Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	word_n	write_n	writer_n	28	3	7.9824	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58510	Remarks upon the most eminent of our antimonarchical authors and their writings viz. 1. the brief history of succession, 2. Plato redevivus, 3. Mr. Hunt's Postscript, 4. Mr. Johnson's Julian, 5. Mr. Sidney's Papers, 6. upon the consequences of them, conspiracies and rebellions / published long since, and what may serve for answer to Mr. Sidney's late publication of government &c.	Neville, Henry, 1620-1694. Plato redivivus.; Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703. Julian the apostate.; Sidney, Algernon, 1622-1683. Discourses concerning government.; Hunt, Thomas, 1627?-1688. Postscript for rectifying some mistakes in some of the inferiour clergy.	1699 (1699)	Wing R949; ESTC R29292	346,129	820

says they said of the Statute of Edward the First which notwithstanding he calls an Act of Parliament but yet however we see that the Style of all other Acts of Parliament put all the enacting part in the power of the King so that Mr. Sidney's making his People and Parliament the Supream Judges of their Kings violating the Laws is only a Position that opposes every Act in the Statute Book from the Great CHARTER to the last grant of our late King CHARLES But our Author Triumph'd as he thought over his Adversaries in forcing back their own Argument upon his Foes for says Mr. Sidney if no man must be Judge because he is party then neither the King and then no man can be try'd for an Offence against him or the Law I confess with such a sort of disputants as are resolv'd to beg the Question and take their Premisses for principles of eternal truth you cannot avoid the Conclusion tho it be the greatest Paradox and an absolute Lye for he presumes the Parity of Reason and then concludes they are both alike Reasonable he takes it for granted the People may judge the King tho party as well as the King the People who must be suppos'd as much partial and that is truly just as if he had said when we believe as they do and what then Why then we shall be of their mind i.e. that it would follow the King or his Judges could not hang a Fellow for Fellony or this Author himself for a Traytor to the State Nay more as the Gentleman has manag'd the matter it is made an Argument à Fortiori for he supposes the Absurdity to be such that if the King in his own Case must Judge the People and not the People the King in theirs that this Contradictory Consequence would be as much conclusive That the Servant entertain'd by the Master must Judge him but the Master by no means must the Servant or in the Metaphor of his own more Blasphemous Sedition The Creature is no way bound to its Creator but the Creator it self to the thing it has Created and now all is out and all the large Volume all his mighty Treatise not to be finisht in many years is founded upon that first Principle of all Republicans The Peoples Supremacy or as Mr. Sidney says the Soveraign being but a Servant to his Subjects a Creature to these God Almightys of the People the Creators of their King truly this they are resolv'd we shall grant or as resolutely suppose we cannot Contradict and so put upon us their presumptive absurdities for our own and make them the Consequence of those Concessions that were never yeilded who taught this Gentleman who granted him that the Magistrate was the Peoples Creature but a Brutus in his Vindiciae or that as a bominable a Book De jure Magistratuum and for this must it follow that Filmer is so absurd only because he does not suppose the very pernicious principles of those very Rebels and Republicans he endeavours to refute It is an easy sort of a Conquest and you may soon prove your Foes to be Fools too if you 'll oblige them to maintain their own positions from the Contradictory Maxims of their Enemies they oppose and this Collonel that once was a Souldier and in Arms for his Common-wealth as well as a Polemical pen man against the Monarchy would soon have remain'd sole Master of the Field had the Measures of his Foe been forc't to be taken from the Rules and Maxims of the Enemy which he fought and many would think the Man a little mad that could imagine two Armies that faced in their Fronts to meet so as to stand upon the same ground It can't be well effected without a penetration of body neither can Mr. Sidney conclude us in that absurdity unless he would make us mingle Principles a thing perhaps as repugnant to our Nature as that praeternatural Coition of Matter for have we not all the Laws of our Land on our side and that besides Sense and Reason to whose determin'd sanctions even those themselves must submit for I look upon our Argumentative reasoning in such matters to be somewhat like Belief which all our Learned in the Metaphysicks will allow to determine it self upon demonstration and Commences knowledg'd and a science and so must our Positions at last in the Politicks no longer pass for indifferent Notions or disputable Opinions when they come once to be ratified by some supream Establishment or unquestionable Authority for as the result of demonstration is some Theorem or Postulate that requires our assent so are the Sanctions of the Supream power some Statutes or Laws that Command our Obedience as the one is prov'd so the other Enacted and let any one Judge from the several we have cited or any single Act themselves can cite whether all and every one do not expressly assert or absolutely imply the Soveraign so far from being the Servant of the Subject or the Peoples Creature that they many times maintain him to be under none but God and in all places acknowledge him above all the People and is not the absurdity on their side and a Contradiction even in Terms when they contend for the contrary And as that Author of the Right of the Magistrate and the like writings of the most Eminent Republicans led on and seduc'd Mr. S. in some Points so has also so his predecessor or Co-eval for I think they liv'd in an Age W. Pryn imposed upon him in others and I am sorry to see Mr. S. that valu'd himself upon his parts to rely upon that which that pest of the press plac'd so much confidence in and that are the words of Bracton where he says as Mr. S. would have it God the Law and the Parliament are the Kings three Superiors But even Pryn himself the perverter of all that was not for his purpose does not deal so disingeniously as this Gentleman in the Case for he recites it more Exactly as it is in Bracton which is the Kings Court instead of the Parliament which in the time that Antient Author writ very probably consisted only of his prelates and Lords so that if granted them Pryn's Commons and Mr. S. his People of England are not comprehended in the words of that old writer and then besides it is the opinion of some that those words the Laws and the Kings Courts were not originally in the writings of that Loyal Lawyer who in several other places of his works carries up the Divine Right of his King and that absolute Power of his Prince as high as any of the most Modern whom Mr. Hunt has represented and libell'd as first introducers of this new Notion this dangerous and damnable Doctrine for that grave Judge for above 4 or 5 hundred years agon told us our King was under none but God that he had none above him

or bad Is it not Resolved and that upon Record in the King's Exchequer where the Words run with some Signification That the King keep the Laws and Customes which the Lords and Commons HAVE chosen c But grant them their own Sense that is Silliness That Oath these Malignants of our Monarchy object was made first for an absolute Usurper that came to the Crown by the Suffrages of such a Seditious Senate not much Inferior in Villainy to the late long Parliament that labored so much in this business of the Legislative or rather less Villains only in deposing a King whom the latter Murdered and why a Lawful King should be bound by that Oath did the Laws oblige him to take it which was first offered to an Vsurper I cannot apprehend That aspiring Prince swore too in his Coronation that he held his Crown by the Sole Consent of the People shall our present Soveraign do the same whom the Statutes acknowledge to hold from none but God But do not in that very Oath the Words they so much labor in confute them also in my poor Reason beyond reply is not Leges the Word Laws expresly used that it is Laws that the King swears to Confirm Corroborate Maintain and Protect And were the Commons ever allowed or presumed without a Rebellion to Elect LAWS There is not the least of a Bill mentioned in that Oath and sure they 'll offer to elect no more and in Gods Name let them chuse to send up as many of those as they please And sure then these Leges here must relate to those that are really so and have had the Royal Sanction already so that they must be reduced to this Dilemna If they 'll apply their Vulgus elegerit to the Lower House 't is certain they can make no Laws if to that of the Lords 't is as certain they can't be called Vulgus Lastly Laborious Drudges of Sedition let but these Laws ye long to subvert while you 'd seem to defend decide betwixt you and your King Is it not established by Statute it self that the King hath absolute power to Dissent to any Bill though agreed upon by both Houses But yet in spight of all this Reason and Law they tell us that the King cannot deny to pass any Bills for the publick good and which perhaps never can a good King for his Refusal of his Royal Sanction determines their Goodness and they cease to be necessary when the King thinks there is no need of them for if upon this their presumptive Goodness and the Prince as it is his undoubted Prerogative to do denying his Assent the People should presume they could with their Legislative because their King is refractory as they would call it pass some Bills into Law from their Assurance of their being good that power wou'd enable them to make bad ones too and allow their two Houses to Judge when to make but one Law they are as good Judges to make one thousand or as many as they please and no end of such a distracted Usurpation and that we saw when they began with that Ordinance for the Militia which was the first thing they presumed to make Law from their Kings as their Seditious absurd Phraseology would word it Refractory refusing i. e. that courageously maintaining his just Right when they had thus once broke the Damm no wonder if the deluge of an absolute Rebellion overwhelmed for upon the same ground the Lords might have Excluded both King and Commons for not concurring with them in what Bills and Acts they thought good and the Commons as indeed they did both King and Lords for being obstinate to such BILLS as themselves had offered But yet notwithstanding the Kings Refractoriness as our Republican Phrases it is now trumpt up again for the warranting the Peoples assuming as they would have it a sort of necessitated Power and that of calling themselves to Parliament for this the Lawyer in his Postscript Labors with his Innuendo's For this Plato tells us the Barons did well to put on their Armour that it is an Omission that ruins the very Foundations of Government and Hunt will not have them so much as discontinued for it renders such Conventions illusory Seditious Sycophants Your selves know this power of their Discontinuance and Dissolution is the best security the Crown has for its support Was it not miserably rent and torn from the Head but of our own Soveraign's Father and that only because he could not Dissolve them but had in effect signed his Destiny with their Bill of Sitting during the Pleasure of the two Houses Base Hypocrites 't is not a Parliaments Sitting you contend for but the Sitting of such a Parliament that good honest Parliament the late long and 〈◊〉 one which their virulent Villains Libelled for Popish Pensionary perhaps because it would not take the Peoples pay long enough might that have been discontinued or Prorogued wen ever heard then of the Statutes of Edwards and the Triennial Acts but their Pens were employed then to prove even that 〈◊〉 that discontents them now so much 'T is not above Eight years since their Pamphlets would demonstrate a Parliament dissolved for being but for Fiveteen Months Prorogued and were we but assured of having such another the Press had never been pestered for the calling one with their impertinnent prints nor any Petitions prefer'd for their Frequency Would you perswade the World your purses are so 〈◊〉 so free too that you long for a Subsidy to fill up the Kings Dissembling Souls the Parliament they clamour for can proceed from nothing else but a presumption of one to be their Patrons to patronize all their Irregularities and Refractoryness to the State to countenance all those gross abuses they put upon the Government they told us this to our faces and Menaced men to make them fear them Is this the way to have them Convencd to make them formidable For Gods sake can you credit that honorable Assembly with making them the pretended Abettors of all your Scandalous Actions The only felicity we have in such a Senate's sitting is That the King must summon them to sit they are Rebels by a Law if they convene without they must meet and Associate and the Kings happiness consists in his being able to Dissolve and Discontinue And this furious and indefatigable Scribler might have omitted the mentioning of those Statutes they have beaten so bare been baffled in so much and may now blush to bring upon the Stage but he shall have his answer here to this too That nothing of Mr. Hunt's like his managed Mungrel Julian may be call'd Vnanswerable For the First it is the 4th of this Edward And I confess in as few words That a Parliament be holden once every year and more often if NEED BE. It is all the Letter of the Law and every Line of it But they might as well tell us

ruin of that from which they can reap somewhat of Advantage by its Preservation why then should we fancy Human beings and the best of Mankind Monarchs themselves whom th' Almighty has made Gods too to be guilty of so much Madness and Inhumanity Where do we find the worst of Fools designedly to destroy their Patrimony though many times through Ignorance they may waste them and that tho there were no Laws to terrifie them from turning Bankrupts or punishing them for Beggers when they have embezell'd their Substance Away then Malicious Miscreants with such sordid Insinuation such silly Suggestions against your own Soveraigns which your selves no more believe them likely to be guilty of than that they would set Fire to all their Palaces and Sacrifice themselves and Successors in the Flames But to Return to our Argument they 'll tell us perhaps What signify the Sanctions of the Imperial Laws and the Constitutions of an Absolute Empire to a Common-wealth or a Council of three States that are Co-ordinate or at most but a Monarchy Limded and mixt and where whatever power the Supream Magistrate has must have been first Confer'd upon him by the People where the Parliaments have a great part of the Legislative and their Soveraign in some sense but a Precarious Prerogative what signifies the Authority of a Britton or a Bracton whose very works by this time are superannuated who wrote perhaps when we had no Parliaments at all at least none such as now Constituted I won't insist upon in answer to all this to show the Excellency of the Civil Institutions that obtain o're all Nations that are but Civiliz'd I wont prove to them because already done That we don't Consist of three States Co-ordinate in the Legislative or that our Monarchy is Absolute and not mixt as I shortly may But yet I 'll observe to them here That the Romans themselves tho by what they call'd their Royal Law they look't upon the power of the Prince to be conferr'd upon them by the people yet after it was once so transferr'd they apprehended all their right of Judging and Punishing was past too And for their vilifying these Antient Authors and Sages of Law who did they Favour these Demagoges would be with them of great Authority and as mightyly searcht into and sifted Should I grant them they were utterly obsolete and fit only for Hat-cases and Close-stools that they both writ before the Commons came in play for their further satisfaction I 'll cite the same from latter Laws not two hundred years old and that our selves will say was since their Burgesses began And therefore to please if possible these Implacable Republicans I 'll demonstrate what I 've undertaken to defend from the several Modern Declarations of our Law For in Edward the Third's it was resolv'd that the King could not be Judged And why because he has no Peer in his Land and 't is provided by the very first Sanctions of our Establisht Laws by the great Charter it self their Act of Liberty they so much Labour in that not the meanest Subject can be Try'd or Judg'd unless it be by his Peers Equals much less so mighty a 〈◊〉 that has none and a Fortiori then with lesser Reason by those that are his own Subjects so far from being his Peers or Equals that they are together his Inferiors which has made me think many times these preposterous Asserters of so much Nonsense these Seditious Defenders of those Liberties they never understood did apprehend by the word Pares in the Law not the common Acceptation of it in the Latin but only the abused Application of it of our own English only to our House of Lords And conclude the King might be Judg'd by those we commonly call PEERS because they sit in that Honorable House and at the same to be Judg'd according to Magna Charta that all Judgements be per pares But does not each Dunce and every Dolt understand that the very Letter of the Law looks after this only that every Person be tryed at the least by those that are of his own Condition and that in the Legal Acceptation of the Word every Commoner of the Lower House nay every one of their Electors is as much a Peer as the greatest Person of the House of Lords In short they must put some such silly Seditious Exposition upon the plainest Letter when they pretend to Judge their King or else from the very Law of their own Liberty they labor in allow that their King has no Judges In that Act against Appeals that was enacted in the time of Henry the 8th the very Parliament upon whom the People and even these Republicans so much depend tells us even in the very Letter of that Law That it is Manifest from Authentick History and Chronicle That the Realm of England is an Empire That its Crown is an Imperial one That therefore their King is furnish'd by the goodness of Almighty God with an intire Power and Prerogative to render and yield Justice to all manner of Folk in all Causes and Contentions This by solemn Act is declared of their King this Excludes the People from Judging of themselves much more their Soveraigns This the Resolution of a popular Parliament they would make even the Supream and this by them resolved even in Opposition to that Popery these Panick Fools so much and so vainly fear Do not the Books the best Declarations of the Law let us understand that which they against the Resolutions of all the Law it self would so foolishly maintain that it was resolved in Edward the 4th's time That the King cannot be said to do any wrong and then surely can't be Judg'd by his very People for doing it when impossible to be done and was not this the Sense of all the Judges and Serjeants of the time to whose Opinion it was submitted was it not upon the same Reason a Resolution of the Law in Edward the 4th's time that because the Soveraign could not be said to injure any Subject therefore the Law never looks upon him as a disseisor a disposesser of any Man 's Right and all the remedy it will allow you is only Plaint and Petition Does not my Lord Coke himself that in several places is none of the greatest Assertor of the Right of the Soveraign fairly tell us least it should be vainly fear'd they should reflect upon the King 's own Misgovernment all the fault should rest upon the Officers and Ministers of his Justice Does it not appear from the Statutes of Edward the third that notwithstanding the strict Provision of the Charter for the Tryal by Peers that the King was still look'd upon as a Judge with his Council and Officers to receive Plaints and decide Suggestions and tho that and the subsequent of the next year provide against false ones yet it confirms still the power of the King to hear and determine

Theorems not to be disputed these determin our Reason even in Philosophy and the Mathematicks and why should not the Laws then in Politicks too and where they are positive sure 't is Impudence as well as Capital perhaps to oppose And yet we see these Gentlemen of so little Law to Labour so much in a dispute that is only to be decided by it what Authority is the singular assertion of a Republican or a Plato Redivivus that the House of Commons is the only part of the old Constitution of Parliament that is left us or the single sense of Mr. Sidney that the Senate of England is above its Soveraign against the form of the very first Act of State that remains upon Record the very Charter these Democraticks adore against the form of the following one of the Forest and Consult but the Style of the Statute Book and all the Antient Acts down to Richard the Second and you 'll find not so much as one but what expressly points out in its Enacting part the sole power of the Soveraign by which it was Enacted all in these repeated Expressions of Absolute Majesty We the Kings of England of our free will have given and granted it is our Royal Will and Pleasure the King Commands the Kings Wills our Lord the King has establisht the Lord the King hath ordain'd And most of them made in the manner of Edicts or Proclamations as in the Margin will appear and tho 't is thought now such a piece of Illegality to be concluded by an Order of Council and even his Majesties late command for the Continuance of the Tunnage and the Resolution of the Judges about that part of the Excise which expir'd has by some of our murmurers been repin'd at tho by all Loyal ones it was as chearfully assented to and as punctually paid yet they shall see that the People heretofore paid such a deference even to an Edict of the Prince that they nearly rely'd as much upon it as the Romans did upon their Imperial Institutions who as I before shew'd lookt upon it as a crime like to Sacrilege but to disobey And this will appear from an Act of Parliament in Henry the Eighth's time which provided that the Princes Proclamations should not be contemned by such obstinate Persons and oppos'd by the willfullness of froward Subjects that don't consider what a King by his Royal Power may do and all that disobey'd were to be punisht according to the Penalty exprest in the Proclamation and if any should depart the Realm to decline answering for his Contumacy and Contempt he was to be adjudg'd a Traytor and tho the Statute limited it to such as did not extend to the Prejudice of Inheritance Liberties or Life yet the King was left the Judge Whether they were Prejudicial or not and these Kings Edicts by this very Act were by particular Clause made as binding as if they had been all Acts of Parliaments and that it may not be said to be an Inconsiderate and Vnadvised deed of the Parliament to give the King such a Power tho 't is hard to say so of a Senate whom the writ that convokes them says they are call'd to deliberate To avoid that imputation I must tell them it was very Solemnly a Second time Confirm'd again within three years after and by that Power given to nine of the Kings Council to give Judgment against 〈◊〉 Offenders of the former and 〈◊〉 this was repeal'd in the following 〈◊〉 of King Edward a Minor and almost a Child A time wherein not withstanding there is such a woe denounc'd against a People that have such a King the Subjects seldom fail of Invading something of the Prerogative yet still we see tho the Law be not now in 〈◊〉 plain matter of Fact that there was 〈◊〉 such a Law that our Kings 〈◊〉 were once by express words of the Statute made as valid as the very Act of State it self that made them so that the Judicial Power of the Prince was 〈◊〉 less limited and that 〈◊〉 Libels lye as well as their 〈◊〉 Tongues when they tell us and would have us believe That 〈◊〉 but our late King as well as the present 〈◊〉 pretended to so much of Prerogative or had more allow'd them by the Laws And let any one but leisurably examine as I have particularly the several Acts of each King's Reign and he 'll find that from this Richard the Second to whose time the Stile of the Statutes as you see was in a manner absolutely Majestick down to King Charles the Martyr even all those are 〈◊〉 in such Words as will 〈◊〉 the Commons 〈◊〉 being 〈◊〉 and so much concerned in the Legislative as these popular 〈◊〉 have 〈◊〉 to persuade us their People are for even they all run either in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The * King with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his Lords Spiritual and 〈◊〉 at the special Instance and 〈◊〉 of the Commons or The 〈◊〉 by and with the Assent of his Lords Spiritual 〈◊〉 and Commons and as if the past Parliaments 〈◊〉 would have provided against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a 〈◊〉 Age which they could hardly be thought to 〈◊〉 since it savors so much of almost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sedition as if 〈◊〉 Anoestors had feared least some of their prostigate posterity seduced with the Corruptions of a Rebellious Age should impose upon the Prerogative of the Crown with any such Subtil 〈◊〉 of their King 's making but one of the three States and by Consequence conclude as they actually did that the two being greater than him 〈◊〉 could be his Judges and their own Soveraign's Superiors why to prevent these very Rebels and Republicans in such Factious Inferences did they for two hundred years agon in the first of Richard the Third Resolve what was signified by the three Estates of the Realm For say they That is to say the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons and even long fince that much more lately but in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in that Act of Recognition of her Right where they endeavor to advance her Royalty as much as possible they can and to make the Crown of this Realm as much Imperial there they tell her 'T is WEE your Majesties most faithful and Obedient Subjects that represent the THREE ESTATES of your Realm of England and therefore in King James and Charles the First 's time when the Commons began to be mutinous and encroach upon the Crown then they having with the help of their numerous Lawyers which were once by particular Act excluded the House and if less had Sate in it perhaps it might have been once less Rebellious too those Gentlemen knowing too well the weight of Words and what Construction and Sense Sedition and Sophistry can deduct from a single Syllable I am confident it was they contriv'd the Matter and Mcthod so as to foist in the Factious form of

this Be it enacted by the King Lords and Commons for that is the General Stile of the Enactive part of most of the Statutes of those Times and this was most agreeable with their mighty Notion of his Majesties making but up one of the THREE that so they might the better conclude from the very Letter of their own Laws That the TWO States which the Law it self implyed now to be Co-ordinate must be mightier and have a Power over their King whom the same Laws confest to be but ONE and the Reason why the forms of their Bill and the draught of the Lawyers and the Lower-House might be past into Act without any Alteration or Amendments of this Clause was I believe from a want of Apprehension that there ever could be such designing Knaves as to put it in to that Intention or such Factious Fools as to have inferred from it the Commons Co-ordinacy For the Nobility and Loyal Gentry that 〈◊〉 commonly the more Honesty for having the less Law cannot be presumed so soon to comprehend what Construction can be drawn from the Letter of it by the laborious cavil of a Litigious Lawyer or a cunning Knave and therefore we find that those Acts are the least controverted that have the fewest Words and that among all the multiplicity of Expressions that at present is provided by themselves that have commonly the drawing of our Statutes themselves also still discover as many Objections against it to furnish them with an Argument for the Merits of any Cause and the Defence of the Right of their Clyent at the same time they are satisfied he is in the wrong And for those Enacting forms of our Statutes whatsoever Sense some may think these Suggestions of mine may want That some Seditious Persons got most of them to run in so low so popular a Stile in the latter end of King James and Charles the first 's time such as Enacted only by the Authority of the Parliament by the Kings Majesty Lords and Commons yet upon the Restauration of Charles the Second the Words With the consent of the Lords and Commons were again reviv'd and afterward they bring it into this old agen With the Advice and Assent of Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons according to the form of Richard the 3d. and Queen Elizabeth that resolv'd them to be the THREE STATES and this runs on through all the Acts of his Reign and even in several of them the Commons humbly beseech the King that it may be so enacted I thought it necessary to bring home to our present tho most profligate time as much Acknowledgement as possible I could of my Kings Prerogative from the Laws of our Land and the very Statutes themselves because that some great Advocates for the power of the People some times pretend to plead for them too from Acts of Parliaments tho I think in this last lewd and Libellous Contest against the Crown that lasted for about five year in that Lustrum of Treason there was but one that was so laboriously Seditious so eminently popular as to endeavour to prove the Peoples Supremacy from Rolls and Records and Acts of State and for that recommend me to the good Author of the Right of the Commons Asserted tho I should rather approve of such an undertaking when endeavored to be done from the tracing the dark and obscure tracts of Antiquity and the Authority of a Selden than the single Assertion of a Sidney and the mere Maxims of some Modern Democraticks that have no other Foundation for their Establishments than the new Notions of their Rebellious Authors and that ipse dixit of such Seditious Dogmatists But I am satisfied too that this Gentleman who has laboured so much in vindicating the Commons Antiquity and their constituting an essential part of our Saxon Parliaments did design in it much more an Opposition of our Antient Monarchy and the Prerogative of the Crown than a mere clearing the dark foot-steps of our Old Chronicle and a real defence of Matter of Fact and the Truth And this is too clearly to be prov'd from the pestilent Pen-man's P-tyts own Papers that were publish'd at such a time when there was no great need of such an Asserting the Commons Right when themselves were more likely to have Usurp'd upon the Crown and as Mr. Sidney and his Associates would have it made themselves and the People Judges of their own wrong For to see such a task undertaken at a time when we are since satisfied such dangerous designs were a-foot looks only like a particular part of that general Plot and Conspiracy that has been since discovered and that all sorts of Pens were imployed as well as all Heads Hearts and Hands at work for the carrying on Mr. Sidney's OLD CAVSE as indeed all this Gentlemans Works tended to for which the Almighty was supposed so often to have declared and signaliz'd himself and illustrates only this That there was not any Person qualified for undermining of our Monarchy either from his Wit or Parts Boldness or Courage from his Virulency in Satyr or his Knowledge in History from his skill in any Science or Profession but what some or other of the most eminent was made Serviceable to this Faction and contributed his Talent to the carrying on the Design according to the gift and graces that they had in their several Abilities to promote it neither can this Gentleman think himself libell'd in this Accusation unless he would give his own works the Lye for who but him that had such a Design for the subverting our Monarchy would at a season when the Succession of our Crown was struck at in the Commons Vote a Succession that several Laws of our Land have declared to be Hereditary even by that of God who but one so Seditious would not only have encouraged such unwarrantable Proceedings which was the late Kings own Words for 't in such an Assertion of the Commons Right but in that too brought upon the Stage several Arguments from our History several Presidents of our Soveraign's being here Elected by their Subjects when they might as well too tell us That our present Soveraign was so chosen because the Question was put to the People upon his Coronation but yet this elective Kingdom of ours did this Laborious drudg of Sedition drive at too Does he not tell us William Rufus and several others were Elected that is Henry the First King Stephen King John tho I am satisfied that consent of the Clergy and People they so much rely upon was nothing more than the Convention of those Persons that appeared upon the solemn Coronation or at least the Proclaiming of the King Themselves are satisfied all our old Statutes clearly confirm'd the sole Legislative Power of the Prince and therefore they won't when they are objected to them allow them to be Statutes at all because made I suppose only by their King but so my Lord Coke

Barbarous Nations that have no other jurisdiction but what is Paternal the question is not what jurisdiction those Parents have that are Subjected to the Laws of a Civil Society but what they have by those of nature and 't is as absolute a lye when he says 't is not abated by the Soveraign power for were it not the Parent had a power over the life of his off-spring as the Patriarchs had of old and some Barbarous Nations that are at present unciviliz'd And for the Statute of the 25 which Mr. Hunt brings as an Argument against it because 〈◊〉 is not made by that petit Treason is as pertinent perhaps as ifhe had told us that every Father of a Family was not included in that of Edward the first that settles the Militia in the King for sure 't is not possible to suspect how they can be considered asso many Soveraigns in the very Civil Sanctions that establish a much more 〈◊〉 Soveraignity whose Supremacy in their several Families is founded on the Law of Nature tho we have seen that they are confirm'd too by the general Laws of Nations and the Hypothesis favour'd from our own But as it is impertinently applyd to this purpose so is it as falfely infer'd from that Statute for tho Parricide be omitted and the Judges by that act restrained to interpret its extent from the paty of reason or à Fortiori yet no Man in hissenses can imagin that it was therefore omitted because there was no Relation of Subjection or Soveraignty between the Father and the Son when a Master and a Servant are exprest in the very Letter of the Law when a Prelate and a Priest a Husband and a Wife And is it not against Sense to imagin a Man has not as much Soveraignty over his Son as over his Wife that sits always with him as his Equal and to whom our Courtesie of England gives the Precedence and the Laws of the Land make but one as well as those of God and if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Impetus of Love and Affection will supersede the Servitude and Subjection I think that by Mr. Hunt's leave is more abundantly exprest to the Wife especially in that point upon which he himself puts it the work of Generation And can it be imagin'd that even a regular or secular Priest whose Subjection to his Primate or Rector is only the result of the Statutes of the Society or the resolution of the Common Law can denote more Soveraignty then the Filial Obedience required by the Laws of God Nature and Nations the citing this Statute of Edward for having omitted the making Parricide Petty-Treason because it argues they had no opinion of the Soveraignty of the Father is the greatest Argument that they had for since they have suppos'd a Soveraign Power which from the suggestiing of such an Argument here themselves do seem to allow and tacitly to Confess in those Authorities the Destroying of which is made Treason by this Act they 〈◊〉 conclude a greater So veraignty to reside in him that has really a GREATER POWER then those that in that Act are exprest for were it 〈◊〉 any impartial Person living Whether a Man has not a greater Power over his Son then his Wife or Servant it would soon be resolv'd that he has he being impower'd only from some civil Constitutions to govern the latter but the former from the Laws of Nature and Nations both so that in Common Reason and Common Equity Parricide must be concluded in the Chapter of Treason according to the receiv'd Rule of Natural as well as Artificial Logick that every greater Crime must be Punishable by that Law that punishes a less of the like Nature and the true Reason why in this very Case the Judges do not make the like Conclusion from the Similitude or Aggravation of the sin is as my Lord Coke Insinuates because the words of the Act it self declare that nothing but what is their 〈◊〉 and exprest shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even that very Act foreseeing they might have 〈◊〉 several things that by the same parity of Reason might be included does provide with a sort of reserve that at any time the Parliament might make it more Inclusive and I dare Swear had it it been propos'd to any Session that has sat since the Statute was first Enacted whether by Parity 〈◊〉 was not fit to be made Petty-Treason not a man of Sense in the Senate but would have consented And this Construction of a Parliament is what Mr. Sidney himself forsooth so much rely'd upon who if they will but put upon this branch of the Statute according to his own words a construction agreeable to Reason or Common Sense must conclude that he certainly is as much a Traytor that Murders his own Father as the Servant that kills his Soveraign Master or a Priest that makes away with his Lord the Prelate But besides if this Letter of our Law does not include the 〈◊〉 of the Parent in Petty-Treason yet the 〈◊〉 of my Lord Coke upon this Case will go near to conclude it for he says 't is out of the Statute 〈◊〉 the Son serve the Father for Wages Meat or Drink or Apparel and I cannot see how any Son till he is Emancipated by 〈◊〉 or Marriage or the like can be said to be any other then his Fathers Servant and that for all four for as the Father requires of him filial Obedience so he can and they Commonly do Command their Sons in the Offices of Servants and that Arbitrarily in whatsoever he pleases and find him accordingly the fore-mention'd necessarys to the performance of his duty and above all this it is the opinion of a good Historian recorded by my Lord Coke that before this Statute Parricide was Petty-Treason by the Common Law and then what will become of Mr. H. Triumphant Appeal to the Laws as well as his impertinent applycation to Reason and before this Statute too such a signal sign of Soveraignty was supposed to reside in the Father of a Family That it was Petty Treason too to 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 or Signet of the Lord of the Family wherein he liv'd a Signature of Royalty indeed and almosta mark of Majesty it self and the Reason my Lord Coke resolves it into their own omission of this Reasonable part of the Statute is so far from the Postscript impertinency of the Parliaments opinion against the paternal Power that he says those Law makers could never imagin that any Child could be guilty of such a sort of Barbarity and seems to insinuate the pretermission to have been the result of such a probable piece of presumption and that I remember was the very reason among the Romans that there was no punishment for such a sin as superseded a Sentence They had a Law supposed to be made in 〈◊〉 Caesar the Dictators time against those that attempted

patriae est D. 1. 4. 1. Atrocius est Patriae parentem quam 〈◊〉 occi dere Cicero in Philip 2d * I 've said yee are Gods Psalms ‖ Hunt allows that himself posts p. 95. † Postquam populus Romanus Lege Regiâ in principem omne suum Imperium potestatem solum Contulit ex illâ non sub diti sed etiam Magistratus ipsi subiiciuntur Zouch Elem. p. 101. * Edward the 3d. ‖ Magn. Chart. cap. 29. No Freeman will we Imprison or Condemn but by Lawful Judgment of his Peers Per parium juorum Legale Judicium And my Lord Coke tells us they are to be understood of Peers of the Realm only when a Peer is to be try'd Comment upon the very words 2. Inst. which he more fully explains in 's Comment on the 14. Chap. of Char. where he says pares is by his Peers or Equals for as the Nobles are understood by that word to be all equal so are all the Commons too ib. p. 29. Where note the form of this very Charter runs all in the sole 〈◊〉 of the King 24. H. 8. c. 12. † Vid. 1. Ed. 5. fol. 2. Si Le Roy moy dissei sit pur ceo que Le Roy en le ley ne poit moy disseisir il né serrá appell disseisor mes jeo sue mis a petition à Roy. 4. Ed. 4. 25. 13. * Coke Comon West 1. 2. Inst. p. 158. ‖ Stat. to pursue suggestious 37. E. 3. c. 18. 38. Ed. 3. c. 9. Parl. Glocester 2. Ric. 2. Brief History of Succession p. 7. † Plato Rediviv p. 116. 234. † Plato Rediviv p. 116. 234. March Needham Merc. Polit n. 65. Sept 4. 1651. Hollinshed 3d. Vol. Chron. F. 508. N. 50. How 's Annals p. 277. Vid. Trussel in vit R. 2. Parl. Glocest His deposers within the 25 of Ed. Coke Treason * Mag. Chart. 9. H. 3. c. 29. Cap. 14. ‖ 2 Inst. pag. 49. † The writ of Conviction was the same with an Attaint and that was by Common Law too Coke 2. Inst. p. 130. Vid. 3. Inst. p. 222. 1. Inst. pag. 294. 13. and tho this Judgment is given by no stat yet there are several Stat. that 〈◊〉 penalty and that even in trespass where damages but 40. sh. 5. E. 3. Chap. 7. Vid. also 〈◊〉 E. 3. c. 8. 〈◊〉 E. 3. c. 4. 13. R. 2. and several other Stat. in H. 4 5 6 7 8th times about it * Vid. Lilburn's Tryal 24. Oct. 1649. Printed the 28. of November 1649. Page 3. Ib. p. 121. Ibid. pag. 122 113. That contradicts directly out of their own Mouth the Doctrine of William Pryn of his Parliaments Right to it Littleton Sect. 368. Coke Com. ibid. Prideaux Liburn's Tryal page 17. Ibid. page 123 † 13. R. 2. † It is the most Honorable Court the Parliam excepted that is in the Christian World of Honorable Proceeding just Jurisdiction A Court that kept all England in quiet Coke 4 Inst. p. 65. and so it did till abolish'd by the Tumults of a Parliam An. 1641. page ‖ Coke 4. Inst. C. 5. † 3. H. 7. c. 1. ‖ Cambden Britt 130. Coke 4. Inst. p. 65. 63. ne dignitas hujus Curiae vilesceret Verney's Case 34. H. 6. Rot. 37. ‖ 'T is that which gives them Life as I have shown before and makes them any thing besides waste Paper And the Judicious Hooker in his politicks seems to be of the same opinion when he says Laws take their force not from those that devise them but from the power that gives them the strength of Laws † The seven Kingdoms of the Saxons had all their Laws made by their 7. several Soveraigns of which confuss'd number the Confessor cull'd out the best and call'd them after his own name St. Edward so did also the other Saxon and Danes Kings their own after theirs as you see in Lambert's Book of Laws ‖ Omne malum ab aquilone * pag. 21. ‖ Tryal p. 23. §. 2. † Magn. Chart. 9. H. 3. know ye that we of our mere will have given c. Chart. Forest. 9. H. 3. begins also with a we will Stat. Hiber 14. H. 3. only a mere Order of the King to the Son of Maurice his Judge there the words we command you Witness my self Note that was even concerning Free-hold and a Case of Co-parcenary The Stat. Bisex 21. H. 3. tho concerning pleading and Common Law but an Order of the King to his Judges for the words are we ordain and Command you Stat. Assiza 51. H. 3. The King to whom all these shall come greeting de scacc the King Commandeth † 31. Hen. 8. c. 8. Stat. Mert. 6. The King our Lord providing hath made these Acts 2d Inst. p. 101. Westm. 1. 3. Ed. 1. 1. The King willeth and commandeth Stat. Gavelet even of altering the writ which they say can't be done but in Parliament Enacted by the King and his Justices 10. E. 2. Stat. E. 3. several say we will we ordain so also several R. 2. H. 8 * Coke 4. Inst. c. 1. Parl. † 34. H. 8. c. 25. ‖ 1. Ed. 4. c. 12. Plato Rediv That the form 1. H. 4. H. 5. H. 6. Ed. 4. 〈◊〉 3. Then begins the other 1. H. 7. H. 8. Ed. 6. Q. Mar. Q. El. Jac. 1. Wil. 〈◊〉 Power of Parliam Exact Abridgem Fol. 117. p. 1. H. 3. Keeble Stat. 1. El. C. 3. and does not their own Oracle tell them so L. Coke 4 Inst. C. 1. Parliam H. 6. 4. Inst. Stat. de Bigamis concordatum per Justiciarios 2. Inst ibid. Stat. West 2. 13. Ed. 1. Dominus Rex in Parlia mento suo Statuta edidit 2. Inst. 331. Stat. 〈◊〉 agatis 13. Ed. 1. begius Rex talibus Judicibus Salutem and tho some would not have it an Act of Parliament my Lord Coke says 't is prov'd so by the Books and 〈◊〉 Acts 2. Iust. page 487. 〈◊〉 Jac. 1. C. 〈◊〉 6. Car. p. 1. C. 19. 12. Car. 2. C. 25. 〈◊〉 2. 13. Car. 〈◊〉 13 14. Car. 2. C. 10. 19. Car. 2. 8. 25. Car. 2. C. 1. 25. Car. C. 9. Buchanan and his Disciples in Scotland maintain'd the same Doctrine of the King 's Co-ordinacy and therefore their Acts in the Rebellion too ran in the Name of the three States But when the King was returned to his 〈◊〉 and they to their Obedience the old form was retrieved The King with advice and consent of Car. 2d Speech to the late Oxford Parliam Petyt's Right of the Commons asserted from his Cleri populi 〈◊〉 4. Inst. Tryal pag. 24. A Sophism Logician call the Petitio principi Page * Vid. Paper at his Execution He has too that Old Seditious Aphorism us'd by Junius Brutus all the rest of the Republicans Singulis 〈◊〉 Tryal p. 23. tho in the next paragraph he is no more than any of his Subjects ‖ This Gentleman seems only to have translated that Authors own words non