Truth We need only to lay open the nature and antient Power of the States General with the manner of their Behaviour towards those Kings who abused the Power committed to them to make it evident that the French Monarchy is limited in its Constitution Under the first and second Race of the Kings of France there was no mention of any Assembly of the States General but only of the Franks that is to say the Nobles and Prelats who were used to meet together on the first of May in the open Field where they deliberated with the King concerning matters of Peace and War and took Resolutions of what was to be done all the Year after After the breaking up of this Assembly the Court of the Royal Palace otherwise called the Court of France composed of the Prelats and Great Barons that is to say the immediate Vassals of the Crown met together five or six times a Year to take care of the Execution of what had been resolv'd upon in the General Assembly to deliberate about publick Affairs that offer'd themselves and to determine as Judges the most important matters of private Persons Under the declination of the 2d Race the Governours of Cities and Provinces having made themselves Hereditary Lords of the places of their respective Governments under the Title of Counties and Dutchies cut themselves large Portions out of the Soveraign's Lands by which means the Court of France was no more frequented by the Lords except only when they were obliged to do Hommage and take the Oath of Fidelity or when an Enemy invaded France for then they presented themselves before the King to advise about the present necessity This Disorder continued until the Reign of Philip Augustus who having conquer'd Normandy and the Counties of Tourain Anjou Maine from John without Land King of England and the Country of Vermandois from the Earl of Flanders restored in some manner the Royal Authority and forced the Barons to frequent his Court and to be present at the Assemblies he called for the Affairs and Necessities of State. Nevertheless those Assemblies consisted only of the Prelats and Barons and this till the Reign of King John some Authors say of St. Lewis who being taken at the Battle of Poictiers and carried to England they were forc'd to raise a great Sum of Money for his Ransom and to this End they appli'd themselves to the Merchants and other Inhabitants of Cities who were then the richest Men of the Kingdom who agreed to pay the King's Ransom upon condition that they might be received into the Charges and Offices as well of Peace as of War and be allowed to have a Place and deliberative Voice in the States-General which was accordingly granted to them The Power and Prerogative of the States-General was such that the Kings of France could not make any new Levies of Mony without them Which continued so till the Reign of Charles VII as is acknowledged by Philip de Commines Lib. 6 c. 7. Neither could they make any new Ordinances nor repeal or suppress the old without the consent of the said States as is owned by Davila lib. 2 de li Guerri Civili Under the First and second Race of the French Kings the Ordinances were likewise made in the Assembly of the Prelats and Barons which constituted the Soveraign Court of France 't was there the Treaties of Peace were made between the Kings of France and Foreign Princes and Nations the Portions of the Children of France were there regulated there they treated of their Marriages and generally of all that concern'd the Affairs of State of the King's Houshold and the Children of France The Ordinances that were made in the said Assemblies in the Name of the Kings of France were conceived in these Terms Nos de consilio consensu Procerum nostrorum statuimus c. We with the Advice and Consent of our Lords do ordain And from hence is derived the Custome observed at this Day of verifying the Royal Edicts in the Parliament of Paris which in some sort represents the Assembly of the Prelats and Barons who composed as we have said the Soveraign Court of France In the Treasury of the French Kings at Chartres are found several Treaties between King Philip Augustus and Richard and John without Land Kings of England at the bottom of which are the Seals of the Prelats and Barons by whose Consent and Approbation the said Treaties had been made And Pope Innocent VI having sent to entreat St. Lewis that he would be pleas'd to permit him to retire into France to secure himself from the attempts of Frederick II. the said King answered the Popes Nuncio that he would communicate the Matter to his Parliament without whose Consent the Kings of France could do nothing of Importance This is related by Matthew Paris in the Life of Henry the III. King of England ad Annum 1244. We find also the manner how the States determined all Affairs respecting the Crown and Succession as for Example the Process which was between Philip de Valois and King Edward In this Assembly of the States saith the Chancellor de l' Hospital was Tried and Debated the most Noble Cause that ever was viz. To whom the Crown of France did belong after the Death of Charles the Fair to Philip of Valois his Cousin or to Edward King of England King Philip not presiding in that Assembly because he was not yet King and besides was a Party It appears clearly from the Power of the States General That the Power of the King of France is bounded by Law indeed this is a Truth whereof we cannot make the least doubt forasmuch as we find it acknowledged by Lewis XI the most unbridled Monarch that ever was See what he writes in the Rosary of War composed by him a little before his Death for the use of Charles VIII his Son. When Kings or Princes saith he have no respect to the Law they take from the People what they ought to leave them possest of and do not give them what they ought to have and in so doing they make their People Slaves and thereby lose the name of a King. For no body can be called a King but he that rules and has Dominion over Free-men This thing was so notorious even to Strangers themselves that Machiavel maintained that the Stability of the Monarchy of France was owing to this because the Kings there were obliged to a great number of Laws which proved the Security and Safe-guard of all their Subjects Lib. 1 di Discorsi c. 16. Messire Claudius de Seissel in his Treatise of the French Monarchy part 2. chap. 12. dedicated to Francis I. maintains upon this account That the Monarchy of France does partake of Aristocrasy which makes it both more perfect and durable Yea he asserts that it was also in part Democratical and expresly maintains that an absolute Monarchy is no other than true Tyranny when it is made use of
against Religion Justice and the Government That a Prince who passeth these Bounds must be held and esteemed for a wicked Tyrant cruel and intolerable who by this means pulls down the Hatred of God and his Subjects upon himself Du Haillan Historiographer of the Kings Henry III and Henry IV. follows the same notion of Claudius de Seissel in his third Book of the state of the Affairs of France dedicated to Henry III. maintaining that the Government of France is composed of Aristocrasy and Democrasy p. 168. And indeed who can judg otherwise when he attentively considers these six things which are a part of the publick Constitution of the Kingdom of France 1st That though the Crown for a long time since has followed the form of Succession yet the form of Election is still observed at the Coronation Hunc vultis hunc jubetis esse Regem This is he whom you will and require to be your King these Words are spoken to the People before the Coronation We find the Peoples Election is mentioned and the King called elect in the form of Coronation published by Hugo Menard a Benedictin 2ly The King is there engaged by his Oath to rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom as may be seen in the Ceremonial of France 3ly He can make no Laws but in the Parliaments or States General whereof we have an Instance in the States of Orleans in the Year 1560. and is the same with what D'avila has obin his 2d Book of the Civil Wars 4ly He can make neither Peace nor War but by the Advice of the States General This is acknowledg'd by Lewis XI as we find in Philip de Commines 2 Book ch 14. 5ly He can raise no Mony but by Concession from the States General We find this point thus decided by the States of 1338 with the consent of King Philip That no Taxes could be imposed or levied on the People of France without urgent and evident Necessity did require it and then only by the grant of the States Gila Fol. 157. Philip de Commines lib. 5. c. 18. saith with respect to this point Is there any King or Lord on the Earth who has Power besides his Demesne to impose so much as a Penny upon his Subjects without the Grant and Consent of those who are to pay it except it be by Tyranny and Violence 6ly The Kings of France are liable to be deposed by the States General in case they abuse the Authority they are entrusted with This last Article viz. of the Proceedings of the French against those of their Kings who abused their Authority does evidently demonstate That the Monarchy of France is altogether limited according to the Platform Caesar gives us of the Government of the ancient Germans or Francs who are descended from them There is a passage which is ordinarily abused to prove that unjust Kings and Tyrants cannot be deposed wherein Gregory of Tours thus expresseth himself to Chilperic Lib. 5. c. 19. If any one of us who are Lords transgresseth the Bounds of Justice you have the Power to punish him but if you your self do not keep within them who is it can correct you We indeed speak to you and you hearken to us if you please and if you will not who is it shall condemn you except he who has said that he is Righteousness it self I don't believe there was ever any Author that undertook to defend the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience who has not made use of this Proof but give me leave to say that they have quoted this passage with as much Judgment as they alledged the 75th Canon of the 4th Council of Toledo for 1st Observe that this is the Discourse of Gregory of Tours who was accused by Chilperic for opposing himself to the Justice that Prince demanded of a Council against Pretextat Bishop of Roven whom he accused of high Treason and forasmuch as the Bishops were perswaded of his Innocence whom they saw attackt by false Witnesses this Gregory had the Courage to maintain that it was their Duty to make their Remonstrances to the King concerning this matter The King took their Design of remonstrancing him for an opposition to the Justice he had demanded whereupon Gregory of Tours made the Discourse just now mentioned So that it plainly appears that this Discourse only respects the order of Bishops who under that Relation have no other way to redress themselves with regard to Kings but only by Remonstrances but does not at all speak of the Body of the State who are invested with other Rights in Reference to a King who undertakes to pervert Justice But to make it appear that Frenchmen at that time did not believe that Kings had the Priviledg that they could not be deposed by the States Though they abused their Authority we need only to consult the History of the deposing of Childeric Father of Clovis which is set down by Gregory of Tours Lib. 2. ch 11. and approved of by him We find that they had preserved this their Right by the Deposition of another Childeric in the 8th Century and whereupon it is obvious and natural to make these Reflections 1. That the Francs had the Power of choosing and deposing their Kings 2. That the Oath they swore to their Kings was conditional and supposed their acquitting themselves of the charge and trust reposed in them and which they were obliged by Oath to make good 3. That it is false that King Childeric was deposed by the Authority of Pope Zachary as the Papists have maintained forasmuch as that proceeding was an Act of the States General who made use of their Right on this occasion This is so true that Pope Zachary himself laid it down as a Maxim in his Letter to the Francs that this was a right inherent in the People Nam si Princeps Populo cujus beneficio Regnum possidet obnoxius est si Plebs Regem constituit destituere potest For if a King saith he be obnoxious to his People by whose graunt he possesseth his Kingdom if the People constitute a King they may also depose him If we come to the Race of Charles the Great we find Lewis the Good deposed by the States assembled at Thionville The whole Proceeding whereof may be seen in Baronius du Chesne Le Cointe where we may observe 1. That it was done with consent of the Bishops 2. We see there an Indictment on divers Articles which contains as many Crimes against the State. 3. When this Deposition was recalled afterwards they did annul the Acts of the former Assembly not as if they had acted without Power but because they had proceeded on false Accusations and insufficient Grounds We find also the same Proceeding with respect of Charles the Gross and Charles the Simple Indeed it was then so notorious that the Power of the Kings of France though they took to themselves the Title of Emperors was limited the Estates being
Reflections upon the Opinions OF Some Modern Divines CONCERNING The Nature of Government Licens'd June 29. 1689. J. FRASER THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. COncerning the Original of Sovereign Power Page 1 CHAP. II. The different Opinions of Philosophers and Divines concerning this matter Page 7 CHAP. III. That Sovereigns do not receive their Power immediately from God Page 10 CHAP. IV. An Examination of the Arguments which are alledged for the Proof of this Opinion Page 13 CHAP. V. Whether the Power of Sovereigns be absolute and unlimited Page 19 CHAP. V. Concerning the Extent of the Power of Sovereigns Page 24 CHAP. VI. Concerning Non-resistance Page 28 CHAP. VII That the Scripture doth not assert the point of Non-resistance Page 31 CHAP. VIII Whether the States can deprive Sovereigns of their Authority when they abuse it Page 34 CHAP. IX Concerning Regal Dignity and the Rights belonging to it among the Jews Page 38 CHAP. X. Concerning the Royal Law in favour of the Roman Emperors Page 50 CHAP. XI That the States of the West and of the North never knew this Royal Law Page 56 CHAP. XII That the Power of the Emperors of the West is a limited Power Page 63 CHAP. XIII That the Power of the Kings of Poland is limited Page 66 CHAP. XIV That the Monarchy of France is not an absolute Empire but a limited Royalty Page 68 CHAP. XV. That the Royalty of England never had any other form than the rest of the Northern and Western States Page 79 CHAP. XVI An Answer to some Difficulties moved against this Truth Page 85 CHAP. XVII An Answer to the last Objection Page 91 CHAP. XVIII A Reflection on some Remarks made out in this Treatise Page 97 APPENDIX CONCILII TOLETANI IV. Canon LXXV Pag. 103 The 75. Canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo ibid. Capitula super quibus facta est Magna Charta Regis Johannis ex MS. Arch. Cantuar. Fol. 14. Quae etiam authenticè cum Sigillo extant in manibus Episc Salisburiensis 113 Diploma Regium sive Ordinationes JOHANNIS Regis Angliae queis statuit quid Nobiles quid Plebeii observare debeant ad pacem tranquillitatem Regni stabiliendam 121 THE PREFACE 'T IS a strange and almost incomprehensible thing that at this time there should be found so many discontented Persons among us when but a little while since the whole Body of Protestants appeared so unanimous viz. at the beginning of the miraculous Revolution Though it hath already retrieved the State from Ruine and will without doubt prove its Happiness it might easily be guess'd that those who had contributed to the overthrow of the Laws apprehending the Reward they had so justly deserved would make up a Body of Malecontents and that their Numbers would be considerable 'T is notorious also that in all times those who think they are not considered or treated according to the Justice of their Merit are ready to murmur against the Government and the Ambition that possesses them renders them every where a Race of discontented Persons But whatever difference of Principles there might be among Protestants the fear of their common danger having reunited them and made their Interests the same with those of the State and Religion which they saw equally expos'd to inevitable Ruine there seem'd but small ground to apprehend that as soon as the Fright was over there should still be found a Generation of Men whom their old Animosities and habitual Prejudices would engage in disaffection and murmuring against the Government And yet it is but too true that scarce did the State and Religion begin to breath again but immediately there appeared a Party who made it appear by their snarling that what fill'd the generality of Men with Joy and made them give Thanks to God afforded them very small Satisfaction I pretend not to tax the whole Body of the English Church It is well enough known that as their Settlement was furiously struck at by Popery triumphant and observing no kind of measures her principal Members as well as the generality of those that resort under her have and still do witness their Zeal for the Government which God has been pleased to establish among us I speak only of some certain Members of this Church whom the Court has long employed in overthrowing by their Maxims the Foundations of the Publick Liberty in order to a sure Establishment of Popery Those Disciples of L'Estrange the Pensioner and Drudge of a Popish Court no sooner perceived that what was like to happen upon James the Second's Desertion would extremely expose them as Men that had betrayed the Interests of their Religion and the Government by Maxims which they had maintained with so much boldness every where began to publisb their discontent and still endeavour to inspire the same into the People as founded upon pure Tenderness of Conscience It cannot be denied but that hitherto the Government has shewed an extraordinary lenity in reducing them to Reason whom Danger seemed to have made wiser The method and careful management which has been made use of to obviate whatsoever might afford them the least Jealousie or give them the least trouble is an evident Mark hereof But in fine since they continue in their Mistakes notwithstanding all this care and tenderness and that nothing will satisfie them what can be more prudently undertaken than to prevent the pernicious Effects which their Example and the Maxims wherewith they are leavened might produce in the minds of the People We have thi◠Satisfaction already that the Publick is well aware they know not themselves what they would be at for how free soever they may be to disperse their Murmurs and Disaffection yet probably there is scarce one among them that would have James II. recalled neither indeed would it be so difficult a thing for them to find him out in case their Consciences link'd them so closely to him as they would make us believe But we may have also another satisfaction in this Point which is That in examining their Maxims in good earnest we may make it appear That they know not themselves what they affirm and that the Opinions they have so long maintained concerning the Nature of Government in general and that of England in particular are properly and truly a Heresie in Matters of State. Let no Man wonder that I call this Opinion of some of the Clergy of England a Political or State-Heresie Their Opinions respect a Political Question truly such but these Gentlemen have been pleased to mould it into an Article of Faith forsooth of the Church of England and their aim was to make that pass for an Article of the Law which indeed was no better than a dangerous Error in Policy And truly all the Characters of Heresie so fitly suit these their Sentiments that it is a hard thing to resist the Temptation of giving them that Title These Assertions are a perfect Novelty in Policy as well as Divinity Some late
own preservation and that of the Society whereof we are Members we may easily judge That in case the Scripture does assert it we must suppose it has done it with all possible clearness and distinction but we do not find any such thing I find but one place in the Old Testament which can be wrested to this purpose with any probability 't is the Description of the behaviour of a King set down 1 Sam. 8. 10. where the vulgar Translation interprets Mispath by the Word Right hoc est Jus Regis But I am astonished how any could be mistaken in this case For First It appears that God in that place gives us the Description of a Tyrant and not of a King for indeed we find nothing like to it in the Description he gives us of a King by Moses Deut. 17. Which appears to be so because Samuel held forth this Looking-glass to them to make them quit their demand of having a King set over them as the rest of the Nations about them Secondly It is apparent that what he saith of their crying to the Lord when oppressed by their King would have been most ridiculous supposing the King to have these Rights from God and by his Concession When Moses tells the Jews That they should cry unto the Lord when they should be oppressed by their Neighbours waging War against them because of their forsaking of the Lord Does he not plainly suppose That they would do this to obtain his Protection against the injustice of those Tyrants And can any one be supposed Fool enough to imagine that according to God's Intention it was unlawful for the Israelites to defend themselves against the Moabites Philistims and other Nations that oppressed them Thirdly It is evident that this supposed God could not in Justice punish a Tyrant or if he did it would be for making use of a Right himself had conferred upon him This reason made R. Juda to oppose R. Jose as Kimki observes upon this Text. The same is also acknowledged by the wisest of Divines Marchat in horte Pastorum Lib. 3. Tr. 4. Lect. 13. explains himself thus Hoc est jus Regis idem est ac si diceret Haec est consuetudo Regum This is the Right of a King is the same as if he had said This is the Custom of a King Jus Regum Jus non legitimum sed usurpatum Estius Samuel speaks there not of a lawful Right of Kings but of an usurped and arrogated Right and the same is the Opinion of Cornel. à Lapid and the Jansenists of Port Royal. After all that has been said it is natural to observe That forasmuch as all the several kinds of Government are no less founded on Divine Authority than the Kingly yet according to this Hypothesis none of them would be invested with this Right so fatal to Society but Kings only which certainly is the worst Argument they could have lighted on to recommend a Government which God by his own institution has constituted a true Tyranny The second place is that of St. Paul Rom. 13. where the Apostle forbids resisting of the Powers for fear we should resist the Ordinance of God. But we are to take notice that the Apostle in that place does not in the least touch this Question Whether it be lawful to resist the Poâ—ers when they endeavour to overthrow the Government First He considers the Powers in the lawful use of their Authority punishing the Evil and protecting the Good. Now it is ridiculous to suppose that the same Priviledge that appertains to him who makes a lawful use of his Authority is every whit as applicable to him who has lost his Title by the abuse of his Power Rex saith St. Isidore à recte agendo dicitur si enim piè justè misericorditer agit merito Rex appellatur si his caruerit non Rex sed Tyrannus est A King has his name from acting right and well for if he acts piously justly and mercifully he is deservedly called a King but if he want these qualifications he is no King but a Tyrant Addit 2. ad capit Carol Magn. cap. 21. Secondly This would suppose the Powers that act under Sovereigns to be every whit as irresistible as the Sovereigns themselves which is an extravagant position in the sense of all Modern Divines Besides we are to observe that Sovereigns with their Power are only the Organical chiefs of the Society the true head or chief is the Principality with its Members which are the integral parts of it This is the same that was acknowledged by Charles Moulin the Prince of French Lawyers and the great defender of the Kings of France and their Authority Upon this account it is that the People have right to prosecute the misdemeanours of the King's Attornies and Ministers and to punish them which would be strangely ridiculous if the State were not perswaded that all the Power they have is a power received from the State thô the King have the Power to elect and raise them to those Employments It is apparent therefore That these words of St. Paul only have an eye to the repugnance the Christian Jews had to submit themselves to the Dominion of Heathens This was the Opinion of the Pharisees who tempted Jesus Christ upon occasion of the Tribute which the Emperor levied in Judea Josephus shews that the Essenians opposed them in this point and St. Paul here takes the Part of the Essenians And indeed we do'nt find that the Christians did any way oppose the Decree of the Senate when they declared Nero The Enemy of all Mankind We find also that the Christians of Tertullian's time and those that followed after did very well agree with the Sentiment of Heathen Authors about the Justice of the People's or Senate's resistance against such Tyrants as is apparent from Lactantius de Montibus Persecutorum and the like may be seen in Eusebius Orosius and in St. Augustine de Civit. Dei. But I can say more than this viz. That the Scripture is so far from teaching the Doctrine of Non-resistance to an unjust Power and that violates the Laws that she represents to us contrary Examples with commendation and sufficiently intimates that we rather sin in not resisting For don't we see David taking up Arms to defend himself against Saul Don't we see him offering Achish to fight for him against Saul notwithstanding he was his Father-in Law Don't we see the Ten Tribes opposing themselves against Rehoboam upon his declaring for Tyranny and Arbitrary Government Let us take the pains heedfully to consider the carriage of the High-Priest and his Collegues when King Vzziah presumed to exercise the Functions of the Priesthood in offering Incense and it will plainly appear they did not think it unlawful to resist Sovereign Authority when it goes beyond its bounds 2 Chron. 26.17 Azariah the High-Priest follows him with fourscore Priests all valiant men drives him out of the Temple
nor unknown and upon occasion of which the States of the Empire have had an opportunity to declare make out their Rights and Pretensions One of the first Examples we find respecting this Matter is the Deposition of Lewis the Good in the Year 833. The Acts whereof we may see in Baronius Goldast du Chesne and le Comte Whereupon we may make these Reflections 1. That the Thing was done with the Consent of the Bishops and of all the Nobility 2. That the Estates above all accuse him for having broke his Coronation-Oath 3. That though this Lewis was afterwards restored to the Throne of the Empire yet those that restored him never contested the Power the State had to reject a Prince who overturn'd the Rules of Government but supposed only that he had not been duly convinced of the Crimes laid to his charge We have another Example in the Deposition of Henry IV. The Archbishops Bishops Dukes and Earls declare that they had not sworn to him till after he had engaged himself by his Oath to them to observe the Laws and the Capitulations of the Empire so that having now violated them they were set free from the Oath they had sworn to him and that they considered him as an Enemy against whom they would wage war to their last breath Lambert Schafnaburg One of the last Instances we find in the deposing of the Emperor Wenceslaus who was deposed by the Electors of the Empire in the Year 1400 after that he had been twice taken Prisoner and had been exhorted by the State to amend and take up from his irregular Actings Aventin lib. 7. Annalium Cuspinian in Vita Venceslai We may see the most part of these Articles and many more solidly confirmed in the Book of Carpsovius de Lege Regia Imperatorum Germaniae and in the Imperial Capitulations and other Laws which he has caused to be printed at the End of his Treatise CHAP. XIII That the Power of the Kings of Poland is Limited WE find the same Limitation in other States whether they be Successive or Elective I shall content my self to alledge only one Example concerning the Kingdoms that at present are Elective and that shall be of the Kingdom of Poland Poland from the Relation of Cromer gives us an illustrious Example of the Wisdom of Northern People in bounding the Power of their Princes After that the Family of Lech the first Founder of that Kingdom was extinct that State changed the Royal Government into that of XII Waywods otherwise called Palatines These Palatines abusing their Authority they re-established the Regal Government in favor of Cracus whose second Son was expell'd by the Polanders for killing his Elder Brother They afterwards chose the Daughter of Cracus for their Queen who 't is said having drowned her self to avoid Marriage the Polanders again established 12 Palatines as they had done before but afterwards suppressed them again because they found them insufficient to defend the Countrey and chose Premiel for their King. This is Lesko the 1 who lived about the year 750. It was not till the Year 965 that Miesco turn'd Christian and took upon him the Title of King of Poland which Title was confirmed by the Emperor Otho III to Bosletas his Successor His Successors having reigned until Lesko Surnamed the Black who was forced by Flight to quit the Kingdom because he was not able to resist the Tartars and died without Issue the Poles wearied with intestine Wars excited by the Ambition of their great Lords chose Premiel to be their King who being kill'd without leaving any Children behind him they made choice of Ladislaus who was afterwards desposed for Male-Administration by the States General Wenceslaus King of Bohemia who had been chosen in his stead dying in the Year 1305 Ladislaus was recall'd to the Government to whom Casimir his Son succeeded who in the Year 1370 designed for his Successor with consent of the States Lewis the Son of Charles King of Hungary by his Sister The Poles after the Death of Lewis chose Edwiga his Daughter upon condition that she should marry the Person whom the States should recommend to her for a Husband the Person recommended by them was Jagello Duke of Lithuania who had the name of Ladislaus given him by the Archbishop of Gnesna who anointed and Crowned after he had first baptized him He outliv'd Edwiga who died without Children and had for Successors the children of his fourth Wife who reached until Sigismund Augustus after whose Death the States chose in the Year 1573 Henry Duke of Anjou who after he had reigned four Months in Poland abandon'd the Kingdom to take possession of the Crown of France and was deprived of that of Poland by the States as may be seen from the Acts recorded by Historians This Vacancy occasion'd a Division in the States one part of them having chosen the Emperor Maximilian the Second and the other part Anne the Sister of Sigismund Augustus to whom they gave Stephen Battori Prince of Transylvania for her husband who Married the said Anne and was Crowned at Cracovia in 1576. After the Death of Stephen the States chose Sigismund Son of John III King of Sweden and of Katharine Daughter of Sigismund I. of that name King of Poland It is evident from this Abridgment 1st That the Poles always pretended to be the Masters that had right to give the Form to their State which seemed to them most comporting with the Good and Welfare of it 2ly That they took it for granted that they had Power to reject those Princes or Palatines whose Behaviour was contrary to the Publick Good for which they had raised them 3ly That they ever had an Eye to Succession so far as to bestow the Crown sometimes upon Daughters yet not thinking themselves bound to it but only so far as the good of the State did permit 4ly That they had regard to the appointing of a Successor when the States had first consented to it 5ly That the Flight or Desertion of their Kings has appear'd to them a sufficient Ground to proceed to a new Election in their stead and to reject them This is evident from the History of Lesko surnamed the Black and of Henry the III of France 6ly That the anointing and Crowning of their Kings was of no avail to dispense with their Oath in which they publickly declare That if they do not observe the Laws of the State the People are dispensed from their Oaths of Fealty they have sworn to them CHAP. XIV That the Monarchy of France is not an Absolute Empire but a Limited Royalty 'T IS not of to day only that some have imagined the Monarchy of France to be an unlimited Power and an Absolute Empire Bodinus was of that opinion before them but they that follow his sentiment understand nothing of that Constitution or if they do have a greater desire to flatter the unjust Pretensions of that Court than to maintain the
invested with part of the Soveraign Authority that Lewis the Good solemnly avows the same Lib. 2. Capitul c. 2 c. 12. We find also that the Clergy of France was so far convinced that the States of the Kingdom had right to dispose of the Crown for the good of the State that when Charles the Bald was chosen by the Kingdom of Lorrain in Prejudice of the Children of the King his Brother and that Pope Adrian II. wrote to them thereupon by Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims threatning to excommunicate them they sent back this Answer to him by the said Hincmar Petite Dominum Apostolicum ut quia Rex Episcopus simul esse non potest sui Antecessores Ecclesiasticum ordinem quod suum est non Rempublicam quod Regum est disposuerunt non praecipiat nobis habere Regem qui nos in sic longinquis partibus adjuvare non posset contra subitaneos frequentes Paganorum impetus nos Francos non jubeat servire cui nolumus servire quia istud jugum sui Antecessores nostris Antecessoribus non imposuerunt nos illud portare non possumus qui scriptum esse in sanctis libris audimus ut pro libertate haereditate nostra usque ad mortem certare debeamus Desire the Apostolical Lord that forasmuch as he cannot be King and Bishop both together and that his Ancestors have concerned themselves with the Ecclesiastical Order which is their particular Province and not with the Common-wealth which is the Office of Kings not to command us to take such a one for our King who at so great a distance is not able to help us against the sudden and frequent Assaults of Heathens and to require us Francs to serve him whom we will not serve because his Ancestors never offer'd to impose this Yoke upon our Ancestors neither can we bear it who find it written in the Holy Books That we ought to fight for our Liberties and our Inheritance even unto Death We see also that he who was the Head of the Third Race viz. Hugh Capet was chosen King of France notwithstanding the apparent Rights of Charles of Lorrain who was the next Heir of Lewis V. by reason that the said Charles seemed too much linked to the Interests of the Germans who at that time were Enemies to France Guil. de Nangis ad An. 987. and others in du Chesne Who does not know the History of Henry III. who having been deposed in Poland for deserting that Kingdom was afterwards deposed in France by advice of the Sorbonn and of the greatest part of the States We may easily judg from these two Characters that Frenchmen never were infected with the Doctrine of Non-resistance The one is because they look'd upon this Doctrine as an Error See what Gerson the famous Chancellor of the University of Paris saith of it Error est dicere terrenum Principem in nullo suis subditis dominio durante obligari quia secundum jus Divinum Naturalem aequitatem verum Dominii finem quemadmodum subditi debent fidem subsidium servitium Domino sic etiam Dominus subditis suis fidem debet protectionem Et si eos manifeste cum obstinatione in injuria de facto prosequatur Princeps tunc Regula haec Naturalis vim vi repellere licet locum habet Opusc adversus Adulat consid 7. It is an Error saith he to assert that an Earthly Prince as long as his Dominion lasts does not stand engaged to his Subjects in any thing because according to the Divine Law Natural Equity and the true End of Dominion as the Subjects owe to their Prince Faithfulness Subsidy and Service so their Prince owes them Faithfulness and Protection and in case he doth publickly and with obstinacy imperiously oppress them then that natural Rule takes place That it is lawful to repel Force by Force The second is that they have always with horror rejected the Abuse that has been made of the Expression in 1 Sam. 8. Hoc est Jus Regis for to maintain the Tyranny of Princes If we will believe the Laws amongst you Princes saith Claudius d' Epense to King Henry II. you are Lord of our Body and Goods or to speak more like Christians we and ours are at your command Your Majesty ought to abhor that Right nothing less than Royal and nothing more than Tyrannical which God by the Mouth of Samuel did not allow to Kings but only threatned the People with telling them This shall be the Right of the King c. And then adds Go to now ye Dogs and Flatterers of the Court go to and alledg hence-forward this Right not Regal but Barbarous but Turkish but Scythian or if any worse Epithet can be invented I acknowledg that the Face of Affairs is very much changed since these hundred Years The States General have not been assembled almost these Seventy Years The Parliaments themselves which were established by the Kings and the States General to preserve the Rights of the States have been forced by the present King to verify without any Debate all manner of Edicts for the Imposition of Mony. But yet after all this Change is of so late standing that there is little appearance it should be look'd upon as a sufficient Prescription against the Interest of the State. Those French-men who have any knowledg of the Laws of the State and its Constitution set down the Epocha or Date of this Change of the Ancient Maxims of the Kingdom to wit the time which followed the Cessation of the Holding of the Estates General or the Minority of Lewis XIII and the Reign of Lewis XIV Let no Body imagine that the Ancient Idea of the Government of France is quite effaced out of the Spirit of the Nation I own that Lewis XIV by a Reign both very long and very violent has made the French lose a great deal of their Courage The Clergy of that Kingdom have above all endeavoured to support his Tyranny by Maxims advanc'd and contriv'd by them for the ruin of the Protestants with as little regard for their Country as they have shewed Conscience in their base Panegyricks pronounced to his Honour But however there are still in being a great number of honest Men who adhere to those Ancient Maxims I can at this present produce one of these from amongst the Clergy the Learned and illustrious M. Joly Canon of the Church of Paris who in the Year 1663 publish'd a Book with this title Important Maxims for the Education of a King. This Man alone may suffice to prove my assertion for he very vigorously confirms these Maxims by the Testimony of Kings themselves Chancellors Ministers of State Lawyers and Historians of France that they were always of Opinion in that Kingdom That the King holds his Authority from the People That the Power of Kings is Limited That the French Monarchy is a Monarchy allay'd and temper'd with
Aristocrasy and Democrasy That the Kings can do nothing without the States General which are the very same things with our Parliaments That the Judges are the Peoples Officers That the words so much abused Such is our Pleasure signify only This is the Decree of our Courts of Judicature That they have no Right to levy any Impositions without the Consent of the States and many other Articles of that Nature CHAP. XV. That the Royalty of England never had any other form than the rest of the Northern and Western States I Have insisted the longer to shew how the Royalty was limited in France because the most part of our Modern Writers seem to have had in their aims to reduce our Monarchy to the Form of that Kingdom as supposing that it would have been a most glorious and advantageous Thing for our late Kings to transform them into so many Lewis's XIV that is to say to change us into Slaves and our Princes into Tyrants I shall say nothing of the Royalty in Scotland nor of the Bounds have been always set it by the Fundamental Laws of the State. There has been lately so much writ concerning this Matter to justify the Proceedings of the Convention of that Kingdom that it would be of no use to repeat it here And for the same reason I shall excuse my self of the trouble of treating what concerns the Limitation of the Royalty in England so largely as the Subject seems to deserve however what I shall say will be sufficient to make it appear that Royalty has been always on the same foot in that Kingdom as it is still in the other Western Kingdoms If we consider the most remote times that History gives us any account of we shall find that the Saxons as to the Power of their Kings followed the Example of the Ancient Germans whose Authority if we may believe Caesar and Tacitus was altogether limited and restrain'd We find in the Mirror of Justices cap. 1 2. that the first Saxons created their Kings that they made them take an Oath and that they put them in mind that they were liable to be judged as well as their meanest Subjects After that the Right of Succession was received in England yet it never deprived the English People of the Right of choosing their Kings This is evident from the Form of the Coronation published by Hugh Menard at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory p. 278. which Form was as follows After they had made the King promise to preserve the Laws and the Rights of the Church we read these words Deinde alloquantur duo Episcopi populum in Ecclesia inquirentes eorum voluntatem si concordes fuerint agant gratias Deo Omnipotenti decantantes Te Deum laudamus Then let two Bishops speak to the People in the Church and demand their Will and Pleasure and in case they do agree let them give thanks to Almighty God singing We praise thee O Lord. And pag. 269 270 We pray thee most humbly to multiply the gifts of thy Blessings upon this thy Servant whom we chuse to be our King viz. of all Albion and of the Franks That the Kings of England are as well bound by their Oath as their Subjects appears by the confession of Henry III upon occasion of one of his Councellors of State pretending that he was not obliged to preserve the Liberties of the Nation as being extorted from him expressing himself in these terms recorded by Mat. Paris under the Year 1223. Omnes libertates illas juravimus omnes adstricti sumus ut quod juravimus observemus pag. 219. All these Liberties we have sworn to and we are all bound to observe and make good what we have sworn English Men were always so well perswaded of this Truth that in their deposing of Richard II they thought they had done enough to prove That the King had forsworn himself by the Oath he had taken having broken several of the Articles he had promised to his Subjects by Oath to observe as we may see in the Acts of his Deposal recorded in the Chronicle of Knighton James the First was convinced of this when he told the Parliament of 1609. the 21st of March That the King is bound by a double Oath tacitly as being King and so bound to protect his People and the Laws and expresly by his Coronation Oath so as every just King is bound to preserve that Paction made with his People by his Laws framing the Government thereunto and a King leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to govern by Law. For what concerns the Laws we find that the Kings alone had not the Authority of making them King Edwin published his Laws Habito cum Sapientibus Senioribus Consilio with Advice of the Wise Men and Elders Ina King of the West Saxons did the like The Laws of Alfrede were made after the same manner Ex consilio prudentissimorum atque iis omnibus placuit edici eorum omnium Observationes As for the Government of the State we find that the Parliaments met and that their Meetings were fix'd once a Year by Alfred which was renewed by Edward II by two Laws Moreover the King was obliged to assist at them in case he was not sick and nothing but his Sickness could dispense with his Attendance That English-men never believed that the King of England could violate the Laws and overturn the State at his Pleasure without making himself thereby liable to punishment clearly appears from the Laws of St. Edward and by the manner of holding Parliaments confirmed by William the Conqueror and printed by the care of Dom. Luc. D'achery in the 12 To me of his Spicilege Sure it is that we clearly find these three things 1st That by the Agreement and Consent of King John upon the Complaints made against him by the whole State there were chosen 25 Barons with Power to represent to the King his unjust Oppression of the Nation and to oblige him by force of Arms to redress them which he himself published by his Letters Patents in the Year 1215. which piece was published by Dom. Luc. D'achery in the old Norman Tongue Spicil Tom. XII p. 583 584 585. as it is to be read in Matthew Paris ad An. 1215. Secondly We find that the opinion of the English Nation of old was That they could not only resist their Prince which abused his Authority but wholly deprive him of it by driving him and his wicked Councellors out of the Kingdom as we see in Matth. Paris in the Year 1233 where he relates that Henry III having call'd a Parliament upon the Complaints that came in from all Parts against his Ministers and the Strangers whose Service he made use of in the management of the Affairs of the Kingdom the Members of the said Parliament perceiving that they could not with safety meet together refused to come up