Honour Nature and Dewtie an inordinate seditious and slaundres Act was made agayns the most famous Prince of blessed memory Kinge Herrie the Sixte his Vncle in the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourth day of November the first Year of the Reigne of Edward the Fourth late King of England whereby his said Vncle contrary to due Allegianee and all due Order was attainted of High Treason Wherefore our same Soveraigne Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spirituals and Temporals and Comines in this present Parliament assembled and by Auctoritie of the same ordeineth enacteth and establisheth that the said Act and all Acts of Attainder Forfaiture and Disablement made or had in the said Parliament or else in any other Parliament of the said late King Edward ayenst the said most blessed Prince King Herrie or against the right famous Princess Margaret late Queen of England his Wife or the right victorious Prince Edward late Prince of Wales Son of the same blessed King Herrie and Margarett Jasper Duke of Bedford late Earl of Pembroke or Herrie late Duke of Somerset the which Jasper and Herrie late Duke of Somerset for their true and faithful Allegiances and Services done to the same blessed King Herrie were attainted of High Treason or any of them by what Name or Names they or any of them be named in any of the said Acts be ayenst the said blessed King Herrie Queen Margaret Edward late Prince and the same Dukes and the Heirs of every of them void annulled repelled and of no Force ne Effect N. X. Vid. CAP. F. 103. SAnctissimo in Christo Patri Domino Claus 3. E. 1. m. 9. Cedula In a Letter to the Pope Domino G. divinâ providentiâ Sacro-sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae universalis Ecclesiae summo Pontifici Edwardus ejusdem gratiâ Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae Dux Aquitaniae Cum reverentiâ honore salutem pedum oscula beatorum Mandavit nobis olim per literas Apostolicas quas pronâ mentis devotione recepimus vestra sanctitas reverenda ut annuum censum in quo Sacrosanctae Rom. Ecclesiae ratione Regni Angl. pro octo praeteritis annis asseritis nos teneri venerabili vestro Magistro R. de Nogeriis Capellano vestro assignari liberaliter ac integrè nomine pred Rom. Ecclesiae faceremus Nuper autem alias literas vestras recepimus cum Reverentiâ continentes quod cum nos respons Relationis solutionis Censûs annui memorati quam nobis pred Capel vester exposuit vestrae Ecclesiae Romanae Nomine diligenter Deliberatione Consilii Procerum Regni nostri in Parliamento quod circa Octabas Resurrectionis Dominicae celebrari in Angliâ consuerit pro eo duximus reservand quod tempore receptionis pred lit vestrae noviter ejusdem Regni gubernacula sumpseramus nunc de hujusmodi censu sine ulteriori procrast impendi faceremus eidem satisfac plen Capellano Fatemur enim S. Pater Domine ad Parliament nostrum in Octabis Resurrectionis Dominicae prox pret Regni nostri Praelatos Proceres evocasse ibique multa statuisse divinâ gratiâ favente quae meliorationem statûs Ecclesiae Anglicanae reformationem Regni ejusdem respiciunt communes profectus populi capiant incrementa Set antequam eidem Parl. propter negotiorum multitud quae reformationis remedio indigebant finem imponere valeremus Eodem Capellano vestro responsionem debitam sibi fieri instanter postulante quaedam gravis nos invasit sicut Domino placuit infirmitas corporalis quae perfectionem multorum aliorum negot deliberationem Petitionis Censûs annui supardict de quo dolemus non modicum impedivit Sicque cum occatione infirmitatis hujusmodi à quâ per Dei gratiam cujus est perimere mederi incepimus convalescere Idem Parl. fuerit dissolutum super hoc nequiverimus super Petitione Censûs ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Praelatis Proceribus antedictis sine quorum communicato consilio sanctitatae vestrae super predictis non possumus respondere Et jurejurando in coronatione nostra prestit sumus astricti quod jura Regni nostri servabimus illibata nec aliquod quod Diadema tangat Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisito consilio faciemus Reverende Benignitati vestrae humiliter supplicamus pro dono petimus spirituali quatenus molestè non ferat sanctitas vestra si ad praesens super pred sicut vellemus non possumus respondere Imo patientia vestra paterna si placet nos super hoc habere dignetur excutatos Pro firmo scituri pie Pater Domine quod in alio Parliamento nostro quod ad festum Sancti Michaelis prox fut intendimus dante Domino celebrare habito communicato Consilio cum Praelat Proc. memoratis vobis super praem ipsorum Consilio dabimus responsionem Conservet vos Dominus Ecclesiae Sanctae suae per tempora longaeva Teste meipso apud Westm 19. die Junii Anno Regni nostri 3o. The Present CONVENTION a Parliament N. XI Vid. CAP. 10. F. 111. I. THat the formality of the King 's Writ of Summons is not so essential to an English Parliament but that the Peers of the Realm and the Commons by their Representatives duly Elected may legally Act as the great Council and Representative Body of the Nation though not summon'd by the King especially when the Circumstances of the time are such that such Summons cannot be had will I hope appear by these following Observations First The Saxon Government was transplanted hither out of Germany where the meeting of the Saxons in such Assemblies was at certain fixed times viz. at the New and Full Moon But after their Transmigration hither Religion changing other things changed with it and the Times for their publick Assemblies in conformity to the great Solemnity celebrated by Christians came to be changed to the Feasts of Easter Pentecost and the Nativity The lower we come down in Story the seldomer we find these General Assemblies to have been held and sometimes even very anciently when upon extraordinary Occasions they met out of course a Precept an Edict or Sanction is mentioned to have issued from the King But the Times and the very Place of their ordinary Meeting having been certain and determined in the very first and eldest Times that we meet with any mention of such Assemblies which times are as ancient as any Memory of the Nation it self hence I inferr that no Summons from the King can be thought to have been necessary in those days because it was altogether needless Secondly The Succession to the Crown did not in those days nor till of late Years run in a course of Lineal Succession by right of Inheritance But upon the Death of a Prince those Persons of the Realm that Composed the then Parliament Assembled in order to the choosing of another That the Kingdom was then Elective though one or other of the Royal
and correct and that in other matters they share with the King in every part of the Soveraignty He adds If we have need of farther proof the name Parliament which all our Ancient Histories give the Assembly of States may furnish us with one This is the name which the English give this Assembly which partakes of the Soveraignty with their King The French and the Ancient Britains had the same Laws and the same Language they Governed themselves by States gave the same name to their Assemblies And without doubt they had the same Authority Nay it is certain that the States had formerly in France the same Power that the Parliaments have in England As this Author makes the Liberties of the English Nation and the Power of its Parliament an Argument of the Right of the French Nation Bodin who wrote after their Parliament at Paris had taken the place of the Assembly of States makes England a parallel to France Turky Persia Muscovy Bodin de Repub lib. 2. c. 4. ed. A Lyon p. 302. Ib. Cap. 3. p. 286. This was H. 2. for the absolute Soveraignty of their Princes but that he was little acquainted with the History of the Govenment of England appears in that he supposes that Henry who procured his Son to be Crowned in his life time to have been the Son of W. 1. Bodin p. 300. Even where a Prince is the most absolute he admits That if he Govern Tyrannically he may be lawfully killed by a Foreign Prince and that it is a noble and magnificent action for a Prince to take Arms to rescue a people unjustly oppressed by the cruelty of a Tyrant as did the Great Hercules who went about the World exterminating the Monsters of Tyrants and for his high exploits has been Deified So did Dion Timoleon Aratus and other generous Princes who have bore the Title of Chastisers and Correcters of Tyrants This says he was the sole cause for which Tamerlain Prince of the Tartars denounced War against Bajazet King of the Turks And when he Besieged Constantinople said he came to chastise his Tyranny and deliver his afflicted people And in fact he vanquished him in a pitch'd Battel in the Plain of Mount-Stellian and having killed and put to flight Three Hundred Thousand Turks he kept the Tyrant in a Golden-Cage till he died Ib. p. 301. And in such case it matters not whether the Virtuous Prince proceed against the Tyrant with Force or Art or way of Justice True it is if the Virtuous Prince has taken the Tyrant he will have more Honour if he make his Process and punish him as a Murderer or Parricide or Robber rather than to make use of the Law of Nations against him This passage in Bodin shews beyond contradiction That if he were now alive and not of the Romish Superstition he would have extolled and justified the Heroick undertaking of King William for the delivery of this Nation But the ground of the justification is That even the most absolute Soveraign may injure his Subjects as no doubt but he would if he treated them contrary to natural equity and his own established Laws Jovian p. 226. whereas the Author of Jovian having set up an Imperial Power above all Political Constitutions says In this Realm the Sovereign cannot wrong or injure his Subjects but contrary to the Political Laws And by consequence not at all if the Political Laws are to give way to the Imperial Wherefore I wonder not to find him a Subscriber to the late Bishop of Chichester's Paper which condemns Swearing Allegiance to our present King and Queen But Bodin as he justifies our King William in freeing us from an oppressing Monarch no less clears the Subjects of England in joyning with him upon supposition that the Constitution of our Government is not rightly understood by him Bodin p. 301. But says he as to Subjects we ought to know whether the Prince be absolutely Soveraign or whether he is not absolutely Soveraign For if he is not absolutely Soveraign it is necessary that the Soveraignty be in the people or in the Lords In this case there is no doubt but it is lawful to proceed against the Tyrant by way of Justice if we can prevail against him or by way of Deeds and Force if we cannot have Reason otherwise as the Senate did against Nero in one case and against Maximin in another so that the Roman Emperors were nothing else but Princes of the Common-wealth that is to say the First and Chief the Soveraignty remaining with the people and the Senate As I have shewn this Common-wealth may be called a Principality Altho Seneca speaking in the person of his Scholar Nero says I alone among all Men living am elected and chosen to be God's Vicegerent on Earth I am Arbiter of Life and Death I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the estate and quality of any Man True it is that in fact he usurped this Power but of right the State was but a Principality where the people were Soveraign As also is that of the Venetians who condemned to death their Duke Falier and put to death others without form or figure of Process Insomuch that Venice is an Aristocratical Principality where the Duke is but Cheif and the Soveraignty remains with the States of the Venetian Noblemen And in the like Case the German Empire which also is but an Aristocratical Principality where the Emperor is chief and first the Power and Majesty of the Empire belongs to the States who in the year 1296. deposed the Emperor Adolph and after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400. in form of justice as having jurisdiction and power over them How much soever Bodin was mistaken in relation to the Government of England he seems herein less a Stranger to that of the German Empire The Learned Conringius in his account of the German Judicatures Hermanni Conringii Excercit De Judiciis p. 251. tells us 't is difficult to give an account of them for some Ages next after the time of the Francs But beginning with the Causes of Kings themselves whom he shews according to Ancient Custom to have been subject to some jurisdiction upon the account of their Government The Causes says he Ib. p. 252. of their Kings belonging to the administration of the Government as anciently so afterwards were frequently agitated in the Great Councils of the Kingdom So the Emperor H. 4. was accused in a Great Council and by its Authority divested of his Royal Dignity The same befel Otto 4. and * This about the year 1251. No new Emperor was chosen till Anno 1273. after Twenty two years vacancy Prideaux Introd p. 245. Frederic 2. But says he Two things sometimes hapned much differing from the ancient Usage One is That the Power of the Council of all the States began to pass to the Electors only after Charles 4. Novo more The Duke of Bavaria made
Contempt and Scorn of the current Doctrine of Passive Obedience Some would ask whether he does not exclude himself from the glorious number of Friends Nor will they be shy of affirming that he does so when they observe that he contends that they forgot their Duty both as good Christians Pag. 3. and good Subjects who declared for the Prince of Orange his now Majesty before the late King actually left the Nation Yet he seems not aware that while he blemishes these with setting up themselves against the Doctrines of Christianity he condemns Pag. 36. not only some of our Clergy but the Church of England for maintaining a Doctrine which he does not deny to be destructive to the Constitution of our Government and to Mankind by which one would be tempted to think that his business is to make Men not only out of love with Crowned Heads but with Christianity it self Pag. 36. As to particular Persons he confesses that the heat of Controversy has misled some of the Church of England to write too much in favour of wicked and tyrannical Princes even to the encouraging them to do worse than otherwise they would Where he taxes their Doctrine of Non-resistance with encouraging Tyranny and such excesses of it as the Tyrant would not otherwise presume upon Pag. 31. Nor does he less condemn the whole Church The Disloyalty says he of two other Parties have made the Church of England take into the contrary Extream and as a Jesuit wish'd it might do her much good in scorn So she had like to have pay'd too dear for the pretence and they who would now again sacrifice her to their Interest and Reputation are to speak softly none of her best Friends They pretend we have not suffered enough for our Religion to justify our Resistance Why according to their Principles we are never to resist whatever we suffer but to suffer on till there is not one left to resist Herein I confess he makes a true Representation of that Principle which himself runs into so naturally that he is not sensible of it But is not this by him judged to be an Extream to be avoided Does he not yeild that the Church of England has been made to take into this Extream out of abhorrence to the other Nay does he not in effect admit that himself and others sacrifice the Church to their own Interest and Reputation while that they may justify their Extream they condemn those who avoided both Scylla and Charibdis in Making to an happy Port along with our Caesar and his Fortune God forbid that it should still be Mens Interest to justify that Extream and let them enjoy the Reputation of never acknowledging an Error tho the most gross and pernicious But what a miserable Defender has our Church which must needs reject such Doctrines and Defences If Church-men are the Church States-men the State Truth may profane or lybel else the Great This Gentleman pretends to have the Scriptures Pag. 35. and all Primitive Antiquity on his side Vid. inf f. to which he would draw in the Church of England which upon a rational Construction cannot be thought to mean more than that we are bound to obey the King 's Legal Commands and not to resist him while he continues King nor has that any thing against the Supposition of a Civil as well as Natural Death And as to the two other Topicks it is to be considered 1. That the Scriptures meddle not with particular Constitutions but give a general Rule for Obedience which is more than bare Non-resistance according to those Constitutions which are God's Ordinance as he authorizes Human Laws in Civil Affairs not contrary to his own And 2. Pag. 3. This Gentleman himself sets aside all Primitve Antiquity when he confesses that in those times the Religion was contrary to the establish'd Laws and so Men could not be persecuted for it against Law at least not so as to come up to our case especially if we take in what he acknowledges farther The Roman Emperors says he under whom they liv'd So Jovian p. 85 86. Julian did persecute them legally vid. p. 91. were absolute independent Princes whose Will was the Law and the Constitution of the Empire differed vastly from that of England so that we are not under the same Obligation they were because our Princes have not the same legal Power as the Roman Emperors had but then I doubt not but we are as much bound to submit to the legal Commands of the King of England as the Primitive Christians to the legal Commands of their Princes But says he this was no part of the Controversy under the Reign of James 2. who had as little Law as Reason for what he did If this be not a giving up all Primitive Antiquity I shall never pretend to understand how words ought to be taken Since therefore neither the Scriptures Primitive Antiquity nor the Doctrine of the Church of England are against them who embrac'd and assisted in the Deliverance which his present Majesty vouchsaf'd us it became not this Gentleman who takes such pains to purge himself from having any hand in it to censure those Worthies who had as not behaving themselves like good Christians and good Subjects Pag. 3. Pag. 3. And to call them a few is almost an equal Reflection upon the honour of the Nation which has never been backward in freeing it self from Tyranny and vvas ready as a Man to act in this King's Service before they were so just as to lay the Crown at his Feet nay before Success had crown'd his glorious Enterprize which almost all were eager to evidence as they had opportunity and I may say of many with Mr. Cowley in his Description of Envy They envy even the Praise themselves bad won That the Body of the Nation were thus forward is manifest in their declaring by their Representatives that the late King had broken the Original Contract vvhich must have been before the Judgment pass'd upon it or ortherwise the Judgment were not warrantable Pag. 25. When the Gentleman vvill allow of no Title in his present Majesty but real Conquest over the Nation as vvell as the late King and lawful meaning lineal Succession either of vvhich Titles he supposes he may claim by he would do vvell to consider 1. That he reflects upon the great Representative of the Nation which founds it upon the others Misgovernment 2. He sets it all aside when he owns that this King does not claim by Conquest nor in truth could he be a Conqueror who was not only invited by those who had a just Ascendant over the Minds of the People but was pray'd for and receiv'd with open Arms by the Nation in general tho indeed such an universal Consent with such Inducements from Gratitude and the common Necessity ought to subdue all Scruples as much as the most real Conquest And this Gentleman must yeild
Domini Regis vel Regni So Fleta de Crimine Laesae Majestatis c. 21 Vid. 26 H. 8. c. 2. 28 H. 8. c. 18. Traitors against the King and Realm Fortescue f. 6. temp H. 6. or Treason against the People of England is evident not only by Glanvil who wrote in the time of H. 2. and Fleta of Edw. 1. but by two Statutes made in the time of H. 8. who was as jealous of the Rights of Soveraignty as any Prince before or after him And is plainly enough suppos'd in the Statute 25. Ed. 3. which shews that there may be Treason against the Government as well as against the King or any of the other Treasons of which ordinary Judges are permitted to judg But since this Majesty of the People may have been given as well as reserv'd or left I shall not urge this as an undeniable Argument of the derivation of Power from them Nor yet shall I transcribe the many Passages in Fortescue proving such Derivation because tho his Book is of great Authority in our Law yet it was written in a King's Reign which some may think to stand in need of such a Justification Neither shall I here urge how far this Monarchy has been Elective because the particular Consideration of that will follow this I only observe of it here that so far as the Monarchy shall prove to have been Elective so far will it appear that all Power not ascertain'd by the Law of God contain'd in Scripture or the Book of Nature is mediately or immediately derived from the People But I think I may be able to shew from one of those Passages which seem the most to imply the absolute Authority of our Kings that whatever it is Crompt his Jurisdic of Courts p. 60. it was derived from the Consent of the People and that the Peoples Consent is still requisite for the Exercise of an Absolute Power according to the memorable Speech of H. 8. in Parliament where he thought himself to stand in his highest Estate Royal. The Civil Law of the Romans says Quod Principi placuit Legis habet vigorem that which has pleased the Prince has the force of Law Glanvil 's Prologom Bracton lib. 3. c. 9. Fleta l. 1. c. 19. but take this according to the Opinion of Glanvil Bracton Fleta and ancient Civilians who wrote about Bracton's time who as Mr. Selden informs us wrote according to what they found in the Governments establish'd throughout Europe The Principi placuit was no more than the Le Roy le veut with us The Civil Law shews that whatever Authority the Emperors had the ground of it was Selden ad Fletam f. 469. that the People in eum Imperium Potestatem conferret conferr'd Empire and Power upon him as Odofred a Civilian coeval with Bracton has it tho the following Copies have it omne suum as if the People conferr'd all their Power This may signify no more than all that Power which the Emperors had yet perhaps the other Sense was intended and may well be imputed to the Servility of later Times Saravia de Imp. Author f. 278. especially if we consider not only what Saravia says who besides the Majesty of the People above-mentioned out of him tells us that the Roman Emperors acted under the Peoples Authority which he proves in that their Acquisitions were in the Name of the People Sanderson 's Lectures Ed. An. 1660. p. 149 150 151. And even Bishop Sanderson having approved of the restrain'd Sense of the Roman Lex Regia us'd by our ancient Lawyers adds I do affirm and it is the common receiv'd Opinion that the Laws propounded and instituted by a Prince or Head of a Commonalty do not oblige Subjects nor have the Power of a Law unless they be received by the Commonalty themselves and are allowed by the Customs and Suffrages of those that use them According to Demosthenes the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Engagement of a City If peradventure his Authority be of less value because he lived in the Popular Common-wealth of the Athenians will you be pleased to hear the great Lawyer Julius who lived when the Roman Emperors had the fulness of Command his words in his 32 d Book De Legibus are these Ipsae Leges nullâ aliâ ex causâ nos tenent quà m quod judicio Populi receptae sunt The Laws do oblige for no other cause than that they are receiv'd by the Judgment of the People But if we observe how the Roman Emperors came by their Trust from the People and of what nature it was this I take in relation to the Legislation to which our Lawyers apply the Civil Law will appear to have been no more than the Tribunitial Authority The Tribunes of the People chosen by them were in their Name to deliver their placet or Consent to the Emperor or Senate nor did the greatest Emperors think it below them to court the Suffrages of the Populacy for this Before Julius Caesar arriv'd to an Imperial Power while the People of Rome govern'd all the Nations round about in all Emergencies they consulted Deputies Vid. Cic. in Catil Orat. 3. ut Comperi Legatos Allobrog belli transalpini tumultus Gallici excitandi causâ à P. Lentulo sollicitatos c. Tacitus Ed. Plant. p. 105. Tiberius vim Principatus sibi firmans Imaginem antiquitatis Senatui praebebat postulata Provinciarum ad disquisitionem patrum mittendo or Representatives of the several Provinces under them as appears in Cicero's third Oration against Catiline and after Julius even Tiberius then whom no Man could be more intent or more cunning to enslave his Subjects continued an Image of the ancient Usage by sending the Demands of the Provinces to the Disquisition of the Senate But the People of Rome were trick'd out of their Liberty by that artful Emperor by his removing the Comitia Tacitus in vitâ Tiberii Ed. Plant. p. 10. Tum primum è campo comitia ad patres translata sunt Nam ad eam diem etsi potissima arbitrio Principis quaedam tamen studiis Tribunorum fiebant neque populus ademtum jus questus est nisi inani rumore or Great Councils from the Fields where the Tribunes took their Directions from the People to the Senate-House where false Representations of the Sense of the People might be made behind their backs they vented their Resentments at this only in empty Murmurs and as the Satyrist has observed of them Qui dabat olim Juv. Imperium fasces legiones omnia nunc se Continet atque duas tantùm res anxius optat Panem Circenses They who their Laws and Magistracy chose Quietly gave up all for Bread and Shows Yet upon observing the steps by which the Emperors advanced to their Power with the People 't will be evident that it was but lodg'd as a Trust and Confidence that they would truly act according to
Corporations the managing Juries and improving Religious and lawful Civil Assemblies into Riots nay Consults for Treason had not then been brought to Perfection And the Dispensing Power having been attempted but receded from he says The true Religion is established by our Laws Page 542. and no Law can be repealed or altered to the Prejudice of English Subjects by the Pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers and the Representatives of the Commons of England And indeed the good Man takes a great deal of Pains from the Duty Honour and Interest of the Prince the danger to evil Instruments and the like to prove that it ought not to be presumed that any such Case as we have known will happen which at this time looks like a Philosophical Argument against Motion and deserves the like Confutation However Page 532. looking upon such Violations as but simply possible he maintains that the Declarataion against taking Arms ought to be in general Terms for that such extraordinary Cases as may be put fall not under Consideration Page 361. I may add till they happen for then they must be put and remembred to justify what they have render'd necessary Nay himself restrains the general Terms to a Subject's taking Arms without any Command from his Prince Page 360. against those who act by virtue and in pursuance of his Commission REGVLARLY granted to them Page 346. I will yield to him that it would be an high Reflection upon the Laws of our Realm if there were need of consulting skilful Lawyers for the general Rule of Duty and to whom Men ought to yeild Obedience and Submission Yet if learned Men will confound the plain Rule of Submission to the Powers which are in being by setting up a supposed inseparable Right in a Power which once had a being but is become a meer Shadow and Spectre 't will be requisite to have recourse to them who have taken some pains in enquiring into the Constitution of the Government to see what Remedy is thereby allowed in extraordinary Cases Christian Loyalty p. 521. And whereas speaking of Officers suppos'd by some to have Authority of resisting in such Cases he seems to know of none but by Charter or Commission having their Authority depending upon the King a little Skill in the Law or in Antiquity would have inform'd him of several others at least such as were not so dependent Vid. inf of the Earl Marshall c. Vid. The Act of Pacification between the English and the Scots Temp. Car. 1. which provides that it shall be lawful for the Subjects of either Nation to fall upon the Forces which shall come out of one into the other without the Consent of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms not only hereditary Great Officers and other Great Men of the Kingdom but other Officers chosen by the People the Heretochii or Lords Lieutenants and the Sheriffs anciently and the Officers in Boroughs by Prescription and Constables at this day I will be as ready as he to maintain that for the future such Supposals as he touches with great Fear and Tenderness will be very remote Possibilities and being look'd upon in our Law as vain in the Apprehension are thought not to stand in need of any particular Provision but he mentions three Cases in which upon yeilding the Suppositions Page 531. he grants the Answer given by Barclay to two of them and to all three by Grotius to be true To the general Question May there no Cases fall out in which the People by their Authority may take Arms against the King Page 515. Barclay answers Certainly none as long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat which is pregnant with the Affirmative that there may be some Case wherein he by Law or of Right ceases to be King And Barclay manifestly allows of two Grotius adds a third branch'd into a fourth in which Mr. Falkner concurs with him as well as with Barclay and Grotius in the other two Pag. 525 527. The first particular Case upon which he delivers his own Opinion Voluntary Resignation or Cession or Abdication without referring to Authorities is of a King 's voluntarily relinquishing and laying aside his Crown and Government of this several Examples are mentioned and among the rest nine of our Saxon Kings Page 426. and he rightly observes that if such Persons should act against the settled Government of their respective Kingdoms after they are fixed in the next Heir in an Hereditary Kingdom or in another King according to the Constitution of Elective Principalities the resisting any of them is not the taking Arms against the King but against him who now is a private Person If therefore the late King's Abdication were such a relinquishing as he means Vid. sup f. 13. which it must be if he receive Grotius or if he hold to the other Cases in which as it will appear he yields that he would be devested of Soveraignty in all such Cases every thing is lawful against the late King that would be lawful against any other private Person 2. The second Case agreed by all three and by Bishop Bilson Page 526. is of a Prince ' s undertaking to alienate his Kingdom Alienation of the Kingdom or to give it up to the Hands of another Soveraign Power against the Mind of his Subjects And he thinks Barclay Grotius and Bishop Bilson truly to assert that such an Act of Alienation or of acknowledged Subjection especially if obtained by evil Methods as was done in the Case of King John is null and void and therefore can neither give any Right of Soveraignty to another nor dispossess the King himself thereof But if any such Prince shall actually and forcibly undertake to bring his Subjects under a new Supream Power who have no Right thereto and shall deliver up his Kingdom to be thereby possess'd Grotius saith he doubteth not but he may be resisted in his undertaking but then says Mr. Falkner this Resolution must proceed upon this ground that this Action includeth his devesting himself of his Soveraignty together with his injurious proceeding against those who were his Subjects And Barclay who allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be devested of his Royal Dignity doth account this to be one of them Not to mention the notorious truckling to France and Pupilage under that bribing and imposing Monarch since the Kings of England are Supream in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs and the late King by Force and open Violation of the Laws against the universal Bent and Mind of his People renounc'd his own Supremacy in yielding to the Pope's and since the People might resist him therein but that which justified their resisting him devested him of his Soveraignty 't is evident that according to Mr. Falkner and the Learned Men whose Authority he receives the late King thereby ceas'd
part in the King If the King invade what is not his Right Page 344. he may be oppos'd with just Force because he hath not so far any Supremacy Cited in Christian Loyalty pag. 348. and this he thinks must take place tho it be said that the Power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any part in the Supream Power cannot but have a Right to defend that part Object Mr. Falkner indeed excepts against this as erecting two distinct Governments each of which have a Supream Power of judging and executing Answ 1 Yet he agrees that this is warrantable in the Empire 1. Because it is allowed by its Constitutions and Capitulations But then he says If we look into the Records of the former Ages Page 349. we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Arms against the King How far he is right in this Assertion I submit to their Judgments who shall impartially weigh the following Authorities 2. His other Reason of a Difference between the State of the Empire and of England is That the Princes of the Empire in their own Territories enjoy u Right of peculiar Soveraignty which alters not the case in relation to the Emperor for both they and their People are Subjects to the Emperor and the mischief of a Judgment left in Subjects is either equal both in one and the other or if there be any difference 't is greater in the Empire because tho the Latitude for judging may be the same the Princes there have the greater Opportunities of gathering strength against the Soveraign and consequently more Temptations to it than where all is more immediately under the Inspection and Influence of the Supream Governour Answ 2 But still it appears by what I have shewn out of Mr. Falkner that what he says must relate only to an ordinary Judicial Power or in ordinary Cases for if he allows it in extraordinary Cases even where the Prince is more absolute than he agrees the Kings of England to be à fortiori is this allowable here in such Emergencies Pag. 344 345. Wherefore notwithstanding his charging the two Jesuits Lessius and Becanus with an high strain of Treason and unchristian Disloyalty bating what they say in justification of killing a Prince by private Persons for their self-defence even while he remaineth a Prince I see not any material difference between him and them And being our Dispute is chiefly with Papists with others but as they are their Friends out of Folly or Design it cannot be improper to transcribe part of his Quotation from the two learned Jesuits agreeing almost word for word in these Positions Page 344. That a Prince who hath a just Title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the Administration of the Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private Advantage and not the Publick Good and burdens the Common-wealth with unjust Exactions sells the Offices and Places of Judges and makes Laws to his own Advantage and not the Publick That when this Tyrant is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be depos'd or to be declar'd an Enemy by the Common-wealth or the Chief Estates of the Kingdom or any other who hath Authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his Person and Life It being made a Question What was Bishop Bedell's Opinion of Subjects taking Arms against their Prince in Extraordinary Cases he having been said barely to represent the Defence made by others without interposing any thing of his own and the Learned Writer of his Life having declar'd it unlawful and impious for a Subject to resist his Prince in any Case whatsoever which he says he observes for fear the Bishop's words should be taken by the wrong Handle As if the Bishop gave no Intimation of his Mind herein to countenance resisting in any case whatsoever Life of Bishop Bedell p. 442. I shall take leave to give an account of the Bishop's Answer to Mr. Wadsworth who charges the Hugonots and Guises of France and Holland with raising Civil Arms shedding of Blood occasioning Rebellion Rapine Desolations principally for their new Religion The Bishop says Page 443. these poor People having endur'd such barbarous Cruelties Massacres and Martyrdoms as scarce the like can be shewed in all Stories are now accused as the Authors of all they suffer'd No says the Bishop they be the Laws of the Roman Religion that are written in Blood and the perfidious Violation of the Edicts of Pacification that have set France and Flanders in combustion And afterwards having enlarg'd upon the Fact he adds And tell me in good sooth Mr. Waddesworth Page 444. Do you approve such barbarous Cruelty Do you allow the Butchery at Paris What is this less than to say that no Man can condemn these poor Protestants without approving the Cruelties exercis'd against them The Bishop proceeds in their Vindication Do you says he Page 445. think Subjects are bound to give their Throats to be cut by their fellow Subjects or to offer them without either humble Remonstrance or Flight to their Princes at their meer Wills against their own Laws and Edicts You would know quo jure the Protestants Wars in France and Holland are justified I interpose not my own Judgment not being throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries but I tell you what both they and the Papists also both in France and Italy have in such Cases alledged First the Law of Nature which they say not only alloweth but inclineth and enforceth every living thing to defend it self from Violence Secondly That of Nations which permitteth those that are in the Protection of others to whom they owe no more but an honourable Acknowledgment in case they go about to make themselves absolute Soveraigns and usurp their Liberty Added in the Margin to resist and stand for the same And if a lawful Prince which is not yet Lord of his Subjects Lives and Goods shall attempt to dispoil them of the same The Passage above is to be considered as a Relation not as the Author's Opinion But yet for fear of taking it by the wrong handle the Reader is desired to take notice that a Subject's resisting his Prince in any Cause whatsoever is unlawful and impious under colour of reducing them to his own Religion after all humble Remonstrance they may say they stand upon their own Guard and being assailed repel Force with Force as did the Maccabees under Antiochus In which case notwithstanding the Person of the Prince himself ought always to be sacred and inviolable These are the Rules of which the Protestants that have born Arms in France and Flanders and the Papists also both there and elsewhere as in Naples that
meintenir les establisments que sunt fet ou sunt a fere par la dit Conseil declaring That all things provided or to be provided by the King's Council and the greater part of them who were chosen by the King and the Community of his Realm should be held firm and established and requiring all men to swear to hold and maintain the Establishments made or to be made by the said Council Vid. Flet. Habet Rex Consilium suum in Parliamentis c. But upon farther consideration I find that Council was the King's Council in Parliament and those Knights who were the Inquisitors for the Counties were not only oblig'd to come to deliver in their Inquisitions but their Consent was requisite to what the King should ordain by his Council in Parliament which then were a select number chosen as abovesaid Claus 42. H. 3. m. 1. dorso Quia Robertus Cambhen socii sui de Comitatu Northumb. de precepto Regis venerunt ad Regem apud West c. pro quibusdam negotiis Communitatem totius Communitatis praed tangentibus Mandatum est Quod prefatis quatuor militibus de Communitate praed rationabiles expensas suas in eundo redeundo habere faciat In another of the same time to Huntingtonshire they are said to have appeared coram Consilio nostro apud Westm in Parliamento Vide of this at large in the 2 d part since as it should seem all the Lords Certain it is there are Writs upon Record for the Expences of those Four Knights for every County as since there have been for Two The observing of the above-mentioned Contracts will give light to that Judgment which may by us at this distance be past upon the Wars between H. 3. and his Barons and not to mention any small disturbances and the Violations of the Rights of particular men and what they did in defence of them I find H. 3. four times opposed by the People in Arms in Three Wars and a Fourth rising which wanted only Numbers on the King's side to make it a War all manag'd under Heads formally chosen or seeming to have claim to the Conduct by virtue of their Offices 1. The first was under Lewis the Dauphin of France whom the Barons at London had chosen for King in this there was one King against another both standing in truth upon the same title the choice of the People Lewis had the greater part of the Chief Nobility on his side how much soever the Pope's Thunder might have frightned the more ignorant Vulgar and prevailed upon their interested Guides 2. The Second was under the Conduct of the Earl of Chester named first as 't is to be suppos'd for the reason before shewn The occasion of the Insurrection began Ao 1223. 7o. of that King when he being Seventeen years old obtain'd a Bull from the Pope declaring him of full Age and enabling him to order the Affairs of the Kingdom chiefly by the Counsel of his Domesticks that is such as he should chuse turning out those Officers which either had Hereditary Rights or had been chosen in Parliament according to what was insisted on at his Coronation 20o. as matter of Right wherefore his assuming all the Power into his own hands and countenancing the Exorbitances of Hubert de Burgh Mat. Par. Addit Chief Justice of England who indeed as appears upon his Defence afterwards when he came to be impeach'd had been chosen in one of King John's Parliaments but was continued in by H. 3. against the sense of his own Parliament sowed the Seeds of Discontent tho they did not break out into a general Rising but all seem'd to be quieted by his Confirming the Great Charter Ao. 1224. Yet soon after when he was in truth of full Age he was resolv'd to act as one out of Wardship 11 H. 3. and in a Parliament at Oxford declared himself free and by the advice of Hubert de Burgh cancell'd the Great Charter of the Liberties of the Forest as of no validity because granted in his minority and forc'd many who had Ancient Grants of Liberties to purchase them a-new at such Rates as the Chief Justice impos'd Besides Hubert had advis'd the King to act Arbitrarily with his own Brother Richard Duke of Cornwal which drove him to shelter himself under the Publick-Cause and glad were the Great Men to find his resentment contribute to such a general demand of Justice Mat. Par. as forc'd the King to compliance in a Parliament at Northampton 3. But by the Seventeenth of H. 3. Peter Bishop of Winchester An. 1233. Mat. Par. f. 413. Adhuc sub custodiam Petri Winton who had succeeded to William Earl Marshal in the custody of the King during his minority having been supplanted by Hubert the Chief Justice at last put the Dice upon the less subtile Layman and resolving not to fall again for want of flattering his Prince advis'd him in order to become Absolute to remove his Natural Subjects from the Great Offices and put Foreigners in their Places who were brought over in great numbers and oppressed and plunder'd the Nobility upon false accusations and pretences seiz'd their Castles and enjoy'd the Wardships of their Children This occasion'd a general insurrection under Richard Earl Marshal who as a Roman Tribune of the people went to the King and in their name demanded a redress of Grievances but the Bishop of Winchester having given an haughty answer justifying the King's calling over what Strangers he thought fit to reduce his Proud and Rebellious Subjects as he call'd them to due obedience The Marshal and the rest of the Great Men who were Witnesses to that insolence Swore to stand by one another to the last extremity in the Cause of their Country But the Earl of Chester another Tribune here sold his Country for a Sum of Money The Marshal finding himself deserted was obliged to have recourse to Leolin Prince of Wales for aid Upon this the King Proclaim'd him Traytor 9º Octob. Ao. 1233. But in a Parliament held at Westminster at the latter end of that year tho' the Earl Marshal was absent and in Arms the Parliament advis'd the King not to Banish Spoil or Destroy his Subjects without Legal Process nor to call them Traytors who endeavour'd the Peace of the Kingdom Mat. Par. last Ed. f. 388. and by whose Counsels the Government ought to be managed Which was a full justification of the Arms taken by the Marshal Nay the Bishops proceeded so far as to Excommunicate the Bishop of Winchester and others the King's Ministers and to lay upon them the imputation of disturbing the Peace of the Kingdom The Marshal carried all before him with universal applause The Bp. of Winchester and his Accomplices were punished in a Parliament held at Candlemas The King having sent to treat of Peace with the Marshal and Prince Leolin the evil Counsellors which were the Marshals chief
shew the Antiquity and Power of a Palatine in Germany and England Gunterus used to shew that Office in several Countries Loyseau concerning it in France The Distinction in the Author of Les Soupirs between Officers of the King's House and Officers of the Crown The Antiquity and Authority of the Offices of Constable of England of the High Steward and the Earl Marshal which with the Earl of Chester have been as so many Tribunes of the People TO proceed to E. 2. Son to E. 1. 't is certain that the sentence threatned H. 3. was executed upon his Grandson E. 2. who was formally Deposed in Parliament for his misgovernment Walsingham f. 107. Rex dignitate regali abdicatur filius substituitur His Case with his next Successor's but one R. 2. by what I have observed before appear to have been no Novelties in England Nor was it long before the like was again put in practice more than once Hollingshead f. 637. Ib. f. 639 640. H. 6. being a weak mis-led Prince gave occasion to Richard Duke of York whose Line was put by to cover his designs for restoring the elder Family with the pretence of redressing publick Grievances A Crown over a Branch of lights in the H. of Commons and another from the top of Dover-Castle falling about the same time ib. f. 659. The Crown he was so far from pretending to at first that himself swore Allegiance to H. 6. in a very particular manner But having afterwards an advantage given by the Divisions of them who had driven him out of the Land he in a fortunate hour with lucky Omens as was believed challeng'd the Crown as his Right upon which there was an agreement ratified in Parliament That H. 6. should enjoy it during his Life and Richard and his Heirs after him Tho Richard Duke of York and his Son Edward afterwards E. 4. had sworn that H. 6. should enjoy the Royal Dignity during life without trouble from them or either of them yet Richard having been treacherously slain by the Queen's Army immediately after the solemn Pacification Edward at the Petition of some of the Bishops and Temporal Lords Ib. f. 661. took upon him the charge of the Kingdom as forfeited to him by breach of the Covenant established in Parliament Yet this gave him no sure footing for the popularity of the Earl of Warwick drove him out of the Kingdom without striking a stroke for it Ib. f. 678. Upon which H. 6. was again restor'd to his Kingly Power and Edward was in Parliament declared a Traytor to the Country and an Vsurper of the Realm the Settlement upon Richard and his Heirs revok'd and the Crown entail'd upon H. 6. and his Heirs Males with remainders over to secure against Edward's coming to the Crown But the Death of the Earl of Warwick having in effect put an end to King Henry's Power he was soon taken Prisoner and put to death as his Son had been before and then Edward procures a Confirmation in Parliament Hollingshead f. 693. of the Settlement under which he enjoyed the Crown Thus the Parliament from time to time determined the Controversie according to the Inclination of the People or Reason of State And as the power of the People of England or of Great Men of interest with them turn'd the scales sometimes one way sometimes another so their consent fixt them at last during the Life of E. 4. I might following the light of History take in the most material Occurrences from the Reign of E. 4. to the last Revolution but tho the unanimity which appeared at the first casting off the former Yoke made me with chearfulness undertake the justification of those who have contributed to the Change yet I must needs say I am checkt in that freedom which otherwise I might have justly used in relation to late times and tho I labour against prejudice in what I bring from faithful Memorials of ancient days yet I hope the prejudice will be free from that heat and passion which mixes with mens own concerns or the concerns of them from whom they immediately descend in Blood or Parties Object Vid. 13 C. 2. Stat. 2. c. 1.13 14 C. 2. c. 3.14 C. 2. c. 3 4.15 C. 2. c. 5.12 C. 2. c. 30. It may be said That whatever the Law or Practice has been anciently neither can now be of any moment by reason of the Oath required by several Statutes declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person And 2. The Clause in the Statute 12 Car. 2. whereby it is declared That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever had have or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm What has before been observed from and upon Mr. Falkner's Answer Vid. Chap. 2. Christian Loyalty might make it needless to take notice of the Objection from either of these Clauses were it not that many either cannot or will not observe what lies at the least distance I shall not here insist in answer to the first part of the Objection on the necessity of a Commission and a King continuing legal in the Exercise as well as Possession of Power nor the difference between the Traiterous Acts of single Persons and the Revolt of a Nation nor yet upon the Authority of the Common Law whereby a Constable or other Officer chosen by the people Vid. Justin Pandec l. 1. tit 3. Nulla juris ratio aut aequitatis benignitas patitur ut quae salubriter pro utilitate hominum introducuntur ea nos duriore interpretatione contra ipsorum commodum producamus ad severitatem may act without any Authority from the King And for rhe latter part of the Objection as Coertion is restrained to the Person of the King the declaring against that is not contrary to the Authorities for discharging Allegiance by a judicial Sentence or otherwise by virtue of equitable and implied Reservations provided a tender regard to the Person be still observ'd But if proceedings to free our selves from his Authority fall under this Coertion then I shall offer something which may remove both this and the other from being objections to what I have above shewn To keep to what may equally reach to both Authorities I shall not urge here Vid. Rot. Parl. 39 H. 6. n. 18. That these Statutes being barely declaratotory and Enacting no Law for the future introduce none so that if the Fundamental Laws shall appear to be otherwise the Declarations do not supplant them Nor yet to insist upon a Rule in the Civil-Law That the Commonwealth is always a Minor Vid. Cujac
being ask'd by the King upon the report made by the Justices of their resolution for the Duke what things the Constable can do by reason of his Office Sir says he this Point belongs to your Law of Arms of which we have no experience nor cognizance This may shew what occasion Cardinal Wolsey had to strain a point of Law against that Duke and to have one who durst insist upon a Right to be Constable of England by inheritance Vid. Inf. 2d Part. to be taken off by an High Steward out of Parliament made for that turn And what Fineux says of the Power of the Constable may account for the silence of Bracton Fleta and other Ancient Common-Lawyers in relation to the Authority of the Constable and Marshal Flet. lib. 2. c. 31. yet Fleta shews that the Constable had a Seat in the Exchequer and overlooked Accompts relating to Soldiers Forts and Castles and gives a shrewd hint concerning the Earl Marshal speaking of the Exchequer The Justices says he sitting there were all Barons Fleta lib. 2. c. 26. because Barons used to sit in their places while the Earl of Norfolk and Martial of England had his Place and Seat there as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of England whose Place the Treasurer possesses at this day but he cannot occupy his Office This shews that in the Exchequer the Earl Marshal had place above the Constable accordingly when 25 E. 1. they came into the Exchequer to forbid the Levying of the Tax The Barons in their account of this to the King say There came to the Bar of the Exchequer Vid. Append. the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Hereford and the Earl-Marshal and the others declared they would not suffer it to be Levied That this Office was of extraordinary Authority Rot. Pat. 42. H. 3. M. 4. appears by a Record 42 H. 3. which shews That the Precept for executing the Provisions at Oxford were by the King and his Council in Parliament deliver'd to the Earl-Marshal and if we consider the Authority exercised by the Earls Marshal in the time of H. 3. and E. 1. with the approbation of Parliaments Vid. Mat. Par. 28 H. 3. it may be thought that he was an hereditary Conservator of the Kingdom notwithstanding which in the 28th of H. 3. the Parliament insisted upon it as their right to have four Conservators chosen by them This Office perhaps is the only one which was enjoyed in gross and went along with the name of Marshal till the time of H. 3. when Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk Bar. 1. Vol. f. 133. Married Maud the Daughter of William Marshal Earl of Pembroke Sir William Dugdale says the first mention which he finds of the Name and Family of Mareschal Ib. f. 599. was in the time of H. 1. but in all probability that Name and Office went together from before the time of W. 1. I am sure Roger Mareschal was a very considerable Proprietor in Doomsday-Book Vid. 2 d Part. Indeed the first contest about the Office was in the time of H. 1. when it was adjudged to belong to the Family of the Mareschals Vid. Appendix Rot. Pat. 1. Johan N. 85. M. 12. as appears by the Record of the Confirmation 1º Johannis CHAP. VIII The Third Head of Positive Law The Kingdom founded in Monarchy yet Elective sub modo The Form of Government not dissolv'd with the Contract between Prince and People The Argument from Election of Kings as it is used by the Author of the Sighs of France enslaved The Crown of England proved Elective Sub modo 1. From the Saxon Pontifical and the Council of Calcuth Anno 789. 2. From the Practise till the supposed Conquest 3 From the Confessor's Law received by W. 1. and the Expressions of Ancient Historians and Lawyers since the time of W. 1. 4. The Common usage in asking the People's consent at Coronations 5. The Opinion of Kings themselves 6. The Old Oaths of Allegiance 7. The Liberty even after a Settlement of the Crown 8. The Breaches in the Succession 9. The Statute 11 H. 7. Answers to the Objections 1. That the King never dies 2. The supposition of a Testamentary Heir 3. The Declaration temp E. 3. against consenting to the disherison of the King and His Heirs 4. The claims of Right between Two Families 10. A qualified Election of Kings of England confirmed by observing how it has been in other Nations descended from the same Common Stock THE Kingdom I own is founded in Monarchy and so is Poland which yet is absolutely Elective Nor is there any consequence that the dissolution of the Contract between the immediate Prince and People This objected by the Author of Elementa Politica Of the Magistracy c. vindicated and others Vid. Pufendorf de Interregnis p. 267. Post decretum circa formam Regiminis novo pacto opus erit quando constituuntur ille vel illi in quem vel in quos Regimen coetûs confertur should destroy the form of Government for that depends upon a Prior Contract which the People entred into among themselves And that by virtue of this to avoid endless competitions our Kings have generally from the first erection of the English Monarchy been chosen out of the same Family appears beyond contradiction If our Monarchy will appear from the foundation to be no otherwise an inheritance than as it is setled on a Family with a latitude for choice within the Family no Man can doubt but it will tend greatly towards removing objections against our present Settlement 't is certain the Learned Author of The Sighs of France improves the Argument farther than is needful for us Soupirs de France Mem. ' It is says he indubitable That they who have power to Chuse ' have power to Depose Every Nation says he that makes a King P. 81. preserves to its self a right to unmake him when he goes beyond the bounds of his duty and when he ruines the Estate instead of preserving it and this very thing makes it appear That Elected Princes neither are nor can be Soveraigns of an Arbitrary Power I know some talk of a Birthright and Inheritance in the Crown of England which is not founded in the statutes Jovian p. 87. but on the original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is thought to be an hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of blood But I would desire all Men of this Opinion impartially to weigh these following particulars 1. Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour shews us the form of Prayer used at the Coronation of Saxon Kings wherein they pray God to bless him whom they chuse for King and call him one chosen to be Crowned King Et hunc electum in Regem coronandum bene Titles of Honour f. 157. Out of the Saxon Pontifical At Calcuth Anno 789. Spel. Concil 1 Vol. f. 291. dicere consecrare digneris
Salus Populi the preservation of Three Kingdoms is concern'd and in danger If then an Alteration of the Course of Descent in case of Necessity is so far from a Change of the Constitution that 't is by vertue of the Chief Fundamental Law the Salus Populi I hope it will be allowed That the Representatives of the People have upon the Vacancy of the Throne from a former Possessor which he yields to have been in the Case in question a right to judge wherein their own Safety lies Otherwise they have a Law of which they can have no benefit And since our Representatives have made so wise a determination they that do not submit to it may well be lookt upon as Persons who abdicate themselves from the benefit of this Government Nay further the Doctor confesses that for his part he knows no Law against the possibility either of a Vacancy in the Throne or an Interregnum in extraordinary Cases such as himself yields ours was But the remaining Question is Whether the Convention shewed that they meant such a Vacancy as caus'd an Interregnum Their Words as he observes are these P. 38 King James the second having Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby vacant So far he is in the right That the Convention went upon the Supposition of a Vacancy but their supposition did not make one neither did it make an Abdication But 't is evident that the supposition of the Vacancy as Consequent upon the Abdication was the Ground of setling the Government as it is and that they look'd upon the Vacancy as more than a freedom from the last Possessor appears by their preferring His Majesty in the Settlement Which preference had been justifiable even according to what the Doctor receives tho this King had not been of the Blood-Royal But for a farther Evidence The Stat. 1 W. M. for reviving of Actions and Process lately depending in the Courts of Westminster and Discontinued by the not holding of Hillary Term and for supplying other defects relating to proceedings at Law Consid touching the Oath in the Title page that the Throne was absolutely Vacant in the eye of the Law and so judg'd and declar'd to all Men by the Convention and Their Majesties concurring in a Parliamentary Act The Doctor may please to consider the Statute for Supplying defects relating to proceedings at Law Which provides that for Crimes committed between the 11 th of December and the 13 th of February following Informations or Indictments shall have only the year of our Lord God instead of the year of the King's Reign And where Conclusions used to be contra pacem Domini Regis they shall conclude contra pacem Regni Let not Divines therefore go to argue us out of our Government but let them submit to that Rule which Dr. Whitby cites Optima regula quâ nulla est verior aut firmior in jure neminem oportet esse sapientiorem Legibus Object 2 'T is urged That the Hereditary Right contended for has not been interrupted by the Peoples Elections so often as it should seem by the Breaches in the Succession for that many who came in before them who stood next were Testamentary Heirs of the appointment of the Predecessor Which argues an Inheritance in him that Disposes And Dr. Brady thinks he produces an Example Brady's Hist of the Succession f. 8 9. where the Election of the People was bound and limited by the nomination of the Predecessor But if he had duely weighed the Presidents of this kind he might have understood That an Election without a Nomination had full effect while a bare Nomination had none And he might have learnt from Grotius That among the Germans from whom we descend Kingdoms did not use to pass by Wills and that Wills were but Recommendations to the Peoples Choice but not Dispositions Mezray in the Life of Clotair 2. And that thus it was in France appears by their Historian Mezray who shews That anciently the King 's of France were chosen out of the Royal Race But that Three Conditions were ordinarily requir'd 1. Birth for they were to be Legitimate 2. The Will of the Father 3. The Consent of the Great Men which commonly used to follow the other two Object 3 I find it urged That as anciently as the time of E. 3. the Realm declared Vid. Debates about Deposing That they would not consent to any thing in Parliament to the Disherison of the King and his Heirs or the Crown whereunto they were Sworn Answ If any colour of evidence can be produced that the Subjects of England so early as that Swore Allegiance to the King and his Heirs this were to the purpose Knighton f. 248. Indeed I find that before this 24 E. 1 a Foreign Prince the King of Scotland Feudatory to the Crown of England did Homage to the King and his Heirs but the like not being exacted of the Subjects of England till particular Acts whereby the Crown was setled it argues strongly as indeed appears from the Subject matter That the Homage paid by a Foreign Prince was due to none but the present King and his Successor to the Kingdom whoever was next of Blood And by parity of Reason the Disherison of the King and him her or them who succeeded to the Crown was all that could be referr'd to when they urged the Obligation of their Oath to the King and his Heirs or the Crown Which appears farther Leges Sancti Edwardi tit Greve Conjurati fratres ad defendendum Regnum c. honores illius omni fidelitate cum eo servare So Leges W. 1. tit De Fide obsequio erga Regem Quod Willielmo Domino suo fideles esse volunt honores illius c. defendere Bracton Lib. 2. Cap. 29. not only from the old Oath of Allegiance to which they must needs have reference whereby they are bound to defend the Rights of the Crown but even from the Matter then in question which was not of the Right of Succession but of a Flower of the Crown Bracton puts this out of Dispute when he tells us That Inheritance comes not from an Heir but an Heir from Inheritance And that Inheritance is the Succession to all the Right which the Predecessor had by any sort of Acquisition Vid. Sir P. P. As Successors are Heirs so Dr. Brady tells us Gloss f. 18. That Prepossessor one that possessed the Land before the present possessor without any relation to Blood or Kindred is Ancestor in Doomsday and in the Writ de Morte Antecessoris Sir P. P's Obligation of Oaths f. 302. F. 298. F. 300. With Bracton agrees the Civil Law Haeredis significatione omnes significari successores credendum est etsi verbis non sint expressi By Heirs we are to believe all Successors to be signified altho' not expressed in words And again Nihil est aliud haereditas quam Successio in universum jus
quod defunctus habuit ' Inheritance is nothing else but Succession 'to all the Right which the deceased had Wherefore I cannot but wonder that so learned a Man as Sir P. P. should cite this to prove that Allegiance is due to the Heirs and Successors in a Legal Course of Descent That is as he explains or receives it out of Mr. Prynn by Proximity of Succession in regard of Line Nor is this Learned Man more fortunate in mentioning the Salvo which Littleton tells us is to be taken to the Oath of Homage to a Subject Salve la Foy que jeo doy a nostre Signior le Roy Sir P. P. f. 297. Littleton tit Homage Sect. 85. where there is not a word of Heirs But he tells us that Littleton cites Glanvil where the word Heirs is Whereas 't is the Lord Cook who makes the Quotation as he does of Bracton whose sense of the word Heirs we have seen And Littleton fully confirms it by leaving out the word Heirs as a Redundancy Allegiance being due to every one that becomes King and to no other But to put the Extent of Heirs to a King out of Controversy Popham 's Rep. f. 16 and 17. we have the resolution of all the Judges in B. R. in the time of Q. Eliz. on my side King R. 3. had granted certain Privileges to the Burgesses of Glocester with a saving to himself and his Heirs And it was agreed by all the Justices That although the words are saving to himself and his Heirs it shall be taken for a perpetual saving which shall go to his Successors This therefore they adjudged to reach the Queen who 't is well known was not Heir to R. 3. Object 4 The great Objection is That in the Contests for the Crown between the Families of York and Lancaster each side pretended Title by Proximity of Blood and as either prevail'd their Right was acknowledged to be according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature To which I answer As appears in the very Objection this was applied to those who had no Right of Proximity as well as to those who had And thus 't was to R. 3. as well as to E. 4. and even the Election of H. 4. after the Deposing and Relinquishing of R. 2. with his own express consent is by the same Parliament that says so much of the Title of E. 4. called an Usurpation upon R. 2. Wherefore if this Record be any way leading to our Judgments no Deposing or Resignation what ever be the Inducement can be of any force Whence 't is plain that all those are but Complements to the longest Sword However they neither set aside former Authorities nor establish any Right for the future at least not more for the Heirs of E. 4. than the Parliament of R. 3. did for His Heirs Yet whoever comes next by Right of Proximity according to any Settlement in being I will not deny that they enjoy the Crown according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature For Fortescue de laudibus legum Angliae c. 3. Jovian p. 253. as the great Fortescue has it All Laws published by Men have their Authority from God Upon which the Author of Jovian argues and supposes all Laws of Men to be the Laws and Ordinances of God Yet who can say but these Human Creatures or Ordinances of Men may be altered as they were made And thô it may seem strange to some yet I may with great Authority affirm That when the People had determined the Right on the side of R. 3. He was King as much according to God's Law as E. 4. For Peufendorf holds That where the Question is Peufendorf de Interregnis p. 288. Quod si dubitatur qui gradus aut quaelinea sitpotior declarata voluntas populi finem liti imponet c. What Degree or what Line is best The declared will of the People determines the Controversy since every one is presum'd to understand his own Intention And the people that is now is to be thought the same with that by which the Order of Succession was Constituted But let Men argue as nicely as they please for a Right or Sovereignty inseparable from the person of the next in Blood to the last Lawful King let this fall upon J. 2. the reputed Prince of Wales or any other person of unclouded Birth and Fame and let them argue upon the Declaration 1 E. 4. That Allegiance accordingly is due by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Certain it is That the Statute 11 H. 7. abovementioned was not only made in an Age of greater Light but being a subsequent Law derogates from whatever is contrary in the former By this last it is declared to be against all Laws That Subjects should suffer for doing true Duty and Service of Allegiance to the King de facto Which is as much as if 't were expressed to be against God's Law Vid. 3 Inst f. 7. upon the Stat. of Treason 25 E. 3. referring in the Margin to this Statute This is to be understood of a King n possession of the Crown and Kingdom For if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto and not de jure yet He is Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other who hath the Right and is out of possession is not within this Act. Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto and after the King de jure come to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto And a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void Man's Law and the Law of Nature By the necessary consequence of which Allegiance is due to a King de facto according to all these Laws Wherefore whoever denies Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary or maintains a contrary one to J. 2. offends against God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Nor whatever some imagine can the Proviso at the end of this Statute in the least impair its force as to what I use it for The Proviso runs thus 11 H. 7. c. 1. Provided always That no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Where said Allegiance shews it to be meant of Allegiance to the King de facto whose Service is called true Duty And no Man surely can think the meaning to be that if after such Service they turn to the other side or become Traitors to the present Power they shall suffer for the former Service as Traitors against him that had the Right either during the Reign of the King in being which would be an unlikely owning the Ejected Power or hereafter if that should come to be restor'd which would be far from answering the apparent end of the Clause which is
the late Assembly would be conclusive to the Nation Neither Forty days Summons nor Writs nor yet Summons to a Parliament Essential And this confirmed not only by the President 12 Car. 2. but by two Presidents of the time of H. 1. The Subjects in the time of E. 1. said to have held a Parliament by themselves and of their own appointing The Objection of want of Form Answered out of the Civil-Law and its Reason applied to our Case Objections made by the Author of Elementa Politica considered The Conclusion THE Power having upon the Dissolution of the Contract between J. 2. and his former Subjects returned to the People of Legal Interests in the Government according to the Constitution there can be no doubt with unbiassed Men but this takes in them only who have Right of being in Person or by Representation in those Assemblies where is the highest Exercise of the Supream Power But there are two Extreams opposite to the late Election made by such an Assembly The First is of them who would have all things go on in the same Form as under a Monarch which was impossible and therefore the Supream-Law the Publick-Safety must needs supply the want of Form Nor can be justly controverted till the Lawfulness of the end is disprov'd For all Means necessary to such an End are allowable in Nature and by all Laws But if this should still be disputed all their Darling-Laws made by the Long-Parliament which met after that Convention Anno 1660. will fall to the ground according to the former application of the Statute above-mentioned 16 Car. 1. Vid. Sup. Nay the attempt of Repealing that Statute being in a Parliament which had been actually Dissolved before by that very Law which it went about to Repeal that Form which was usual before is in default of King and Officers supplied by another Provision for the Regular Meeting of Lords and Commons And what hinders but the people had as much Power to vary from the Common Form when there was no King and that Form could not be observ'd as when there was a King and a possibility of having that Form Here I may observe these two things 1. If as I have shewn at large the Right of Succession to the Crown was not fixed to the next in Blood neither before the reputed Conquest nor since if there have been several vacancies of the Throne and the People had right to chuse upon every such Vacancy then whatever they did in order to the choice must necessarily have been freed from the Forms which were required under a King 2. Even where the Kingdom has gone by descent there may have been a necessity for the people to take the Government upon them as if the present Possessor has turned Madman or he who stood next in the Succession were under age without any Guardian appointed in the Life-time of his Father or out of the land when his Father died which were the cases of R. 1. and of E. 1. the account of the last of which deserves particular notice The Annals of Waverly having mentioned the Death of H. 3. add Hoc anno scilicet post Festum S. Hillarii Annales Waverleiensis f. 227. factâ convocatione omnium Prel aliorum Magnatum Regni apud Westm postmortem illustris Regis H. convenerunt Arch. Ep. Com. Bar. Abbates Priores de quolibet Comitatu quatuor Milites de qualibet civitate quatuor qui omnes in presentiâ Dom. Will. scil Arch. Ebor. Rob. de mortuo Mari R. Burnet Cler. qui in loco Domini Regis Anglorum Edwardi praefuerunt Sacramentum eidem Domino Ed. tanquam terrae Principi susceperunt ubi Dominus W. de Mertone Cancellarius constitutus est ut moram trahat apud Westm tanquam in loco publico usque ad adventum Principis Et ibi provisum est quod nulli sint Justiciarii itinerantes usque ad adventum Principis sed in Banco Dominica prima Quadragesimae 4 Id. Martii consecratus fuit frater R. de Kilderlii in Arch. Cant. Item concessa est decima Ecclesiarum Religiosorum Domuum Domino Ed. ejus Germano ad supplicationem Domini Papae ut sit pro duobus Annis F. 228. In this year to wit after the Feast of St. Hillary all the Prelates and other great Men of the Kingdom being call'd together at Westminster after the Death of the Illustrious King Henry there met the Archbishops Bishops Earls and Barons Abbots and Priors and Four Knights from every County and Four from every City which all in the presence of William Archbishop of York Robert Mortimer and R. Burnet Clerk who presided in the stead of Edward their Lord and King of England took an Oath to the said Lord Edward as Governor of the Realm Where the Lord William of Merton is constituted Chancellor and that he should abide at Westminster as in a publick place till the Prince's coming And there it was provided that there should be no Justices itinerant before the Prince his coming but only in the Bench. The first week of the Quadragesima to wit on the Fourth of the Ides of March Father R. of Kilderly is consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Westminster of the same time says Mat. West Rege igitur Supulto sicut mos est regibus sepeliri Gilbertus Johannes Comites Gloverniae Warenniae nec non Clerus Populus ad magnum Altare Ecclesiae Westm ' celeriter properarunt Ed. primogenito Regis fidelitatem jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Agebat enim in partibus transmarinis contra Christi adversarios bellaturus Postmodum ad novum Templum Londini Nobiliores Regni pariter convenerunt Et facto sigillo novo constituerunt fideles ministros Custodes qui Thesaurum Regis Pacem Regni fideliter custodirent The King therefore being buried in that state in which Kings us'd to be buried Gilbert and John Earls of Gloster and Waren as also the Clergy and People as soon as might be hastned to the great Altar of Westminster-Church swearing Fealty to Edward the King 's eldest Son tho they were wholly ignorant whether he were alive or no for he was in Foreign Parts fighting against the Enemies of Christ After this the Nobility of the Kingdom likewise met and a new Seal being made they constituted faithful Ministers and Keepers who might faithfully keep the King's Treasure and the Peace of the Kingdom The Annals and Matthew Westminster differ in circumstances tho they agree in substance but it would seem as if the same Convention had been adjourn'd from Westminster to the Temple and therefore its Acts might have been said to have been at either of the places It at least appears from Matthew Westminster that prior to that Solemn Convention which the Annals mention there had been a great confluence of people headed by the Earls of Glocester and Waren at that meeting 't is
de secundis nuptiis But all this notwithstandinge lette us see what Reasons they be besydes that ar brought in the favour of the Lady K. One is forsooth that the Lady Mary the French Q. and the Duke of Suff. havinge lyved meny yeres togither as Man and Wyfe and their Matrimony celebrated publikly in the face of the Churche without eny thinge sayd agaynst theim duringe their lyves that therfore though he had twenty Wyves then lyvinge that yet the Children of the Queene and Duke are to be taken no other then as legitimate And th' other that it is sufficyent for the legitimation of their Children that the French Q. seemyd to have no knowledge that he had eny other Wyfe lyvinge To these greate Reasons and their Authority it is easy ynnough to answer For it is a Maxime in the Civill Lawe That that which from the beginninge is not good or lawfull cannot with eny Processe of tyme be betteryd (c) L. quod mitio ff de regu juris And therfore the Matrymony not beinge lawfull at the first no tyme is sufficyent or able to make it lawfull And yf that which is sayde of the long contynuance of the Matrymony without eny thinge sayd agaynst it had ben such to have comme in eny consideration it might have had some colour or shew of reason the rather yf the parsons agaynst whom eny such controversie shuld have rysen had ben of such degree or condition as eny might freely have proceedid against theim But they were Princes the Woman the Kinge's Syster and the Man a Duke and in greate favour with the Prince in such sorte that the greate and the iminent danger and perill that did depend therof was and is the aparaunt and manifest cause why no Man did or durst begin with theim or attempt eny such matter and specially in a thinge that touchid any whitte the displeasure or dishonour of the Kinge himselfe And therfore that long contynuance in Matrimony after that sort without controversy is not to be countyd for quiet and peaceable but rather injurious and violent (d) Arg. l. in fi C. de ann exe l. 1. §. si quis autem ff de iti act pri C. quia de conces pre l. §. 1. ff quod vi aut clam l. de pupillo §. si quis ff de ope noui nun cum ibi not per Bar. alios And such as cannot help eny thing to the legitimation of the Children born in Adultery To th' other touching the ignorance of the Queen although it were graunted that some ignorance in some sort might the rather shadow the illegitimation of the Children yet it is not therfore that every kynde or sorte of ignorance mought be acceptid to bolster forth such causes but a probable ignorance for the Lawe tendith to the favour of the vigilent and diligent in their own causes and not to the wilfull sloathfull or negligent And those that contractith with eny they ought to know and understand eche of the others State and Condition (e) l. qui cum alio contrahit ff de regu juris and not to understand that is commonly brutyd is to be attributed unto the Parties default (f) l. quod verba ff depon l. si ut certo §. nunc videndum ff commo cum ibi notatis And such a kind of ignorance is callid a Voluntary or ellis a dessembled Ignorance and helpith nothing to the ligitimation of the Children the Matrimony beinge contrary to the publike Lawe of Honesty even by the Canonicall and Civill Law (g) Cap. cum inhibitio de clan desp for synce Charles Brandon after Duke of Suff. had lyved with the first Wyfe so long being of such a callinge and she his Wyfe of such a House and such a Lyvinge and in the same Countrey It had ben very easy with eny never so little a diligence used to have come to the knowledge whether he had had eny other Wyfe lyvinge or no. And the Lawe entendith that one that either doth understand or ells is in abilitie easily to understand to be all one (h) l. pen. ff ad maced l. in bonorum in fine ff de bonorum poss Since then the French Q. yf she had lyked eny thinge to have herkened searched or demaundid moght easely have had intelligence whether the Duke had eny Wyfe lyving or no It is as much as if she had known it so doth it manifestly appeere that the Children born in such Matrimony cannot by eny meane be reputyd or taken for legitimate or able to eny Enheritance and much lesse of the Crowne synce that for the Honor and Dignitie of the Realme whosoever shuld be worthy or capable of the Crowne it is meete that not onely they shuld be free from eny stayne or spotte but also from all suspicion of eny As Julius Cesar sayd of his House when for the onely suspicion of Adultery he did put away his Wyfe sayenge That the House of Cesar ought not only to be without Vyce but also without all suspicion of eny Besydes if you should consent to put your selfes in subjection to such so unworthely born Behold and consyder I pray you by the way how farre off yow should shew your selfes inferior in consideration from the many and noble Examples left unto us by other Countreys as particulerly of later Memory by the Noble Nation of the Spayniardes Where a Daughter beinge borne of the Queene Wyfe to Hen. 3. Kinge of Câ—stile and most speache great presumptions and secreat murmuracion therof passinge that not the Kinge but an Adulterer shuld be the Father therof The Barons Earles and other Nobles of the Realme did assemble together and consydering what spotte and infamy it shuld be unto the whole Nation and Countrey yf in time cominge they shuld have their Q. a Woman thoght of and esteemyd but as a Bastard did not only deliberate not to acknowledge or not allowe of her as legitimat Heyre of the Realme after the death of the Kinge The Case of the putative Prince of Wales But wold without delay be dischargid and assurid from that gratte dishonor and infamy And therupon so became most humble Suters to the K. that as it apperteynid unto the Honour and Dignitie of him and of the whole Realme It moght so please him to repudiate the Q. as Adulteresse and declare that Daughter not to be his but borne in Adultery Shewing him besydes that yf he wuld not have regard unto his owne Honour and to do that that touched so much his Estate and the Dignytie of the whole Countrey that they for their partes could not nor would not so much forget their Duties to suffer it But rather determyned to depose him as a Man that made small compt either of his Callinge or Honour and therefore unworthy of the Crowne By which yow may see how farre such Occasions may sometymes cary Men past the termes of their Callinges wherof
how it provides for the Security of Princes and Obedience to their Governments Can. 31. If any Man therefore shall affirm either That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of Babylon and Persia or that they were not all bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire as they had been bound before to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the other said Kings and their Kingdoms whilst they liv'd under their Subjection or consequently that they might lawfully upon any occasion whatsoever have offered Violence and Destruction either to their Persons or to their Kingdoms for the long continuance and Prosperity whereof they were bound to pray or that after the Jews were deliverred from their Servitude under the Kings of Syria and the Government over them was setled in Mattathias's Posterity it was lawful for the People upon any occasion to have Rebelled against them or to have offered Violence to their Persons He doth greatly err The Justice or Injustice of the War on either side between Darius and Alexander are made no part of the question but here are two Princes both suppos'd Absolute with all Adam's Power over their respective People staking their Kingdoms upon the chance of Battle one of them is conquered and runs away yet according to our Canonists the Conqueror is not entituled to the Fatherly or Patriarchal Power over the other's People but it is suspended at least during the Life of the King that was beaten and the Authority not setled all that while and if the Monarchy was Hereditary it may be yet more difficult when to fix the Settlement If it is admitted to be Setled in the life-time of the ejected and conquer'd Prince and that it is a duty to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the Conqueror and upon no occasion to offer any Violence to his Person or Kingdom yet according to these Canonists they were bound at least during the Life of the Conquered Prince to give no active Assistance to the other in Person or Contribution And thus it might be allowable to mock God Almighty while they pray for that to which they will not contribute the means in their Power or else their Prayers were to have such a mental Reservation as some have who pray for King James while they pray for The King But if they were to pray for Alexander's Prosperity without reserve one would think it was lawful at least to Fight for him against Darius notwithstanding the Oath of Allegiance taken to Darius by reason of the Authority which he had lost If any one shall say That this Convocation-Book was innocently published at this time let him read the following Canon If any Man therefore shall affirm Can. 28. either that the Subjects when they shake off the Yoke of their Obedience to their Sovereigns and set up a Form of Government among themselves after their own Humours do not therein very wickedly or that it is lawful for any Bordering Kings through Ambition and Malice to Invade their Neighbours Or that the Providence and Goodness of God in using of Rebellions and Oppressions to execute his Iustice against any King or Country doth mitigate or qualify the Offences of any such Rebels or Oppressing Kings or that when any such new Forms of Government begun by Rebellion are after thoroughly Setled the Authority in them is not of God or that any who live within the Territories of such new Governments are not bound to be Subject to God's Authority which is there executed but may Rebel against the same Or that the Jews either in Egypt or Babylon might lawfully for any Cause have taken Arms against any of those Kings or have offered any Violence to their Persons He doth greatly Err. If this be taken according to any rational or so much as probable Account of Government in General particularly applied to the English Constitution I see no danger in admitting that People ought not to throw off the Yoke of Obedience and set up a Form of Government after their own Humours and that it is not justifiable in any Bordering King or Prince through Ambition and Malice to Invade his Neighbours And yet this would not in the least condemn either the People of England in shaking off a former illegal and arbitary Yoak while yet they retain the ancient Form and Fundamental Rights of the Government or our Present Sovereign in his Heroical Undertaking our Deliverance But if all Princes are as Absolute as their Notion makes them the Nation had no Ground of complaint and His Present Majesty's Expedition would fall under the Imputation of Ambitition or Malice 't is certain that no just cause could be assign'd for it upon their Principles and yet these would as well condemn our Dissenting Bishops of Disobedience to the Late King in not complying with the Commands of a Prince whom this Book would make Absolute And of this the Archbishop would have done well to have bethought himself when he gave his License for the Church-Militant to put on this old rusty Armor which hung up without use for above eighty years Vid. Advertisement called Anno 1603. continued to 1610. had been full three if not not six Years in hammering out and was brought forth in this Critical Time to do Wonders for their suppos'd King of Divine Right of their making at least if not of God's Whilest the Clergy in that and following times Wrote and Preached for Preferments and Condemn'd all Notions which lay in their way to it it is to be feared that they incurr'd the Curse pronounced from more Divine Authority against him that removes his Neighbours Land-mark And he that would Model the English Government by those of the East of old set up and maintain'd by Confusion would do well to transplant his Family into Turky where he may find one of the truest Patterns of the fancied Patriarchal Government But if that or the Anticyrae to which an old Romam would have advised them be too far for them to Travel in their Canonical Habit they may take a step into France where its Monarch assumes and exercises a Power according to their Primitive Stamp Yet the latter part of the foregoing Canon tells you That you are bound to be subject to God's Authority even in those new Governments which are set up after the Humours of the People So that fully to maintain their Passive Character even in the Case of Usurpation and Introducing a new Form contrary to the Fundamental Constitution they are bound to sit still and never to Assist to Restore their Rightful Prince or ancient Form of Government but should trust Providence or rather tempt it to forsake them to their utter destruction But they who would be led by the Authority of these Canons to condemn our present Settlement I hope will learn even from thence to submit to it and attempt nothing against it and then I doubt not but there are brave English Men enough to defend it from all Foreign Force FINIS