of Cut-throats even though Saul himselfe were in presence This the Doctor sees plainly and therefore shuffles it off by saying His example is extraordinary as if he were not a present Subject because he was designed by Gods revealed counsell to be a future King And he confesses Elisha's example of shutting the doore against the Kings messenger proves personall defense against sudden illegall assaults of messengers which is the thing in Question Sect 4 Let us now view the strength of what is said against resistence whether any thing comes home against this Assertion Arguments on the contrary dissolved The Doctors proofes from the old Testament come not to the matter Moses and afterwards the Kings were of Gods particular designation setting them absolutely over the people on no condition or limitation so that did they prove any thing yet they concerne not us respecting a Government of another nature But particularly that of Corah and the Princes rebelling against Moses is not to the matter it was a resistence of Moses owne Person and Office and doubtlesse penury of other proofes caused this and the rest here to be alledged For that 1 Sam. 8 18. how inconsequent is it to say the people should cry unto the Lord therefore they had no other meanes to helpe them but cries to God though I confesse in that Monarchy they had not That speech 1 Sam. 26 9. was most true there and is as true here but not to the purpose being spoken of the Kings owne Person But the maine authority brought against resistence is that Rom. 13. and on that Doctor Ferne builds his whole discourse Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that Text. First he supposes the King to be the Supreme in Saint Peter and the Higher power in Saint Paul Secondly hee collects All persons every soule is forbidden to resist Thirdly that then was a standing Senate which not long before had the supreme Power in the Romane State It is confessed but that they could challenge more at that time when Saint Paul writ then our great Councell will or can I deny For that State devolving into Monarchy by Conquest they were brought under an Absolute Monarchy the Senate it selfe swearing full subjection to the Prince his Edicts and Acts of Will were Lawes and the Senates consent onely pro forma and at pleasure required He who reads Tacitus cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince I wonder then the Doctor should make such a parallel Indeed the Senate had been far more then ever our Parliaments were or ought to be but now that was far lesse then our Parliament hath been or I hope ever will be They were become the sworne Vassals of an absolute Emperour ours the sworne Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince Fourthly he sayes then was more cause of Resistence when Kings were Enemies to Religion and had overthrown Lawes and Liberties I answere There were no causes for Resistence Not their enmity to Religion had they but a legall power because Religion then was no part of the Laws and so its violation no subversion of established government And for the overthrow of Lawes and Liberties that was past and done and the government new the Senate and all the rest actually sworne to absolute Principality Now an Ordinance of absolute Monarchy was constituted the sacred bond of an Oath had made it inviolate But what would he inferre hence all being granted him Sure this he doth intend That every soule among us severall and conjoyned in a Senate must be subject for conscience must not resist under paine of Damnation All this and what ever besides he can justly infer out of that Text we readily grant But can any living man hence collect that therefore no resistence may be made to fellow-subjects executing destructive illegall acts of the Princes will in a legall Monarchy Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted and Damnation incurred thereby Gods Ordinance is the Power and the Person invested with that power but here force is offered to neither as before I have made it appeare And herein we have B. Bilsoâ— consenting where he sayes Biâ—sâ—n of subjeâ—â— p 94 280. that the superiour power here forbidden to be resisted is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing with his Lawes I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare then this satisfaction to all that can bee concluded out of that Text so the foundation of all that discourse is taken from it if his intent were thence to prove unlawfulnesse of Resistence of Instruments of Arbitrarinesse in this Kingdome Let us also consider the force of his Reasons whether they impugne this point in hand He sayes such power of resistence would be no fit meanes of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the diseases His Reasons first because it doth tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Common-wealth it would open a way to People upon the like pretences to resist and even overthrow power duly administred 2 It may proceed to a change of government 3. It is accompanied with the evills of Civill-Warre 4. On the same ground the two Houses proceed against the King may the people proceed to resistence against them accusing them not to discharge their trust Lastly seeing some must be trusted in every State It is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the highest power These are his main reasons on which he builds his conclusion against resistence To his first I say it were strange if resistence of distructive disorder should tend to the overthrow of Order It may for the time disturbe as Physick while it is in working disturbes the naturall bodie if the peccant humors make strong opposition but lure it tends to health and so doth this resistence of disorder to Order Neither would it open a way for the people to violate the Powers for doing right can open no way to the doing of wrong If any wicked seditious spirits should make use of the Vail of Justice to cover unnaturall Rebellion Shall a peoples right and liberty be taken from them to prevent such possible abuse Rather let the foulnesse of such pretences discover it selfe so God and good men will abhorre them such Cloakes of Rebellion have in former ages been taken off and the Authors brought to just confusion without the expence of the liberties of this Kingdome To the second must not Instruments be resisted which actually intend and seeked a chang of Government because such resistence may proceed to a chang of Government Is not an unlikely possibility of change to be hazarded rather then a certaine one suffered But I say It cannot proceed to a chang of Government unles it exceed the measure of lawfull resistence yea it is impossible that resistence of Instruments should ever proceed to
Judges in the case of Ship-money had given it to the King sure when they denied it to him they did not intend it to themselves 1. Hee tells us In them resides the reason of the State And that the same reason and Judgement of the State which first gave this government its being and constitution therefore all the people are to be led by it and submit to it as their publique reason and Judgement I answer If by state he meane the whole Kingdome I say the reason of the two Houses divided from the King is not the reason of the Kingdome for it is not the Kings reason who is the head and chiefe in the Kingdome If by state be meant the people then it must be granted that as farre forth as they represent them their reason is to be accounted the reason of the Kingdome and doth binde so farre forth as the publique reason of the Kingdome can binde after they have restrained their reason and will to a condition of subjection so that put case it be the reason of the state yet not the same which first gave this Government its being for then it was the reason of a State yet free and to use their reason and Judgement in ordaining a Government but now the reason of a State bound by Oath to a Government and not at liberty to resolve againe Or to assume a supreme power of judging distructive to the frame of Government they have established and restrained themselves unto Their reason is ours so farre as they are an ordained representative body But I have before demonstrated that in this frame the Houses could not be ordained a legall Tribunall to passe Judgement in this last case for then the Architects by giving them that Judicature had subordinated the King to them and so had constituted no Monarchie 2. He argues the Parliament being the Court of supreme Judicature and the Kings great and highest Councell therefore that is not to be denied to it which inferiour Courts ordinarily have power to do viz To judge matters of right betweene the King and Subject Yea in the highest case of all The Kings power to tax the subject in case of danger and his being sole Judge of that danger was brought to cognizance and passed by the Judges in the Exchequor I answer 1. There is not the same reason betwixt the Parliament other courts In these â—he King is Judge the Judges being deputed by him and judging by his authority so that if any of his Rights be tried before them it is his owne Judgement and he judges himselfe and therefore it is fit he should be bound by his owne sentence But in Parliament the King and People are Judges and that not by an authority derived from him but originally invested in themselves So that when the two Estates judge without him in any case not prejudged by him it cannot be called his Judgement as that of the other Courts being done by his authority and if he be bound by any Judgment of the two Estates without him he is bound by an externall power which is not his owne that is he is subordinated to another power in the State where he is supreme which is contradictory Secondly in other Courts if any case of right be judged 'twixt him and the subject they are cases of particular Rights which diminish not Royalty if determined against him Or if they passe cases of generall right as they did in that of Ship-money it is but declaratively to shew what is by Law due to one and the other yet their Judgement is revocable and liable to a repeale by a superiour Court as that was by Parliament But if the Kings Prerogatives should be subjected to the Judgement of the two Estates the King dissenting then he should be subject to a sentence in the highest Court and so irremediable a Judicatory should be set up to determine of his highest Rights without him from which he could have no remedy Thus maine causes may bee alledged why though other Courts doe judge his Rights yet the two Estates in Parliament without him cannot and it is from no defect in their power but rather from the eminency of it that they cannot If one deputed by common consent of three doth by the power they have given them determine controversies betweene those three it is not for either of them to challenge right to judge those cases because one who is inferiour to them doth it Indeed if the power of the two Houses were a deputed power as the power of other Courts is this Argument were of good strength but they being concurrents in a supreme Court by a power originally their owne I conceive it hard to put the power of finall Judgement in all controversies 'twixt Him and them exclusively or solely into their hands If it be demanded then how this cause can be decided Sect. 3 and which way must the People turne in such a contention What be done in such a Contention I answere If the non-decision be tolerable it must remaine undecided whiles the Principle of legall decision is thus divided and by that division each suspends the others power If it be such as is destructive and necessitates a determination this must be made evident and then every Person must aide that Part which in his best Reason and Judgement stands for publike good against the destructive And the Lawes and Government which he stands for and is sworne to justifies and beares him out in it yea bindes him to it If any wonder I should justifie a power in the two Houses to resist and command aide against any Agents of destructive commands of the King and yet not allow them power of judging when those Agents or commands are destructive I answere I doe not simply deny them power of judging and declaring this but I deny them to be a legall Court ordained to judge of this case authoritatively so as to bind all People to receive and rest in their judgement for conscience of its authority and because they have Voted it 'T is the evidence not the power of their Votes must bind our Reason and Practice in this case We ought to conceive their Votes the Discoveries made by the best eyes of the Kingdome and which in likelihood should see most But when they Vote a thing against the proceedings of the Third and supreme Estate our Consciences must have evidence of Truth to guide them and not the sole authority of Votes and that for the Reason so oft alledged CHAP. VIII The contention now in being is debated and the readiest meanes of Reconcilement proposed THus have I for my owne satisfaction and the Conscience Sect. 1 of every moderate and impartiall man who will peruse the same set downe what I verily conceive to be the truth concerning those high matters first of Monarchy in generall and then of this of England and have given my determination concerning all the weighty Questions which
All these are very distinguishable cases and will be of use either in this or the ensuing disputes Assert 1 To the question I say First Positive obedience is absolutely due to the will and pleasure of an absolute Monarch in all lawfull and indifferent things because in such a State the will of the Prince is the supreme Law so that it binds to obedience in every thing not prohibited by a superiour that is Divine Law for it is in such case the higher power and is Gods ordinance Assert 2 Secondly When the will of an absolute Monarch commands a thing forbidden to be done by Gods Law then it bindes not to active obedience then is the Apostles rule undoubtedly true It is better to obey God then men For the Law of the inferiour gives place to the superiour In things defined by God it should be all one with us for the Magistrate to command us to transgresse that as to command us an impossibility and impossibilities fall under no Law But on this ground no man must quarrell with Authoritie or reject its commands as unlawfull unlesse there be an open unlawfulnesse in the face of the act commanded For if the unlawfulnesse be hidden in the ground or reason of the action inferiours must not be curious to enquire into the grounds or reasons of the commands of superiours for such licence of enquiry would often frustrate great undertakings which much depend on speed and secrecy of execution I speak all this of absolute government where the will and reason of the Monarch is made the higher power and its expression the supreme Law of a State Thirdly suppose an absolute Monarch should so degenerate Assert 3 into Monstrous unnaturall Tyranny as apparently to seeke the destruction of the whole community subject to him in the lowest degree of vassallage then such a community may negatively resist such subversion yea and if constrained to it by the last necessity positively resist and defend themselves by force against any instruments whatsoever imployed for the effecting thereof 1. David did so in his particular case when pursued by Saul he made negative resistence by flight and doubtlesse he intended positive resistence against any instrument if the negative would not have served the turne else why did he so strengthen himselfe by Forces sure not to make positive resistance and lay violent hands upon the Person of the Lords Anointed as it appeared yet for some reason he did it doubtlesse which could be none other but by that force of Armes to defend himselfe against the violence of any mis-imployed inferiour hands If then he might doe it for his particular safety much rather may it be done for the publike 2. Such an act is without the compasse of any the most absolute Potentate and therefore to resist in it can be to resist no power nor the violation of any due of subjection For first the most submisse subjection ever intended by any community when they put themselves under anothers power was the command of a reasonable will and power but to will and command the destruction of the whole body over which a power is placed were an act of will most unreasonable and self-destructive and so not the act of such a will to which subjection was intended by any reasonable creatures Secondly the publike good and being is armed at in the utmost bond of subjection for in the constitution of such unlimited soveraignty though every particular mans good and being is subjected to the will of One supreme yet certainly the conservation of the whole Publike was intended by it which being invaded the intent of the constitution is overthrowne and an act is done which can be supposed to be within the compasse of no politicall power So that did Nero as it was reported of him in his immanity thirst for the destruction of whole Rome and if he were truly what the Senate pronounced him to be Humani generis hostis then it might justifie a negative resistance of his person and a positive of any Agent should be set on so inhumane a service And the united Provinces are allowed in resisting Philip 2d. though he had bin their absolute Monarch if he resolved the extirpation of the whole people and the planting the countrey with Spaniards as it is reported he did And that assertion of some that All resistance is against the Apostles prohibition Resistance by power of Armes is utterly unlawfull cannot be justified in such a latitude But of this more will be spoken in the current of this discourse Assert 4 Fourthly suppose by such a power any particular person or persons life be invaded without any plea of reason or cause for it I suppose it hard to deny him liberty of negative resistance of power yea and positive of any Agents in such assault of murther for though the case be not so cleare as the former yet it seemes to me justified by the fact of David and the rescuing of Jonathan from the causlesse cruell intent of his Fathers putting him to death As also such an act of will carrying no colour of reason with it cannot be esteemed the act of a rationall will and so no will intended to be the Law of Soveraignty Not that I thinke a Monarch of such absolutenesse is bound to yeeld a reason why he commands any man to be put to death before his command be obeyed but I conceive the person so commanded to death may bee justified before God and men for protecting himselfe by escape or otherwise unlesse some reason or cause bee made knowne to him of such command Fifthly Persons subject to an unlimited dominion must Assert 5 without resistance subject their Estates Liberties Persons to the will and pleasure of their Lord so it carry any plea or shew of reason and equity First it seemes to me evident 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of the power for ill doing and we be punished for it yet the Magistrate going according to his misguided reason it is the command of a reasonable will and so to be submitted to because such a one suffers by Law in a State where the Lords will is the Law Secondly In commands of the power where is the plea of reason and equity on the part of the commander whether it be such indeed some power must judge but the constitution of absolute Monarchy resolves all judgement into the will of the Monarch as the supreme Law so that if his will judicially censure it just it must be yeelded to as if it were just without repeale or redressement by any created power And let none complaine of this as a hard condition when they or their Ancestors have subjected themselves to such a power by oath or politicall contract If it be Gods ordinance to such it must be subjected to and its exorbitances born as he sayes in Tacâ—tuâ—… as men beare famine pestilence and other effects of Gods displeasure
Sixthly in absolute Monarchy the person of the Monarch Assert 6 is above the reach of just force and positive resistance for such a full resignation of mens selves to his will and power by the irrevocable oath and bond of politicall contract doth make the person as sacred as the Unction of Saul or David In such a State all lawful power is below him so that he is uncapable of any penall hand which must be from a superiour or it is uniust I have bin the longer on this absolute Monarchy because though it doth not concerne us yet it will give light to the stating of doubts in governments of a more restrained nature for what is true here in the full extent of power is there also as true within the compasse of their power Sect. 4 In moderate or limited Monarchy it is an enquiry of some weight to know What makes a Monarchy limited What it is which constitutes it in the state of a limited Monarchy First A Monarchy may be stinted in the exercise of its Assert 1 power and yet be an absolute Monarchy as appeared before in our distinction of absolute Monarchy If that bounds be a subsequent act and proceeding from free will and grace in the Monarch for it is not the exercise but the nature and measure of power wherewith he is radically invested which denominates him a free or conditionate Monarch Assert 2 Secondly I take it that a limited Monarch must have his bounds of power ab externo not from the free determination of his owne will And now Kings have not divine words and binding Lawes to constitute them in their Soveraignty but derive it from ordinary providence the sole meane hereof is the consent and fundamentall contract of a Nation of men which consent puts them in their power which can be no more nor other then is conveyed to them by such contract of subiection This is the root of all soveraignty individuated and existent in this or that person or family till this come and lift him up he is a private man not differing in state from the rest of his brethren but then he becomes another man his person is sacred by that soveraignty conveyed to it which is Gods ordinance and image The truth hereof will be more fully discovered when we come to speake of Elective and Successive Monarchy Assert 3 Thirdly He is then a limited Monarch who hath a Law beside his owne will for the measure of his power First the supreme power of the State must be in him so that his power must not be limited by any power above his for then hee were not a Monarch but a subordinate magistrate Secondly this supreme power must be restrained by some Law according to which this power was given and by direction of which this power must act else he were not a limited Monarch that is a liege Soveraigne or legall King Now a Soveraignty comes thus to be legall or defined to a rule of Law either by originall constitution or by after-condescent By originall constitution when the society publike conferres on one man a power by limited contract resigning themselves to his government by such a Law reserving to themselves such immunities In this case they which at first had power over themselves had power to set their owne termes of subiection and hee which hath no title of power over them but by their act can de jure have no greater then what is put over to him by that act By after-condescent viz. when a Lord who by conquest or other right hath an absolute arbitrary power but not liking to hold by such a right doth either formally or virtually desert it and take a new legall right as judging it more safe for him to hold by and desirable of the people to be governed by This is equivalent to that by originall constitution yea is all one with it for this is in that respect a secondary originall constitution But if it be objected that this being a voluntary condescent is an act of grace and so doth not derogate from his former absolutenesse as was said before of an absolute Monarch who confines himselfe to governe by one rule I answer This differs essentially from that for there a free Lord of grace yeelds to rule by such a Law reserving the fulnesse of power and still requiring of the people a bond and oath of utmost indefinite subjection so that it amounts not to a limitation of radicall power whereas here is a change of title and a resolution to be subiected to in no other way then according to such a frame of government and accordingly no other bond or oath of allegeance is required or taken then according to such a Law this amounts to a limitation of radicall power And therefore they speak too generally who affirme of all acts of grace proceeding from Princes to people as if they did not limit absolutenesse 'T is true of acts of grace of that first kinde but yet you see an act of grace may be such a one as may amount to a resignation of that absolutenesse into a more milde and moderate power unlesse we should hold it out of the power of an absolute Lord to be other or that by free condescent and act of grace a man cannot as well part with or exchange his right and title to a thing as define himselfe in the use and exercise which I thinke none will affirme Sect. 5 In all Governments of this allay and legall Constitution there are three Questions of speciall moment to be considered How farre subiect oâ— is due in a limited Monarchy First How farre subjection is due As farre as they are Gods Ordinance as farre as they are a power and they are a power as farre as the Contract fundamentall from which under God their authority is derived doth extend As absolute Lords must be obeyed as farre as their Will enjoynes because their Will is the measure of their Power and their subjects Law so these in the utmost extent of the Law of the Land which is the measure of their power and their subjects duty of obedience I say so farre but I doe not say no further for I believe though on our former grounds it clearely followes that such Authority transcends its bounds if it command beyond the Law and the Subject legally is not bound to subjection in such case yet in Conscience a Subject is bound to yeeld to the Magistrate even when he cannot de jure challenge obedience to prevent scandall or any occasion of slighting the power which may sometimes grow even upon a just refusall I say for these causes a subject ought not to use his liberty but morem gerere if it be in a thing in which he can possibly without subversion and in which his act may not be made a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publique Liberty Sect. 6 How farre it is Lawfull to resist Secondly how farre
it is lawfull to resist the exorbitant Illegal Commands of such a Monarch 1. As before in lighter cases in which it may be done for the reasons alledged Pos 1 and for the sake of publique peace we ought to submit and make no resistance at all but de jure recedere Pos 2 2. In cases of higher nature Passive resistance viz. By appeale to Law by Concealment by Flight is lawfull to be made because such a Command is politically powerles it proceeds not from Gods Ordinance in him and so we sin not against Gods Ordinance in such Non-submission or Negative resistance 3. For Instruments or Agents in such commands if the Pos 3 streight be such and a man be surprized that no place is left for an appeale nor evasion by Negative resistance I conceive against such Positive resistence may be made because authority failing or this Act in the Supreame Power the Agent or Instrument can have none derived to him and so is but in the nature of a private person and his Act as an offer of private violence and so comes under the same rules for opposition 4. For the person of the Soveraigne I conceive it aswell Pos 4 above any Positive Resistence as the Person of an absolute Monarch Yea though by the whole Community except there be an expresse reservation of Power in the body of the State or any deputed Persons or Court to use in case of intolerable exorbitance Positive Resistence which if there be then such a Governour is no Monarch for that Fundamentall Reservation destroyes it's being a Monarchy in asmuch as the Supreame Power is not in one For where ever there is a Soveraigne Politique Power constituted the person or persons who are invested with it are Sacred and out of the reach of Positive Resistance or Violence which as I said if just must be from no inferior or subordinate hand But it will be objected that sith every Monarch hath his power from the consent of the whole body that consent of the whole Body hath a Power above the Power of the Monarch and so the resistance which is done by it is not by an inferior power and to this purpose is brought that Axiome Quicquia efficit tale est magis tale I answer That rule even in naturall causes is lyable to abundance of restrictions And in the particular in hand it holds not Where the cause doth bereave himselfe of that perfection by which it works in the very act of causing and convey it to that effect It doth not remain more such then the effect but much lesse and below it as if I convey an estate of Land to another it doth not hold that after such conveyance I have a better Estate remayning in me then that other but rather the contrary because what was in one is passed to the other The Servant who at the year of Iubile would not go out free but have his eare boared and given his Master a full Lordship over him can we argue that he had afterward more power over himselfe then his Master because he gave his Master that power over him by that act of Oeconomicall Contract Thus the Community whose consent establishes a Power over them cannot be said universally to have an eminencie of Power above that which they constitute sometimes they have sometimes they have not and to judge when they have when not respect must be had to the Origiginall Contract and Fundamentall Constitution of that State if they have constituted a Monarchy that is invested one man with the Soveraignty of Power and subjected all the rest to him Then it were unreasonable to say they yet have it in themselves Or have a power of recalling that Supremacie which by Oath and Contract they themselves transferred on another Unles we make this Oath and Contract lesse binding then private ones dissoluble at pleasure and so all Monarchs Tenants at will from their people But if they in such Constitution reserve a power in the body to oppose and displace the Magistrate for exorbitancies and reserve to themselves a Tribunall to trie him in that man is not a Monarch but the Officer and Substitute of him or them to whom such Power over him is reserved or conferred The Issue is this If he be a Monarch he hath the Apex or Culmen Potestatis and all his Subjects divisim and conjunction are below him They have devested themselves of all superiority and no Power left for a Positive Opposition of the Person of him whom they have invested Sect. 7 Thirdly Who shall be the Iudge of the Excesses of the Soveraigne Lord in Monarchies of this composure Who shall be the Iudge of the excesses of the Monarch I answer A frame of Government cannot be imagined of that perfection but that some inconveniencies there will be possible for which there can be provided no remedie Many miseries to which a people under an absolute Monarchie are lyable are prevented by this Legall Allay and definement of Power But this is exposed to one defect from which that is free that is an impossibility of constituting a Judge to determine this last controversie viz. the Soveraignes transgressing his fundamentall limits This Judge must be either some Forraigner and then â—…e lose the freedome of the State by subjecting it to an externall power in the greatest case or else within the body If so then 1. either the Monarch himselfe and then you destroy the frame of the State and make it absolute for to define a Power to a Law and then to make him Judge of his Deviations from that Law is to absolve him from all Law Or else 2. the Community and their Deputies must have this power and then as before you put the apex Potestatis the prime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the whole body or a part of it and destroy the being of Monarchy The Ruler not being Gods immediate Minister but of that Power be it where it will to which he is accomptable for his actions So that I conceive in a limited legall Monarchy there can be no stated internall Judge of the Monarchs actions if there grow a fundamentall Variance betwixt him and the Community But you will say It is all one way to absolutenesse to assigne him no Judge as to make him his own Judge Answ I say not simplie in this case there is no Judge But that there can be no Judg legall and constituted within that frame of Government but it is a transcendent case beyond the provision of that Government and must have an extraordinary Judge and way of devision In this great and difficult case I will deliver my apprehensions freely and clearly submitting them to the censure of better Iudgements Suppose the controversie to happen in a Government fundamentally legall and the people no further subjected then to Government by such a Law 1. If the act in which the exorbitance and transgression Pos 1 is supposed to be be of lesser moment
And that One is either individually one Person and then it is a simple Monarchy Or one associate Body chosen either out of the Nobility whence the Government is called a simple Aristocraty or out of the Community without respect of birth or state which is termed a simple Democracy The supreme authority residing exclusively in one of these three denominates the Government simple which ever it be Now experience teaching People that severall inconveniences are in each of these which is avoided by the other as aptnesse to Tyranny in simple Monarchy aptnesse to destructive Factions in an Aristocracy and aptnesse to Confusion and Tumult in a Democracy As on the contrary each of them hath some good which the others want viz. Unity and strength in a Monarchy Counsell and Wisedome in an Aristocracy Liberty and respect of Common good in a Democracy Hence the wisedome of men deeply seene in State matters guided them to frame a mixture of all three uniting them into one Forme that so the good of all might be enjoyed and the evill of them avoyded And this mixture is either equall when the highest command in a State by the first Constitution of it is equally seated in all three and then if firme Union can be in a mixture of Equality it can be called by the name of neither of them but by the generall stile of a Mixed State or if there be priority of Order in one of the three as I thinke there must be or else there can be no Unity it may take the name of that which hath the precedency But the firmer Union is where one of the three is predominant and in that regard gives the denomination to the whole So we call it a Mixed Monarchy where the primity of share in the supreme power is in one Now I conceive to the constituting of Mixed Monarchy Sect. 2 and so proportionately it may be said of the other What it is which constitutes a mixed Monarchy 1. The Soveraigne power must be originally in all three viz. If the composition be of all three so that one must not hold his power from the other but all equally from the fundamentall Pos 1 Constitution for if the power of one be originall and the other Derivative it is no mixture for such a Derivation of power to others is in the most simple Monarchy Againe the end of mixture could not be obteyned for why is this mixture framed but that they might confine each other from exorbitance which cannot be done by a derivate power it being unnaturall that a derived power should turne back and set bounds to its owne beginning 2. A full equality must not be in the three estates though Pos 2 they are all sharers in the Supreame power for if it were so it could not have any ground in it to denominate it a Monarchie more then an Aristocracie or Democracie 3. A power then must be sought wherewith the Monarch Pos 3 must be invested which is not so great as to destroy the mixture nor so titular as to destroy the Monarchy which I conceive maybe in these particulars 1. If he be the head and Fountaine of the power which governs and executes the established Lawes so that both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworne subjects and owe obedience to his commands which are according to established Lawes 2. If he hath a sole or chiefe power in capacitating and putting those persons or societies in such States and conditions as whereunto such Supreme power by the foundations of the Government doth belong and is annexed so that though the Aristocratical and Democraticall power which is conjoyned to his be not from him yet the definement and determination of it to such persons is from him by a necessary consecution 3. If the power of convocating or causing to be put in existence and dissolving such a Court or Meeting of the two other estates as is authoritative be in him 4. If his authority be the last and greatest though not the sole which must establish and adde a consummatum to every Act. I say these or any of these put into one person makes that State Monarchicall because the other though they depend not on him quoad essentiam et actus formales but on the prime constitution of the Government yet quoad existentiam et determinationem ad subjecta they doe The Supreme power being either the Legislative or the Gubernative In a mixed Monarchy sometimes the mixture is the seate of the Legislative power which is the chiefe of the two The power of constituting officers for governing by those Lawes being left to the Monarch Or else the Primacie of both these powers is jointly in all three For if the Legislative be in one then the Monarchy is not mixed but simple for that is the Superiour if that be in one all else must needs be so too By Legislative I meane the power of making new Lawes if any new be needfull to be added to the foundation and the Authentick power of interpreting the old For I take it this is a branch of the Legislative and is as great and in effect the same power Every mixed Monarchy is limited but it is not necessary Sect. 3 that every limited should be mixed For the Prince in a mixed Monarchy were there no definement of him to a Law but onely this that his Legislative acts have no validity without the allowance and joint authority of the other this is enough to denominate it exactly a limited Monarchy and so much it must have if it be mixed On the other side if in the foundations of his Government he be restrained to to any Law besides his own Will he is a limited Monarch though that both the Legislative and Gubernative power provided he exceed not those Lawes be left in his owne hands But then the Government is not mixed Now concerning the extent of the Princes power and the Sect. 4 subjects duty in a mixed Monarchy How far the Princes power extends in a mixed Monarchy almost the same is to be said which was before in a limited for it is a generall rule in this matter such as the Constitution of Government is such is the Ordinance of God such as the Ordinance is such must our duty of subjection be No Power can challenge an obedience beyond its owne measure for if it might we should destroy all Rules and differences of Government and make all absolute and at pleasure In every mixed Principality First Looke what Power is solely entrusted and committed Assert 1 to the Prince by the fundamentall Constitution of the State in the due execution thereof all owe full subjection to him even the other Estates being but societies of his subjects bound to him by Oath of Allegeance as to their liege Lord. Secondly those acts belonging to the power which is stated Assert 2 in a mixed Principle if either part of that Principle or two of the
three undertake to doe them it is invalid it is no binding Act for in this case all three have a free Negative voice and take away the priviledge of a Negative Voice so that in case of refusall the rest have power to doe it without the third then you destroy that Third and make him but a Looker on So that in every mixed Government I take it there must be a necessity of concurrence of all three Estates in the production of Acts belonging to that power which is committed in common to them Else suppose those Acts valid which are done by any major part that is any two of the three then you put it in the power of any two by a confederacy at pleasure to disanull the third or suspend all its Acts and make it a bare Cypher in Government Assert 3 Thirdly in such a composed State it the Monarch invade the power of the other two or run in any course tending to the dissolving of the constituted frame they ought to employ their power in this case to preserve the State from ruine yea that is the very end and fundamentall aime in constituting all mixed Policies not that they by crossing and jarring should hinder the publike good but that if one exorbitate the power of restraint and providing for the publike safety should be in the rest and the power is put into divers hands that one should counterpoize and keep even the other so that for such other Estates it is not onely lawfull to deny obedience and submission to illegall proceedings as private men may but it is their duty and by the foundations of the Government they are bound to prevent dissolution of the established Frame Assert 4 Fourthly the Person of the Monarch even in these mixed Formes as I said before in the limited ought to be above the reach of violence in his utmost exorbitances For when a People have sworne allegeance and invested a Person or Line with Supremacy they have made it sacred and no abuse can devest him of that power irrevocably communicated And while he hath power in a mixed Monarchy he is the Universall Soveraigne even of the other limiting States so that being above them he is de jure exempt from any penall hand Assert 5 Fifthly that one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no Constituted Legall Authoritative Judge of the fundamentall Controversies arising betwixt the three Estates If such doe arise it is the fatall disease of these Governments for which no salve can be prescribed For the established being of such authority would ipso facto overthrow the Frame and turne it into absolutenesse So that if one of these or two say their power is invaded and the Government assaulted by the other the Accused denying it it doth become a controversie of this question there is no legall Judge it is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government The Accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience In this case which is beyond the Government the Appeale must be to the Community as if there were no Government and as by Evidence mens Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their utmost assistance For the intention of the Frame in such States justifies the exercise of any power conducing to the safety of the Universality and Government established PART II. Of this particular MONARCHY CHAP. I. Whether the Power wherewith our Kings are invested be an Absolute or Limited and Moderated Power Sect. 1 HAving thus far proceeded in generall before we can bring home this to a stating of the great controversie which now our sins Gods displeasure and evill turbulent men have raised up in our lately most flourishing but now most unhappy Kingdome Wee must first looke into the Frame and Composure of our Monarchy for till we fully are resolved of that we cannot apply the former generall Truths nor on them ground the Resolution of this ruining contention Concerning the Essentiall Composure of this Government that it is Monarchicall is by none to be questioned but the enquiry must be about the Frame of it And so there are seven great questions to be prosecuted Quest 1. stated First whether it be a Limited Monarchy or Absolute Here the question is not concerning Power in the Exercise but the Root and being of it for none will deny but that the way of Government used and to be used in this Realme is a designed way Onely some speake as if this Definement were an act of Grace from the Monarchs themselves being pleased at the suit and for the good of the People to let their power run into act through such a course and current of Law whereas if they at any time shall thinke fit on great causes to vary from that way and use the full extent of their power none ought to contradict or refuse to obey Neither is it the question Whether they sin against God if they abuse their power and run out into acts of injury at pleasure and violate those Lawes which they have by Publike Faith and Oath promised to observe for none will deny this to be true even in the most absolute Monarch in the world But the point controverted is punctually this Whether the Authority which is inherent in our Kings be boundlesse and absolute or limited and determined so that the acts which they doe or command to be done without that compasse and bounds be not onely sinfull in themselves but invalid and non-authoritative to others Now for the determining hereof I conceive and am in Sect. 2 my Judgement perswaded Assert that the Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited and not onely in the Use and Exercise of it And am perswaded so on these grounds and Reasons First Because the Kings Majesty himselfe who best Reas 1 knowes by his Councell the nature of his own power sayes that a Declar from Newmarket Mart. 9. 1641 the Law is the measure of his power which is as full a concession of the thing as words can expresse If it be the measure of it then his power is limited by it for the measure is the limits and bounds of the thing limited And in his Answer to both the Houses concerning the Militia speaking of the men named to him sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted to them then by Law is in the Crowne it selfe His Maiesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some Law first vested in him with power to transferre it to the these persons c. In which passage it is granted that the Powers of the Crown are by Law and that the King hath no more then are vested in him by Law Reas 2 Secondly because it is in the very Constitution of it mixed as I shall afterwards make it appeare then it is radically limited for as I shewed before every mixed Monarchy is limited
though not on the contrary for the necessary connexion of other power to it is one of the greatest limitations A subordination of Causes doth not ever prove the supreme Cause of limited virtue a co-ordination doth alwayes Reas 3 Thirdly I prove it from the ancient ordinary and received denominations for the Kings Majesty is called out Liege that is Legall Soveraigne and we his Liege that is his Legall Subjects what doe these names argue but that his Soveraignty and our subjection is legall that is restrained by Law Reas 4 Fourthly had we no other proofe yet that of Prescription were sufficient In all ages beyond record the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome have been the Rule of Government Liberties have been stood upon and Grants thereof with limitations of Royall power made and acknowledged by Magna Charta and other publike and solemne acts and no Obedience acknowledged to be due but that which is according to Law nor claimed but under some pretext and title of Law Reas 5 Fifthly the very Being of our Common and Statute Lawes and our Kings acknowledging themselves bound to governe by them doth prove and prescribe them Limited for those Lawes are not of their sole composing nor were they established by their sole Authority but by the concurrence of the other two Estates so that to be confined to that which is not meerly their owne is to be in a limited condition Pleaders for defensive armes Sect. 2. 4. Some there be which have lately written on this subject who take another way to prove our Government limited by Law viz. by denying all absolute Government to be lawfull affirming that Absolute Monarchy is not at all Gods Ordinance and so no lawfull power secured from resistance What is their ground for this God allowes no man to rule as he list nor puts mens lives in the pleasure of the Monarch It is a power arbitrary and injurious But I desire those Authors to consider that in absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any Will or list but to the reasonable Will of the Monarch which having the Law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts But see for defence of this Government Part 1. cap. 2. Having set downe those Reasons on which my Judgement Sect. 3 is setled on this side I will consider the maine Reasons wherby some have endeavoured to prove this Government to be of an absolute nature and will shew their invalidity Many Divines perhaps inconsiderately perhaps wittingly for self ends have beene of late yeares strong Pleaders for Absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Land and pressed Obedience on the Consciences of People in the utmost extremity which can be due in the most absolute Monarchy in the world but I seldome or never heard or read them make any difference of Powers but usually bring their proofes from those Scriptures where subjection is commanded to the higher Powers and all resistence of them forbidden and from Examples taken out of the manner of the government of Israel and Judah as if any were so impious to contradict those truths and they were not as well obeyed in Limited Government as in Absolute or as if Examples taken out of one Government do alwayes hold in another unlesse their aime were to deny all distinction of Governments and to hold all absolute who have any where the supreme power conveyed to them Among these I wonder most at that late discourse of Dr. Ferne who in my Judgement avoucheth things inconsistent and evidently contradictory one to the other For in his Preface he acknowledges our Obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the Lawes of the Land and accordingly to be yeelded or denied to the higher Power and that he is as much against an absolute Power in the King and to raise him to an arbitrary way of Government as against resistence on the Subjests part also that his power is limited by Law Sect. 5. Yet on the other side he affirmes That the King holds his Crown by conquest that it is descended to him by three Conquests Sect. 2. that we even our Senate of Parliament hath not so much plea for resistence as the ancient Romane Senate had under the Romane Emperours whose power we know was absolute Sect 2. that in Monarchy the judgement of many is reduced ro one that Monarchy settles the chief power and finall Judgment in one Sect. 5 what is this but to confesse him limited and yet to maintain him absolute Arguments on the contrary dissolved But let us come to the Arguments First say they our Kings came to their right by Conquest yea saies the Dr. by three Conquests He meanes the Saxons Danes and Normans as appears afterwards Therefore their right is absolute Here that they may advance themselves they care not though it be on the ruine of publique liberty by bringing a whole Nation into the condition of conquered slaves But to the Argument 1. Suppose the Antecedent true the Consequution is not alwaies true for as is evident before in the first Part. All Conquest doth not put the Conqueror into an absolute right He may come to a right by Conquest but not sole Conquest but a partiall occasioning a Right by finall Agreement and then the right is specificated by that fundamentall agreement Also he may by sword prosecute a claime of another nature and in his war intend only an acquiring of that claimed right and after conquest rest in that Yea farther he may win a Kingdome meerly by the Sword and enter on it by right of Conquest yet considering that right of conquest hath too much of force in it to be safe and permanent he may thinke conquest the best meane of getting a Kingdome but not of holding and in wisdome for himselfe and posterity gaine the affections of the people by deserting that Title and taking a new by Politique agreement or descend from that right by fundamentall grants of liberties to the people and limitations to his own power but these things I said in effect before in the first part only here I have recalled them to shew what a non sequitur there is in the Argument But that which I chiefly intend is to shew the infirmity or falsehood of the Antecedent it is an Assertion most untrue in it selfe and pernitious to the State Our Princes professe no other way of comming to the Crown but by right of succession to rule free subjects in a legall Monarchy All the little shew of proofe these Assertors have is from the root of succession So William commonly called the Conquerour For that of the Saxons was an expulsion not a Conquest for as our Histories record They comming into the Kingdome drove out the Britaines and by degrees planted themselves under their Commanders and no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany unles we should thinke that by conquering they lost their own Liberties to the Kings for whom they conquered and
expelled the British into Wales Rather I conceive the Originall of the subjects libertie was by those our fore-fathers brought out of Germany Where as Tacitus reports Tacit. de Morib German Sect. 3. 5. nec Regibus infinita aut libera potestas Their Kings had no absolute but limited power and all weighty matters were dispatched by generall meetings of all the Estates Who sees not here the antiquity of our Liberties and frame of Government so they were governed in Germany and so here to this day for by transplanting themselves they changed their soyl not their manners and Government Then that of the Danes was indeed a violent Conquest and as all violent rules it lasted not long when the English expelled them they recovered their Countrey and Liberties together Thus it is clear the English Libertie remained to them till the Norman Invasion notwithstanding that Danish interruption Now for Duke William I know nothing they have in him but the bare stile of Conqueror which seems to make for them The very truth is and everie intelligent reader of the Historie of those times will attest it that Duke William pretended the grant and gift of King Edward who died without children and he came with forces into this Kingdome not to Conquer but make good his Title against his enemies his end of entring the Land was not to gaine a new absolute Title but to vindicate the old limited one whereby the English Saxon Kings his Predecessors held this Kingdome Though his Title was not so good as it should be Cambâ—â—n Britan. Normaâ— yet it was better then Harolds who was onely the Sonne of Goodwyn Steward of King Edwards house Whereas William was Cousen to Emma mother to the said King Edward by whom he was adopted and by solemne promise of King Edward was to succeed him Of which promise Harold himselfe became surety and bound by oath to see it performed Here was a faire Title especially Edgar Atheling the right Heire being of tender age and dis-affected by the people Neither did he proceed to a full Conquest but after Harola who usurped the Crown was slain in battle and none to succeed him the Throne being void the people chose rather to submit to William and his Title then endure the hazzard of ruining war by opposing him to set up a new King It is not to be imagined that such a Realme as England could be conquered by so few in such a space if the peoples voluntary acceptance of him and his claime had not facilitated and shortned his undertaking Thus we have it related in Mr. Cambdâ—n that before Harold usurped the Crown most men thought it the wisest Policie to set the Crown on Williams head that by performing the Oath and promise a Warre might be prevented And that Harold by assuming the Crown provoked the whole Clergy and Ecclesiasticall State against him and we know how potent in those daies the Clergy were in State affaires Also that after one battle fought wherein Harold was slain he went to London was received by the Londoners and solemnly inaugurated King as unto whom by his own saying the Kingdome was by Gods Providence appointed and by vertue of a gift from his Lord and Cousen King Edward the glorious granted so that after that battell the remainder of the war was dispatched by English forces and Leaders But suppose he did come in a Conqueror yet he did not establish the Kingdome on those termes but on the old Lawes which he reteyned and authorized for himselfe and his Successors to governe by Indeed after his settlement in the Kingdome some Norman Customes he brought in and to gratify his souldiers dispossessed many English of their estates dealing in it too much like a Conqueror but the triall by twelve men and other fundamentalls of Government wherein the English freedome consists he left untouched which have remained till this day On the same Title he claimed and was inaugurated was he King which was a title of rightfull succession to Edward therfore he was indeed King not as Conqueror but as Edwards Successor and on the same right as he and his Predecessors held the Crowne As also by the grant of the former Lawes and forme of Government he did equivalently put himselfe and successors into the State of legall Monarchs and in that Tenure have all the Kings of this Land held the Crown till this day when these men would rake up and put a Title of Conquest upon them which never was claimed or made use of by him who is the first root of their succession Another reason which they produce is the successive nature Sect. 4 of this Monarchy for with them to be elective and limited and to be successive and absolute are equipollent They conceive it impossible that a Government should be Hereditary and not absolute But I have enough made it appear Part 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. That succession doth not prove a Monarchie absolute from limitation though it proves it absolution from interruption and discontinuance during the being of that succession to which it is defined And that which they object that our Kings are actually so before they take the Oath of governing by Law and so they would be did they never take that Oath wherefore it is no Limitation of their royall power is there also answered in the next Sect. and that so fully that no more need be said The same Law which gives the King his Crown immediatly upon the decease of his Predecessor conveyes it to him with the same Determinations and Prerogatives annexed with which his Progeintors enjoyed it so that he entring on that Originall Right his subjects are bound to yeild obedience before they take any Oath And he is bound to the Lawes of the Monarchy before he actually renewes the bond by any Personall Oath There is yet another argument usually brought to this purpose taken from the Oath of Allegiance but of that I shall have occasion to speake hereafter CHAP. II. Supposing it be in the Platforme limited Quest 2. Wherein and how far forth it is limited and defined Pos 1 I Conceive it fundamentally limited in five particulars First in the whole latitude of the Nomotheticall power so that their power extends not to establish any Act which hath the Being and state of a Law of the Land nor give an authenticke sense to any Law of doubtfull and controverted meaning solely and by themselves but together with the concurrent Authority of the two other Estates in Parliament Pos 2 Secondly in the Governing Power there is a confinement to the Fundamentall Common Lawes and to the superstructive Statute Lawes by the former concurrence of Powers enacted as to the Rule of all their Acts and Executions Pos 3 Thirdly in the power of constituting Officers and meanes of governing not in the choice of Persons for that is intrusted to his Judgement for ought I know but in the constitution of Courts of Judicature For as
hee cannot Judge by himselfe or Officers but in Courts of Justice so those Cours of Justice must have a constitution by a concurrence of the three Estates They must have the same power to constitute them as the Lawes which are dispensed in them Pos 4 Fourthly in the very succession for though succession hath been brought as a Medium to prove the Absolutenesse of this Government yet if it be more throughly considered it is rather a proofe of the contrary and every one who is a successive Monarch is so far limited in his power that he cannot leave it to whom he pleases but to whom the Fundamentall Law concerning that Succession hath designed it And herein though our Monarchy be not so far limited as that of France is said to be where the King cannot leave it to his Daughter but to his Heire male yet restrained it is so that should he affect another more or judge another fitter to succeed yet he cannot please himselfe in this but is limited to the next Heire borne not adopted or denominated which was the case 'twixt Queene Mary and the Lady Jane Lastly in point of Revenue wherein their Power extendeth Pos 5 not to their Subjects Estates by Taxes and Impositions to make their owne what they please as hath been acknowledged by Magna Charta and lately by the Petition of Right the case of Ship-money Conduct-money c. Nor as I conceive to make an Alienation of any Lands or other Revenues annexed by Law to the Crowne I meddle not with personall limitations whereby Kings as well as private men may limit themselves by Promise and Covenant which being particular bind onely themselves but of those which are radicall and have continued during the whole current of succession from unknowne times Other limitations it is likely may be produced by those who are skilfull in the Lawes but I beleeve they will be such as are reducible to some of these which I take to be the principall and most apparent limitations of this Monarchy and are a most convincing induction to prove my Assertion in the former Chapter That this Monarchy in the very Mold and Frame of it is of limited constitution CHAP. III. Whether it be of a Simple or Mixed Constitution Quest 3. WHen the Government is simple when mixed also Sect. 1 where the mixture must be which denominates a mixed Government is explained Part 1. Cap. 3. Now I conceive it a cleare and undoubted Truth that the Authority of this Land is of a compounded and mixed nature in the very root and constitution thereof And my judgment is established on these grounds Reas 1 First It is acknowledged to be a Monarchy mixed with Aristocracy in the house of Peeres Answer to the 19. Proposit and Democracy in the house of Commons Now as before was made appeare in the first Part it is no mixture which is not in the Root and Supremacy of Power for though it have a subordination of inferiour Officers and though the Powers inferiour be seated in a mixed subject yet that makes it not a mixed Government for it is compatible to the simplest in the world to have subordinate mixtures Reas 2 Secondly that Monarchy where the legislative power is in all three is in the very Root and Essence of it compounded and mixed of those three for that is the height of power to which the other parts are subsequent and subservient so that where this resideth in a mixed subject that is in three distinct concurrent Estates the consent and concourse of all most free and none depending on the will of the other that Monarchy is in the most proper sense and in the very modell of it of a mixed constitution but such is the state of this Monarchy as appeares in the former question and is self-apparent Reas 3 Thirdly that Monarchy in which three Estates are constituted to the end that the power of one should moderate and restrain from excesse the power of the other is mixed in the root and essence of it but such is this as is confessed in the answere to the said Propositions The truth of the major will appeare if we consider how many wayes provision may be made in a Politicall Frame to remedy and restraine the excesses of Monarchy I can imagine but three wayes First by constituting a legall power above it that it may be regulated thereby as by an over-ruling power Thus wee must not conceive of our two houses of Parliament as if they could remedy the exorbitances of the Prince by an Authority superiour to his for this were to subordinate him to the two Houses to set a superiour above the Soveraigne that is to destroy the being of his Monarchicall power Secondly by an originall conveyance to him of a limited and legall power so that beyond it he can doe no potestative act yet constituting no formall legall power to refraine or redresse his possible exorbitances here is limitation without mixture of another constituted power As the former of these overthrowes the power of the Soveraigne so this makes no provision for the iudemnity of the people Thirdly now the never enough to be admired wisedome of the Architects and Contrivers of the frame of Government in this Realme who ever they were have found a third way by which they have conserved the Soveraignty of the Prince and also made an excellent provision for the Peoples freedome by constituting two Estates of men who are for their condition Subjects and yet have that interest in the Government that they can both moderate and redresse the excesses and illegalities of the Royall power which I say cannot be done but by a mixture that is by putting into their hands a power to meddle in acts of the highest function of Government a power not depending on his will but radically their owne and so sufficient to moderate the Soveraignes power Now what can reasonably be said in opposition to these Sect. 2 grounds proving a fundamentall mixture I cannot devise Neither indeed is a mixture in the Government denied by the greatest Patrons of irresistibility onely such a mixture they would faine make it which might have no power of positive resistence I will therefore set down what they probably may or do object to this purpose and will shew the invalidity thereof First this mixture seems not to be of distinct powers but of Object 1 a Power a Councell authority in the Prince to give power to Acts and counsell in the two Houses to advise and propose wholesom Acts as if the royall power alone did give life to the Law onely he is defined in this power that he cannot animate any Act to the being of a Law but such as is proposed unto him by this great and Legislative Councell of Parliament Sol This were probable supposing the Parliament were onely in the nature of a Counsell but we know it is also a Court the High Court of Parliament Now it is