Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	country_n	king_n	see_v	2,121	5	3.5281	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

strictest municipal Laws of a mixt Monarchy and as the People themselves to the very Penal Statutes of the Land and therefore for that Reason the very same Civil Sanctions of their Imperial Law that allow such a Latitude to their boundless Prince abound too with this Restriction that still it becomes him to observe those very Laws to which he is not oblig'd And for the spilling of Blood or Robbing of Churches and the like unnatural enormities which they say by the Soveraigns being thus absolv'd might become Lawful did not the very Directive part of some of their Municipal Laws forbid them in it the precepts of God and Nature the Unresistable Impulse of Eternal Equity and Reason to which the Mightiest Monarch must ever submit and themselves did ever own a Subjection those will always tye the hands of the most Absolute from Committing such Crimes as well as the Common Lictors do the meanests people for being by them perpetrated and Committed and 't is a great Moral Truth grounded upon as much Reason and Experience That those dissolute Princes that did Indulge themselves in the Violating the Divine Laws of God and Nature could never have been constrain'd to the Observance of our Human Inventions the Municipal Acts of any Kingdom or Country And therefore I cannot but smile to see the Ridiculous Insinuations of some of our Republicans endeavouring to maintain that by such silly suggestions which they can't defend with Sense and Reason for rather than want an Objection they 'll put us too suppose some Kings endeavouring to destroy their Subjects and alienating of their Kingdoms and then put their Question Whether the People shall not Judge and Punish them for it but in this they deal in their Argumentation against their King as some Seditious Senates of late indeavoured to Impose upon him to pass Bills by tacking two together A popular encroachment with an Asserting the Prerogative Just such another business was bandied about by that baffler of himself that pretious piece of Contradiction Will. Prin. Who tells us out of Bracton That GOD the Law and the Kings Courts are above the King where if you take all the Connexion Copulatively 't is not to be contradicted because no King but will allow his God to be above him under whom he Rules yet even there it may be observ'd that the Lower House he so much Labour'd for is not so much as mention'd So do these Sophisters in the Politick's here proceed just like those Jugglers in the House they couple a supposititious piece of Premis'd Nonsense and then draw with it a pretty plausible Conclusion for what man can Imagin if he be but in his Wits that his Monarch unless he be quite out of them and Mad would destroy those over whom he is to Reign none but the Bosan in the Tempest with his Bottle of Brandy was so besotted as to think of Ruling alone and setting up for a Soveraign without so much as a single Subject so that should these peevish Ideots have their silly Supposition granted still they would be prevented from obtaining their end at which they aim for first if we must suppose all the Subjects to be destroy'd where would there be any left to judge this Author of their Destruction if they 'll suffer us only to suppose the Major part or some few certain Persons to besacrific'd to his Fury then still that Soveraign that would destroy the most part or some certain number of his Subjects without Sense or Reason must at the same time be suppos'd to be out of his Senses and then no Law of any Land will allow the People to punish a Lunatick But if a King must be call'd a Destroyer of his People only for letting the Laws pass upon such Seditious Subjects that would destroy him which is all the Ground they can have here for branding with it their present Princes and for which these exasperated rebels really suggest it then in Gods name let the Latin Aphorism take place too Then let such Justice for ever be done upon Earth and trust the Judgments of Heaven for their falling Then let them deprecate as a late Lady did the Vengance of the Almighty upon the Head of the Chief Minister of the Kings but let there be more such Hearts to administer as much Justice and the hands will hardly receive much harm for holding of the Scales And for that others silly supposition of these Seditious Simpletons of a Kings Alienating of his Kingdom they must suppose him at the same time as simple as themselves that suggest it and could they give us but a single Instance or force upon us any President all they would get by it is this That as their supposition was without sense so their Application would be nothing to the purpose for such a matter of Fact of their Kings would make him de Facto none at all I know they can tell us of one of our own that lies under that Imputation of making over his to the Moor And of others that in the time of the Popes Supremacy resign'd themselves with submission to the Holy See for the first the most Authentick Historians not so much as mention it and were it truly matter of Fact that King had really nothing to resign for the Republicans of those times were the good Barons that Rebel'd and had seated themselves in a sort of 〈◊〉 before in short if it were solemnly done it would look like the Act of a Lunatick if not at all as is much more likely their Historians Labour in a lye and for the other we never had a Soveraign that Submitted the Power of his Temporal Government of the state to the Pope's See but only as it related to the Spiritual Administration of the Affairs of the Church and the Religion of the Times These sort of Suppositions have so much Nonsense in them especially when apply'd to Human Creatures and more then when to Monarchs that have commonly from Birth and Education more Sense than common Mortals that there is not so much as a Natural Brute but will use what he can manage as his own with all imaginable Care and Discretion How tender and fond are the most stupid Animals how do they most affectionately express that paternal Love for the Preservation of their little Young how abundantly do they Evidence that Natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which Mr. Hunt gives us such a deal of impertinent disturbance and why cannot the King of a Country whom the Civil and Imperial Sanctions represent as the Father of it too be supposed to retain as much a paternal Care for its Conservation we do not find even in that their Free-State of Nature or that Common-wealth of Wars the Republick of unruly Beasts where there is the least Relation or resemblance tho perhaps they have power and opportunity that they delight to devour and destroy and much less do they covet the

several Kings and particular Princes The Druids as may be gathered out of Caesars Commentaries had in those Ignorant days all the Learning and the Law But too little alass to let us know whether their Princes were absolute Monarchs or limited Hereditary or Elective though 't is to be suspected they were both unconfined in their power as well as succeeded by their blood those poor Embryo's of Knowledg the very primitive Priests of Barbarous Heathens that in their highest felicity were no happier than the first asserters of the Gospel under Misery and Persecution their reverend Hermitages but the Woods the Dens and Caves of the Earth were far sure from disputing the right of Sovereignty when only capacitated to obey far from transmitting to us the frame of their Monarchy unless they had known the Egyptian learning of writing on the Barks of Trees and made their Libraries of the Groves in which they dwelt The Princes and Monarchs of their Times were wont to frequent those pious places for Worship and Adoration and had a Veneration too without doubt for those reverend Bards that sacrificed but were far I believe from subjecting their Regal Authority to that Divinely Pagan tho' then the sacred Jurisdiction tho' 't is reported that upon Caesar's invading them the very power of Life and Death and the Punishment for all manner of offences was in their sacred Breast and such as would not stand to their award were forbidden their Sacrifices which Interdiction then was the same I believe in effect with the modern power of our Church to Excommunicate but besides another reason and the best too why we have nothing delivered from those sacred Oracles of Religion and Law why the History of those times is still uncertain and was never transmitted is because they were expressly forbidden to transfer any thing to Posterity or to commit it to Books and Letters tho somewhat of that sort of Communicating must be supposed by that Inhibition to have been Imparted to them from the Egyptians Greeks Romans those Eastern Climes through which Learning and Letters had their first Progress But whether their Ignorance or such a prohibition were the Causes why nothing descends to us of the Government of our old Britains 't is granted by all and by this Author himself that it was Monarchical that Kings Reigned here ab origine if not Jure divino Though I look on their Antiquity no small Argument of their Divine Right and for the probability of their Haereditary Succession which I insinuated above can I confess since we are so much in the dark be only guessed by the light of Reason and that I shall make to warrant the Conclusion from the present Practise and Constitution of all barbarous Nations where the next of blood still mounts the Throne unless interrupted by Rebellion and that 's but the best Argument of our Author for the Power of his Parliaments and if only for this certain Reason we have more Authority to conclude it was then Haereditary then he only from the uncertainty of the Story has to conclude it otherwise In the next place I see no reason why his Sentiments should determine other Peoples thoughts and why we should not think that the following Heptarchy of the Saxons tho they had their seven Kings yet still might agree in one rule of Succession nay tho their Laws were so different too as he would insinuate which is not absolutely necessary to suspect neither for they being all one Nation and then but just called from their home by our British King Vortiger for his assistance may probably be supposed to have retained for the Main the general Rules and Laws of their own Countrey tho when divided into those seven Kingdoms they might also make a sort of private by-Laws according to the different Emergences of particular affairs that occurred in their several Governments Can he prove that the Succession of the Saxons in their own Countrey was not Hereditary when they inhabited in their small Dukedom of Holstein and that consequently they retained the same sort of Election in their new acquired Government here that they left in their own at home this he does not undertake to suggest because not able to prove there having been a probable Monarchy all along Hereditary if Paternal Right was wont to descend so for that is proved by most learned Pens and these Saxons are believed to have been the relict of the race of Cimbrians that inhabited that Chersonese so called from its Inhabitants of whom Gomer the Son of Japhet was the Original Father or Prince But what ever was their Government before he allows them to have set up seven Monarchies here only can't think they agreed in one Rule of Succession because governed by different Laws which tho granted is so ridiculous an Infinuation that greater Differences atpresent between greater Kingdoms and Nations far more remote in Place far more different in Religion contradicts the Suggestion who for the most part now over the whole World agree in an Hereditary Succession to the Crown and the Argument would have been as strong and as apparently foolish if he design'd it for a Specimen of his folly that since France and Spain Sweeden and Denmark are govern'd by different Laws we can't imagin them to have one sort of Succession Which very Rebound of his own Pen wounds his Cause more than any direct stroak of his Adversaries for since we see those more different more distant Nations agree in one Rule 't is sure a Logical Inference a Majori that those that were less different might And for the Changes and Consusions of those Times which he urges as an Argument of their uncertain Succession that is in effect his very Alpha and Omega and his praefatory Suggestion only proved through his whole History that in times of Confusions and Rebellions Succession is uncertain and so is all Property and Common Right all meum and tuum all that the Law of God or Man can make his own But as obscure as he makes our Succession before the Romans came 't is not so dark and unintelligible but that we may gather light enough from it to have been Hereditary We won't rely on the Fable of Brute and the Catalogue of near 68 Kings that are said to have Reigned Successively here before the coming of the Romans yet allowing it an entire Fable we may draw from it this Moral at least that a Fabulous Tradition sometimes has somewhat of reality for its ground as the patching up a Centaure a Chymera with a thought results from several Objects that are simply real abstracting from the compounded Fiction And tho we might not have 68 Kings successive before the Roman Conquest yet that there were several appears and he owns and I conclude Hereditary from the common rule in all Barbarous Nations when ever discovered in which the further back we run in the History of the Old World the more we are confirmed

three several sort of Representatives I need not tell them how the People reassum'd it from his Son and left it just no where how the People retriev'd it again and lost it they could not tell how how they recovered it from the Committee to whom it was lost and then forc'd to leave it at last to him from whom 't was first taken their King But this I hope is sufficient to satisfie any Soul that this Supream Power when plac'd in the People will be always resolv'd into that part of it that has the Supream Strength That this Maxim of Republicans Rebels against the very Parliaments they so much admire That it always ruins the very Collective Body of People in which these Democraticks themselves would place it and resolves it self into some single Persons that by force or fraud can maintain it and this made Mr. Sidney tell us he call'd Oliver a Tyrant and acted against him too well might he look upon him as a Usurper that Usurpt upon their design'd Common-Wealth as well as the Crown I am much of his Mind but it was far from the result of any Kindness to his King He saw his Common-wealth could never be founded upon so false a bottom no not tho she had been his Darling and Dutch built his beloved Low-Countries laboring under a Magistracy that Lords it with as much Power as that from which they were delivered For this his Original Power of the People must be as much delegated to those that govern there as well as it is inherent in any sole Soveraign that is the Governor neither are any besides the best of their Burghers admitted to Administration so that even that State that comes nearest to a Common-wealth is at last but a sort of Aristocracy which their Harrington condems for worse than Monarchy it self And I believe their Commons find the Impositions of their Burgo Masters as great and as grievous as ever were the Gabels of Spain So from what has been premis'd this must be concluded that since we see they can't punish or Judge even their own Representatives only their Suffragans in an house of Commons when they have delegated to them their Original power which for once we 'l suppose them able to delegate much less shall they their Soveraign tho they did as they will have it confer upon him the power that he has for the Members of the lower House represent only the Commons of the Kingdom whereas the Soveraign is in some Sense the whole Kingdoms Representative Since we have seen this Original Power of the People wheresoever it has been delegated to have created nothing but Usurpation and wrong where can this Power be better plac'd but in the King that can alone pretend to a Right and tho we are so unhappy as to have presidents wherein they can prove to us that their Representatives were once call'd to an Account by the People that sent them that is so far from proving that they have a natural or Original right so to do that it shows the danger of such a position that they may do it and that when in the late Rebellion they presum'd upon this their Right in Equity they made it appear to be nothing else but the power of the Sword for in respect of a Right they are really so far from being able to censure their Representatives whom they send that themselves are punishable for medling in those Parliamentary concerns with which they have enrusted others What force this has in the Case of their Commons holds a Fortiori in that of their King In the last place give me leave to close this their Rebellious Argument of their Monarch being accountable to the Majesty of the people with some few more Reasons against this Damnable Doctrine that has within the Memory of man desolated and destroy'd three Kingdoms A Doctrine that confounded us in the last confus'd us in this and will be Condemn'd by all Ages A Doctrine that places the Divine right in the People and then indeed such an one as Mr. Hunt makes it Impious Sacrilegious Treasonable Destructive of Peace Pregnant with Wars and what absolutely produc'd the Civil one of England and Sacrific'd its Soveraign Head to the Fury of an Headless Multitude This Principle is the very Basis upon which all their Babel of Confusion of a Common-wealth of Anarchy is all Built and Establisht And I shall never look upon it as loss to have Labour'd in it so long if we can at last but undermine its very Foundation And that is laid even by the Libel of Mr. Sid. upon the Contract and Condition upon which they 'll suppose he receiv'd the Crown which he must be made to renounce if he does not Perform when Accepted And in answer to this we 'll suppose for once what the most Seditious Souls themselves can suggest and that this part of the Rebellious position abounds both with Sense Truth and Reason that our Kings have but a Conditional bargain of it which indeed would be but a bad one too and such I dare Swear as the Greatness of our present Soveraigns Soul would hardly submit to and if we 'll but believe his own word as firm as fate that never fail'd his Friends and surely will not then be first violated for a debasing of himself and a gratifying of his Foes that has told us or decreed that he will not suffer his Government and his Crown to be Precarious And I am apt to think that he that stemn'd the Tide the fierce influx of Blood and Rebellion as well as without a Metaphor withstood the noise of many Waters and baffl'd the Billows of the main will hardly when Seated at last in a Peaceful Throne be regardless of it's Right and Prerogative which even his meritorious sufferings have deserv'd should we bate his Virtue and Birth were not in the Ballance And 't is much unlikely that he that kept his Grandeur when a Duke of York should dwindle into that of Venice and that too when a King of Great Britain 'T is their Doeg I confess that accepts upon Condition 't is their Duke with whom they do Contract our Crown as I have shown has been resolv'd an Imperialone from the Letter of its own Laws and the very Statutes of the Land Theirs from the very Constitution it self Subject to the Senate Ours from its Foundation RESOLVD not to be Precarious as well as now too from the Resolution of its Prince But in answer to this position of our Republicans I shall depone this as a principle that notwithstanding such a Contract upon Conferring the Supremacy the same cannot be Dissolv'd even by the Consent of all those that Constituted it I wont repeat to them the Reason I have already urg'd from the Royal Law of the Romans which one of their very Republicans says was not without Condition or Limitation which if so then we see that both Augustus for

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

happy union of the Monarchy of the Saxons give me leave to observe this great Truth That from their first King Egbert to this Iron-side the last no less then 14 in number besides that Edward the first Edmunds Brother all successively Reign'd in Lineal discents of the immediate and next Heir of the Royal Blood and most of them too the Successors of the next immediate Brother to their present Prince no less than four several Brothers Sons to Ethelwolf the second sole Sovereign of the Saxons succeeding one another and then with what Face unless with one more lasting then I 〈◊〉 his corrupted History by being all Brass with what a Front but such an one can such a Libel and Imposture a Legend fuller of Lyes than ever was penned by Papist antient or modern Monk offer at such a part of our History for the dispossessing the present Brother of his King But this Popish Plagiary fetching most of the Materials of his Monumental Treasons from a Club of Jesuits the Triumvirate of studious Traytors that forged for the subverting the Succession their damna-Doleman no wonder if he be as full of falshood as those copyed Ignatians whom he transcribes or the Founder of them the Devil All the shadow that he has of any thing of Election was that of the first Saxon King Egbert whom he would have no way related to Brissicus the last King of the West-Saxons but whom a more worthy Author proves from Westminster's own words that he was the sole surviving branch of the Royal Stemm and that he was banisht into France and that only for fear of his Right But granting then what he is resolved to suppose still right Reason will confute his Impertinence even in complying in unreasonable Concession the Question here is of the Succession of our Establisht Monarchy And he brings us an Instance before the Monarchy was Establisht owns that the History of that Heptarchy was uncertain and yet very certainly determins the point of his Election and that we must take too upon an ipse dixit of this Dogmatical Historians for his being no way related he cites just no body and while for his near alliance you have the Authority of so many That other only broken Reed that in all these Reigns he has to rely on and that like AEgypts too is ready to run into his side so false so dangerous to trust too which is Edreds being crown'd in the Minority of his Nephews when all the Historians say it was only for their being Minors And the diligent Baker says he was not then made Protector only because that Authority was not then come into use but crowned as King with purpose to resign when the right Heir should come of age But lest his Modern Authority may be not sufficient with those that malign any thing that makes for the Monarchy let them consult even the most of the Antients and they all agree they were only set aside for their Nonage But this Royal Protectorate soon expired as if Providence laboured to prevent an Vsurpation and provided for the right Heir who succecded in his paternal Inheritance before arrived even to the Romans civil age of Puberty 14. And the malicious Perverter might as well say as great a stress as you 'll find afterwards he truly does upon Richard the thirds Butchery and Usurpation the breaking of the Laws of God and Man for a Crown All the difference is Here were only two Nephews for a while debarred there Butchered and shall such bloody Miscreants pass upon the World for credible Authors who for robbing of a Divine-right can cite you Murder and for the breaking of our Humane Laws the blackest Crime in the Declogue And since this Antimonarchical Zealot has shown himself thus elaborately studious to rake every musty Record of those Reigns for a Rebellious remark give me leave only from the same times to make this last and Loyal Observation where Providence seemed to shew it self remarkably concerned for its crowned Head and that in the subsequent Judgment upon the Proto-Martyrdom of the Saxon Edward as well as what we suffered since for our Martyr'd Charles tho there 't was only for anticipating a right by blood but ours a bloody Usurpation of those that had no right at all Ethelred's passage to his Reign was but before his time and the Almighty's yet the Government suffered for it as many Pangs till it quite miscarried within fifty years the new Monarchy fell quite asunder rent and torn by two several Conquests He himself meets with the Defection of all his Nobility forc't to raise his Danegelt and his Subjects into Rebellion by it prepared his Navies only to be shattered with a tempest or consumed with Fire both Elements and Heaven it self seemed to conspite to make him Miserable Famine and Mortality were the dismal attendants of his Wars the Depredations of Invaders would not allow peace the Reign that begun in a Murder ended in a Massacre The incensed Danes soon invade him the perjured Edric falsely forsakes him he languishes a long time as well he might under Guilt and Misfortune and to put the only period to his days Miseries and Kingdom together Dies You see how little success this Author met with among the Saxons Sovereigns for altering Succession how much of Imposture his Reader may there meet with in him and you shall as soon see he deals as disingeniously with the Danes And here thorough his double diligence this Parliament Historiographer has not omitted an Argument for his purpose much of the same strength as those that he has used viz. That Knute was no kin to Edmund or Ethelred And the Dane no way related to the Line of the Saxon that is the poor conquered England was not Consin German to Denmark the Conqueror and yet the Title of the latter was preferred and their King acknowledged ours I can't conceive what necessity of Relation an Invader needs to the poor Prince he Invades and whether that be not a pretty sort of an Argument for altering Succession to say the Kingdom was Conquered Swayn had before cut out a fine Title for his Son with the Sword The North West and some of the South part of England had submitted frightned with his revengeful Cruelties which their own had provoked Canute himself after his Fathers Death lands as soon at Sandwich with a Navy of two hundred gave our English a great overthrow possest himself of what Swayn had before harassed the West and because the Nobility favoured only whom they feared and set him up in Competition for the Crown whom they could not keep down from being a Competitor ergo therefore the Succession must not run in the right Line and why because here it did not if more absur'd Inferences can be drawn from matter of Fact or greater Solecisms from Historical Observation I 'le forfeit all the little Right I have to Reason and with an Implicit Faith

believe the Legend for a Bible and his History for the Revelations But yet this Prince though by Conquest and Composition he got half the Kingdom and upon Edmunds Death the whole foresaw what Power the pleas of Right and Succession might have for animating an Interest in the defence of the poor injured Heirs and therefore took all the ways to ingratiate himself with his wavering People his young and unexperienced Subjects and all manner of means for preventing the Lawful Heirs for attempting for their Right sticking at neither Murder Malice and Treachery and in order to the first he made a shew of governing with more Justice then he conquered and took mildness for the best means of his Establishment and to let the Nation know he designed only to subdue them sends away his Mercenaries ships away his Navy and for a popular Specimen of an Heroick Kindness to the memory of the Saxons he succeeded as a Satisfaction to their injured Dust prefers Edricks perjured Head to the highest place on the City Gate and with that Expedient reconciled himself at once to his own promise deserved Justice and the Peoples favour and yet for securing himself from any danger from the Lawsul Heirs so politickly Cruel that all the Royal Blood felt of his Injustice sent the two Sons of his late Co-partner in the Kingdom to be murdered abroad and got his Brother to be butchered at home such an experienced truth is it that Powers usurpt Successions altered like the blackest Villanies can only be Justifyed and defended by committing more At his Death 't is true he disposed of his Crowns by Testamentary Bequest and well he might when there was so little known for Kingdoms of Feudatory Law and private Estates then far from being entailed yet in that very Legacy you can observe what Power the Consideration had with him of Right and Blood for he leaves his own Paternal Dominions Norway to his Eldest son Swayn and to his Youngest Hardicanute his conquered England considering his Mothers Blood which was Emma Wife to the late King Ethelred might as indeed it did give him some precedency to his middle Brother Harold the one having somewhat of Saxon in him the other all Dane especially if he was as some say Illegitimate tho' Baker calls him an Elder Brother by a former Wife so that upon the whole the Contest that rose about the Succession was but whether he had Right and when at last Harald was preferred 't was upon the Resolution of his being Legitimate so that here his own Inference contradicts the end for which 't was brought and instead of altering the discent shows they industriously contended to keep it in the right Channel and allowing they were mistaken in their Opinions of his Birth the Lords to make amends for their error streight on his Death fetch home Hardicanute who dying without Issue the Right of Blood prevailed again and the Saxon entred in Edward the Confessor Edmunds Son only being past by because his very being was unknown and so they can only be blamed for not seeking for the right Heir among the supposed Dead Yet when this Edward had found him out he designed both him and his Son Atheling for successive Monarchs whose very name imported Hereditary and next of kin as much as our Prince of Wales while the second Harold but usurpt upon him against the sense of the Clergy who even then lookt upon it as a Violation of the Right of the Heir and also of their Holy Rites and tho Harald suggested that Edward had appointed him to be Crown'd Historians say that it was only to make him during the Minority of this Edgar a Regent and not an absolute King and Mat. Paris speaking of Edgar Atheling in the very first Leafe of his History in these very words says that to him belonged the Right to the Kingdom of England and if Birth could then give a Right I don't see how then or now any Power can defraud a Prince justly of his Birth-right And now we 'l begin our Remarks on the Norman Line upon which the very first words of Baker are these There were six Dukes of Normandy in France in a direct Line succeeding from Father to Son and yet this Inquisitive Monarch-maker lays his mighty stress his weighty Consideration on the single Suggestion of Duke William's being a reputative Bastard be it so have we not here the Majority of six to one that succeeded 〈◊〉 Legitimately and is not these then like all the rest of their Objections against the Government rather industrious Cavil then real Argument or allowing it still is it not most impertinently applyed to his present purpose to tell us that William the Conqueror was himself Illegitimate and yet succeeded his Father in the Dutchy of Normandy And therefore must we have another Natural and Illegitimate Duke to wear the Crown of England or was the Suggestion only made because they had such a Duke in Readiness that had already run the Popular Gantlet of Ambition and been sooth'd into the Prospect of a Scepter with the false Tongues of Flatterers and Sycophants or else was the Nomination of the Normans to supersede the Fundamental Laws of our Nation And our England a Dependent a Tributary to that Crown before the Conquest these Paradoxes must be reconciled by Miracle before such a ridiculous Instance can pass for Reason or Common Sense or vindicate the false suggester from Folly and Impertinence But even here too his very Assertion fails him and this Pretender to Truth both abuses his Reader with false Application and telling a Lye For this Duke William tho' a Bastard Born was not illegitimated so as to be barred the Crown and incapacitated for Inheritance for it appears as Baker says by many Examples that Bastardy was then no Bar to Succession and by the Canon and the Law of the Church that then obtain'd the Children born before Wedlock were de facto truly legitimated if he afterward espoused his Concubine and this his Factious Assistant Hunt himself allows when the Wretch endeavoured to Bastardize the Progenitors of his Sovereign and this many Writers say was the very Case of our Duke William whose Father took his Mother Arlotte to Wife afterward The Donation to William Rufus was again clearly Testimentary which might be allowed sure to a Conqueror whose will only gave what his Sword had gotten but however as I observed above in the Legatory Disposition of Canutus the Dane where he gave his conquered Kingdom to his Youngest and Norway his Paternal Right to Swayn his Eldest to whom 't was most due so here this Third Conqueror of Old Britain observ'd the same sort of Bequest and left Normandy his Fathers Inheritance and his own to Robert to whom it appertain'd in Reason and Right both these Instances no small Demonstration shewing how the Precedency of Blood even in those days obtained and with those too whom our Factious Innovator would

great and their strength so formidable that they sought Kings and were 〈◊〉 by Princes And now let them prove that this paternal Power of these Patriarchal Kings was no more than that of a Burgher in the Town of Amsterdam or that the Cities that were several of them then erected and where the sacred writ expresly says Kings and Princes Reign'd that those were nothing else but as perfect Republicks as Venice Geneva or the united Provinces in the Netherlands And cannot our Seditious Souls be convinc'd that this their Patriarchal Power was Monarchical unless we can prove every patriarch a Crown'd King should we oblige them to make out their Common-wealths of those days after the same manner their Modern ones are now Establish'd they would be put to find out in those primitive times some general revolt of a Rebellious people from their Lawful prince For that was the first Foundation of their 〈◊〉 Republick in the Low-Countries as Mr. Sidney himself will allow tho against common Sense and Reason he cannot let it be called a Rebellion And also is it not one thing to say a paternal Right was once Monarchical but must it make all Monarchs to Rule by a paternal Right conquest of the Sword grounded upon a good pretence of Right is what a great many Kings claim by a long series of Successive Monarchs makes the Title of a great many more as much unquestionable and yet I cannot see why Monarchy may not still be said to have been first founded in a paternal Right tho the claims to Soveraign power since in such several Kingdoms and Nations where it is now Establish'd are 〈◊〉 as several sorts too as there are Subjects that have submitted to be govern'd by it It is a pleasant sort of Diversion to see Mr. Hunt Harangue out half of his Treatise in an impertinent pains to prove the Father of every Family at present not to be the King of it we would have granted it him quietly and the postulate should have been his own in peace without raising upon his War of Words and the thundering charge that he gives this Opinion of puzzl'd senseless vain unlearned paradox For once every parent shall not be a Crown'd Head and every City but a Common-wealth of Kings for that is all they must contend against and then what 's the Contention but just about nothing but that parents have nothing in them that is Analogous to a Monarchical power that they have no Right to govern those very Children they have begot as this Gentleman with his mighty performances thinks he has perfectly prov'd that I think will be found at last to be the greater paradox if not a perfect Lye For first the very Decalogue declares the contrary And the command we have to Honour our Father and Mother implies an Authority that they have that requires Obedience by the Levitical the Laws of the Jews the Rebellious Son was to be ston'd to Death and if the very Bible can call it Rebellion Certainly it must suppose some power against which he could Rebel And what does Mr. Hunt who himself admits of this say to the refuting the very Objection that he raises why he says this was an unnatural severity permitted the offended parent that is an unnatural severity commanded by the very God of Nature For all those their Laws were so many Divine precepts for the regulating his own Theocracy and the very Text tells us this exemplary punishment of Dissobedience to parents was shown that Israel might fear i.e. fear those parents in whom the Almighty's Law had lodged such a power and then if we consider it in the Abstract from any positive Law of God or Divine precept if we look upon it in a pure natural State as the result of Generation for all whatever the postscript impertinently suggests with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all the distracted noise that he makes with the procreation work being such an Act of Affection and mere impetus of Love I cannot see why by that darling work that delights Mr. Hunt so much the power of governing those very Children he has begot should be superseded The Gentleman among his many Melancholy moods had it seems some pleasant Fancies For in effect he tells us no more than this that Coition being an Act of Love to the Mother the Government over the Child that she bears him must by no means be call'd a power and if this be not indeed a puzzl'd senseless Opinion I submit to persons that abound with more sense and if it have the least shadow of a consequence I will forfeit all my Right to Reason might it not be as well infer'd too that every Father that chastises his froward Child is an absolute Tyrant because that sort of severity savors of Anger and fury but the Generation work obliged him never to exercise it because that was an Act of extream Love But besides that precept in the Decalogue Honouring our Parents is an Eternal Law of Nature engraven in our Hearts as well as it was in the two Tables of Stone and whereever there is a Natural Veneration there is at the same time an imply'd subjection for those we always reverence most to whom we are most Subjected I know there are inferior Objects upon which many times we place our affection and may in some sense be said to have for them an Esteem but that cannot be properly call'd Honour but is better exprest by the Name of Love and this is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Friends have for one another tho they are Equals or Parents to their Children tho Subject to their power but if we consider the word Honouring it self which in all the Versions of the Decalouge is still render'd so as if it would remember us of the subjection we owe to those we are commanded to Honour that very word it self implys Power in the Person that is to be Honoured for if we abstract our selves from any prepossessions and Engagements of Love we still find we still Honor those most that are also most in power thus our Nobility are respected by us as Honourable because they are in great places of Power and Trust And our King more Honoured by us agen because the very Fountain of Power it self And lastly what strikes us more into a Venerable Horror of the Majesty of Heaven but that awful attribute of his being Almighty so that uncorrupted Nature it self from the Rules of Common gratitude obliges us to Honour our Parents as well as the express precept of the Divine will and then by Consequence subjects us to those whom we are requir'd to respect so much and esteem for Nature as it never according to the Maxim of the Naturalists in Philosophy is said to do any thing foolishly or in vain so neither will it require any thing that is so from others to be done and therefore there is no Natural Law that obliges us to