute towards their charges as the custom was Next in the Modus tenendi Parliamentum which before we spake of there is amodus convocandi Clerum Angliae ad Parl. Regis r Modus tenendi Parl. Mâ— a form of calling the English Clergy that is the Prelates Clergy as John Selden e renders it to the Court of Parliament said to be used in the time of Edward the Son of Ethelred s V. Titles of hon pt 2. presented to the Conquerour and by him observed which shews the Clergy in those times had their place in Parliament Which being but a general inference shall be delivered more particularly from the Modus it self which informs us thus Rex est caput principum finis Parliamenti c. t Modus tenendi Parl. Ms. c. 12. The King is the head the beginning and end of the Parliament and so he hath not any equal in the first degree the second is of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priors and Abbats holding by Barony the third is of Procurators of the Clergy the fourth of Earls Barons and other Nobles the fifth is of Knights of the Shire the sixt of Citizens and Burgesses and so the whole Parliament is made up of these six degrees But the said Modus tells us more and goeth more particularly to work than so For in the ninth chapter speaking of the course which was observ'd in canvassing hard and difficult matters it telleth us that they used to choose 25 out of all degrees like a grand Committee to whose consideration they referred the point that is to say two Bishops and three Proctors for the Clergy two Earls three Barons five Knights five Citizens and as many Burgesses And in the 12th that on the fourth day of the Parliament the Lord high Steward the Lord Constable and the Lord Marshal were to call the house every degree or rank of men in its several Order and that if any of the Proctors of the Clergy did not make appearance the Bishop of the Diocese was to be fined 100 l. And in the 23d chapter it is said expresly that as the Knights Citizens Burgesses in things which do concern the Commons have more authority than all the Lords so the Proctors for the Clergy in things which do concern the Clergy have more authority than all the Bishops Which Modus if it be as antient as the Norman Conquerour as both Sir Edward Coke conceiveth u Preface to the 9th part of Reports and the title signieth it sheweth the Clergies claim to a place in Parliament to be more antient than the Commons can pretend unto but if no older than the reign of King Edward third as confidently is affirmed in the Titles of Honour x Titles of hon pt 2. c. 5. if sheweth that in the usage of those later times the Procurators of the Clergy had a right and place there as well as Citizens and Burgesses or the Knights of the Shires And this is further proved by the writs of Summons directed to the Arch-bishops and Bishops for their own comming to the Parliament in the end whereof there is a clause for warning the Dean and Chapter of their Cathedralls and the Arch-deacons with the whole Clergy to be present at it that is to say the Deans and Arch-deacons personally the Chapter and Clergy in their Proctours then and there to consent to such Acts and Ordinances as shall be made by the Common counsail of the Kingdom The whole clause word for word is this y Extant ibid. pt 2. c. 5. Praemunientes Priorem Capitulum or Decanum Capitulum as the case might vary Ecclesiae vestrae N. ac Archidiacanos totumque Clerum vestrae Dioceseos
Titles of hon part 2. cap. 5. to give the King their best advice in his great affairs So that the Prelates and Nobility conveened in Parliament made the Kings great Counsel and were called thither to that end What then belonged unto the Commons 1. No more than did belong to the Clergy also that is to say the giving of their consent to such Laws and Statutes as should there be made VVhich notwithstanding in tract of time gave them such a sway and stroak in the course of Parliaments that no law could be made nor no tax imposed without their liking and allowance And this is that which is expressed in the last clause of the said writ by which the Knights and Burgesses are to come prepared g Form a Brevis c. ad faciendum et consentiendum iis quae tune ibidem de consilio dicti Regni nostri super negotiis antedictis contigerint ordinari VVhich is the very same which you had before in the writ directed to the Bishops for summoning the Clergie of their several Diocesses and that here is a faciendum which the other had not A word which if you mark it well hath no operation in the Construction of the text except it be in paying subsidies or doing such things as are appointed to be done by that great Counsel of the Kingdom VVhich clause though it be cunningly left out that I may say no worse in the recital of the writ by the Author of the Book entituled the Prerogative and practice of Parliaments is most ingenuously acknowledged in the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon h Declaration of the treaty P. 15. where it is said that the writs of summons the foundation of all power in Parliament are directed to the Lords in expresse termes to treat and advise with the King and the rest of the Peers of the Kingdom of England and to the Commons to do and consent to those things which by that Common councell of England should be ordained And thus it stands as with the Common people generally in most states of Christendom so with the Commons antiently in most states of Greece of which Plutarch telleth us i Plutarch in Lyeurgo that when the people were assembled in Counsell it was not lawful for any of them to put forth matters to the Counsel to be determined neither might any of them deliver his opinion what he thought of any thing but the people had only authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give their assent unto such things as either the Senators or their Kings do propound unto them 10. But against this it is objected first that it is not to be found at what time the Clergie lost their place and vote in Parliament and therefore it may reasonably be presumed that they had never any there and 2ly that if they had been called ad consentiendum though no more than so we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts Statutes in our printed Books For answer unto which it may first be said that to suppose the Clergie had no voice in Parliament because it is not to be found when they lost that Privilege is such a kind of Argument if it be an argument as is made by Bellarmine k Bellarm. de Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 5. to prove that many of the controverted Tenets of the Church of Rome are neither terroneous nor new because we cannot say expressely quo tempore quo autore when and by whose promoting they first crept in And though we cannot say expressely when the inferiour Clergy lost their place in Parliament in regard it might be lost by discontinuance or non-usage or that the clause was pretermitted for some space of time the better to disuse them from it or that they might neglect the service in regard of their attendance in the Convocation which gave them power and reputation both with the Common people yet I have reason to beleeve that this pretermission and disuse did chiefly happen under the government of the Kings of the house of Lancaster who being the true heirs and successours of Iohn of Gaunt cast many a longing eye on the Church revenues and hardly were perswaded to abstain from that height of sacrilege which Henry the 8 did aftercome to And this I am induced to beleeve the rather in regard that in the confirmation of the Churches rights so solemnly confirmed and ratified in all former Parliaments there was a clog put to or added in these times which shaked the Fabrick the confirmation being first of such rights and liberties as were not repealed 3. Hen. 5. cap. 1. 4 Hen. 5. cap. 1. and afterwards of such as by the Common law were not repealeable 2 Hen. 6. cap. 1. which might go very far indeed And secondly I find that in the 8 of Henry the 6. an Act of Parliament was passed that all the Clergy called to Convocation by the Kings writ and their servants and Family shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and defence in comming tarrying and returning as the great men and Comminalty of the Realm of England called to the Kings Parliament do enjoy l 8 Hen. 6. cap. 1. c. Which being an unnecessary care or caution when the Clergie had their voice in Parliament and very necessary to be taken formerly if they had never had such voice makes me conceive that it was much about this time that they lost that privilege But this I leave as a conjecture and no more than so For answer to the second argument that if they had been called of old ad consentiendum we should have found more frequent mention of their consent unto the Acts and Statutes of the former times besides that it is a negative proof and so non concludent it strikes as much against the presence and consent of the Knights and Burgesses in the elder Parliaments as it can do against the Clergie For in the elder Parliaments under K. Henry 3. and K. Edward the first there is no mention of the Commons made at all either as present or consenting nor much almost in all the Parliaments till K. Henry 7. but that they did petition for redresse of greivances and that upon their special instance and request m In the Proem to the several Sessions several laws were made for the behoof and benefit of the Commonwealth which part the Clergie also acted in some former Parliaments as before was shewed So that this negative Argument must conclude against both or neither But secondly I answer that in these elder times in which the Proctors for the Clergy had their place in Parliament they are included generally in the name of the Commons And this I say on the authority of the old modus tenendi Parliamentum in which the Commons are divided in the Spiritualty and the Temporalty and where it is expressely said that the Proctors for
declared to have been fortified by sundry Laws and Ordinances made in former Parliaments k Ibid. and such as hath been since confirmed by a solemn Oath taken and to be taken by most of the Subjects of this Kingdom Which Oath consisting of two parts the one Declaratory and the other Promissory in the Declaratory part the man thus taketh it doth declare and testifie in his conscience that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Dominions and Countries aswell in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal c. l 1 Eliz. c. 1. And in the Promissooy part they make Oath and swear that to their power they will assist and defend all Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Succcesseors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Put all which hath been said together and it will appear that if to have merum imperium a full and absolute command and all the jura majestatis which belong to Soveraignty if to be so supreme as to hold immediatly of God to have all persons under him none but God above him if to have all authority and jurisdiction to be vested in him and proceeding from him and the material sword at his sole disposal for the correcting of offenders and the well ordering of his people if to have whole and entire power of rendring justice and final determination of all causes to all manner of Subjects us also to interpret and dispence with Laws and all this ratified and confirmed unto him by the solemn Oath of his Subjects in the Court of Parliament be enough to make an absolute Monarch the Kings of England are more absolute Monarchs than either of their Neighbours of France or Spain 8. If any thing may be said to detract from this it is the new devise so much pressed of late of placing the chief Soveraignty or some part thereof in the two Houses of Parliament concerning which Mr. Prynne published a discourse entituled The supreme power of Parliaments and Kingdoms and others in their Pamphlets upon that Argument have made the Parliament so absolute and the King so limited that of the two the Members of the Houses are the greater Monarchs But this is but a new devise not heard of in our former Monuments Records of Law nor proved or to be proved indeed by any other Medium than the Rebellions of Cade Tiler Straw Kett Mackerell and the rest of that rascall rabble m Prynnes book of Parl. c. pâ— 3. or the seditious Parliaments in the time of K. Henry the 3d. King Edward the 2d and King Richard the 2d when civil war and faction carried all before it For neither have the Houses or either of them enjoyed such Soveraignty de facto in times well setled and Parliaments lawfully assembled nor ever could pretend to the same de jure Or if they did as many have been apt enough to raise false pretences it would much trouble them to determine whether this Soveraignty be conferred upon them by the King or the people whether it be in either of the Houses severally or in both united If they can challenge this pretended Soveraignty in neither of these capacities nor by none of these Titles it may be warrantably concluded that there is no such Soveraignty as they do pretend to And first there is no part nor branch of Soveraignty conferred upon them by the King The writs of Summons which the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled at Oxon. 1643. doth most truly call the foundation of all power in Parliament n Declaration of the Treaty p. 15. tell us no such matter The writ directed to the Lords doth enable them only to confer and treat with one another consilium vestrum impendere and to advise the King in such weighty matters as concern the safety of the Kingdom But they are only to advise not compell the King to counsell him but not controll him and to advise and counsel are no marks of Soveraignty but rather works of service and subordination Nor can they come to give this Counsel without he invite them and being invited by his writ cannot choose but come except he excuse them which are sure notes of duty and subjection but very sory signs of power and soveraignty 'T is true that being come together they may and sometimes do on a writ of Error examin and reverse or affirm such judgements as have been given in the Kings Bench and from their sentence in the case there is no appeal but only to the whole body of that Court the King and both the Houses the Head and Members o Case of our Affairs p. 7 8. But this they do not as the upper house of Parliament but as the distinct court of the Kings Barons of Parliament of a particular and ministerial jurisdiction to some intents and purposes and to some alone which though it doth invest them with a power of judicature confers not any thing upon them which belongs to Soveraignty Then for the Commons all which the writ doth call them to is facere consentire to do and consent unto such things which are ordained by the Lords and Common Counsel of the Kingdom of England and sure conformity and consent which is all the writ requireth from them are no marks of Soveraignty nor can an Argument be drawn from thence by the subtillest Sophister to shew that they are called to be partakers of the Soveraign power or that the King intends to denude himself of any branch or leaf thereof to hide their nakednesse And being met together in a body collective they are so far from having any share in Soveraignty that they cannot properly be called a Court of Judicature as neither having any power to minister an Oath p Id. p. 9. or to imprison any body except it be some of their own Members if they see occasion which are things incident to all Courts of Justice and to every Steward of a Leet insomuch that the House of Coâ—mons is compared by some â—and not incongruosly unto the Grand Inquest at a general Sessions q Review of the Observat p. 22. whose principal work it is to receive bils and prepare businesses and make them fit and ready for my Lords the Judges Nay so far were they heretofore from the thoughts of Soveraignty that they were lyable to sutes and punishments for things done in Parliament though only to the prejudice of a private Subject untill King Henry 8. most graciously passed a Law for their indemnity For whereas Richard Strode one of the company of Tinners in the County of Cornwall being a Member of the Commons House had spoken somwhat to the prejudice of that Society and contrary to the Ordinances of the Stanneries at his return into the Country â—e was arested fined imprisoned Complaint whereof being
against it V The principles of Disobedience in the supposal of some popular Officers ordained of purpose to regulate the power of Kings VI How much the practise of CALVINS followers doth differ from their Masters doctrine in the point of Obedience VII Several Articles and points of Doctrine wherein the Disciples of CALVIN are departed from him VIII More of the differences in point of Doctrine between the Master and his Scholars IX The dangerous consequences which arise from his faulty principles in the point or Article of Disobedience X The Method and distribution of the following work CHAP. II. Of the Authority of the Ephori in the State of Sparta and that they were not instituted for the ends supposed by Calvin I The Kings of Sparta absolute Monarchs at the first II Of the condition of that State when Lycurgus undertook to change the Government III What power Lycurgus gave the Senate and what was left unto the Kings IV The Ephori appointed by the Kings of Sparta to ease themselves and curb the Senate V The blundering and mistakes of Joseph Scâ—liger about the first institution of the Ephori VI The Ephori from mean beginnings grow to great Authority and by what advantages VII The power and influence which they had in the publick Government VIII By what degrees the Ephori incroached on the Spartan Kings IX The insolencies of the Ephori towards their Kings altered the State into a Tyranny X The Spartan Kings stomach the insolencie of the Ephori and at last utterly destroy them XI An application of the former passages to the point in hand CHAP. III. Of the Incroachment of the Tribunes on the State of Rome and that they were not instituted for the ends supposed by Calvin I The Tribunes of the People why first instituted in the State of Rome II The Tribunes fortifie themselves with large immunities before they went about to change the Government III The Tribunes no sooner in their Office but they sâ—t themselves against the Nobility and the Senate contrary to the Articles of their Institution V The many and dangerous Seditions occasioned by the Tribunes in the City of Rome VI The Tribunes and the People doe agree together to change the Government of the State VII By what degrees the People came to be possessed of all Offices in the State both of Power and Dignity VIII The Plots and practises of the Gracchi to put the power of Judicature and Supreme Majesty of the State into the hands of the People IX The Tribunes take upon them to commit the Consuls and bring all the Officers of the State under their command X The Office and Authority of the Tribunes reduced unto its antient bounds by Cornelius Sylla and at last utterly destroyed XI An Application of the former passages to the point in hand CHAP. IV. Of what Authority the DEMARCHI were in the State of ATHENS and of the danger and unfitness of the instances produced by CALVIN I Athens first governed by Kings and afterwards by one Sâ—veraign Prince under other Titles II The Annual Magistrates of Athens what they were and of what Authority III By whom and by what degrees the State of Athens was reduced to Democratie IV Of the Authority of the Senate and the famous Court of the Areopagites V What the Demarchi were in the State of Athens and of what Authority VI The Demarchi never were of power to oppose the Senate nor were ordained to that end VII Calvins ill luck in making choice of three such instances which if true would not serve his turn VIII The danger which lieth hidden under the design of such Popular Magistrates as are here instanced in by Calvin IX What moved Calvin to lay these dangerous Stumbling blockt in the Subjects way X The dangerous Seditions and practises which have hence â—nsued in most parts of Europe XI The Sectâ—â—f Calvin professed Enemies to Monarchy and the Power of Princes CHAP. V. What are the Three Estates in each several Kingdom of which CALVIN speaks and what they are particularly in the Realm of ENGLAND I Of the division of a people into Three Estates and that the Priests and Clergy have been always one II The Priests imployed in Civil Matters and Affairs of State by the Egyptians and the Persians the Greeks Gauls and Romans III The Priests and Levites exercised in Affairs of Civil Government by Gods own appointment IV The Prelates versed in Civil Matters and Affairs of State in the best and happiest times of Christianity V The Clergy make the third Estate in Germany France Spain and the Northern Kingdoms VI That antiently in the Saxons times the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm were called to all publick Councels VII The Prelates an essential fundamental part of the English Parliament VIII Objections answered and that the word Clerus in the Legal notion doth not extend unto the Prelates IX That the inferior Clergy of the Realm of England had antiently their votes in Parliament to all intents and purposes as the Commons had X Objections answered and that the calling of the Clergy to Parliaments and Convocations were after different manners and by several Writs XI The great Diffranchisement and Slavery obtruded on the English Clergy by the depriving of the Bishops of their Votes in Parliament XII A brief discussion of the question Whether that any two of the three Estates conspiring or agreeing together can conclude any thing unto the prejudice of the third CHAP. VI. That the three Estates of every Kingdom whereof CALVIN speaks have no authority either to regulate the power or controll the actions of the Soveraign Prince I The Bishops and Clergy of England not the King make the third Estate and of the dangerous consequences which may follow on the contrary Tenet II The different influence of the three Estates upon conditional Princes and an absolute Monarch III The Sanhâ—drim of no authority over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Judah IV The three Estaâ—es in France of how small authority over the actions of that King V The Kings of Spain not over-ruled or regulated by the three Estates VI Of what authority they have been antiently in the Parliaments of Scotland VII The King of England always accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch VIII No part of Soveraigntie invested legally in the English Parliaments IX The three Estates assembled in the Parliament of England subordinate unto the King not co-ordinate with him X The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone XI In what particulars the power of the English Parliaments doth consist especially XII The Kings of England ordinarily over-rule their Parliaments by themselves their Counsel and their Judges XIII Objections answered touching the power and practise of some former Parliaments and the Testimonies given unto them XIV No such Authority given by God in holy Scripture to any populâ—r Magistrates as Calvin dreams of and pretends XV The Application and Conclusion
Countrey and true Religion which though they are the words of Paraeus only yet they contain the minde and meaning of all the rest of that faction as his son Philip doth demonstrate e In Append. ad Cap. 13. Epist ad Rom. Hence was it that John Knox delivered for sound Orthodox doctrine Procerum esse propria autoritâ—te Idololatrian tollere Principes intra legum rescripta per vim reducere f Camden Annal Eliz. An. 1559. that it belonged unto the Peers of each several Kingdom to reform matters of the Church by their own authoritie and to confine their Kings and Princes within the bounds prescribed by law even by force of Arms. Hence that Geselius one of the Lecturers of Roterdam preached unto his people that if the Magistrates and Clergie did neglect their duty in the reformation of Religion necesse est id facere plâ—beios that then it did belong to the Common people g Necessaria Respons who were bound to have a care thereof and proceed accordingly And as for points of practise should we look that way what a confusion should we finde in most parts of Europe occasioned by no other ground then the entertainment of these principles and the scattering of these positions amongst the people Witness the Civil wars of France g Jean de Serres inventaire de Fr. the revolt of Holland h History of the Netherlands the expulsion of the Earl of East-Friezland out the City of Embden i Thuan hâ—st l. 114. the insurrections of the Scots k Camden Annal An. 1559. the tumults of Bohemia l Laurca Austriaca the commotions of Brandenbourg m Continuati Thuan. hist l. 8. the translation of the Crown of Sweden from the King of Pole to Charles Duke of Finland n Thuan. hist l. 8. the change of Government in England all acted by the Presbyterian or Calvinian partie in those several States under pretence of Reformation and redress of grievances 11 And to say truth such is the Genius of the sect that though they may admit an equal as paritie is the thing most aimed at by them both in Church and State yet they will hardly be perswaded to submit themselves to a Superiour to no Superiours more unwillingly then to Kings and Princes whose persons they disgrace whose power they ruinate whose calling they indevour to decry and blemish by all means imaginable First for their calling they say it is no other then an humane Ordinance and that the King is but a creature of the peoples making whom having made they may as easily destroy and unmake make again Which as it is the darling doctrine of this present time so is it very eagerly pursued by Buchannan who affirms expressly Quicquid juris populus alicui dederit idem justis de causis posse reposcere o Buchann de â—ure Regni that whatsoever power the people give unto their King or Supreme Magistrate they may resume again upon just occasions Their power they make so small and inconsiderable that they afford them very little even in matters temporal and no authoritie at all in things spiritual CALVIN professeth for himself that he was very much agrieved to hear that King Henry the eight had took unto himself the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England accuseth them of inconsiderate zeal nay blasphemie who conferred it on him and though he be content at last to allow Kings a Ministerial power in matters which concern the Reformation of Gods Publick Worship yet he condemns them as before of great inconsiderateness Qui facerent eos nimis spirituales p Calvin in Amos cap. 7. who did ascribe unto them any great authoritie in spiritual matters The designation of all those who bear publick office in the Church the calling of Councels or Assemblies the Presidencie in those Councels ordaining publick Fasts and appointing Festivals which anciently belonged unto Christian Princes as the chief branches of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is vested in them are utterly denied to Kings and Princes in their Books of Discipline In so much that when the Citizens of Embden did expel their Earl they did it chiefly for this reason Quod se negotiis Ecclesiasticis Consistorialibus praeter jus aequitatem immisceret q Thuan. hist l. 114. that he had intermedled more then they thought fit in Ecclesiastical causes and intrenched too much upon their Consistorie As for their power in temporal or civil causes by that time Knoxes Peers and Buchannans Judges Paraeus his inferior Magistrates and CALVINS popular Officers have performed their parts in keeping them within the compass of the laws arraigning them for their offences if they should transgress opposing them by force of arms if any thing be done unto the prejudice of the Church or State and finally in regulating their authoritie after the manner of the Spartan Ephori and the Roman Tribunes all that is left will be by much too little for a Roy d' Ivitot or for a King of Clouts as we English phrase it Last of all for their persons which God held so sacred that he gave it for a law to his people Israel not to speak evill of their Princes saying Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Let us but look upon these men and we shall finde the basest attributes too good for the greatest Kings Calvin calls Mary Queen of England by the name of Proserpine r Calvin in Amos cap. 7. and saith that she did superare omnes Diabolos that all the Devils of hell were not half so mischeivous Beza affords Queen Mary of Scotland no better titles then those of Medea and Athaliah s Beza in Epist ad Jo. of which the last was most infamous in divine the other no less scandalous in humane stories the one a Sorceress and a Witch the other a Tyrant and usurper The Author of the Altare Damascenum whosoever he was can finâ—e no better a tribute for King James of most blessed memorie then infensissimus Evangelii hostis t Didoclavius in Epistola ad Lâ—ctor the greatest and deadly enemie of the Gospel of Christ And Queen Elizabeth her self did not scape so clear but that the zealous Brethren were too bold sometimes with her name and honor though some of them paid dearly for it and were hanged for their labour How that seditious Hugonot the Author of the lewd and unworthy Dialogue entituled Eusebius Philadelphus hath dealt with three great Princes of the House of France and what reproachful names he gives them I had rather you should look for in the Author then expect from me being loath to wade too far in these dirtie pudoles save that I shall be bold to adde this general Character which Didoclavius gives to all Kings in general viz. Naturâ insitum est in â—mnibus Regibus Christi odium that all Kings naturally hate Christ which may
Parliament and the time of 40 daies expresly specified to intervene between the summons and the beginning of the Parliament Which Commons being such as antiently did hold in Capite and either having a Knights fee or the degree of Knighthood did first promiscuously attend in these publick meetings and after were reduced to four quatuor discretos milites de Comitatu tuo as c Id. ibid. the writ ran unto the Sheriff and at last to two as they continue to this day 5. We have it thus in the Magna Charta of King Henry the 3d. the birth-right of the English Subject according as it stands translated in the book of Statutes First we have granted to God and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the Church of England shall be free and shall enjoy all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable d Magna Charta cap. 1. But it was a known Right and Liberty of the Church of England that all the Bishops and many of the greater Clergy and peradventure also the inferiour Clergy wherof more anon had their Votes in Parliament and therefore is to be preserved inviolable by the Kings of England their Heirs and Successors for ever Which Charter as it was confirmed by a solemn Curse denounced on all the Infringers of it by Boniface Arch-bishop of Canterbury e Matth. Patis in Henr. 3. and ratified in no fewer man 30 succeeding Parliaments so was it enacted in the reign of Edward the first that it should be sent under the great Seal of England to all the Cathedral Churches of the Kingdom to be read twice a year before the people f 25 Edw. 1. c. 2. that they should be read four times every year in a full County-Court g 28 Edw. 1. c. 1. and finally that all judgements given against it should be void h 25 Edw. 1. c. 3. 6. We have the Protestation of John Stratford Arch-bishop of Canterbury in the time of King Edward the 3d. who being in disfavour with the King and denyed entrance into the House of Peers challenged his place and suffrage there as the first Peer of the Realm and one that ought to have the first Voice in Parliament in right of his See But hear him speak his own words which are these that follow Amici for he spake to those who took witness of it Rexme ad hoc Parliamentum scripto suo vocavit ego tanquam major Par Regni post regem primam vocem habere debens in Parliamento jura Ecclesiae meae Cantuariensis vendico ideo ingressum in Parliamentum peto i Antiqu. Bâ—itan in Joh. Stratford which is full and plain 7. And lastly there is the Protestation on Record of all the Bishops in the reign of King Richard the 2d at what time William Courtney was Arch-bishop of Canterbury who being to withdraw themselves from the House of Peers at the pronouncing of the sentence of death on some guilty Lords first made their Procurators to supply their rooms then put up their Protestation to preserve their Rights the sum whereof for as much as doth concern this business in their own words thus De jure consuetudine regni Angliae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem qui pro tempore fuerit nec non coeteros Suffraganeos confratres compatres Abbates Priores aliosque Praelatos quoscunque per Baroniam de domino Rege tenentes pertinet in Parliamentis Regis quibuscunque ut Pares regni praedicti personaliter interesse ibidemque de regni negotiis ac aliis tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti regni Paribus aliis ibidem jus interessendi habentibns consulere tractare ordinare statuere diffinire ac câ—etera facere quae Parliamento ibidem imminent facienda This put together makes enough abundantly for the proofs de jure k In vita Gul. Courtney and makes the Bishops right to have Vote in Parliament to be undeniable Let us next see whether this right of theirs be not confirmed and countenanced by continual practice and that they have not lost it by discontinuance which is my second kind of proofs those I mean de facto And first beginning with the reign of the Norman Conquerour we find a Parliament assembled in the fifth year of that King wherein are present Episcopi Abbates Comites Primates totius Angliae l Matth. Paris in Willielmo 1. the Bishops Abbats Earls and the rest of the Baronage of England In the 9th year of William Rufus an old Author telleth us de regni statu acturus Episcopos Abbates quoscunque Regni proceres in unum praecepti sui sanctione egit that being to consult of the affairs of the Kingdom he called together by his writ the Bishops Abbots and all the Peers of the Realm m Eadmer hist Nov. l. 2. During the reign of Henry the 2d for we will take but one example out of each King reign though each Kings reign would yield us more a Parliament was called at London wherein were many things dispatched aswell of Ecclesiastical as secular nature the Bishops and Abbats being present with the other Lords Coacto apud Londoniam magno Episcoporum Procerum Abbatumque Conciliâ— multa ecclefiasticarum secularium rerum ordinata negotia decisa litigia saith the Monk of Malmesâ—ury n Malmesb. hist reg Angl. l. 5. And of this Parliament it is I take it that Eadmer speaketh Hist. Novell l. 4. p. 91. Proceed we to King Henry the 2d for King Stephens reign was so full of wars and tumults that there is very little to be found of Parliaments and there we find the Bishops with the other Peers convened in Parliament for the determination of the points in controversie between Alfonso King of Castile and Sancho King of Navarre referred by compremise to that King of England and here determined by King Henry amongst other things habito cum Episcopis Comitibus et Baronebus cum deliberatione consilio as in Roger Hoveden o Hoveden Annal. pars poster in Hen. 2. Next him comes Rich. the first his Son during whose imprisonment by the D. of Austria his Brother John then Earl of Moriton indeavoured by force and cunning in Normandy to set the Crown on his own head which caused Hubert the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to call a Parliament Convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus et Baronibus regni p Id. in Joh. wherein the Bishops Earls and Barons did with one consent agree to seize on his estate and suppress his power the better to preserve the Kingdom in wealth peace and safety After succeeded John and he calls a Parliament wherein were certain Laws made for the defence of his Kingdom Communi assensu Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Comitum Baronum omnium fidelium suoâ—um Angâ—iae by the common counsell and assent of the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls Barons and the rest of
persisting in their former obstinacy excluso e Parliamento Clero Consilium Rex cum solis Baronibus populo habuit totumque statim Clerum protectione sua privavit d Antiqu. Brit. in R. Winchelsey the King saith the Historian excluding the Clergy out of the Parliament advised with his Barons and his people only what was best to be done by whose advise he put the Clergy out of his protection and thereby forced them to conform to his will and pleasure This is the summa totalis of the business and comes unto no more but this that a particular course was advised in Parliament on a particular displeasure taken by the King against the body of his Clergy then convened together for their particular refusal to contribute to his wants wars the better to reduce them to their natural duty Which makes not any thing at all against the right of Bishops in the House of Peers or for excluding them that House or for the validity of such Acts as are made in Parliament during the time of such exclusion especially considering that the King shortly after called his States together and did excuse himself for many extravagant Acts which he had committed e Walsingâ— in Edw. 1. anno 1297. against the liberties of the Subject whereof this was one laying the blame thereof on his great occasions and the necessities which the wars which he had abroad did impose upon him And so much as in Answer unto that Record supposing that the words thereof be rightly senced as I think they are not and that by Clerus there we are to understand Arch-bishops and Bishops as I think we be not there being no Record I dare boldly say it either of History or Law in which the word Clerus serves to signifie the Arch-bishops and Bishops exclusive of the other Clergy or any writing whatsoever wherein it doth not either signifie the whole Clergy generally or the inferiour Clergy only exclusive of the Arch-bishops Bishops and other Prelates Therefore in answer unto that so much applauded Cavil of Excluso Clero from what Record soever it either hath been hitherto or shall hereafter be produced I shall propose it to the consideration of the sober Reader whether by Clerus in that place or in any other of that kind and time we must not understand the inâ—eriour Clergy as they stand distinguished in the Laws from my Lords the Bishops For howsoever it be true that Clerus in the ecclesiastical notion of the word doth signifie the whole Clergy generally Arch-bishops Bishops Priests and Deacons yet in the legal notion of it it stands distinguished from the Prelates and signifieth only the inferiour Clergy Thus do we find the Ecclesiasticks of this Realm divided into Prelates men of Religion and other Clerks 3. Edw. 1. c. 1. the Seculars either into Prelates and Clerks 9 Edw. 2. c. 3. 1 Rich. 2. c. 3. or Prelates and Clerks beneficed 18 Edw. 3. c. 2. or generally into the Prelates and the Clergy 9 Edw. 2. c. 15. 14 Edw. 3. c. 1 3. 18 Edw. 3. 2. 7. 25 Edw. 3. 2. 4. 8 Hen. 6. c. 1. and in all acts and grants of Subsidies made by the Clergy to the Kings or Queens of England since the 32 of Henry 8. when the Clergy subsidies first began to be confirmed by act of Parliament So also in the Latin ideom which comes neerest home Nos Praelati Clerus in the submission of the Clergy to King Henry 8. f Regist Waâ—ham and in the sentence of divorce against Anne of Cleve g Regist Cranmer and in the instrument of the grant of the Clergy subsidies presented to the Kings of England ever since the 27 of Queen Elizabeth and in the form of the Certificates per h Statut. 8 Eliz. c. 17. ever since Praelatâ—s Clerum returned by every Bishop to the Lord High Treasurer and finally Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo more nostro solito dum Regni Parliamentum celebratur congregati i Stat. 1 Phil. Mar. c. 8. in the petition to K. K. Phillip and Mary about the confirmation of the Abby lands to the Patentees So that though many Statutes have been made in these later times excluso Clero the Clergy that is to say the inferiour Clergy being quite shut out and utterly excluded from those publick Counsails yet this proves nothing to the point that auy act of Parliament hath been counted good to which the Bishops were not called or at the making of which Act they either were shut out by force or excluded by cunning As for Kilbancies book which that Author speaks of k Prerâ—g pract of Paâ—l p. 38. in which the Justices are made to say 7 H. 8. that our Soveraign Lord the King may well hold his Parliament by him and his Temporal Lords and by the Commons also without the Spiritual Lords for that the Spiritual Lords have not any place in the Parliament chamber by reason of their Spiritualties but by reason of their Temporal possessions besides that it is only the opinion of a privat man of no authority or credit in the Common wealth and contrary to the practice in the Saxon times in which the Bishops sate in Parliament as Spiritual persons not as Barons the reason for ought I can see will serve as well to pretermit all or any of the Temporal Lords as it can serve to pretermit or exclude the Bishops the Temporal Lords being called to Parliament on no other ground than for the Temporal possessions which they hold by Barony 9. If it be said that my second answer to the argument of Excluso Clero supposeth that the inferiour â—lergy had some place in Parliament which being not to be supposed makes the Answer void I shall crave leave to offer some few observations unto the consideration of the sober and impartial Reader by which I hope to make that supposition probable and perhaps demonstrative First then we have that famous Parliament call it Concilium magnum or Concilium commune or by what other name soever the old writers called it summoned by King Ethelbert anno 605. which my l Concil Hen. Spelm. Author calleth Commune concilium tam Cleri quam Populi where Clerus comprehendeth the body of the Clergy generally aswell the Presbyters as the Bishops as the word populus doth the lay-subject generally as well Lords as Commons or else the Lords and Commons one of the two must be needs left out And in this sense we are to understand these words in the latter times as where we read that Clerus m Matth. Paris in Hen. 1. Angliae populus Vniversus were summoned to appear at Westminster at the Coronation of King Henry the first where divers Laws were made and declared subscribed by the Arch-bishops Bishops and others of the principal persons that were there assembled that Clero populo
quod iidem Decanus Archichidiaconi in propriis personis suis ac dictum Capitulum per unum idemque Clerus per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulo Clero habentes praedicto die loco personaliter intersint ad consentiendum iis quae tunc ibidem de communi consilio ipsius Regni nostri divina favente clementia contigerit ordinari Which clause being in the Writs of King Edward 1. and for the most part of the reign of his next Successorsâ— till the middle of King Richard the second at which time it began to be fixt and formal hath still continued in those writs without any difference almost between the Syllables to this very day z Id. ibid. Now that this clause was more than Verbal and that the Proctors of the Clergy did attend in Parliament is evident by the Acts and Statutes of King Richard the second the passages whereof I shall cite at large the better to conclude what I have in hand The Duke of Glocester and the Earl of Arundel having got the mastery of the King obtained a Commission directed to themselves and others of their nomination to have the rule of the King and his Realm a Statur 21 R. 2. c. 2. and having their Commission confirmed by Parliament in the 11 year of his reign did execute divers of his Friends and Ministers and seized on their Estates as forfeited But having got the better of his head-strong and rebellious Lords in the one and twentieth of his reign he calls a Parliament in the Acts whereof it is declared That on the Petition of the Commons of the assent of all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Proctors of the Clergy he repealed the said Statute and Commission b Ibid. c. 2. and with the assent of the said Lords and Commons did ordain and establish that no such Commission nor the like be henceforth purchased pursued or made This done the heirs of such as had been condemned by vertue of the said Commission demanded restitution of their Lands and Honors And thereupon the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Procuratours of the Clergy the Commons having prayed to the King before as the Appellants prayed severally examined did assent expresly that the said Parliament and all the Statutes c. should be voyd c. and restitution made as afore is said c Ibid. c. 12. And also the Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Procuratours of the Clergy and the said Commons were severally examined of the Questions proposed at Notingham and of the Answer which the Judges made unto the same which being read aswell before the King and the Lords as before the Commons it was demanded of all the States of the Parliament what they thought of the Answers and they said that they were lawfully duly made c. And then it followeth whereupon the King by the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Procuratours of the Clergy and the said Commons and by the advise of the Justices and Sergeants aforesaid who had been asked their opinion in point of Law ordained and established that the said Parliament should be annulled and held for none Adde unto this that passage in the 9 of Edward 2. where it is said that many Articles containing divers grievances committed against the Church of England the Prelates Clergy were propounded by the Prelates and Clerks of our Realm in Parliament and great instance made that convenient remedy might be appointed therein d Proem ad articulos Clâ—ri that of the complaints made to the King in Parliament by the Prelates and Clergy of this Realm 50 Ed. 3. 5. 8 Rich. 2. c. 13. and that of the Petition delivered to the King in Parliament by the Clergy of England 4 Hen. 4. c. 2. Selden hist of Tithes c. 8. 33. And finally that memorable passage in the Parliment 51 Edw. 3. which in brief was this The Commons finding themselves agrieved aswell with certain Constitutions made by the Clergy in their Synods as with some laws or Ordinances which were lately passed more to the advantage of the Clergy than the Common people put in a Bill to this effect viz. That no Act nor Ordinance should from thenceforth be made or granted on the Petition of the said Clergy without the consent of Commons and that the said Commons should not be bound in times to come by any constitutions made by the Clergy of this Realm for their own advantage to which the Commons of this Realm had not given consent The reason of the which is this and 't is worth the marking car eux ne veullent estre obligez a nul de vos estatuz ne Ordinances faitz sanz leur assent because the said Clergy did not think themselves bound as indeed they were not in those times by any Statute Act or Ordinance made without their Assent in the Court of Parliament Which clearly shews that in those times the Clergy had their place in Parliament as the Commons had Put all which hath been sayd together and tell me if it be not cleer and evident that the inferiour Clergie had their place in Parliament whether the Clause touching the calling of them thither were not more than verbal in the Bishops writs and is true that in the writ of summons directed to their several and respective Bishops they were called only ad consentiendum to manifest their consent to those Acts and ordinances which by the Common counsell of the Realm were to be ordained But then it is as tru withall that sometimes their advice was asked in the weighty matters as in the 21 of K. Richard the 2. and sometimes they petitioned and remonstrated for redress of grievances as in the instances and cases which were last produced And 't is as true that if they had been present only ad consentiendum to testifie their assent to those Acts which by the common Counsell of the Realm were proposed unto them their presence was as necessary and their voice as requisite to all intents and purposes for ought I can see as the voice and presence of the Commons in the times we speak of For in the writs of summons issued to the several Sheriffs for the electing of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to attend the Parliament it is said expressely first that the King resolveth upon weighty motives touching the weal and safety both of Church and State to hold his Parliament e Foâ—ma Brevis pro fammonit Parliamenti et ibidem cum Praelatis Magnatibus et Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquium habere et tractare then and there to advise and treat with the Prelates Peers and Nobles of this Realm Which words are also expressely used in the writs of summons directed to the Bishops and to every of them who also are required in a further clause consilium suum impendere f
it should be otherwise in the present times the equity and justice of it being still the same and the same reasons for it now as forcible as they could be then Had it been otherwise resolved of in the former ages wherein the Clergy were so prevalent in all publique Counsails how easie a matter had it been for them either by joyning with the Nobility to exclude the Commons or by joyning with the Commonalty to exclude the Nobles Or having too much conscience to adventure on so great a change an alteration so incompatible and inconsistent with the Constitution of a Parliament how easily might they have suppressed the potency and impaird the Privileges of either of the other two by working on the humours or affections of the one to keep down the other But these were Arts not known in the former daies nor had been thought of in these last but by men of ruine who were resolved to change the Government as the event doth shew too clearly both of Church and State Nor doth it help the matter in the least degree to say that the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Peers was not done meerly by the practice of the two other Estates but by the asseâ—t of the King of whom the Laws say he can do no wrong and by an Act of Parliament wherof our Laws yet say quae â—ul doit imaginer chose dishonourable c Plowden in Commentar that no man is to think dishonourably For we know well in what condition the King was when he passed that Act to what extremities he was reduced on what terms he stood how he was forced to flye from his City of London to part with his dear Wife and Children and in a word so overpowred by the prevailing party in the two Houses of Parliament that it was not safe for him as his case then was to deny them any thing And for the Act of Parliament so unduly gained besides that the Bill had been rejected when it was first brought unto the Lords and that the greater part of the Lords were frighted out of the House when contrary unto the course of Parliament it was brought again it is a point resolved both in Law and reason that the Parliament can do nothing to the destruction of it self and that such Acts as are extorted from the King are not good and valid whereof we have a fair example in the Book of Statuers d 15 Ed. 3. For whereas the King had granted certain Articles pretended to be granted in the form of a Statute expresly contrary to the Laws of the Realm and his own Prerogative and rights royal mark it for this is just the case which he had yielded to eschew the dangers which by denying of the same were like to follow in the same Parliament it was repealed in these following words It seemed good io the said Earls Barons and other wise men that since the Statute did not proceed of our free will the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their counsail and assent we have decreed the said Statute to be void c. Or if it should not be repealed in a formal manner yet is this Act however gotten void in effect already by a former Statute in which it was enacted in full Parliament and at the self same place where this Act was gained that the Great Charter by which and many other Titles the Bishops held their place in Parliament should be kept in all points and if any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none e 42 Ed. 3. c. 1. CHAP. VI. That the three Estates of every Kingdom whereof CALVIN speaks have no authority either to regulate the power or controll the Actions of the Soveraign Prince I. The Bishops and Clergy of England not the King make the third Estate and of the dangerous consequences which may follow on the contrary Tenet II. The different influence of the three Estates upon conditional Princes and an absolute Monarch III. The Sanhedrim of no authority over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Judah IV. The three Estates in France of 〈◊〉 small authority over the actions of that King V. The King of Spain not over-ruled or regulated by the three Estates VI. Of what authority they have been antiently in the Parliaments of Scotland VII The King of England alwaies accounted heretofore for an absolute Monarch VIII 〈◊〉 part of Soveraignty invested legally in the English Parliaments IX The three Estates assembled in the Parliament of England subordinate unto the King not co-ordinate with him X. The Legislative power of Parliaments is properly and legally in the King alone XI In what particulars the power of the English Parliament doth consist especially XII The Kings of England ordinarily over-rule tâ—eir Parliaments by themselves their Counsel and their Judges XIII Objections answered touching the power and practice of some former Parliaments and the testimonies given unto them XIV No such Authority given by God in Holy Scripture to any such Popular Magistrates as CALVIN dreams of and pretends XV. The Application and Conclusion of the whole Discourse I Have been purposely more copious in the former Chapter because I thought it necessaâ—y to declare and manifest who made the three Estates in each several Kingdom which are pretended by our Author to have such power of regulating the authority and censuring the actions and the persons of their Soveraign Princes And this the rather in regard it is thought of late and more than thought presented to the world in some publick writings especially as it relates to the Realm of England that the King the Lords and Commons make the three Estates which brings the King into an equal rank with the other two in reference to the businesse and affairs of Parliament A fancy by what Accident soever it was broached and published which hath no consistence either with truth or ordinary observation or with the practice of this Realm or of any other For the proof of this my position that the King is none of the three Estates as is now pretended if all proofs else should fail I have one from Calvin whose judgement in this point amongst many of us will be instar omnium For where he saith in singulis Regnis tres esse Ordines e Calvin instâ—t 4. cap. ult that there are three Estates in each several Kingdom and that these three Estates convened in Parliament or by what other name soever they call their meeting are furnished with a power Regum libidinem moderandi of moderating the licentiousness of Kings and Princes and that they become guilty of perfidious dissimulation si Regibus impotenter grassantibus c. If they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or wantonly insult on the Common-people I trow it cannot be conceived that the King is any one of the three Estates who are here
first by these who first ventured on the expression or were improvidently looked over I can hardly say Certain I am it gave too manifest an advantage to the Antimonarchical party in this Kingdome and hardned them in their proceeding against their King whom they were taught to look on and esteem no otherwise than as a Joynt-tenant of the Soveraignty with the Lords and Commons And if Kings have partners in the Soveraignty they are then no King such being the nature and law of Monarchy that si divisionem capiat interitum capiat necesse est m Lactant Institut Div. l. 1. c. if it be once divided and the authorities thereof imparted it is soon destroyed Such is the dangerous consequence of this new Expression that it seemeth utterly to deprive the Bishops and in them the Clergy of this Land of all future hopes of being restored again to their place in Parliament For being the Parliament can consist but of three Estates if the King fall so low as to pass for one either the Bishops or the Commons or the Temporal Lords must desert their claim the better to make way for this new pretension and in all probability the Commons being grown so potent and the Nobility so numerous and united in blood and mariages will not quit their interesse and therefore the poor Clergy must be no Estate because lesse able as the world now goeth with them to maintain their title I have often read that Constantine did use to call himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Euseb de vita Constant the Bishop or Superintendent of his Bishops and I have oft heard our Lawyers say that the King is the general Ordinary of the Kingdome but never heard nor read till within these few yearrs that ever any King did possess himself of the Bishops place or vote in Parliament or sate there as the first of the three Estates as antiently the Bishops did to supply their absence By which device whether the Clergy or the King be the greater losers though it be partly seen already future times will shew 2. This rub removed we next proceed to the examination of that power which by our Author is conferred on the three Estates which we shall find on search and tryal to be very different according to the constitution of the Kingdome in which they are For where the Kings are absolute Monarchs as in England Scotland France and Spain l Bodin de Repub. l. 1. c. the three Estates have properly and legally little more authority than to advise their King as they see occasion to represent unto his view their common grievances and to propose such remedies for redresse therof as to them seem meetest to canvass and review such erroneous judgements as formerly have passed in inferiour Courts and finally to consult about and prepare such laws as are expedient for the publick In other Countries where the Kings are more conditional and hold their Crowns by compact and agreement betweeen them and their Subjects the reputation and authority of the three Estates is more high and eminent as in Polonia Danemark and some others of the Northern Kingdomes where the Estates lay claim to more than a directive power and think it not enough to advise their King unless they may dispose of the Kingdome also or at least make their King no better than a Royal Slave Thus and no otherwise it is with the German Emperors who are obnoxious to the Laws m Thuan. hist sui temp l. 2. and for their Government accomptable to the Estates of the Empire insomuch that if the Princes of the Empire be perswaded in their consciences that he is likely by his mal-administration to destroy the Empire and that he will not hearken to advice and counsel n Anonym Script ap Philip Paraeu in Append. â—d Rom. 13. ab Electorum Collegio Caesaria potestate privari potest he may be deprived by the Electors and a more fit and able man elected to supply the place And to this purpose in a Constitution made by the Emperor Jodocus about the year 1410. there is a clause that if he or any one of his Successors do any thing unto the contrary thereof the Electors and other States of the Empire sine rebellionis vel infidelitatis crimine libertatem habeant o Goldast Constit Imperial Tom. 3. p. 424. should be at liberty without incurring the crimes of Treason or Disloyalty not only to oppose but resist them in it The like to which occurs for the Realm of Hungary wherein K. Andrew gives authority to his Bishops Lords and other Nobles sine nota alicujus infidelitatis p Bonfinius de Edict publ p. 37. that without any imputation of disloyalty they may contradict oppose and resist their Kings if they do any thing in violation of some Laws and sanctions In Poland the King takes a solemn oath at his Coronation to confirm all the Privileges rights and liberties which have been granted to his Subjects of all ranks and orders by any of his Predecessors and then addes this clause quod si Sacramentum meum violavero incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur which if he violates his Subjects shall no longer be obliged to yield him obedience q Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. Which oath as Bodine well observeth doth savour rather of the condition of the Prince of the Senate than of the Majesty of a King The like may be affirmed of Frederick the first King of Danemark who being called unto that Crown on the ejection of K. Christian the 2d An. 1523. was so conditioned with by the the Lords of the Kingdome that at his coronation or before he was fain to swear that he would put none of the Nobility to death or banishment but by the judgement of the Senate that the great men should have power of life or death over their Tenants and Vassals and that no Appeal should lye from them to the Kings tribunal nor the King be partaker of the confiscations nec item honores aut imperia privatis daturum c r Id. ibid. nor advance any private person to commands or honors but by authority of his great Counsel Which oath being also taken by Frederick the second made Bodinus say that the Kings of Danemark non tam reipsa quam appellare Reges sunt were only titular Kings but not Kings indeed Which character he also gives of the Kings of Bohemia Å¿ Id. ibid. p. 88. But in an absolute Monarchy the case is otherwise all the prerogatives and rights of Soveraignty being so vested in the Kings person ut nec singulis civibus nec universis fac est c. that it is neither lawful to particular men nor to the whole body of the Subjects generally to call the Prince in question for life fame or fortunes t Id. ibid. p. 210. and amongst these he reckoneth the kingdoms of France
Spain England Scotland the Tartars Muscovites omnium paene Africae Asiae imperiorum and of almost all the Kingdomes of Africk and Asia But this we shall the better see by looking over the particulars as they lye before us 3. But first before we come unto those particulars we will look backwards on the condition and authority of the Jewish Sanhedrim which being instituted and ordained by the Lord himself may serve to be a leading case in the present business For being that the Iews were the Lords own people and their Kings honored with the title of the Lords Anointed it will be thought that if the Sanhedrim or the great Councel of the seventie had any authority and power over the Kings of Iudah of whose jus Regni such a large description is made by God himself in the first of Sam. cap. 8. the three Estates may reasonably expect the like in these parts of Christendom Now for the authority of the Sanhedrim it is said by Cardinal Baronius that they had power of judicature over the Law the Prophets and the Kings themselves u Baron Annal. Eccl. An. 31. §. 10. Erat horum summa autoritas ut qui de lege cognoscerent Prophetis simul de Regnibus judicarent Which false position he confirms by as false an instance affirming in the very next words horum judicio Herodem Regem postulatum esse that King Herod was convented and convicted by them for which he cites Iosephus with the like integrity I should have wondred very much what should occasion such a grosse mistake in the learned Cardinal had I not shewn before that as he makes the Sanhedrim to rule the King so he hath made the high Priest to rule the Sanhedrim which to what purpose it was done every man can tell who knoweth the Cardinal endeavoureth nothing more in his large Collections than to advance the dignity and supremacy of the Popes of Rome x Id. in Epist dedicator But for the power pretended to be in the Sanhedrim and their proceedings against Herod as their actual King Iosephus when he cite's is so far from saying it that he doth expresly say the contrary For as Josephus tells the story Hyrcanus was then King not Herod and Herod of so little hopes to enjoy the Kingdom that he could not possibly pretend any Title to it But having a command in Galilee procured by Antipater his Father of the good King Hyrcanus he had played the wanton Governor amongst them and put some of them to death against Law and Justice For which the Mothers of the slain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did often call upon the King and people in the open Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Joseph Antâ—q Judic l. 14. cap. 17. c. that Herod might answer for the murther before the Sanhedrim Which being granted by the King he was accordingly convented by them and had been questionlesse condemned had not the King who loved him dearly given him notice of it on whose advertisement he went out of the Town and so escaped the danger This is the substance of that story and this gives no authority to the Court of Sanhedrim over the persons or the actions of the Kings of Iudah Others there are who make them equal to the Kings though not superiour Magnam fuisse Senatus autoritatem Regiae velut parem z Grotius in Matth. cap. 5. v. 22. saith the learned Grotius And for the proof thereof allege those words of Sedechias in the Book of Ieremie who when the Princes of his Realm required of him to put the Prophet to death returned this Answer a Jerem. 38. 5. Behold he is in your hâ—nd Rex enim contra vos nihil potest for the King is not he that can do any thing against you Which words are also cited by Mr. Prynne to prove that the King of England hath no Negative voyce b Prynne of Parl. pt 2. p. 73. but by neither rightly For Calvin who as one observeth composed his expositions on the book of God according to the doctrine of his Institutions c Hookers preface would not have lost so fair an evidence for the advancing of the power of his three Estates had he conceived he could have made it serviceable to his end and purpose But he upon the contrary finds fault with them who do so expound it or think the King did speak so honorably of his Princes ac si nihil iis sit nequandum d Calvin in Jerem. c. 38. v. 5. as if it were not to deny them any thing Not so saith he it rather is amerulenta Regis querimonia a sad and bitter complaint of the poor captivated King against his Counsellors by whom he was so over-ruled ut velit nolit cedere iis cognitur that he was forced to yield to them whether he would or not which he expresly calls inexcusabilem arrogantium an intollerable piece of sawciness in those Princes and an exclusion of the King from his legal rights 4 Let us next take a view of such Christian Kingdomes as are under the command of absolute Monarchs And first we will begin with the Realm of France the government whereof is meerly Regal if not despotical such as that of a Master over his Servants which Aristotle defineth to be a form of Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Aristot Politic. l. 3. wherein the King may do whatsoever he list according to the counsel of his own mind For in his Arbitrary Edicts which he sendeth abroad he never mentioneth the consent of the People or the approbation of the Counsel or the advice of his Judges which might be thought to derogate too much from his absolute power but concludes all of them in this Regal form Car tel est nostre plaisir for such is our pleasure And though the Court of Parliament in Paris do use to take upon them to peruse his Edicts before they passe abroad for d View of France by Dallington Laws and sometime to demurr on his grants and patents and to petition him to reverse the same as they see occasion yet their perusal is a matter but of meer formality and their demurs more dilatory than effectual It is the Car tel est nostre plaisir that concludes the business and the Kings pleasure is the Law which that Court is ruled by As for the Assemblie des Estats or Conventus Ordinum it was reputed antiently the Supreme Court for government and justice of all the Kingdome and had the cognizance of the greatest and most weighty affairs of State But these meetings have been long since discontinued and almost forgotten there being no such Assembly from the time of K. Charles the eighth to the beginning of the reign of K. Charles the ninth e Thuanus hist sui temp which was 70 years and not many since And to say truth they could be but of little use as the world
now goeth were the meetings oftner For whereas there are three Principal if not sole occasions of calling this Assemblie or Conventus Ordinum that is to say the disposing of the Regency during the nonage or sickness of the King the granting aids and subsidies and the redress of the grievances there is now another course taken to dispatch their business The Parliament of Paris which speaks most commonly as it is prompted by power and greatness appointeth the Regent f Contin Thuani An. 1610. the Kings themselves together with their Treasurers and Under-officers determine of the taxes g View of France and they that do complain of grievances may either have recourse to the Courts of justice or else petition to the King for redress thereof And for the making new Laws or repealing the old the naturalization of the Alien and the regulating of his sales or grants of the Crown-lands the publick patrimony of the Kingdome which were wont to be the proper subject and debates of these grand Assemblies they also have been so disposed of that the Conventus Ordinum is neither troubled with them nor called about them The Chamber of Accompts in Paris which hath some resemblance to our Court of Exchequer doth absolutely dispose of Naturalizations and superficially surveyeth the Kings grants and sales * Andr. Du Mesn which they seldom cross The Kings Car tel est nostre plaisir is the Subjects law and is as binding as any Act or Ordinance of the three Estates and for repealing of such Laws as upon long experience are conceived to be unprofitable the Kings sole Edict is as powerfull as any Act of Parliament Of which Bodinus doth not only say in these general terms Saepe vidimus sine Ordinum convocatione consensu leges à Principe abrogatas k Bodin de Rep. lib. 1. cap. 8. that many times these Kings did abrogate some antient laws without the calling and consent of the three Estates but saith that it was neither new nor strange that they should so do and gives us some particular instances not only of the later times but the former ages Nay when the power of this Assemblie des Estats was most great and eminent neither so curtailled nor neglected as it hath been lately yet then they carried themselves with the greatest reverence and respect before their King that could be possibly imagined For in the Assembly held at Tours under Charles the 8. though the King was then no more than 14 years of age and the authority of that Court so great and awfull that it was never at so high an eminence for power and reputation quanta illis temporibus as it was at that time yet when they came before the King Monseiur de Rell being then Speaker for the Commons or the third Estate did in the name of all the rest and with as much humility and reverence as he could devise promise such duty and obedience such a conformity of his will and pleasure such readiness to supply his wants and such alacrity in hearking unto his Commandements that as Bodinus well observes his whole Oration was nothing else quam perpetua voluntatis omnium erga Regem testificatio l Id. ibid. but a constant testimony and expression of the good affections of the subject to their Lord and Soveraign But whatsoever power they had in former times is not now material King Lewis the thirteenth having on good reason of State discharged those Conventions for the time ensuing Instead whereof he instituted an Assembly of another temper and such as should be more obnoxious to his will and pleasure consisting of a certain number of persons out of each Estate but all of his own nomination and appointment which joyn'd with certain of his Counsel and principal Officers he caused to be called L' Assembly des Notables assigning to them all the power and privileges which the later Conventions of the three Estates did pretend unto right well assured that men so nominated and intrusted would never use their powers to his detriment and disturbance of his Heirs and Successors 5. But to proceed Bodinus having shewn what dutifull respects the Convention of Estates in France shewed unto their King addes this note nec aliter Hispanorum conventus habentur that the Assembly of the three Estates in the Realms of Spain carry themselves with the like reverence and submission to their Lord the King Nay major etiam obedientia majus obsequium Regi exhibetur m Id. ibid. the King of Spain hath more obedience and observance from his three Estates than that which is afforded to the Kings of France Which being but general and comparative is yet enough to let us see that the Assembly of Estates in the Realms of Spain which they call the Curia is very observant of their King and obsequious to him and have but little of that power which is supposed by our Author to be inherent in the three Estates of all the Christian Kingdoms But this Bodinus proveth more particularly ascribing to the King and to him alone the power of calling this Assemblie when he sees occasion and of dissolving it again when his work is done according as is used both in France and England And when they are assembled and met together their Acts and consultations are of no effect further than as they are confirmed by the Kings consent Which he declareth in the same form eadem formulà quâ apud nos that hath accustomably been used by the Kings of France which is authoritative enough that is to say n Id. ibid. p. 90. decernimus statuimus volumus We will and we appoint and we have decreed The Kings of Spain though not so despotical in their Government as the French Kings are are as absolute Monarchs and have as great an influence on the three Estates to make them pliant to their will and to work out their own ends by them as ever had the French Kings on their Courts of Parliament a touch whereof we had before in the former Chapter And this we may yet further see by their observance of the pleasure of King Philip the 2d Who having maried the Lady Elizabeth Daughter of Henry the 2d of France Convocatos Castellae reliquarum Hispaniae Provinciarum Ordines o Thuan. â—ist sui temp h 23. l. calling together the Estates of Castile and his other Provinces of Spain he caused them to swear to the succession of his Son Prince Charles whom he had by the Lady Mary of Portugal and after having on some jealousies of State put that Prince to death caused them to swear to the succession of another son by the Lady of Austria And for the power of his Edicts which they call Pragmaticas they are as binding to the Subject as an Act of Parliament or any kind of Law whatever examples of the which are very obvious and familiar in the Spanish Histories For though
be imputed to the three Estates convened in Parliament or to any power or Act of theirs but only praefervido Scotorum ingenio z Rivet cont tenuit as one pleads it for them unto the natural disposition of that fierce and head-strong people yet easilier made subject unto rule and government The three Estates assembled in the Court of Parliament when in the judgement of our Author they are most fit to undertake the business have for the most part had no hand in those desperate courses 7. And now at last we ate come to England where since we came no sooner we will stay the longer and here we shall behold the King established in an absolute Monarchy from whom the meeting of the three Estates in Parliament detracteth nothing of his power and authority Royal. Bodin as great a Politick as any of his time in the Realm of France hath ranked our Kings amongst the absolute Monarch of these Western parts a Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. And Camden as renowned an Antiquary as any of the Age he lived in hath told us of the King of England supremam potestatem merum imperium habere b Camden in Britan. descript that he hath supreme power and absolute command in his dominions and that he neither holds his Crown in vassallage nor receiveth his investisture of any other nor acknowledgeth any Superiour but God alone To prove this last he cites these memorable words from Bracton an old English Lawyer omnis quidem sub Rege ipse sub nullo sed tantum sub deo that every man is under the King but the King under none saving only God But Bracton tells us more than this and affirms expresly that the King hath supreme power and jurisdiction over all causes and persons in this his Majesties Realm of England that all jurisdictions are vested in him and are issued from him and that he hath jus gladii or the right of the sword for the better governance of his people This is the substance of his words but the words are these c Bracton de leg Aâ—gl l. 2. c. 24. Sciendum est saith he quod ipse dominus Rex ordinariam habet jurisdictionem dignitatem potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt Habet enim omnia jura in manu sua quae ad coronam laicalem pertinent potestatem materialem gladium qui pertinet ad Regni gubernandum c. He addes yet surther Habet item in potestate sua leges constitutiones d Id. l. 2. c. 16. that the Laws and constitutions of the Realm are in the power of the King by which words whether he meaneth that the Legislative power is in the King and whether the Legislative power be in him and in him alone we shall see anon But sure I am that he ascribes unto the King the power of interpreting the Law in all doubtfull cases in dubiis obscuris domini Regis expectanda interpretatio voluntas which is plain enough For though he speaketh only de chartis Regiis factis Regum of the Kings deeds and charters only as the words seem to import yet considering the times in which he lived being Chief Justice in the time of King Henry the 3d. wherein there was but little written Law more than what was comprehended in the Kings Grants and Charters he may be understood of all Laws whatever And so much is collected out of Bractons words by the L. Chancellor Egerton of whom it may be said without envy that he was as grave and learned a Lawyer as ever sat upon that Bench. Who gathereth out of Bracton that all cases not determined for want of foresight are in the King to whom belongs the right of interpretation not in plain and evident cases but only in new questions and emergent doubts and that the King hath as much right by the constitutions of this Kingdom as the Civil law gave the Roman Emperors where it is said Rex solus judicat de causa a jure non definita e Case of the Post-nati p. 107 108. And though the Kings make not any Laws without the counsel and consent of his Lords and Commons whereof we shall speak more in the following Section yet in such cases where the Laws do provide no remedy and in such matters as concern the politick administration of his Kingdoms he may and doth take order by his Proclamations He also hath authority by his Prerogative Royal to dispense with the rigour of the Laws and sometimes to pass by a Statute with a non obstante as in the Statute 1 Henr. 4. cap. 6. touching the value to be specified of such lands offices or annuities c as by the King are granted in his Letters patents But these will better come within the compasse of those jura Majestatis or rights of Soveraignty which our Lawyers call sacra individua f Camden in Bâ—it sacred by reason they are not to be pryed into with irreverent eyes and individual or inseparable because they cannot be communicated unto any other Of which kind are the levying of Arms g Case of our Assairs p. 3. suppressing of tumults and rebellions providing for the present safety of his Kingdom against sudden dangers convoking of Parliaments and dissolving them making of Peers granting liberty of sending Burgesses to Towns and Cities treating with forein States making war leagues and peace granting safe conduct and protection indenizing giving of honor rewarding pardoning coyning printing and the like to these But what need these particulars have been looked into to prove the absoluteness and soveraignty of the Kings of England when the whole body of the Realm hath affirmed the same and solemnly declared it in their Acts of Parliament In one of which is affirmed h 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediatly to God in all things touching the regality of the said Crown and to none other And in another Act that the Realm of England is an Empire governed by one supreme head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience i 24 Henr. 8. c. 12. And more than so that the King being the supreme head of this Body Politick is instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire power preheminence authority prerogative and jurisdiction to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of Subjects within this Realm and in all causes whatsoever Nor was this any new Opinion invented only to comply with the Princes humour but such as is
made in Parliament the King passed a Law to this effect viz. r 4 Hâ—n 8. c. 8. That ull sutes condemnations executions charges and impositions put or hereafter to be put upon Richard Strode and every of his Complices that be of this Parliament or aâ—y other hereafter for any Bill speaking or reasoning of any thing concerning the Parliament to be communed and treated of shall be void and null but neither any reparation was allowed to Strode nor any punishment inflicted upon those that sued him for ought appears upon Record And for the Houses joyned together which is the last capacity they can claim it in they are so far from having the supreme authority that as it is observed by a learned Gentleman they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of Soveraign or Ministerial jurisdiction no otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their several Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act of Parliament s Case of our Affairs p. 9. Which when they have done they are so far from having any legal authority in the State as that in Law there is no stile nor form of their joynt Acts nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them until they have the Royal Assent So that considering that the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Body or Court and that there is no known stile nor form of any Law or Edict by the Votes of the two Houses only nor any notice taken of them by the Law it is apparent that there is no Soveraignty in their two Votes alone How far the practise of the Lords Commons which remaind at Westminster after so many of both Houses had tepaired to the King c. may create Precedents unto posterity I am not able to determine but sure I am they have no Precedent to shew from the former Ages But let us go a little further and suppose for granted that the Houses either joynt or separate be capable of the Soveraignty were it given unto them I would fain know whether they claim it from the King or the people only Not from the King for he confers upon them no further power than to debate and treat of his great Affairs to have access unto his person freedome of Speech as long as they contein themselves within the bounds of Loyalty authority over their own Members which being custumarily desired t Hakewell of passing bils in Parliament and of course obtained as it relates into the Commons shews plainly that these vulgar privileges are nothing more the rights of Parliament than the favours of Princes but yet such favours as impart not the least power of Soveraignty Nor doth the calling of a Parliament ex opere operato as you know who phrase it either denude the King of the poorest robe of all his Royalty or confer the same upon the Houses or on either of them whether the King intend so by his call or otherwise For Bodin whom Mr. Prynne hath honored with the title of a grand Politician u Pryn of Parliam par 2. p. 45. doth affirm expresly Principis majestatem nec Comitorum convocatione nec Senatus populique praesentia minui x Bodin de Repub. that the majesty or Soveraignty of the King is not a jot diminished either by the calling of a Parliament or Conventus Ordinum or by the frequency and presence of his Lords and Commons Nay to say truth the Majesty of Soveraign Princes is never so transcendent and conspicuous as when they sit in Parliament with their States about them the King then standing in his highest Estate as was once said by Henry 8. who knew as well as any of the Kings of England how to keep up the majesty of the Crown Imperial Nor can they claim it from the people who have none to give for nemo dat quod non habet as the saying is The King as hath been proved before doth hold his Royal Crown immediately from God himself not from the contract of the people He writes not populi clementia but Dei gratia not by the favour of the people but by the grace of God The consent and approbation of the people used and not used before the day of coronation is reckoned only as a part of the solemn pomps which are then accustomably used The King is actually King to all intents and purposes in the Law whatever immediately on the death of his Predecessor Nor ever was it otherwise objected in the Realm of England till Clark and Watson pleaded it at their arraignment in the first year of King James y Speeds History in K. James Or grant we that the Majesty of this Kingdom was first originally in the people and by them devolved upon the King by their joynt consent yet having given away that power by their said consent and setled it upon the King by an Act of State confirmed by Oaths and all solemnities which that Act requires they cannot so retract that grant or make void that gift as to pass a new conveyance of it and settle it upon their Representees in the House of Commons Or if they could yet this would utterly exclude all the Lords from having the least share or portion in this new found Soveraignty in that they represent not the common people but sit there only in their own personal capacities and therefore must submit at last to these new made Soveraigns who carry both the Purse Sword at their own girdles So then the people cannot give the Soveraignty and if they have no power to give it the Lords and Commons have no claim thereunto de jure See we next therefore how much of this Soveraignty they or their Predecessors rather have enjoyed de facto in peaceable and regular times fit to be drawn into example in the Ages following The chief particulars in which the Soveraignty consists we have seen before and will now see whether that any of them been exercised and injoyed in peaceable and regular times by both or either of the two Houses of Parliament And first for calling and dissolving Parliaments making of Peers granting of liberty to Towns and Cities to make choyse of Burgesses which antiently had no such liberty treating with forein States denouncing war or making Leagues or Peace after war commenced granting safe conduct and protection indenizing of Aliens giving of honors unto eminent and deserving persons rewarding pardoning coyning printing making of corporations and dispensing with the Laws in force they are such points which never Parliament did pretend to till these later times wherein every thing almost is lawfull I am sure more lawâ—ull than to fear God and honor the King Nor do I find that Mr. Prynne hath laboured to entitle them to these particulars For levying of Arms and the command of the Militia besides that the Kings of England have ever been in possession of it and that possession never disturbed
or interrupted by any claim of right made in the behalf of the two Houses which is as sure a title as the Law can make the Houses have declared by a Act of Parliament a Sâ—at 7 Ed. 1. cap. 1. that of right it belongs unto the King streightly to defend that is prohibit all force of Arms and that the Parliament is bound to aid him in that prohibition Touching the Royal navy and the ports and forts the Kings prescription to them is so strong and binding that in the 3d. of Edward 3. Edw. 3. the House of Commons did disclaim the having cognisance of such matters as the guarding of the Seas and marches of the Kingdome which certainly they had not done had they pretended any title to the ports and navy As for suppressing tumults and providing for the safety of the Kingdom against sudden danger the Law commits it solely to the care of the King obliging every Subject by the duty of his allegeance to aid and assist him at all seasons when need shall require b 11 Henr. 7. c. 18. And for their power of declaring law in the House of Peers wherein they deliver their opinion in the point before them in true propriety of speech they have none at all c Case of our Affairs p. 4. And this is that which was affirmed by his Majesty at the end of the Parliament Anno 1628. saying that it belonged only to the Iudges under him to interpret laws and that none of the Houses of Parliament joynt or separate what new Doctrine soever might be raised had any power either to make or declare law without his consent d 3 Car. And if it be done with his consent it is not so properly the declaring and interpreting of an old law as the making rather of a new saith a learned Gentleman e Case of our affairs P. 5. 9. Others have found out a new way to invest the Parliament with the robes of Soveraignty not as superiour to the King but co-ordinate with him and this say they appears sufficiently in that the two Houses of Parliament have not only a power of consulting but of consenting and that too in the highest office of the Monarchy whereof they are a Coordinative part the making of Laws f Fuller Answer to D. F. p. 2. Which dangerous doctrin as it was built at first on that former error which makes the King to be one of the three Estates in Parliament so it is super-structed with some necessary consequents whether more treasonable or ridiculous it is hard to say For on these grounds the Author of the Fuller Answers hath presented us with these trim devises g Id. pag. 1. viz. that England is not a simple subordinate and absolute but a coordinative and mixt Monarchy that this mixt Monarchy is compounded of three coordinate Estates a King and two Houses of Parliament that these three make but one supreme but that one is a mixt one or else the Monarchy were not mizt and finally which needs must follow from the premises that although every Member of the Houses sâ—orsim taken severally may be called a Subject yet all collective in their houses are no Subjects Auditum admissi risum teneatis Can any man hear these serious follies and abstain from laughter or think a fellow who pretends both to wit and learning should talk thus of a Monarchy which every one that knoweth any thing in Greek know to imply the supreme government of one compounded of three coordinate Estates and those coordinate Estates consisting of no fewer than 600 persons Or that a man who can pretend but to so much use of reason as to distinguish him from a beast could fall on such a senselest Dotage as to make the same man at the same time to be a Subject and no Subject a Subject in the Streets and in his private House no Subject when he sits in Haberdashers Hall for advance of moneys or in either of the two Houses of Parliament And yet this senseless Doctrine is become so dangerous because so universally admired and hearkned to that the beginning and continuance of our long Disturbances may chiefly be ascribed unto this opinion to which they have seduced the poor ignorant people The rather in regard that some who have undertook the confutation of these brainless solies have most improvidently granted not only h As in the book called Conscience satisfied that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort coordinate with the King ad aliquid to some Act or exercising of the supreme power that is to the making of Laws but that this coordination of the three Estates of which the King is yielded every where for one is fundamental and held by the two Houses on no worse a title than a fundamental Constitution which is as much as any reasonable Parliamentarian need desire to have Therefore in Answer to the Fuller not taking notice of his foolish and seditious inferences we will clear those points 1. That the two Houses of Parliament are not coordinate with the King but subordinate to him And 2. that the power of making laws is properly and legally in the King alone As for the first we had before a Recognition made by Act of Parliament by which the Kingdom of England is acknowledged to be an Empire governed by one supreme head and King to whom all sorts and degrees of people ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience i 24 H. 8. c. 12. which certainly the Lords and Commons had not made to the dethroning of themselves their heirs and successors from this coordinative part of Soveraignty if any such coordination had been then believed Or if it be supposed to excuse the matter that K. Henry the 8th being a severe and terrible Prince did wrest this Recognition from them which yet will hardly serve for a good defence what shall we say to the like recognition made in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign k 1 Eliz. c. 1. when she was green in State and her power unsetled and so less apt to work upon her people by threats and terrors Assuredly had the Houses dream't in those broken times of that coordinative Soveraignty which is now pretended they might have easily regained it and made up that breach which by the violent assaults of King Henry the 8th had been made upon them which was a point they never aimed at Besides if this coordinative mâ—jesty might be once admitted it musts needs follow that though the King hath no Superiour he hath many Equalls and where there is Equality there is no Subjection But Bracton tells us in plain terms not only that the King hath no Superiour in his Realm except God almighty but no Equal neither and the reason which he gives is exceeding strong Quia sic amitteret praeceptum cum par in Parem non habeat potestatem l Bracton de leg Aâ—gl
aswell now as formerly in the times of the Roman Emperors Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem nothing but that which the King pleaseth to allow of is to pass for Law the laws not taking their coercive force as judicious Hooker well observeth from the quality of such as devise them but from the power which giveth them the strength of laws d Hooker Ecclesiast Pol I shut up this Discourse with this expression and comparison of a late leatned Gentleman viz. That as in a Copyhold Estate the Copybolder of a meer Tenant at will comes by custom to gain an Inheritance and so to limit and restrain the will and power of the Lord that he cannot make any determination of the Copyholders Estate otherwise than according to the custome of the Mannour and yet doth not deprive the Lord of his Lordship in the Copyhold nor participate with him in it neither yet devest the Fee and Franktenement out of the Lord but that they still remain in him and are ever parcel of his Demesn e Case of our Affairs p. 6. so in the restraining of the Kings Legislative power to the concurrence of the Peers and Commons though the custome of the Kingdom hath so fixed and setled the restraint as that the King cannot in that point use his Soveraign power without the concurrence of the Peers and Commons according to the custom of the Kingdom yet still the Soveraignty and with it the inseparable Legislative power doth reside soly in the King 11. If any hereupon demand to what end serve Parliaments and what benefit can redound to the Subject by them I say in the Apostles words much every way f Rom. 3. 2. Many vexations often times do befall the Subjects without the knowledge of the King and against his will to which his ears are open in a time of Parliament The King at other times useth the eyes and ears of such as have place about him who may perhaps be guilty of the wrongs which are done the people but in a Parliament he seeth with his own eyes and heareth with his own ears and so is in a better way to redresse the mischief than he could be otherwise Nor do the people by the opportunity of these Parliamentary meetings obtain upon their Prayers and petitions a redress of grievances only but many times the King is overcome by their importunity to abate so much of his power to grant such points and pass such Laws and Statutes for their ease and benefit as otherwise he would not yield to For certainly it is as true in making our approaches and petitions to our Lord the King as in the pouring out of our prayers and supplications to the Lord our God the more multitudinous and united the Petitioners are the more like to speed And therefore said Bodinus truly Principem plaeraque universis concedere quae singulis denegarentur g Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 8. that Kings do many times grant those favours to the whole body of their people which would be absolutely denied or not so readily yielded to particular persons There are moreover many things of greater concernment besides the abrogating of old Laws and making new which having been formerly recommended by the Kings of England to the care and counsel of their people convened in Parliament are not now regularly dispatched but in such conventions as are altering the tenure of Lands confirming the rights titles and possessions of private men naturalizing Aliens legitimating Bastards adding sometimes the secular authority to such points of Doctrin and forms of worship as the Clergy have agreed upon in their Comvocations if it be required changing the publick weights and measures thorowout the Kingdom defining of such doubtfull cases as are not easily resolved in the Courts of Law raising of Subsidies and Taxes attainting such as either are too potent to be caught or too hard to be found and so not tryable in the ordinary Courts of Justice restoring to their blood and honours such or the Heirs of such as have been formerly attainted granting of free and general pardons h Sir Tho. Smith de Rep. Angl. Camden in Brit. Crompt of Courts c. with divers others of this nature In all and each of these the Lords and Commons do co-operate to the publick good in the way of means and preparation but their co-operation would be lost and fruitless did not the King by his concomitant or subsequent grace produce their good intentions into perfect Acts and being Acts either of special grace and favour or else of ordinary right and justice no way derogatory to the Prerogative Royalâ— are usually confirmed by the Royal assent without stop or hesitancy But then some other things there are of great importance and advantage to the Common wealth in which the Houses usually do proceed even to final sentence the Commons in the way of imquisition or impeachment the Lords in that of judicature and determination with the consent and approbation of the King though many times without his personal assent and presence The King may be abused in his Grants and Patents to the oppression of the people or the dilapidation and destruction of the Royal Patrimony Judges and other the great Officers of Law and Equity are subject to corruptions and may smell of gifts whereby the passages of Justice do become obstructed The Ministers of inferiour Courts as well Ecclesiastical as Civil either exhaust the miserable subject by extortions or else consume him by delayes Erroneous judgements may be given through fear or favour to the undoing of a man and his whole posterity in which his Majesties Justices of either Bench can afford no remedy The great ones of the State may become too insolent and the poor too miserable and many other waies there are by which the Fabrick of the State may be out of Order for the removing of which mischiefs the rectifying of which abuses the Lords and Commons in their several waies before remembred are of special use yet so that if the Kings Grants do come in question or any of his Officers are called to a reckoning they used heretofore to signifie unto his Majesty what they found therein and he accordingly either revoked his Grants or displaced his Servants or by some other means gave way unto their contentment the Kings consent being alwaies necessary and received as a part of the final sentence if they went so far So that we may conclude this point with these words of Bodin who being well acquainted with the Government of this State and Nation partly by way of conference with Dr. Dale the Queens Ambassadour in France and partly in the way of observation when he was in England doth give this resolution of the point in controversie i Bodin de Repub. l. 1. c. 8. Habere quidem Ordines Anglorum authoritatem quandam jura vero majestatis imperii summam in unius Principis arbitrio
versari The States saith he of England have a kind of authority but all the rights of Soveraignty and command in chief are at the will and pleasure of the Prince alone 12. And to say truth although the Lords Commons met in Parliament are of great authority especially as they have improved it in these later times yet were they never of such power but that the Kings have for the most part over-ruled them made them pliant conformable to their own desires and this not only by themselves but sometimes also by their Judges by their counsel often For such was the great care and wisdom of our former Kings as not to venture single on that numerous body of the two Houses of Parliament whereby the Soveraignty might be so easily overmatched but to take with them for Assistants as well the Lords of their Privy Counsel with whom they might advise in matters which concerned them in their Soveraign rights as their learned Counsel as they call them consisting of the Judges and most eminent Lawyers from whom they might receive instruction as the case required and neither do nor suffer wrong in point of Law and by both these as well as by the power and awe of their personal presence have they not only regulated but restrained their Parliaments And this is easily demonstrable by continual practice For in the Statute of Bigamie made in the fourth k 4 Ed. 1. year of King Edward 1. it is said expreâ—ly that in the presence of certain reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the Kings Counsel the Constitutions under-written were recited and after published before the King his Couusel forasmuch as all the Kings Counsel as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in writing and observed In the Articuli super Chartas when the Great Charter was confirmed at the request of the Prelates Earls and Barons l 28 Ed. 1. c. 2. we find these two clauses the one in the beginning thus Nevertheless the King and his Counsel do not intend by reason of this Statâ—te to diminish the Kings right m Ibid. c. 20. c. The other in the close of all in these following words And notwithstanding all these things mentioned or any part of them both the King and his Counsel and all they which were present at the making of this Ordinance do will and intend that the right and prerogative of his Crown shall be saved in all things In the 27th of King Edward the 3d. n 27 Ed. 3. The Commons presenting a Petition to the King which the Kings Counsel did mislike were content thereupon to mend and explain their Petition the form of which Petition is in these words following To their most redoubted Soveraign Lord the King praying the Commons that whereas they have prayed him to be discharged of all manner of Articles of the Lyre c. which Petition seemeth to his Counsel to be prejudicial unto him and in disherison of his Crown if it were so generally granted his said Commons not willing nor desiring to demand things of him which should fall in disherison of him or of his Crown perpetually as of Escheats c. but of trespasses misprisions negligences and ignorances c. In the 13 of the reign of King Richard the 2d when the Commons did pray that upon pain of forfeiture the Chancellor or Counsel of the King should not after the end of the Parliament make any Ordinance against the Common law o 13 Rich. 2. the King by the advise of his Counsel answered Let it be used as it hath been used before this time so as the Regality of the King be saved for the King will save his Regalities as his Predecessors have done In the 4th year of King Henry 4. p 4 Hen. 4. when the Commons complained against Sub-poenae's and other writs grounded upon false suggestions the King upon the same advise returned this answer that he would give in charge to his Officers that they should abstain more than before time they had to send for his Subjects in that manner But yet saith he it is not our intention that our Officers shall so abstain that they may not send for our Subjects in matters and causes necessary as it hath been used in the time of our good Progenitors Finally not to bring forth more particulars in a case so clear it was the constant custome in all Parliaments till the Reign of King Henry 5. q Henr. 5 that when any Bill had passed both houses and was presented to the King for his Royal Assent the King by the advise of his Privy Counsel or his Counsel learned in the Laws or sometimes of both did use to crosse ouâ— and obliterate as much or as little of it as he pleased to leave out what he liked not and confirmed the rest that only which the King confirmed being held for Law And though in the succeeding times the Kings did graciously vouchsafe to pass the whole Bill in that form which the Houses gave it or to reject it wholly as they saw occasion yet still the Privy Counsel and the Judges and the Counsel learned in the Laws have and enjoy their place in the House of Peers aswell for preservation of the Kings rights and Royalties as for direction to the Lords in a point of Law if any case of difficulty be brought before them on which occasions the Lords are to demand the opinion of the Judges and upon their opinions to ground their Iudgement As for example In the Parliament 28 of Hen. 6. The Commons made sure that VVilliam de la Pole Duke of Suffolk should be committed to Prison for many treasons and other crimes r 28 Hen. 6 and thereupon the Lords demanded the opinion of the Judges whether he should be committed to Prison or not whose Answer was that he ought not to be committed in regard the Commons had not charged him with any particular offence but with generals only which opinion was allowed and followed In another Parliament of the said King held by Prorogation one Thomas Thorpe the Speaker of the House of Commons was in the Prorogation-time condemned in 1000 l. dammages upon an Action of Trespass at the sute of Richard Duke of York and was committed to Prison for execution of the same The parliament being reassembled the Commons made suâ—e to the King and Lords to have their Speaker delivered to them according to the privilege of Parliaments t The privilege of the Barons p. 15. the Lords demanded the opinion of the Judges in it and upon their Answer did conclude that the Speaker should still remain in Prison according to Law notwithstanding the privilege of Parliament and according to this resolution the Commons were commanded in the Kings name to choose one Tho Carleton for their Speaker which was done accordingly Other examples of this kind are exceeding obvious and for numbers infinite yet neither more
they reduced all matters they commonly declin'd the Kings judgement and his Courts of Judicature as altogether incompetent appealing from them either to their own Presbyteries or to the next general Assembly of their own appointing and standing so wilfully to those Appeals that some of them had like to have paid dear for it after that Kings coming into England if the King had not been more mercifull to them then they deserved at his hands If no man whatsoever he be can lawfully acquit himself from this subjection as is said by Chrysostome what will become of Calvins popular Magistrates and of the great authority which he gives them over Kings and Princes those popular Officers being included equally with the rest of the people in St. Pauls injunction It 's true that Calvins popular Officers may seem to have some colour for it both from our English Translation and the vulgar Latine by which obedience is required sublimioribus potestatibus to the higher powers and all such popular Officers whatsoever they be may warrantably be lookt upon as higher powers in respect of the residue of the people But first the words in the original viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not so properly signifie the higher as the supreme powers and so the word is rendred in the first of St. Peter cap. 2. vers 13. in which submission is required to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the Supreme or unto such as are sent by him c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith St. Peter in the singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith St. Paul in the plural number both words proceeding from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nominative Case and consequently being of the same sense and signification But secondly permitting them the benefit of these translations yet will they finde but little colour for that coercive power that soveraign Authority and Jurisdiction which Calvin hath assigned to the three Estates or any other popular Officers over Kings and Princes For though such popular Officers may warrantably be lookt upon as higher powers in respect of the residue of the people as before was said yet are they lower powers in respect of the King from whom as they receive all the Authority which they have whatsoever it be so unto him they are to render an accompt of their actings in it whensoever he pleaseth So that these popular Officers may be compar'd not unfitly unto the Genera subalterna in the Schools of Logick each of them being subordinate to one another the Constable to the Maior or Bayliff in a corporate Town or to the Justices of the Peace in the County at large the Maiors and Justices to the Judges in their several Circuits the Judges in their several Circuits and their Courts of Judicature to the Lord Chancellor for the time being and he unto the three Estates when convened in Parliament till they end all in genus summum in that supreme power which is subordinate to none and unto which the rest are Species subalternae as the Logicians phrase it in their several orders till they end all in Specie infimâ even in the lowest of the People Less comfort can I give them from the Apostle of the Jewes from the words of St. Peter in which submission is required as before was said to every ordinance of man whether it be unto the King as unto the Supreme or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that do well Now those which are thus authorised and sent by Kings to the ends and purposes before mentioned may very properly be resembled unto Jehosophats Commissioners in the Kingdome of Judah 2 Chron. 17. 7. or the itinerary Judges in the Realm of England and can neither claim nor exercise any other Authority then what in their Commissions and instructions is assigned unto them And certainly no King did or will ever grant any such Commission whereby his Vnder-officers and inferior Magistrates may challenge any power above him or exercise any jurisdiction or Authority over him If any thing in this Text may be thought to favour Calvin in this strange opinion it is that Kings are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 humana creatura saith the vulgar Latin an ordinance of man as the English reads it and being but a Creature of the peoples making the rest may think themselves as good men as he The Rhemists will have Kings to be called humane creatures because elected by the people or holding their Soveraignty by birth and carnall propagation ordained for the wealth peace and prosperity of the Subjects to put a difference betwixt that humane Superiority and the spiritual Rulers and Regiment guiding and governing the people to an higher end and instituted by God himself immediately Christ having expresly constituted the form of Regiment used ever since in the Church Whereunto Dr. Fulk for want of a better doth return this Answer viz. That though there be great difference between the government of Princes and Ecclesiastical Governors yet the Apostle calleth not Princes an humane creation as though they were not also of Gods Creation for there is no power but of God but that the form of their Creation is in mans appointment All the Genevians generally do so expound it and it concerns them so to do in point of interesse The Bishop of that City was their Soveraign Prince and had jus utriusque gladini as Calvin signified in a Letter to Cardinal Sadolet till he and all his Clergy were expelled the City in a popular Tumult Anno 1528. and a new form of Government established both in Church and State So that having laid the foundation of their Common-wealth in the expulsion of their Prince and the new model of their Discipline in refusing to have any more Bishop they found it best for justifying their proceedings at home and increasing their Partizans abroad to maintain a parity of Ministers in the Church of Christ and to invest the people and their popular Officers with a chief power in the concernments and affairs of State even to the deposing of Kings and disposing of Kingdoms But for this last they finde no warrant in the Text which we have before us For first admitting the Translation to be true and genuine as indeed it is not the Roman Emperor and consequently other Kings and Princes may be said to be an humane Ordinance because their power is most visibly conversant circa humanas Actiones about ordering of humane Actions and other civill affairs of men as they were subjects of the Empire and Members of that Body politick whereof that Emperor was head Secondly to make soveraign Princes by what name and Title soever called to be no other then an humane Ordinance because they are ordained by the people and of their appointment must needs create an irreconcileable difference
between St. Peter and St. Paul by which last the Supreme Powers whatsoever they be are called the Ordinance of God The Powers saith that Apostle are ordained of God and therefore he that resisteth the Powers resisteth the Ordinance of God Upon which words Deodate gives this Glosse or Comment That the supreme Powers are called the Ordinance of God because God is the Author of this Order in the world and all those who attain to these Dignities do so either by his manifest will and approbation when the means are lawfull or by his secret Providence by meer permission or toleration when they are unlawfull Now it is fitting that man should approve and tolerate that which God approves and tolerates But thirdly I conceive that those words in the Greek Text of St. Peter viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not so properly translated as they might have been and as the same words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are rendred by the same Translators somewhat more neer to the Original in another place For in the 8. chapt to the Romans vers 22. we finde them rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the whole Creation and why not rather every Creature as both our old Translation and the Rhemists read it conform to omnis Creatura in the vulgar Latine which had they done and kept themselves more near to the Greek Original in St. Peters Text they either would have rendred it by every humane Creature as the Rhemists do or rather by all Men or by all Man-kinde as the words import And then the meaning will be this that the Jewes living scattered and disperst in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and other Provinces of the Empire were to have their conversation so meek and lowly for fear of giving scandal to the Gentiles amongst whom they lived as to submit themselves to all Man-kinde or rather to every Man unto every humane Creature as the Rhemists read it that was in Authority above whether it were unto the Emperor himself as their supreme Lord or to such Legats Prefects and Procurators as were appointed by him for the government of those several Provinces to the end that they may punish the evil-doers and incourage such as did well living comformably to the Lawes by which they were governed Small comfort in this Text as in any of the rest before for those popular Officers which Calvin makes the Overseers of the soveraign Prince and Guardians of the Liberties of the common people If then there be no Text of Scripture no warrant from the word of God by which the popular Officers which Calvin dreams of are made the Keepers of the Liberties of the Common people or vested with the power of opposing Kings and soveraign Princes as often as they wantonly insult upon the people or wilfully infringe their Priviledges I would fain learn how they should come to know that they are vested with such power or trusted with the defence of the Subjects Liberties cujus se Dei ordinatione Tutores positos esse norunt as Calvin plainly saies they do If they pretend to know it by inspiration such inspiration cannot be known to any but themselves alone neither the Prince or people whom it most concerneth can take notice of it Nor can they well assure themselves whether such inspirations come from God or the Devil the Devil many times insnaring proud ambitious and vain-glorious Men by such strange Delusions If they pretend to know it by the Dictate of their private Spirit the great Diana of Calvin and his followers in expounding Scripture we are but in the same uncertainties as we were before And who can tell whether the private Spirit they pretend unto and do so much brag of 1 King 22. 22. may not be such a lying Spirit as was put into the mouthes of the Prophets when Ahab was to be seduced to his own destruction Adeo Argumenta ex absurdo petita ineptos habent exitus as Lactantius notes it All I have now to add is to shew the difference between Calvin and his followers in the propounding of this Doctrine delivered by Calvin in few words but Magisterially enough and with no other Authority then his ipse dixit enlarged by David Paraeus in his Comment on the 13. chapter to the Romans into divers branches and many endevours used by him as by the rest of Calvins followers to finde out Arguments and instances out of several Authors to make good the cause For which though Calvin scap'd the fire yet Paraeus could not Ille Crucem pretium sceleris tulit hic Diadema For so it hapned that one Mr. Knight of Brodegates now Pembroke Colledge in Oxford had preach'd up the Authority of these popular officers in a Sermon before the University about the beginning of the year 1622. for which being presently transmitted to the King and Councel he there ingenuously confessed that he had borrowed both his Doctrine and his proofs and instances from the Book of Paraeus above mentioned Notice whereof being given to the University the whole Doctrine of Paraeus as to that particular was drawn into several Propositions which in a full and frequent Convocation held on the 25. of June 1622. were severally condemned to be erroneous scandalous and destructive of Monarchical Government Upon which Sentence or determination the King gave order that as many of those books as could be gotten should solemnly and publickly be burnt in each of the Universities and St. Pauls Church-yard which was done accordingly An accident much complained of by the Puritan party for a long time after who looked upon it as the funeral pile of their Hopes and Projects till by degrees they got fresh courage carrying on their designs more secretly by consequence more dangerously then before they did The terrible effects whereof we have seen and felt in our late Civil Wars and present confusions But it is time to close this point and come to a conclusion of the whole Discourse there be no other Objections that I know of but what are easily reduced unto those before or not worth the Answering 15. Thus have we took a brief Survey of those insinuations grounds or Principles call them what you will which CALVIN hath laid down in his Book of Institutions for the incouragement of the Subjects to rebellious courses and putting them in Arms against their Soveraign either in case of Tyrannie Licentiousness or Mal-administration of what sort soever by which the Subjects may pretend that they are oppressed either in point of liberty or in point of property And we have shewn upon what false and weak foundations he hath raised his building how much he hath mistook or abused his Authors but how much more he hath betrayed and abused his Readers For we have clearly proved and directly manifested out of the best Records and Monuments of the former times that the Ephori were not instituted in the State of Sparta to oppose the Kings nor the Tribunes in the State of Rome to oppose the Consuls nor the Demarchi in the Common-wealth of Athens to oppose the Senate or if they were that this could no way serve to advance his purpose of setting up such popular Officers in the Kingdoms of Christendom those Officers being only found in Aristocraties or Democraties but never heard or dreampt of in a Monarchical Government And we have shewn both who they are which constitute the three Estates in all Christian Kingdoms and that there is no Christian Kingdom in which the three Estates convened in Parliament or by what other name soever they do call them have any authority either to regulate the person of the Soveraign Prince or restrain his power in case he be a Soveraign Prince and not meerly titular and conditional and that it is not to be found in Holy Scripture that they are or were ordained by God to be the Patrons and Protectors of the Common people and therefore chargeable with no lesse a crime than a most perfidious Dissimulation should they connive at Kings when they play the Tyrants or want only abuse that power which the Lord hath given them to the oppression of their Subjects In which last points touching the designation of the three Estates and the authority pretended to be vested in them I have carried a more particular eye on this Kingdom of England where those pernicious Principles and insinuations which our Author gives us have been too readily imbraced and too eagerly pursued by those of his party and opinion If herein I have done any service to Supreme Authority my Countrey and some misguided Zelots of it I shall have reason to rejoyce in my undertaking If not posterity shall not say that Calvins memory was so sacred with me and his name so venerable as rather to suffer such a Stumbling-block to be laid in the Subjects way without being censured and removed than either his authority should be brought in question or any of his Dictates to a legal tryal Having been purchased by the Lord at so dear a price we are to be no longer the Servants of men or to have the truth of God with respect of persons I have God to be my Father and the Church my Mother and therefore have not only pleaded the Cause of Kings and Supreme Magistrates who are the Deputies of God but added somewhat in behalf of the Church of England whose Rights and priviledges I have pleaded to my best abilities The issue and success I refer to him by whom Kings do reign and who appointed Kings and other Supreme Magistrates to be nursing Fathers to his Church that as they do receive authority and power from the hands of God so they may use the same in the protection and defence of the Church of God and God even their own God will give them his Blessing and save them from the striving of unruly people whose mouth speaketh proud words and their right hand is a right hand of iniquity FINIS