Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	house_n	majesty_n	time_n	1,776	5	3.6807	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89520	An argument or, debate in law: of the great question concerning the militia; as it is now settled by ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament. By which, it is endeavoured, to prove the legalitie of it, and to make it warrantable by the fundamentall laws of the land. In which, answer is also given to all objections that do arise, either directly, or collaterally concerning the same. All which is referred to the judicious reader. by J.M. C.L.	Marsh, John, 1612-1657.; Milton, John, 1608-1674, attributed name.	1642 (1642)	Wing M575; Thomason E119_13; ESTC R18112	46,929	48

AN ARGUMENT OR DEBATE IN LAW OF THE GREAT QVESTION CONCERNING THE MILITIA As it is now settled by ORDINANCE of both the HOUSES of PARLIAMENT By which it is endeavoured to prove the Legalitie of it and to make it warrantable by the fundamentall Laws of the Land In which Answer is also given to all Objections that do arise either directly or collaterally concerning the same All which is referred to the judicious Reader By J. Marsh C. L. LONDON Printed by Tho. Paine and M. Simmons for Tho. Vnderhill at the Bible in Wood-street 1642. TO THE READER Courteous READER THat which I framed for my own private satisfaction onely in these distracted times in which every man that resolves not to stand Neuter ought to have his conscience poysed by good grounds and principles l●st that it suffer shipwrack in the conclusion I do here though unwillingly present to the publique view in which weak and poore indeavour I have borrowed some of the Parliaments grounds to exspatiate my self upon that I might the better convince thy iudgement and mine own but the greater part are mine which I hope will not blast the rest nor make it unfruitfull to thee but rather more fully inform satisfie and convince thee of the truth of the Parliaments assertions and to this end I have not used any affected style but have to the utmost of my endeavour invested the Law with its own plainnesse and integrity for I have alwayes raised this conclusion to my self that where I look for words there I expect least Law which is confirmed unto thee as a truth in these dayes Now Reader shortly to conclude this for the Work doth not deserve a Preface or Epistle if happily there may be any thing in it that may merit thy more serious consideration and make thee a true Subiect to the King by being faithfull to the Parliament I shall expect no greater areward of my labour then that confidently beleeving that the issue of it will be thine and my happinesse Farewell Thine to love and serve thee J. Marsh. AN ARGVMENT IN MAINTENANCE OF THE MILITIA Setled by ORDINANCE of PARLIAMENT THe generall Question is but shortly this Whether the Militia as it is now setled by both the Houses of Parliament be warrantable by Law or not The Case with the Circumstances upon which this generall Question is stated depends upon these two Quaeres 1. Whether the King by his Prerogative hath the sole and onely power of ordering and disposing of the Militia of his Kingdome or not Admitting that he hath then the next and maine scruple is 2. Whether both the Houses of Parliament in time of imminent danger the King refusing to settle the Militia for the defence and securitie of his people may by an Ordinance of Parliament without his Majesties consent settle the Militia and put the Kingdome into a posture of defence or not 1. For the first point I conceive very clearly that the King by his Prerogative warrantable by the Lawes of the Land performing the trust reposed in him hath the onely power of disposing of the Militia of this Kingdome and therefore I shall not debate this so much out of scruple or doubt as to give satisfaction to the unlearned and I shall prove it in reason thus The King is Caput Reipublicae pater patriae that is the head of the Common-wealth and Father of his Countrey and hath this great trust committed to him by God and his people of governing of them in peace and happinesse by maintaining and defending of their Religion Lawes and Liberties which that he may be the more obliged to doe he taketh a solemne Oath at his Coronation that he will doe and performe this according to the trust reposed in him the due execution whereof being of so high consequence to this Kingdome and of so great difficultie to himselfe and therefore not to be executed without great care circumspection and trouble the Lawes and Constitutions of this Realme hath in favour and ayde of his Majestie who is intended alwayes to be imployed and negotiated Cirea ardua regni about the high things of the Kingdome allowed unto him many prerogatives priviledges and exemptions above all his Subjects Among which I take this in our Case to be one for as our Religion Lawes and Liberties are committed in trust to the King so are our lives also which he is bound to defend aswell by the materall sword if occasion be as by the sword of Justice and therefore as it is well knowne all prosecutions by way of Indictment against any man for the taking away of the life of another are at the suite of the King and the King onely can pardon the offence and no other For he alone hath the charge of the lives of his Subjects committed to him and this is such an inseperable trust that the King cannot grant this over to another as it is resolved in 20. H. 7. where it is said ●● H. 7. fo 8. a. That a grant of power to pardon Felons by the King to another is not good for that it is a prerogative annexed to the Crowne and cannot be severed But here it is not to be understood that no prerogative of the King can be severed from the Crowne for some may as I shall afterwards shew and that by grant of the King too but that this among others is such a prerogative as cannot be severed and the reason of this is as I conceive for that the life of a man is of so high and puissant nature that none lesse then God or the King ought to have interest and power in and though the Common-wealth loose a member it is the King onely who looseth a Subject and therefore the killing of a man is said in the Indictment to be against his Crowne and dignitie and not against the Common-wealth for though mediately it be an offence against the Common-wealth too yet it is a more neare and immediate offence against the King for that he is intrusted with the lives of his Subjects Now as the King is bound to defend his Subjects by the Law so in like manner he is bound to defend and protect them by the Sword if occasion be as I have said before from all danger both of forraigne and domesticke enemies And therefore as there is a Leigeance that is a faithfull and true obedience of the Subject due to his Soveraigne as it is interpreted in the 7. Rep. Calvines case ● Rep. Calvins ●●se So there is a protection due from the Soveraigne to the Subject for he ought not onely regere to rule but also Protegere subditos suos to protect his Subjects So as betweene the Soveraigne and Subject there is Duplex reciprocum ligamen that is a double and reciprocall bond Quia sicut subditus regi tenetur ad obedientiam ita Rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem for as the Subject is bound to obey the King so the King

sunt all those things which conduce to the protecting and defending of his Subjects from any forrein invasion or domesticke danger or otherwise he could not possibly maintain peace according to the saying of Bracton and as by his Oath he is bound The King by the Law hath this Prerogative allowed unto him that he onely may proclaime warre and he onely can establish peace among his people as the 7. Rep. is 7. Rep. fo 25. why then I argue thus It is a greater prerogative to have power to proclaim warre then it is to have the onely means to maintain it and therefore it is not to be conceived that the Law that would allow the King the greater power would deny him the lesse For Qui majora concedit minora non denegabit He that granteth the greater will not deny the lesse Again to allow the King power to proclaime warre and to deny him the means to maintain warre were absurd and the Law will not admit of any absurditie Wherefore I conceive for these reasons also that the King by the Law hath likewise this prerogative of the sole ordering and disposing of the Militia of the Kingdom Now to conclude this point I shall paralell this case to one case onely in the Law and that is to Mittons case in the 4. Rep. where the case is thus 4. Rep. fo 3●… Mittons cas● Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents under the great Seal granted the Office of the Clerk of the County Court of the County of Somerset to Mitton with all Fees c. for terme of his life and after the Queen constituted Arthur Hopton Esquire Sheriffe of the same County who interrupted Mitton claiming this Office as incident to his Office of Sheriffe and upon this he appointed a Clerk himself of the County Court and here the sole question was whether this grant by the Queen were good or not And it was adjudged upon solemne debate that it was not and the principall reason given wherefore the grant was nought was because that great inconveniences might follow to Sheriffes who are great and ancient Officers and Ministers of Justice if such grants should be of validity for that there is great trust reposed in them for which they are responsible as it is there said whereupon it is concluded that Law and reason requires that Sheriffes who are publick Officers and Ministers of justice and who have an office of so great eminencie confidence perill and charge that they ought to have all rights appertaining to their office And in this case there is cited another case to this purpose Mich. 39. 40. of the Queen resolved by all the Judges of England as my Lord Coke saith that the grants of the custodies of Goales of the Counties either by King H. 8. or afterwards were utterly void and the like reason is given in this case as in Mittons case for that custodies of Goales belong to the office of Sheriffe who being immediate Officer to the Courts of the King must answer for escapes and shall be subject to amerciaments if he hath not the body in Court upon processe to him directed c. and therefore it is reason that he should put in such keepers of the said Goals for whom he should answer according to the purvieu of the Act of 14. E. 3. ●4 E. 3. c. 10. For otherwise against the rule of reason and equitie Alius offendet alius plectitur that is one man should offend another should be punished Now if the Law be thus in these cases that you shall not take away these offices from the Sheriffe who is an Officer of trust and onely chargeable for any misdemeanor in the executing of the same for that by this means you should disable him to execute his Office according to the confidence reposed in him and yet should punish him for the not doing of his duty which should be against all reason à fortiori I say in this case you shall not deny the King who hath the greatest Office of trust and charge that can be the means and way to perform this trust and to undergo this charge which cannot be otherwise done then by allowing of the King this prerogative so long as he doth perform the trust that runs along with it of having the sole disposing and ordering of the Militia of his Kingdom And without question Bracton when he saith that the King hath Gladium materiale that is the materiall sword can intend nothing else by this but Gladium belli which is the Militia and gladium by a Synecdoche may well comprehend and be set pro omnibus rebus milititaribus that is for all things military And it is usuall in holy Writ when God threatens the heavy judgement of warre upon any Nation to do it under the notion and expression of a sword by this intending Bellum that is warre with all its sad effects Wherefore I conclude this point that the King hath this prerogative allowed unto him by the Law for these preceding reasons 1. For that it were inconvenient for the King who by the Law is bound to protect and defend his subjects if he should not have this power 2. For that the Law hath given unto him a greater prerogatiue and therefore will not deny him the lesse and thirdly and lastly for that it would be absurd that the King should have power to proclaime warre but not to maintain it Second part For the second question which is as I conceive much more difficult then the former and which is the great doubt and dilemma of the time which is but thus whether the two Houses of Parliament the Kingdom being in imminent danger and the King refusing to put it into a posture of defence may by their Ordinance without the consent of the King settle the Militia and put the Kingdom into a posture of defence or not And I do conceive under favour in some clearnesse that they may and that in so doing they have done no more then what is warrantable by the Law And this I ground in the first place upon the imminent danger and extreame necessity that the kingdom is in and therefore though it should be admitted that they could not do it at another time yet I conceive that by reason of the necessity it is warranted by the Law for them to do it at this time It is a rule in our Law first cited in Bracton Bract. fo 247 a. and remembred in the 10. Rep. 10. Rep. fo 61. a. that illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur In time of necessitie illegall acts are made legall and things utterly against Law justifiable Upon this rule I might multiply cases but because I do not affect via trita obambulare to go in the common road therefore I shall onely put some of the most materiall cases which I find to this purpose

alwayes to make such construction of the Deeds of men and of their Grants Vt res magis valeat quàm pereat that is that they should rather take effect then perish so I say it may well be taken for a Rule that the Judges should not so construe the Law that the Law should destroy it selfe which will necessarily follow in the destruction of the Common-wealth but that they should so interpret it V● respublica magis valeat floreat quàm p●reat destruatur that the Common-wealth should rather flourish then perish and be destroyed I agree that in the case in question by the strict Rule and Law of Prerogative the governing and disposing of the Militia of the Kingdome is onely in the King and that he onely may proclaime warre and he alone establish peace amongst his people yet we ought not so t● construe this Law that it is so in the King that it cannot be severed from him and that no other can intermeddle with it without the consent of the King though that it be for the Weale publique and for the securing of the Kingdome being in imminent danger the King refusing to settle it as in right he ought upon the prayer of his people represented in the defires of the Parliament For to make such a construction were utterly to confound and destroy both Law Common wealth as I have said before and therefore ought not to be admitted The King hath this Prerogative allowed him by the Law that he shall not be bound by any Statute except that he be expressely named in the Statute yet it is resolved in the 5. Rep. ● Rep. fo 14. b. that all Statutes which are made to suppresse wrong to take away fraud or to prevent the decay of Religion shall binde the King though he be not named in them for saith the Booke Religion Justice and Truth are the sure Supporters of the Crownes and Diadems of Kings So I say in this case the King by his Prerogative as I have said before ought to have the sole disposing of the Militia But if in imminent danger he refuse to settle this for the safetie of himselfe and his Kingdome according to the trust reposed in him his Prerogative ought then to give way for the securing of his Crowne that those who are intrusted with the Weale publique as the Parliament is may settle this for the defence of the King and Kingdome according as in truth they are bound as I shall afterwards shew It is a Rule in our Law That the King can doe no wrong and with this accords Bracton ●●acton fo 107. Nihil aliud potest Rex in terris cum sit Dei minister vicarius nisi id solum quod de jure potest nec quod principi placet legis habet vigorem the King can doe nothing upon earth seeing that he is Gods minister and Vicar but that onely which of right he ought to doe neither ought the Kings will to have the force and vigour of a Law Here note that the will of the King ought to subscribe to the Law and not the Law to the will of the King And in Pl. Com. 1. Rep. 5. Rep. it is said ●● Com. fo 246. ● Rep. fo 44. b. ● Rep. fo 55. b. That the King cannot doe a wrong neither will his Prerogative be any warrant to him to doe injurie to another and if the King cannot injure one single person without question he cannot injure all the Common-wealth which he should doe in this case if both the Houses of Parliament in this time of imminent danger the King refusing to joyn with them should not have this power of setling the Militia in defence of the Kingdome without his consent I agree with Bracton Bracton fo 5●… that the King Parem non habet in regno nec superiorem He hath no equall nor superiour in his Kingdome but that is to be understood that there is no man above or equall with his Majestie for he saith afterwards Bracton fo 3●… Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo sub lege that the King ought not to be under man but under God and under the Law and after fo 34. a he saith Rex habet superiorem Deum scilicet item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. the King hath a superiour to wit God in like manner the Law which made him King and also his Court to wit the Earles Barons c. which cannot be understood of any other then the high Court of Parliament And in the places before cited he saith Quod non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex He is not King when his will rules not the Law Then if it be thus as Bracton saith that the Law and the two Houses of Parliament are above the King and that the King is as no King when he doth not submit to the Law which will of necessitie follow for that the same Law which made him King injoynes and obliges him also to defend his people committed to his charge and without doubt the one as just as the other and if he refuse to protect his people which is a dispising and a depressing of that Law which gave him this Soveraigntie certainly the Law will not defend him in this his tyranny I conceive that in this case the Law will in its own defence and in default of the King who ought to have maintained the Law inable the two Houses of Parliament to put the Kingdome into a posture of warre in defence of the King his Lawes and Subjects But now the great Question is What and where is the ground of our feares and jealousies and where is the imminent danger for many say that they cannot see it and then it not being visible and obvious to every eye a Question as great in shew as the former arises upon this Who is or may be the proper Judge of this imminent danger To the first I answer that our feare and the imminent danger pretended is no Phantasme or Chimerâ as some would have it but it is a reall and visible cause of feare Et talis metus qui cadere potest in virum constantem such a feare as may befall a constant man as my Lord Cooke describeth a feare Instit fo 253. that may possesse a generous and settled spirit And that it is thus I appeale to the conscience of any wise indifferent man whether that the Commune incendium the common fire or calamitie in our neighbour Nation of Ireland clothed with these three circumstances as I shall set it forth will not cause and justly too a wise man to feare and doubt what the event will be As first that they are our Neighbours and when my Neighbours house is on fire will any man adjudge this to be a phantasme or an effeminate feare in me to

under God and the Law Now I conceive that it is manifest that the King is intrusted with the Laws lives liberties and estates of his Subjects all which he of right ought to defend in peace and tranquillity as he also by his Oath is bound and therefore Bracton saith Bract. fo 55. ● Est Corona Regis facere iustitiam iudicium tenere pacem sine quibus corona consistere non potest nec tenere It is the Crown of the King to do justice and judgement and to maintain peace without which his Crown cannot stand and continue as if he had said it is so essentiall to the King to do justice and judgement and to maintain peace that you destroy the Crown if you take away these Now I shall prove that the King hath made a breach of this great trust committed to him foure wayes First by denying of his Protection to his people Secondly by not supporting of the Laws and the Priviledges of Parliament Thirdly by not endeavouring to maintain peace amongst his people And fourthly and lastly by denying of Justice and in all these particulars I shall prove that the King hath broken the trust committed to him And first he hath broken the trust committed to him by denying of his protection and this he hath done three wayes 1. By denying of his legall protection that is in not protecting of his people according to Law and this he hath done by denying to settle the Militia by the advise of his great Counsell according to Law by whom onely during Parliament he ought to be advised for during the continuance of this great Counsell all inferiour Counsels ought to cease and therfore the Counsell of others neither can nor ought to countermand theirs but of this I shall speak more fully afterwards 2. The King hath denied his Royall protection to his people in taking up of Arms against his Parliament who is the representative Body of the whole Kingdom and this is the most strong refusall of his protection of all others for by this he doth not refuse onely to protect them but he goes about to destroy them whom by the Law and his Oath he is bound to preserve and defend And thirdly and lastly he hath denied his royall protection to his people in this that in time of imminent danger to the Kingdom he hath denied to settle the Militia and he that denies the means denies the end For it is a rule with us in our Law that Qui tollit medium tollit quoque finem He that takes away the means takes away the end And it is all one in effect to deny a thing as to deny the means per quod pervenitur ad illud by which you may come to the thing Now it is clear that the sole means under God to defend this kingdom in time of imminent danger from its enemies either forrain or domestick is by settling of the Militia and by putting of the Forts and Magazine of the kingdom into faithfull and true hands such as may be confided in being a matter of so great consequence and of so high importance to the whole Common-weal Now the King refusing to do this doth he not in effect deny his protection to his people for denying of the means it is all one as if he had denied the end so that I conceive for these reasons the King hath denied to protect his people as by the Law he is bound and therefore hath made a breach of the trust that is reposed in him Secondly I conceive that the King hath broken this great trust in not supporting of the Laws and the priviledges of Parliament that he hath not maintained the Law appeareth plainly by that that I have said before for that he hath refused to be ruled by it as he ought for though that he is not sub homine under man yet he is sub Lege under the Law as I have shewed before and therefore ought to be governed by it And what is this but a refusing to be ruled by Law when he refuseth upon the prayer of his Parliament to settle the Militia for the defence of his Kingdom and people according to Law And that the King hath broken the Priviledges of Parliament what more plain I might instance in many things but I shall instance in onely one or two And here I appeal to all the world whether his withdrawing of himself from his Parliament and not onely so but his endeavouring by his many detractions and imputations laid upon his Parliament to withdraw all the hearts of his people from them likewise and which is yet worse his supporting and maintaining of such men and keeping of them from justice and their condigne punishment who are Delinquents in a high nature against his Parliament I say that I appeal to all the world whether these be not great breaches of the Priviledges of Parliament and what greater breach of the priviledges of Parliament can there be then to protect and defend them without any colour of Law or justice who indeavour nothing but the ruine of Parliament and in this of our Laws lives and liberties so I conceive that this also is a breach of that great trust which is reposed in his Majestie by God his people and the Laws of the Land Thirdly I conceive that the King hath infringed this great trust by not indeavouring to maintaine peace and this two wayes by his commission and omission by his commission in taking up of Armes against his people as I have said before and then by his omission and not onely so but by an absolute refusall in this time of imminent danger to settle the Kingdome in a posture of defence the sole meanes under God as I have said to maintaine peace and tranquillitie amongst us and this i● against his Oath also which the King himselfe was pleased of late to publish to his people which I finde likewise expressely in Bracton Bract. fo 107. that the King first sweareth Se esse praecepturum pro viribus opem impensurum ut Ecclesiae Dei omni populo Christiano vera pax omni suo tempore observetur that is that he will indeavour to the utmost of his power that true peace may be kept observed to the Church of God and to all Christian people all his dayes Fourthly and lastly I conceive that the King hath broken his trust by denying of justice and this he hath done two wayes sirst by denying to surrender up Delinquents to the Justice of the Law and secondly by denying to settle the Militia by and according to the advise of his great Counsell the Parliament Now that the King is obliged to doe Justice it is without question for his very Oath as I have shewed before ties him expressely to it and so is 6. H. 7. cited before and Bracton fo 107. a. where he saith Bracton fo 10●… that Ad hoe creatus est electus ut justitiam

faciat universis c. He is created and elected King for this purpose and intent that he may doe justice to all men And what greater act of Justice can there be then for the King to defend his people in peace or what greater act of Justice can there be then for the King at the request of his people represented by the body of Parliament to enact such Lawes which conduce to the maintaining of peace Certainly none And this Bracton seemeth to intimate Bracton fo 10●… Sinon esset qui justitiam faceret pax de facili potest exterminari c. If there were not one who would doe Justice peace might easily be extirminated Here note that he doth not say that our lives Lawes Liberties or Estates for want of Justice might easily be extirminated but our peace by this as it were concentering all Justice in this act of maintaining peace and without question all our happinesse under God consists in the supporting and maintaining of peace for take that away and all things fall to utter ruine and destruction And certainly if it be thus that the greatest act of Justice in the King that can be consists in maintaining of peace and in granting of such Lawes which conduce unto this end without question the denying of this by the King must needs be the greatest act of injustice in the King that can be and by consequence a breach of that trust that is reposed in his Majestie And therefore I doe conceive that at the least in this the King can have no negative voyce and I doe not conceive that the King can have any negative voyce in Parliament in other things for if the King by his Oath and the Law of the Land be obliged to doe Justice as in truth he is and if it be as great an act of Justice in the King as can be not onely justly to dispence the Lawes in esse in being to his people but also to grant such new Lawes unto them as conduce to the well governing of them in peace and happinesse Why then certainly it must of necessitie follow that the King can have no negative voyce but is bound under this heavie sinne of the breach of his Oath and the Lawes of the Land to grant such Lawes as are requested of him by his people But here it may be objected that the King had this Prerogative by the Law that he might have called a Parliament when he pleased and there was no positive Law to the contrary before this Parliament in which the King hath devested himselfe of this power and if before at the request of his people he had not been pleased to grant them a Parliament why this in effect was a denier of Justice for that the King denied the meanes by which it might be obteined and yet this was lawfull for him to doe therefore it will be concluded that by the same reason he may have a negative voyce in Parliament And Cromp. Jur. of Courts saith expressely Cro. Iur. fo 7. b. that when the King doth assent to a Bill then he writes upon the Bill L' Roy veult that is the King will have it so and if he doth not assent then it is indorsed L'Roy advisera that the King will advise here it doth appeare how the King hath a negative voyce allowed him by the Law To this I answer and agree these Prerogatives de facto to be in the King but whether in truth they be such as are compatible and may stand with the Oath and Justice of the King this may be questionable and under favour I conceive that they cannot for that as I have shewed his Oath and the Lawes of the Land ties his Majestie to doe Justice to his people and the granting of new Laws unto them upon their request is an Act of Justice and therefore he cannot denie them without breach of his Oath and the Lawes of the Land and by consequence these prerogatives are not compatible with the Oath and Justice of the King and though peradventure the Law may dispence with it selfe yet it cannot with the Oath of the King Wherefore I conceive notwithstanding this objection that the King can have no negative voyce but of this onely by the way And is it thus that the King hath made a breach of that trust reposed in him by God and his people as in truth I have cleered it unto you then none so proper to supply this defect in his Majestie by the disposing of the Militia for the defence and protection of the King Kingdome as the Parliament who are at this time entrusted under God not onely with our esse with our being but with our bene esse with our well-being also But here it may be objected that the King derives his Crowne and regall power from God and that therefore he is responsible to God alone for his actions and not to man To this I answer that it is a most strange Episcopall and illegall objection for what is this but the attributing of a power to the King above Law and the giving of him such a prerogative that should not be subject to those Constitutions which his predecessors before him had been and though it should be admitted that as all power is derived originally from God so especially this yet it doth not follow that it was therefore conferred by an extraordinary and immediate hand of God as it was upon Saul and David 1 Sam. 9. 24. yet they likewise were confirmed and approved by the people as you may reade in holy Writ Besides Saul and David lived not under any Municipall or positive Constitutions of men which they were bound to maintaine and observe as the King of England doth and therefore it must needs be that their power must be more absolute which was not circumscribed within the bounds and limits of any humane Lawes But now the Kings of England having subjected themselves to the Law of the Land and received their Crownes with that trust and tacite condition of defending of the Lawes lives and liberties of their Subjects the Law were idle and vaine if there should be none that should have this power for the breach of this trust by his Majestie to interpose for the securing of him his Lawes and people And if this divine prerogative which the Bishops doe so buzze into the Kings eares should be admitted I would faine know what difference would be made betwixt an absolute Monarke and the King of England and cleerely this was never reputed for other nor can be the Crowne being subject to the Law as well as the people then a mixt Monarchy but I shall conclude this that they who so much defend and exalt this divine prerogative would in the conclusion if they might have their way upon the same ground advance the Miter above the Crowne God open the Kings eyes that he may see and acknowledge himselfe subject to the Lawes and may rule his

people accordingly and grant that he may detest such advice as dangerous to the State and the suggesters of it as Pests and Traytors to the same But it may be againe objected that this was a conquered Nation therefore by the Law of Conquest the Conquerour might have made what alterations in the Law or State he pleased but he retaining the Law and subjecting himselfe to it who might have advanced himselfe above it will it therefore follow that in so doing he hath subjected himselfe to his people likewise if he transgresse it Deum habet ultorem God will revenge it but it was never his intent to give his people that power To this I answer that retaining of the Law and subjecting of himselfe unto it he is bound by it and all his Successours after him and it were in vaine as I have touched it before to establish a Law and to give none power to put it in execution Wherefore I conceive that that Law that bindes the King will for the breach of the same authorise his Parliament though not to inflict any penalty upon his sacred person God forbid yet to provide for the securing of him and his Kingdome for otherwise as the sad consequence of it would make it good it would be in effect but as a dead Letter But now further it may be objected Shall they have such an arbitrary way of power as this is to doe any thing by way of Ordinance without the King If this may be suffered they may Metamorphise and change the Law into what shape they please or which best agrees with their humours so that if they order that land shall from henceforth discend to the youngest sonne contrary to the course of common Law as I thinke the case was put if this ordinance should binde the Subject he should here at once be deprived of a double birth-right and inheritance viz. of his land as heire and of the Law as a Subject which would be very hard and unreasonable For that part of the objection of their arbitrary way of proceeding I shall in part here answer it but more fully afterwards for the objection that they cannot doe it by way of Ordinance without the King To this I answer that in case of imminent danger as now the Kingdome must needs perish if they should not have this power for they have no other way to ayde the Kingdome in time of imminent danger by setling the Militia of it but by way of Act or Ordinance and if the King refuse by their advice to settle it by way of act as in truth he doth now then we must of necessitie allow a power in the Parliament Ne pereat regnum least that the Kingdome perish by way of Ordinance to settle the Militia for the defence of the same for otherwise the King should have power when he pleaseth to destroy his Kingdome and the people should be left naked of any abilitie to preserve and defend themselves which were very unreasonable and unnaturall for nature it selfe hath not onely established it as a Law that all creatures may defend themselves from unnaturall violence but hath armed them accordingly And now I shall prove that as the Parliament are the most proper and onely power to provide for the securing of the Kingdom and a● they have no other way to do it so they are obliged to take this way and this they are tied to by their Oaths of Allegiance Supremacy and their late Protestation for by these they have all sworn vowed and protested to defend the King his royall person and estate and to be true and faithfull to him now it is impossible for them to defend the King and to be true and faithfull to him if they in time of imminent danger do not indeavour as much as in them lieth to defend his kingdom for there is such a reciprocall and dependent relation betwixt the King and his Kingdom that the one cannot subsist without the other for if they permit the kingdom to be destroyed the King must of necessitie be ruined also If the Master die the relation of a servant must needs cease for that relatives cannot subsist the one without the other And if the kingdom fail the King and Scepter must needs fall to the ground And this is in part the reason of that pollity of Law in the 7. Rep. Calvins case 7. Rep. 12. Calvins C. that the King is a body politick lest there should be an interregnum for that a body politique never dieth Why then is it so that they are bound by their Oaths to defend the kingdom as well as the King as in truth they are for that the King cannot subsist without the kingdom then the consequence must of necessity be that the Parliament in this time of imminent danger hath well done in settling of the Militia for the defence and welfare of the King and kingdom and that in so doing they have not onely not done more then what they might do but they have done no more then what they were bound to do and this under the heavie sinne of perjurie But here it may be objected that this is a corrupting and dividing of the Text for that the Oath of Supremacy doth not onely bind us to be true and faithfull to the King but also to defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges preheminences and authorities granted or belonging to his Highnesse c. And the having of the sole disposing of the Militia is one of the priviledges of the Crown and appertaining to his Highnesse and therefore we are bound likewise by this Oath to defend this priviledge of the Kings against any who shall endeavour the taking it away from his Majestie To this I answer and agree that the King as I have shewed before hath this priviledge and prerogative given unto him and with him intrusted by the Law for the good of the Common-wealth but I never heard that he had it allowed him for the destruction of the same Again I agree that the Oath of Supremacy obligeth every man to defend the priviledges and preheminences of the King but I do not conceive or beleeve that this ought to be so construed that any man by the Oath of Supremacy is bound to defend the priviledges of the King against the weal publick for if the weal publick and priviledges of the King stand in competition without question the publick interest and welfare ought to be preferred And therefore if the King do not imploy and use his priviledges according to the trust reposed in him but rather contrary to it certainly this doth disoblige every man from that tie and ingagement in this particular with which he was bound by the Oath of Supremacy For so to construe the Oath that I should defend the pr●viledges of the King though it be in destruction of the common-wealth were to make the Oath the most hard and unreasonable tye in the world whereas every Oath amongst other qualifications