Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	king_n	power_n	5,492	5	5.0298	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52522	Wonderful predictions of Nostredamus, Grebner, David Pareus, and Antonius Torquatus wherein the grandeur of Their present Majesties, the happiness of England, and downfall of France and Rome, are plainly delineated : with a large preface, shewing, that the crown of England has been not obscurely foretold to Their Majesties William III and Mary, late Prince and Princess of Orange, and that the people of this ancient monarchy have duly contributed thereunto, in the present assembly of Lords and Commons, notwithstanding the objections of men and different extremes.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Grebner, Ezekiel.; Nostradamus, 1503-1566.; Pareus, David, 1548-1622.; Torquato, Antonio, 15th cent.	1689 (1689)	Wing N1401; ESTC R261	72,982	73

than they are lawful and honest 4. Saving the Power of a Superior Whence if a Son in his Father's Family swear to do a Thing lawful in it self but the Father not knowing it commands another thing which hinders the doing that which is sworn he is not bound by his Oath because by the Divine Natural Law he is bound to obey his Father And he who has sworn not to go out of his House being cited to appear before a Lawful Judge is bound to go out notwithstanding his Oath the Reason is because the Act of one ought not to prejudice the Right of another These two last Instances added to the Consideration of a Legal King will qualifie the Oath declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him This I think I may say with warrant from Bishop Sanderson That no Man is bound by this Oath to act against Law under colour of the King's Commission nor to permit such Actions if it be in his power to hinder them the Common Fundamental Law being in this Case the Superior which he is to obey and which is to explain and limit the Sense of Acts of Parliament seeming to the contrary To Bishop Sanderson I may add Grotius who runs the Prerogative of Kings as far as any Man in reason can Yet he allows of reserved Cases in which Allegiance may be withdrawn tho' there is no express Letter of Law for it As 1. Where the People being yet free command their future King by way of continuing Precept Whether there be any such with us can be no doubt to them who read the Coronation Oaths from time to time required and taken upon Elections of some Kings and the receiving others by reason of prior Elections and Stipulations with their Predecessors 2. If a King has abdicated or abandon'd his Authority or manifestly holds it as derelict indeed he says he is not to be thought to have done this who only manages his Affairs negligently But surely no Man can think but the Power of J. 2. is derelict And he cites three Cases wherein even Barelay the most zealous Asserter of Kingly Power allows Reservations to the People 1. If the King treats his People with outragious Cruelty 2. If with an hostile Mind he seek the Destruction of his People 3. If he alien his Kingdom This Grotius denies to have any effect and therefore will not admit among the reserved Cases But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justifie the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the other Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives Pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavors to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants are disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there is put into the Hands of the Native Papists so that it is not likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependence upon England without great Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns that the King's Law is his most authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperour had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government wherein the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. Tho' by the Roman Lex Regia which himself takes notice of the People had transferred all their Power to the Emperor yet we see the highest Asserter of Imperial Power allows of Reservations If says Bishop Bilson a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the Form of the Common-wealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establish'd by Common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels And soon after he speaks of a Power for preserving the Foundation Freedom and Form of their Commonwealths which they forepriz'd when they first consented to have a King. Where his meaning cannot be restrain'd to express Provisions excluding such as may be equitably intended And not to heap Authorities with this agrees the Divine Plato who after he has affirm'd that the highest Degrees of Punishment belong to those who will misguide a Ship or prescribe a dangerous new way of Physick having brought in Socrates asking whether Magistrates ought not to be subject to the like Laws himself asks What shall be determined if we require all things to be done according to a certain Form and set over the Laws themselves one either chose by the Suffrages of the People or by Lot who slighting the Laws shall for the sake of Lucre or to gratifie his Lust not knowing what is fit attempt to do things contrary to the Institution This Man both he and Socrates condemn as a greater Criminal than those which he had mention'd whose Crime he aggravates as 't is an acting against those Laws which thro' a long Experience had been ordain'd by their Counsel and Industry who had opportunely and duly weighed every thing and had prevail'd upon the People to submit to them 2d To proceed to Positive Law I shall shew how the Contract between Prince and People stood and hath been taken both before the reputed Conquest and since Where 't will appear 1. That Allegiance might and may in some Cases be withdrawn in the Life-time of one who continued King until the occasion of such withdrawing or Judgment upon it 2. That there was and is an establish'd Judicature for this without need of recurring to that Equity which the People are suppos'd to have reserv'd 3. That there has been no absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England from the beginning of the Monarchy but that the People have had a Latitude for setting up whom of the Blood they pleas'd upon the determination of the Interest of any particular Person except where there has been a Settlement of the Crown in force 4. That they were lately restored to such Latitude 1. If the King not observing his Coronation-Oath

as they could sit without Prorogation or Adjournment and be good for a day at least time enough to have repealed the former Statute as to that part and to qualifie themselves for a longer Continuance In short They with whom our Dispute is are either for the Unalterableness of Fundamentals according to which what I have shewn remains notwithstanding all Efforts to the contrary or else all of a sudden they have a mighty Zeal for the strict Letter of the Law by which that Parliament which endeavour'd to alter the Fundamental Contract was ipso facto dissolv'd before such Attempt However since the Question is not about a Coercive Power over Kings but barely concerning Allegiance to them whenever he who was King ceases to be so either by the Act of God or the Law the Obligation of Allegiance necessarily determines as the subject Matter of it fails But lest the Liberty allow'd in extraordinary Cases be us'd as a cloak for maliciousness I shall restrain it with the Authority of the Learned Pufendorf In Contracts by which one is made subject to another this has the Right of Judging what the Subject is to perform and has also a Power conferr'd of compelling him to the Performance if he refuses which Coercive Power is by no means reciprocal Wherefore he who rules cannot be called in question for breaking his Contract unless he either wholly abdicate the Care of the Government or become of an hostile mind towards his People or manifestly with evil Intention depart from those Rules of Governing upon the Observance of which as upon a Condition the Subjects have suspended their Allegiance Which is very easie for any one who Governs always to shun if he will but consider that the Highest of Mortals are not free from the Laws of Humane Chance But that the Judicial Power of the People so qualified as above is not peculiar to England might appear by the Customs of most neighbouring Nations For Denmark Swedeland and Norway which had anciently three distinct Negatives in the Choice of a King I shall refer to Krantius particularly in the remarkable Story of their King Erick who was adopted Son of the Three Kingdoms Anno 1411. he having provok'd his People by the Outrages of his Officers and Soldiers he was oppos'd with Force by one Engelbert a Danish Nobleman transmitted down to Posterity with the fair Character of engaging in the Publick Cause neither out of love of Rule nor greediness of Gain but meer compassion to an opprest People This so generous an Undertaking was so justly Popular that Eric not able to stem the Tide withdrew from Denmark the Place of his usual Residence to Swedeland But Engelbert's Noble Cause found so few Opposers there also that the King as a Pattern to J. 2. privately ran away and recommended his Nephew in his stead but they told him plainly he was made King by Adoption and had no Right to surrogate another Him there not being the inconsistency of a different Religion between the Head and Members of the same Body they would have receiv'd again upon Terms but he refusing the Three Kingdoms unanimously chose one of another Family For the Authority of the People even in France no longer since than the time of Lewis 11. Hottoman's Francogallia gives a large Proof Nor is the Emperor of Germany more exempt for the Golden Bull of C. 4. provides who shall sit as Judge or High-Steward when he comes to be Impeach'd And by that the Palatine of the Rhine has the like Power with that which Matthew Paris says the Earl of Chester had here as Count Palatine Nor is this in the Empire founded meerly upon that Bull for the Bull it self says Sicut ex consuetudine introductum dicitur As 't is said to have been introduc'd by Custom And Freherus gives an Instance of this before that Bull in the Case of King Albert whom they threatned to depose for killing his Leige-lord Adolphus With Freherus agrees Gunterus in his Octoviratus who says That the Palatine of the Rhine Major Domo to the Emperor is by Custom Judge of the Emperor himself or rather in the highest Matters declares the Sentence of the Electoral College And he cites several Authors to prove the like Office or Power to have been in divers Kingdoms and Principalities and names France England Arragon Spain Denmark Poland Bohemia c. And for France Loyseau in effect shews this Power to have belong'd to their Maior du Palais for he owns the Power to have been greater than the Roman Praefect of the Palace had and yet he cites the Words of the Emperor Trajan giving his Praefect a naked Sword which he enjoyn'd him to use against him if he misgoverned And Loyseau says That this dangerous Office was put down by the Kings of the Third Line that they might perpetuate the Crown in their Family This Office he supposes to have been split into the Conestable's Chancellor's Treasurer's and the Grand Maistre's du France or Count du Palais which he seems to resemble to an High Steward with us And I meet with an old English Author who affirms almost such a Power as is above-mention'd to have belonged to the High-Conestable of England His Words are these As God hath ordained Magistrates to hear and determine private Matters and to punish their Vices so also will he that the Magistrates Doings be call'd to account and reck'ning and their Vices corrected and punished by the Body of the whole Congregation or Common-wealth As it is manifest by the Memory of the ancient Office of High-Constable of England unto whose Authority it pertained not only to summon the King personally before the Parliament or other Courts of Justice to answer and receive according to Justice but also upon just occasion to commit him to Ward 3. There has been no Hereditary Right to the Crown of England by Proximity of Blood from the Fundamental Contract but the People have had a Latitude for the setting up whom of the Blood they pleas'd upon the determination of the Interest of any particular Person except where there has been a Settlement of the Crown in force The Kingdom I own is founded in Monarchy and so is Poland which yet is absolutely Elective Nor is there any Consequence that the Dissolution of the Contract between the immediate Prince and People destroys the Form of Government for that depends upon a prior Contract which the People entred into among themselves And that by vertue of this to avoid endless Emulations Kings have generally from the first Erection of the English Monarchy been chosen out of the same Family appears beyond contradiction I know some talk of a Birthright and Inheritance in the Crown which is not founded in the Statutes but on the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is an Hereditary Monarchy according to proximity of Blood. But I would

interfere with the Judicial Power of the High Court of Parliament and it may be a question whether that Maxim as receiv'd in the Courts of Justice is ever taken to reach farther than either in relation to the Remedies which private Persons may there have against personal Injuries from the King as where 't is said The King cannot imprison any Man because no Action of False Imprisonment will lie against him or rather because of the ineffectualness in Law of his tortious Acts. But what the Nation or its Great Councils have thought of such Acts will appear by a long Series of Judgments from time to time past and executed upon some of their Kings Long before the reputed Conquest Sigibert King of the West-Saxons becoming intolerable by his insolent Actions was expell'd the Kingdom and Bromton shews that this was done in a Judicial manner by the unanimous Consent and Deliberation of the Peers and People that is in the Language of latter Ages by Lords and Commons in full Parliament And eighteen Years after Alcred King of the Northanimbrians that is Northumberland and other adjacent Counties was banish'd and divested of his Soveraignty by the Counsel and Consent of all his Subjects Five Years after this their King Ethelred was driven from the Throne and Kingdom for treacherously procuring the Death of three of his Great Men Alwlf Cynwlf and Ecga Within fifteen Years after this the People having without Example called back Ethelred from Exile slew him without any allowable Precedent and set up in his stead Osbald a Nobleman none of the Royal Stock and he not answering their Expectation they depos'd him in twenty eight days Twelve Years after they deposed their King Eardulf and remain'd long without chusing any Sixty Years after they depos'd their King Osbrich and chose Ella who still swerv'd from the Ends of Government Six Years after they expell'd their King Egbert For sixty nine Years the Kings and their People agreed without coming to any Extremities but then they renounc'd the Allegiance sworn to King Edmund and chose Aulaf King of Norway for their King. Aulaf had not reigned six Years when they drove him away and tho' they receiv'd him again they soon cast him off again and swore Allegiance to the English King Edred Then they rejected him and chose Egric a Dane with whom their independent Monarchy expir'd and turn'd into the Government of Earls I would not be thought to mention those numerous Examples with the least approbation 't is certain they argue great Levity in rejecting or Folly in chusing But if we are believ'd to receive many Laws and Customs from the Germans from whom we are more remotely deriv'd much more may the English Monarchy be thought to partake of the Customs of the contiguous Kingdoms which compose it and by this frequent Practice the Members of it were sufficiently prepar'd to understand that part of the Compact whereby the Prince was oblig'd to suffer Right as well as his Subjects and that if he did not answer the Ends for which he had been chosen he was to lose the Name of King. Either these Examples or rather the continual Engagements in War with Foreigners had such effect that from this time to the Entrance of W. 1. excepting the Case of King Edwin Nephew to the English Monarch Edred who was driven out of the Kingdom Anno 957. I find nothing of the like nature A King was but a more splendid General nor could he hope to maintain his Dignity but by hardy Actions and tender usage of his People their extraordinary Power had slept but for few Years after the Death of the reputed Conqueror till the time of King Stephen the third Successor from W. 1. who after Allegiance sworn to him had it a while withdrawn for Maud the Empress but the People soon return'd to it again rejecting her who was nighest in Blood because she denied them the Benefit of St. Edward's Laws This Power of the People to be sure was rous'd by the extravagant Proceedings of King John upon which the Earls and Barons of England without the Formality of Summons from the King give one another notice of meeting and after a long private Debate they agreed to wage War against him and renounce his Allegiance if he would not confirm their Liberties and agreed upon another Meeting for a peremptory Demand declaring That if he then refus'd them they would compel him to Satisfaction by taking his Castles Nor were they worse than their words and their Resolutions had for a while their desir'd Effect in obtaining a Confirmation of their Liberties but the Pope soon absolv'd the King and encourag'd him to the violation of them till they stoutly casting off the Authority both of King and Pope proceeded to the Election of another King Lewis the Dauphin of France But the Dauphin assuming a Power not brook'd in the English Government upon the Death of King John they set up his Son H. 3. and without any solemn Deposing of Lewis compell'd him to renounce his Pretensions Henry treading in his Father's steps had many unhappy Contests with his Barons and having call'd in numbers of Foreigners they sent him a solemn Message That unless he would remove those troublesom Guests they would all by a Common Council of the whole Realm drive him and his wicked Counsellors out of the Kingdom and would consider of making a new King. Upon this both Sides had recourse to Arms and neither valued the others Judicial Sentence but for certain the Sentence threatned H. 3. was executed upon his Grandson E. 2. who was formally depos'd in Parliament for his Misgovernment whose Case with his next Successor's but one R. 2. by what I have observ'd before appear to have been no Novelties in England Nor was it long before the like was again put in practice more than once H. 6. being a weak misled Prince gave occasion to Richard Duke of York whose Line was put by to cover his Designs for restoring the elder Family with the Pretence of Redressing Publick Grievances The Crown he was so far from pretending to at first that himself swore Allegiance to H. 6. in a very particular manner But having afterwards an Advantage given by the Divisions of them who had driven him out of the Land he in a fortunate Hour with lucky Omens as was believ'd challeng'd the Crown as his Right upon which there was an Agreement ratified in Parliament That H. 6. should enjoy it during his Life and R. and his Heirs after him And tho' Richard Duke of York and his Son Edward afterwards E. 4. had sworn That H. 6. should enjoy the Royal Dignity during Life without trouble from them or either of them yet Richard having been treacherously slain by the Queen's Army immediately after the solemn Pacification Edward at the Petition of some of the Bishops and Temporal

Lords took upon him the Charge of the Kingdom as forfeited to him by breach of the Covenant establish'd in Parliament Yet this gave him no sure Settlement for the Popularity of the Earl of Warwick drove him out of the Kingdom without striking a Stroke for it Upon which H. 6. was again restor'd to his Kingly Power and Edward was in Parliament declared a Traytor to the Country and an Vsurper of the Realm the Settlement upon R. and his Heirs revok'd and the Crown entail'd upon H. 6. and his Heirs Males with Remainders over to secure against Edward's coming to the Crown Yet the Death of the Earl of Warwick having in effect put an end to King Henry's Power he was soon taken Prisoner and put to death as his Son had been before and then Edward procures a Confirmation in Parliament of the Settlement under which he enjoy'd the Crown Thus as the Power of the People or Great ones of Interest with them turn'd the Scales from time to time so 't was their Consent which fixt them at last during the the Life of E. 4. It may be said That whatever the Law or Practice has been anciently neither can now be of any moment by reason of the Oath requir'd by several Statutes declaring it not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person And 2. The Clause in the Statute 12 Car. 2. whereby it is declar'd That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever had have hath or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm I shall not here insist in answer to the first on the necessity of a Commission and a King continuing Legal in the Exercise as well as Possession of Power nor the difference between the Traiterous Acts of single Persons and the Revolt of a Nation nor yet upon the Authority of the Common Law whereby a Constable or other Officer chose by the People may act without any Authority from the King. And for the latter as Coertion is restrain'd to the Person of the King the declaring against that is not contrary to the Authorities for discharging Allegiance by a Judicial Sentence or otherwise by vertue of equitable and supposed Reservations provided a tender Regard to the Person be still observ'd But if Proceedings to free our selves from his Authority fall under this Coertion then I shall offer something which may remove both this and the other from being Objections to what I have above shewn To keep to what may equally reach to both Authorities I shall not urge here That these Statutes being barely Declaratory and enacting no Law for the future introduce none so that if the Fundamental Laws shall appear to be otherwise the Declarations do not supplant them Nor yet to insist upon a Rule in the Civil Law That the Commonwealth is always a Minor and at liberty to renounce the Obligations which it has entred into against its Benefit which is the Supreme Law. But I shall stop their Mouths who object these Statutes and maintain That according to what themselves receive for Law the Parliaments which enacted these Declarations had no power so to do and then the Law must stand as it did For this let us first hear Mr. Sheringham whose Authority few of these Men dispute They that lay the first Foundation of a Commonwealth have Authority to make Laws that cannot be alter'd by Posterity in Matters that concern the Rights both of King and People For Foundations cannot be remov'd without the Ruine and Subversion of the whole Building Wherefore admit the Acts had been duly made according to him they would be void if the Fundamental Law were as I have shewn However I am sure I can irrefragably prove to them who will not have a Nation sav'd without strict Form of Law That the Parliament which made those Acts had no Power at the time of making them being by the express Words of a former Statute repeal'd The Triennial Act 16 Car. 1. provides in a way not easily to be defeated not only for holding a Parliament once within Three Years at least but that all Parliaments which shall be Prorogu'd or Adjourn'd or so continued by Prorogation or Adjournment until the Tenth of September which shall be in the third Year next after the last Day of the last Meeting and Sitting of the foregoing Parliament shall be thenceforth clearly and absolutely dissolv'd Now say I that Parliament which enacted these Laws had sat beyond that Time Ergo c. These were made in the Parliament next after the Convention which brought in the King which they I am sure will not call a Parliament Wherefore we must go back to the first Long Parliament which upon their own Rule Rex est caput finis Parliamenti was dissolv'd by the Death of C. 1. Anno 1648. notwithstanding the Act for making it Perpetual which indeed by the Words of it seems only to provide against any Act of the King to the contrary without their Consent But by the Death of the King that Parliament lost the Being which before it had as it was under him when it was Parliamentum nostrum the Parliament of Charles the First and so expired An. 1648. by Act in Law. And perhaps it s own breaking up in Confusion before was in Law an Adjournment sine die working a Dissolution by either of which that Parliament was dissolv'd more than three Years before the Parliament which made the Statute in question which Parliament assembled An. 1661. and was ipso facto dissolv'd when it attempted to make those Statutes it having been continued by Prorogation or Adjournment beyond the Tenth of September in the Third Year after the Dissolution of the last Parliament of Charles the First which was the next foregoing Legal Parliament according to strict Form for the Parliament which brought in C. 2. Anno 1660. was not summon'd by the King's Writs consequently the Parliament 1661. having no Power after it had continued as above whatever was the Ancient Law in this Matter remains as it did before those Laws If it be Objected That the Necessity of the Times had dispens'd with the Letter of the Triennial Act as to this Particular 1. They who would plead these Statutes cannot urge it since they will not allow of greater Necessity to authorize the Maintaining and Restoring the Constitution But surely however Necessity might support other Laws it shall not such as alter the Constitution but every Legal Advantage shall be taken for restoring it 2. The Necessity was not absolute for the First Parliament of Charles the Second might continue together as long

Power or of his Family and Liberi strictly taken he will have to go no farther But in truth considering the Purview of the Statute which we are here upon Children in it seems to be restrain'd to Sons and Daughters without taking in the Descendants from either the Occasion of the Law being the Births of several ENFANTZ in Foreign Parts which could be but Sons or Daughters to the immediate Parents whether Kings or Private Persons 4. But however this may be enough for my purpose that there is no colour of any Settlement in force but that 1 H. 7. and admitting that to have continued till J. 2. had broken the Original Contract yet that being broken the present Assembly of Lords and Commons had full as much Authority to declare for King WILLIAM and Queen MARY as the Parliament 1 H. 7. had to settle the Crown For H. 7. could give them no Power but what he had received immediately from them Nor is it material to say He was Crown'd first since as I have shewn the Crown confers no Power distinct from what is deriv'd either from an immediate or prior Choice 3d. The Power having upon the Dissolution of the Contract between J. 2. and his former Subjects return'd to the People of Legal Interests in the Government according to the Constitution there can be no doubt with unbyass'd Men but this takes in them only who have Right of being in Person or by Representation in those Assemblies where is the highest Exercise of the Supreme Power But there are two Extremes opposite the to late Election made by such an Assembly The first is of them who would have all things go on in the same Form as under a Monarch which was impossible and therefore the Supreme Law the Publick Safety must needs supply the want of Form nor can be justly controverted till the Lawfulness of the End is disprov'd For all Means necessary to such an End are allowable in Nature and by all Laws But if this should still be disputed all their darling Laws made by the Long Parliament which met after that Convention Anno 1660. will fall to the Ground according to the strict Application of the Statute above-mentioned 16 Car. 1. nay the Attempt of Repealing that Statute being in a Parliament which had been actually dissolv'd before by that very Law which it went about to Repeal that Form which was usual before is in default of King and Officers supplied by another Provision for the Regular Meeting of Lords and Commons And what hinders but the People had as much Power to vary from the common Form when there was no King and that Form could not be observ'd as when there was a King and a possibility of having that Form Others suppose the Consequence of a Dissolution of this Contract to be a meer Commonwealth or absolute Anarchy wherein every body has an equal Share in the Government not only Landed Men and others with whom the Ballance of the Power has rested by the Constitution but Copy-holders Servants and the very Foeces Romuli which would not only make a quiet Election impracticable but bring in a deplorable Confusion But this Dilemma they think not to be answer'd Either the old Form as under a Monarch remains or it does not If it does the late Action of the Lords and Commons was irregular If it does not all the People are restor'd to their Original Rights and all the Laws which fetter'd them are gone Here we must distinguish upon the word Form for if it be taken of the Form of Proceedings or Administration 't is no Consequence that the Form of Government or Constitution should fail because we admit that the other does Mr. Hobbs indeed holds That when a Monarch for himself and his Children has left a Kingdom or renounces it the Subjects return to their absolute and natural Liberty Whom the Learned Pufendorf thus answers They who have once come together into a Civil Society and subjected themselves to a King since they have made that the Seat of their Fortunes cannot be presum'd to have been so slothful as to be willing to have their new Civil Society extinct upon the Death of a King and to return to their Natural State and Anarchy to the hazarding the Safety now settled Wherefore when the Power has not been conferr'd on a King by Right of Inheritance or that he may dispose of the Succession at pleasure it is to be understood to be at least tacitly agreed among them That presently upon the Death of a King they shall meet together and that in the Place where the King fix'd his Dwelling Nor can there well be wanting among any People some Persons of Eminence who for a while may keep the others in order and cause them as soon as may be to consult the Publick Good. The Author of a late Paper in relation to these Times has this Passage not to be neglected All Power is originally or fundamentally in the People formally in the Parliament which is one Corporation made up of three constituent essentiating Parts King Lords and Commons so it was with us in England When this Corporation is broken when any one essentiating Part is lost or gone there is a Dissolution of the Corporation the formal Seat of Power and that Power devolves on the People When it is impossible to have a Parliament the Power returns to them with whom it was originally Is it possible to have a Parliament It is not possible the Government therefore is dissolv'd Hence he would argue a necessity of having a larger Representative of the People that the Convention may be truly National But had this Ingenious Person observ'd Pufendorf's two distinct Contracts by the first of which a Provision was made for a Monarchy before any particular Person was settled in the Throne he would have found no such necessity But if immemorially the People of England have been represented as they were for this Assembly and no needful Form or Circumstance has been wanting to make the Representation compleat all Men who impartially weigh the former Proofs of Elections not without a righful Power must needs think the last duely made Dr. Brady indeed with some few that led him the Dance and others that follow will have the present Representation of the Commons of England to have been occasion'd by Rebellion 49 H. 3. But I must do him the Honour to own him to be the first who would make the Barons to have no Personal Right but what depends upon a King in being for he allows none to have Right of coming to Parliament but such only to whom the King has thought fit to direct Writs of Summons Yet I dare say no Man of sense who has read that Controversie believes him But were his Assertion true it might be granted that the Barons would have no more Personal Right to be of any Convention upon the total Absence or Abdication

Right The Lords and Commons having a Judicial Power in this Matter as hath been prov'd at large their Exercise of this Power in the nature of the thing determines the Right unless an Appeal lies from them to some higher Court in this Nation But that no Power can legally question them or any of them in this Matter appears more particularly in that there is no Statute now in force nor was since the Death of Car. 2. which makes it Treason to conspire to Depose a King or actually to Depose him But this is of the Nature of those Common-Law Treasons which are left to the Judgment of Parliament And they who are the only Judges of their own Actions have a pretty large Liberty in them especially according to them who would infer the Absolute Power of Princes from the Supposition of no constituted Judges of their Actions Wherefore the Defence of their Proceedings might justly seem to be superseded were it not for an ungovernable sort of Men who either cannot or will not judge according to the Rules of right Reasoning but as they will hardly admit of any Doctrine as true for which they have not the Decision of some Father or Council will believe no Action not proceeding from their imperious Dictates justifiable even in Cases of the utmost necessity for the Preservation of the true Religion and just Laws for which they have no Warrant from the Examples of their Forefathers or Opinions of Men whose Books have past with their Allowance Which often drives me to the seeming Pedantry of Quotations to confirm the most obvious Considerations to which my own Thoughts led me The either open or more covert Matters of Fact inducing the Declaration of Lords and Commons That J. 2. has broken the Original Contract I need not now enquire into All People must own that 〈◊〉 if they in the least attend to the Constitution of our Governme●● and how apparently he by his general Dispensations usurp'd a Legislative Power for the Destruction of the Protestant Religion and Civil Rights which we were in a fair way of being Dragoon'd out of by a Standing Army by degrees to have been wholly under Popish or Complying Officers Yet if there were no more than his leaving the Kingdom without making any Provision for keeping up the Justice of it and going into France a Country from whence all Mischiefs have of late Years flow'd upon us and our Religion Who can deny but this alone would have been enough to set him aside The going out of the Realm without appointing a Custos was anciently in our Law a Discontinuance of Justice And the Lord Hobart gives it as a Maxim Cessa regnare si non vis judicare Cease to Reign if you will not Judge or maintain the Course of Justice Many I know upon these Questions rather regard the Civil Law and that I am sure gives a home-thrust in the Case of deserting one's Country and going into such an one as France is to our Nation tho' it has been in too strict Alliance with our Kings The Digests say A Deserter has no Right of being restor'd to his Country For he who left his Country with an evil and treacherous Mind is to be held as an Enemy c. But we are to take not only him for a Deserter who runs over to Enemies in time of War but also during a Truce Or who runs over to them with whom there is no Amity either after undertaking to be faithful to his Country or else undertaking to be faithful to the other Either of which Senses the Words will bear 'T is likely to be said That this out of the Civil Law is improperly applied to the Prince who according to that is exempt from all Laws But I would desire such to read the Rescript or Law of Theodosius and Valentinian wherein they thus declare 'T is an Expression suitatable to the Dignity of one that Reigns to profess himself bound by the Laws Our own Authority does so depend upon the Authority of Law. And in truth for the Governing Power to submit to Law is greater than Empire And by the Promulgation of this present Edict we make known to others what we will not allow to our selves That J. 2. had before his Departure broken the Fundamental Laws and that now he not only ceases to Protect but is in a Kingdom which foments and strengthens a Rebellion in Ireland part of the Dominions belonging to the English Crown I think no body will deny Nor till they can answer what I have shewn of the mutual Contract continued down from the first Erection of the Monarchy here ought they to deny that he has thereby broken the Original Contract which bound the People to him and him to them What results from this Breach is now more particularly to be considered That it is a Discharge from all Allegiance to him requir'd by any Law and confirm'd by any Oaths is evident not only from the former Authorities but from the Condition going along with such a mutual Contract as I have prov'd to be with us between Prince and People Or rather to use the Words of the Learned Pufendorf The Obligation is not so much dissolv'd as broken off by the Perfidiousness of either Party For when one does not perform that which was agreed on neither is the other bound to performance For the prior Heads of things to be perform'd in Contracts are in the Subsequent by way of Condition As if it should be said I will perform if you perform first This he more fully explains in another Book where he distinguishes between an Obligation imperfectly mutual as he supposes it to be between an Absolute Prince and his Subjects and one perfectly mutual as he takes it to be where the People have conferr'd a Power on any Terms Of such Obligations he says These since they have a mutual respect to the things agreed on and suppose mutual Faith it is evident that if one Party violate the Faith which he plighted the other is no more bound And therefore he is not perfidious who stands not to those Contracts which the other has broken For all the Heads of one and the same Contract run into each other by way of Condition c. And in that Book of his which is counted the Standard of the Law of Nations he asserts it to be lawful for Subjects to oppose their Prince by Force which is a sufficient departure from Allegiance if he goes about modum habendi potestatem immutare i. e. to change that Manner in which he by the Contract enjoys the Power from less to more Absolute And in his Tract de Interregnis cited above he allows of this If the King abdicate all Care of the Commonwealth becomes of an hostile Mind towards his Subjects or manifestly departs from those Rules of Governing upon the Observance of which as upon a Condition the

Judgment of two Parliaments the Realm was destitute of a Lawful Governour Indeed according to the Act of Recognition 1 J. 1. the Crown came to him being lineally rightfully and lawfully descended of the Body of the most Excellent Lady Margaret the eldest Daughter of the most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England Tho' this pompous Pedigree to avoid all Objections goes as high as E. 4. the Derivation of Title as appears above can be no higher than from the Settlement 1 H. 7. Nor does this Act 1 J. make any additional Provision but indeed seems to flatter the King into a Belief that there was no need of any telling him That they made that Recognition as the First-fruits of their Loyalty and Faith to him and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever But neither then or ever after till that in this present Parliament did the People make any Settlement of the Crown but it continued upon the same Foot as it did 1 H. 7. when it was entirely an Act of the People under no Obligation but from their own Wills. And if we should use Sir Robert Filmer's Authority Impossible it is in Nature for Men to give a Law unto themselves no more than it is to command a Mans self in a Matter depending of his own Will. There can be no Obligation which taketh State from the meer Will of him that promises the same Wherefore to apply this Rule Since the People that is now in common presumption is the same with that which first settled the Succession and so are bound only by an Act of their own Will they have yet as arbitrary a Power in this Matter as Sir Robert and his Followers contend that the Prince has whatever Promises or Agreements he has entred into But not to lean upon such a broken Reed nor yet to make those many Inferences which this plain State of the Settlements of the Crown might afford Three things I shall observe 1. If the Settlement made 1 H. 7. who was an Usurper according to the Notion of Dr. Brady and his Set of Men was of no force then there being no Remainders since limited by any Act but what are spent of necessity the People must have had Power of Chusing or there could have been no lawful Government since Queen Elizabeth's time when was the last Settlement except what is now made 2. The Declarations of two Parliaments 28 and 35 H. 8. fully ballance the Declaration 1 Jac. 1. if they do not turn the Scales considering that the Judges in the later Times seem to have had less Law or Integrity than they had in H. the Eighth's I will not take upon me to determine which was the Point of Two that they might go upon 1. That a Government shall not pass by Implication or by reason of a dormant Remainder But there having been so many Alterations since the Settlement 1 H. 7. and the whole Fee once disposed of nor ever any express Restitution of the Settlement 1 H. 7. the People were not to think themselves obliged to a Retrospect 'T is evident at least that they did not Or 2. Perhaps they might question whether they were oblig'd to receive for Kings the Issue of Foreign Princes since there was no means of being sufficiently inform'd of the Circumstances of the Birth neither the Common or any Statute-Law affording any Means of proving it as appears by the Statute 25 E. 3. which for the Children of Subjects only born out of the King's Allegiance in Cases wherein the Bishop has Conusance allows of a Certificate from the Bishop of the Place where the Land in question lies if the Mother pass'd the Seas by the King's License But if our Kings or Queens should upon any occasion be in Foreign Parts 't is to be presum'd that they would have with them a Retinue subject to our Laws who might attest the Birth of their Children and be punish'd if they swear flalsly Wherefore 25 E. 3. 't is declar'd to be the Law of the Crown That the Children of the Kings of England ENFANTZ DES ROYS as the Record has it in whatever Parts they be born be able and ought to bear the Inheritance after the Death of their Ancestors Yet this is most likely to be meant of those private Inheritances which any of the Kings had being no part of the Demeasns of the Crown since the Inheritance of the Crown was not mentioned nor as has been shewn was it such as the King's Children were absolutely entitled to in their Order The most common acceptation of Children is of a Man's immediate Issue As where Land is given to a Man and his Children who can think any remote Descendants entitled to it Nor could it extend farther in the Settlement of a Crown 37 E. 3. c. 10. a Sumptuary Law was made providing for the Habits of Men according to their Ranks and of their Wives and Children ENFANTZ as in the former Statute of the same Reign Now altho' this should extend to Childrens Children born in the same House it could never take-in the Children of Daughters forisfamiliated by Marriage nay nor those of such Sons as were educated in a distinct Calling from their Parents Farther the very Statute of which the Question is cuts off the Descendants from Females out of the number of a King's Children when among other Children not of the Royal Family it makes a particular Provision for Henry Son of John Beaumond who had been born beyond Sea and yet Henry was by the Mothers Side in the Fourth Degree from H. 3. for she was Daughter to Henry Earl of Lancaster Son of Edmund Son to H. 3. Had this Henry been counted among the Children of a King 't is certain there had not been a special Clause for him among other Children of Subjects Nor does the Civil Law differ from ours in this Matter for tho' under the name of Children are comprehended not only those who are in our Power but all who are in their own either of the Female Sex or descending from Females yet the Daughter's Children were always look'd on as out of the Grandfather's Family according to the Rule in Civil Law transcribed by our Bracton They who are born of your Daughter are not in your power And Privileges derogating from Publick Vtility were never thought to reach them as a Learned Civilian has it A Daughter is the End of the Family in which she was born because the Name of her Father's Family is not propagated by her And Cujacius makes this difference between Liberi and Liberi sui sui he says is a Legal Name the other Natural The former are only they who are in a Man's

And the French King from him his Fate shall find B'ing slain or twice a Pris'ner but at last He surely by the Sword his Death shall taste His Kingdom lost Progeny prest with Woe And all his Captains meet an Overthrow Then Fortune adverse to the Frenchmen brings Their Praise to crowch under the Eagles Wings The King of England then may justly fear The like Calamities with France to bear He and his Party luckless Chance may try And with a mighty Slaughter prostrate lie For Madness 't is against the Fates to rise And yet The Stars are govern'd by the Wise FINIS Advertisement THere are lately Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maidenhead against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street these Three Books following I. An Enquiry into the Power of Dispensing with Penal Statutes Together with some Animadversions upon a Book writ by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common-Pleas Entituled A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edward Hales's Case II. The Power Jurisdiction and Priviledge of Parliament And the Antiquity of the House of Commons Asserted Occasioned by an Information in the King's-Bench by the Attorney-General against the Speaker of the House of Commons As also a Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Realm of England occasioned by the late Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes III. A Defence of the Late Lord RVSSEL's Innocency By way of Answer or Confutation of a Libellous Pamphlet Intituled An Antidote against Poyson With Two Letters of the Author of this Book upon the Subject of his Lordship's Tryal Together with an Argument in the Great Case concerning Elections of Members to Parliament between Sir Samuel Barnardiston Plaintiff and Sir William Soames Sheriff of Suffolk Defendant In the Court of King's-Bench in an Action upon the Case and afterwards by Error sued in the Exchequer-Chamber All Three Writ by Sir Robert Atkyns Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas Hi sunt qui trepidant ad omnia fulgura pallent Vid. the Lord Delamere and Sir Ro. Arkyns upon the Lord Russel's Trial and Mr. Hawles's Remarks upon that and others c. Sed quid Turba Romae sequitur fortunam ut semper odit Damnatos Nostredamus Natus Anno 1503. Denatus Anno 1566. The Edition here chiefly followed Anno 1568. Vid. his Preface to his Son. Cent. 9. 49. Cent. 2. 51 53. Vid. Nostredamus his Preface Cent. 3. 80. Cent. 1● 80. 82. 83. Cent. 6. 43. 3. 9. 3. 49. 6. 34. Cent. 5. 34. 9. 38. Gazet Dec. 6. Paris Dec. 8. Orders are given for the fortifying with all possible diligence the Town and Citadel of Blay on the Garonne a Cent. 9. 38. 9. 64. 10. 7. b Cent. 6. 2. c 5. 24. 5. 87. d Cent. 6. 7. 10. 56. 5. 18. 5. 4. 4. 22. 4. 75. 1. 13. 1. 35. 2. 78. 2. 38. 5. 4. e 8. 58. 10. 26. A MS. in Trinity-Colledge Library in Cambridge cited in the Future History of Europe Ed. An. 1650. and in the Northern Star. Nolo Nolle Nullus David Pareus natus Anno 1548. obiit Heidelbergae Anno 1622. postquam triennio ante per quietem vidisset totam urbem occulto incendio fumigantem c. Hoffmanni Lex Ant. Torquatus de eversione Europae Dedicated to Matthias King of Hungary Anno 1480. Edit Anno 1552. a See this excellently well done by my Learned Friend Mr. James Tyrrel in Patriarcha non Monarcha b Grot. l. 3. p. 52. Summae potestatis Subjectum Commune est Civitas Vid. Schellium de Jure Imperii p. 32. Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definit eum qui judiciorum magistratuum particeps sit Sam. Puffend de Officio hominis Civis p. 265. V. Sacrosanct regum Majest Potestas designativa personae collativa potestatis Nullus interritus est reipublicae naturalis ut hominis Cicero de Rep. Of equitable Reservations Vid. Earl of Clarenden's Survey of the Leviathan p. 86. speaking of a Contract whereby the absolute Power of Mens Lives shall be submitted c. He is not bound by the Command of his Sovereign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable Offices but in such Cases Men are not to resort so much to the Words of the Submission as to the Intention Which Distinction surely may be as applicable to all that monstrous Power which he gives his Governour to take away the Lives and Estates of his Subjects without any Cause or Reason upon an imaginary Contract which if never so real can never be suppos'd to be with the Intention of the Contractor in such Cases V. Cocceium de Principe pag. 197. Leges fundamentales regni vel imperii quae vel disertè pact ae sunt cum Principe antequam imperium ineat ut fit hodie cum imperatore quamvis non ad eum modum jura Majestatis possideat quo olim Principes plerisque aliis in regnis vel sub ipso regimine a Principe populo vel ordinibus conduntur ut est aurea bulla Carol 4. alia quaedam in imperio Romano-germanico vel saltem tacitè reipublicae inesse videntur Sanderson de Juramenti obligatione p. 41. Vid. Stat. 13 car 2. c. 1. Vid. infra V. Grounds and Measures of Submission Salus populi suprema lex Vid. Johannis a Felde Annotata ad Grot. c. 3. 4. Grot. de jure Belli Pacis c. 3. p. 60. Vid. Pufendorf Elementa Juris prud p. 256. Nemo alteri potest quid efficaciter injungere per modum praecepti in quem nihil potestatis legitimae habet Grot. c. 4. p. 86. habet pro derelicto Vid. Bellarmine how the Pope hooks in Temporals in ordine ad Spiritualia Vid. Leges S. Edwardi Jovian p. 280. Ib. p. 192 193. Jov. p. 87. Vid. Just Inst tit 2. Quum lege regiâ quae de imperio ejus lata est populus ei in eum omne imperium suum potestatem concedat Vid. Raevardum de Juris ambiguitatibus Lib 4. c. 12. de Jure publico Bilson of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 279. p. 280. Platonis Politicus f. 299. Ed. Serrani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V. Leges Sancti Edwardi 17. de Regis Officio Nec nomen Regis in eo constabit Vid. Bracton l. 2. c. 24. Est enim corona regis facere justitiam judicium tenere pacem sine quibus corona consistere non potest nec tenere Hoveden f. 604. Rex atque vicarius ejus Nota There was occasion for naming the Deputy by reason of the accession of Normandy requiring the King's absence sometimes Vid. the Case of Rehoboam inf in the Quotation out of Lord Clarendon Lambert Qui vigilanter defendunt regunt Ecclesiam Dei populum ejus Barones Majores Minores Vita Aelfredi f. 62. Ego tria promitto populo Christiano meisque