THE Royal Apology OR, AN ANSWER TO THE Rebel's Plea: WHEREIN, The most Noted Anti-Monarchical TENANTS, First, Published by DOLEMAN the Jesuit, to promote a Bill of EXCLUSION against King JAMES. Secondly, Practised by BRADSHAW and the Regicides in the actual Murder of King CHARLES the 1st. Thirdly, Republished by SIDNEY and the Associators to Depose and Murder his Present MAJESTY, Are distinctly considered. With a PARALLEL between DOLEMAN, BRADSHAW, SIDNEY and other of the True-Protestant PARTY. LONDON, Printed by T. B. for Robert Clavel, and are to be sold by Randolph Taylor, near Stationers-Hall. 1684. TO THE READER. IN the Year 1594. the Jesuit PARSONS published a Conference under the Name of DOLEMAN. The Design of which Pamphlet, as every one knows, was to promote a Bill of Exclusion against King JAMES. And though the Jesuits malice was herein defeated, as to the Person of that King; yet how much it influenced the Sufferings of his late Majesty, is a sad story to repeat. For he who shall peruse the many virulent Libels, which first occasioned, and then fomented that unnatural Rebellion; he will easily be instructed how that Conference was Transcribed and Transprosed by the Patrons of the Faction: And to speak in our Modern Language, he cannot but observe, That the Popish DOLEMAN is the Oracle of the TRVE-PROTESTANT Party. Now that this may not be rejected as a slandering Design, only to make them odious to Authority, as is commonly Objected; I have here drawn for the Readers satisfaction, a short PARALLEL between Doleman, Bradshaw, Sidney and some others. Upon perusal of which it will plainly appear, that the Jesuits Principles, as managed by Bradshaw and the Regicides, did cut off the Head of King CHARLES the first. And since the same Principles have been transcribed by the Brethren of the ASSOCIATION; we have just reason to suspect the fame Practices likewise: And that those who defend the Murder of King CHARLES the first, would doubtless, if they had Power in their Hands, Depose and Murder King CHARLES the Second. If any Republican shall think fit to doubt that the following Discourse is either Partial or Vnconconcluding, i. e. that I have either said something that is false, or else have omitted in any Instance, the very Strength of their Cause, let him make known his Grievance. And I do here faithfully promise, upon such notice given, I will (through Divine Assistance) endeavour his Satisfaction. THE CONTENTS. THe Occasion of this Treatise, Pag. 1. Which Consists Of an Objection p. 3. and its Answer p. 5. Containing these Particulars, viz. The Government of England not a mixed Monarchy p. 6. The King not one of the three Estates p. 16. In what sense the King of England is an Absolute Monarch p. 19 And how he is Limited p. 43. That known saying of BRACTON Lex facit Regem how to be understood p. 20. That other controverted Passage, Rex habet Superiorem, Deum & Legem, etiam & Curiam, largely considered p. 25 ad p. 37. Of the Coronation Oath p. 38. Of the King's Prerogative p. 45. THE Royal Apology: OR, AN ANSWER TO THE Rebel's PLEA. ALthough the King's Title to his Crown and Dignity, together with his just Right and Authority, over all Persons and in all Causes, are beyond Exception established, by the Ordinance of God, and the known Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms; yet so far hath Prejudice, or something worse, prevailed with some Men (and those not of the meanest Rank) as to suffer themselves to be led into a Belief. That the Original of all Government is from the People; and that the Power which Kings and Princes have, was derived unto them from the People by way of Pact or Contract. Particularly, That the King of England (as appears from his Coronation-Oath) having solemnly engaged to his People, to maintain Religion, to execute Justice, and to keep the Laws and rightful Customs of the Kingdom; upon these Conditions was admitted to the Kingly Power. The which Conditions if he shall omit to observe (and of this, they themselves will be Judges) they then fancy, that he hath forfeited his Crown; and that the People who first made him King may, by their Representatives in Parliament, dethrone and Depose him. That this is the Scheme of some men's Policy, the many Treasonable Papers, such as, The Association, Vox Populi, Appeal to the City, Coll. SIDNEY'S Papers, etc. together with the late horrid Conspiracy grounded thereupon, do sufficiently demonstrate. And therefore I hope it will be no unseasonable Undertaking; but may, through God's Blessing, contribute somewhat to secure the King's Liege-People in their due Obedience, whilst I endeavour to evince the Falseness and destructive Consequences of these Anti-monarchical Principles. Which that I may the more effectually, and with the greater clearness perform, I shall first lay down the utmost Strength of their Cause in one entire Objection, and then endeavour their satisfaction in the following Answer. OBJECTION. THE Government of England is a mixed Monarchy, consisting of Three Estates King, Lords and Commons: And therefore the King of England is not an Absolute, but a limited Monarch; and as Such is to govern by, and according to, the Laws of the Land, and not otherwise: And by the Oath which he hath taken at his Coronation, he is obliged to use the Power, Trust and Office then committed to him, for the Good and Benefit of the People, and for the preservation of their Rights and Liberties. Now if the King, thus entrusted to keep the Laws, and preserve Religion, should be guilty of a wicked Design, to subvert our Laws, and destroy our Religion, by introducing an arbitrary, Tyrannical Government; he must then understand, that he is but an Officer of Trust: And the Parliament of England (the Representatives of the People, in whom all Power doth originally reside) they are to take order for the Animadversion and Punishment of such an offending Governor. Parliaments were ordained to restrain the exorbitant Power of Kings, and to redress the Grievances of the People. It is very true, what some have said, Rex non habet parem in Regno. But this is to be understood in a limited Sense: For though major singulis, yet he is minor universis. This we know to be Law, from that famous Lawyer BRACTION: Rex habet Superiorem, Deum & Legem, etiam & Curiam. Which is thus Interpreted by Mr. SIDNEY. For this Reason Bracton saith; That the King hath Three Superiors, to wit, Deum, Legem & Parliamentum; That is, The Power originally in the People of England, is delegated unto the Parliament. SIDNEY'S Trial, pag. 23. This is, as I conceive, the Sum of all that hath been, and the utmost of what, I suppose, can be said in this matter. To which I return this ANSWER. THAT this Phrase a mixed Monarchy, though somewhat frequent in the Mouths of these Men, is yet no very plain or intelligible Expression. For, if by a mixed Monarchy, they design such a Government, wherein though the Supreme Power may reside in one single Person, yet the Monarch is so limited in the Execution of that Power, that he cannot legally perform several Acts of Sovereignty without the Concurrence of his Subjects (as with us here in England, the King neither makes LAWS, nor doth raise Taxes without his Parliament) If this be the utmost they design, when they call England a mixed Monarchy; then, though the Expression is very improper (an errand Bull, a flat Contradiction in adjecto) yet where we are agreed in the Thing, we shall not contend about Words; but may safely grant, that in this Sense, as now explained, The Government of England is a mixed Monarchy. But if by a mixed they denote such a Monarchy, wherein though the Style and Title of King, together with some Ceremonious Appendices of Royalty, as Cap and Knee, Guards, etc. are indeed invested in One single Person, yet the Supreme Power and Sovereignty is not solely and entirely in the Monarch, exclusively to all others (as with us here in England, say these Men, the Sovereignty by way of Coordination, is partly in the King, partly in the Lords, and partly in the Commons, and for this reason they are styled the Three Estates of the Kingdom) if this be their Notion of a mixed Monarchy (as most plainly it is, if Actions may interpret Intentions) it is then not only false and absurd, but dangerous and destructive. And therefore in this Sense we do peremptorily deny; That the Government of England is a mixed Monarchy. For, The Supreme Power is solely in the King; and consequently the King is not, by way of Coordination, One of the Three Estates, but the HEAD and Sovereign of them all. In order to his Conviction, the Dissenting Republican, who denies this Truth, may please to consider, That he who shall desire to inform himself rightly, where the Supreme Power in any Government is placed; as also by whom, how and how far such Power hath from time to time, been either exercised or restrained; he must of necessity have recourse to the Public Laws and Constitutions of such Government. Particularly here in England, he who designs to be truly instructed in this matter; he must not receive his notice from the Discourses of private men (which are many times fallacious, partial and uncertain) but he ought to consult the Known Laws and Statutes those Authentic Records of the Kingdom. Now the Oath of Supremacy, established by several Parliaments, doth expressly Declare; That the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal. Words as plain and intelligible as the Wit of Man could devise. From whence 'tis obvious to make this Inference; That if the King is Supreme, than he hath no Superior; if only Supreme, than no equal. If over all Persons (and as such the 55th. Canon enjoins us to acknowledge him in our Prayers) than All Persons in these his Realms, and all other his Dominions and Countries, are subordinate or Subject unto him, and if subordinate, than none of them, either severally or jointly are coordinate with him. Now is it possible, after so plain and express a Determination, for any Man to doubt; That the Supreme Power is solely in the King? I observe it is possible: For, some Men who will not be satisfied with Reason, do thus urge. That the Oath of Supremacy, being expressly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome, was consequently so framed as to discover those who are Popishly affected. For, the Persons taking that Oath are obliged only to Declare; That they Renounce all Foreign Jurisdictions: i e. They do swear; That the King of England is no Feudatory Prince, and that he holds not his Crown in Fee, either from the Pope, or any Foreign Power whatsoever. But what is all this, say these men, to the Parliament? Or, how comes this Oath to be urged against the Jurisdiction of the two Houses? Since in those very Statutes in which this Oath is enjoined, the Legislative Power (which doubtless is the Supreme Power) is expressly Established in the Parliament, as well as in the King, in these Words. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same. Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons do Enact jointly with the King, and therefore have a Coordinate Power. To which it is thus Replied. That when this Oath of Supremacy was first framed, the Pope being then the most noted Usurper, was for that reason more particularly mentioned than any other; but from thence to infer. That it was designed, by way of Test, to discover Those, who are Popishly-affected, is a very great Mistake. For, the Supremacy of the Kings of England, being the chief Prerogative of the Crown, was always challenged and maintained by (a) V 27. Ed. 3. c. 1. 3 R. 2 c. 3. 7 R. 2. c. 12. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 4. 6 H. 4. c. 1. 24 H. 8. c. 12. 25. H. 8. c. 19 26 H. 8. c. 1. 37 H. 8. c. 17. Parl 2. 1. Mar. c. 1. Popish Princes as well as Protestant, (b) 1 Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 13 Eliz. c. 2. as appears by these several Statutes here mentioned in the Margin. The Intent then of this Oath was not to discover who are Papists, but in plain Terms, who are Traitors: And therefore let men's Pretences to Religion be otherwise what they will; if by scrupling this Oath, they refuse to give assurance to the Government, that they will be honest and loyal, they are to be esteemed, if not Traitors, yet at least Traitorously affected. And whereas they further urge, That the Coordinate Power of the Parliament is no way condemned by this Oath; which only takes notice of a Foreign Usurpation; They are for their satisfaction, desired to consider, That, since rectum est Judex sui & obliqui, Domestic Usurpation is hereby excluded as well as Foreign: The Sovereignty of the People as well as of the Pope. And as to that which is pleaded from the Form of the Statute, by the Authority of the same, as if the Lords and Commons did by their Authority, make and enact Laws jointly with the King; To this I do humbly Answer, That this Expression, if duly considered, doth not in the least favour the Republican Fancy of a Coordinate Power. Which I shall best express to vulgar Capacities (for whom this Discourse is chief designed) thus faithfully by representing the Matter of Fact. Although the Legislative Power is solely in the King, yet His Majesty doth not make Laws, without the concurring Advice and Approbation of his Subjects: For the King, like other Men, being mortal and of limited Capacity, is neither omniscient nor omnipresent. He cannot be in all Parts of his Dominions at one and the same time, and consequently can no otherwise be acquainted with the Grievances of his Subjects, but by the Reports of others. To supply this Defect, he calls whom he pleaseth (such as he thinks able and faithful to assist and direct him) to be of his Privy Council; whose advice he takes in the Execution of those Laws which are already Established. But since all human Laws are liable to Defects (for it is the sole Prerogative of God's Law, as being the result of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, to be exceeding broad; to be fitted to all times, and to answer all occasions) it is therefore sometimes necessary that new Laws should be made, and the old ones either abrogated and nulled; or else reinforced with greater Penalties. In such Cases, according to the happy Constitution of these Nations, the King summons his Great Council; the High and most Honourable Court of Parliament; The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons; Representing the Three Estates of the Kingdom; Who coming from all Parts of the Nation, are best able to inform His Majesty of the Grievances of his Subjects; and by what Ways and Methods they may most suitably be redressed. In order hereunto; when any Proposal, or as we phrase it any Bill, hath passed the Approbation of the Two Houses; it is then humbly presented to the King for his Royal Assent. Which if His Majesty thinks fit to grant, than Le Roy le veult, makes it a Law: But if the King shall dislike the Bill, he than rejects it, with a Le Roy ne veult, the King will not pass it; or else in that more obliging Form of Denial, Le Roy avisera, the King will consider or advise about it. This is the plain matter of Fact. From whence 'tis very easy to understand, what this Form of words, By the Authority of the same doth import, viz. not of the same Lords and Commons (as if either Lords or Commons had an Authority contradistinct from, or coordinate with, the King) but by the Authority of the same Parliament. The which Parliament, as Sir Edw. Cook (a) Instit. part 4. Cap. 1. p. 1. informs us, consisteth of The King's Majesty, sitting there as in his Royal Politic Capacity, and of the Three Estates of the Realm, viz. The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons. So that in Propriety of Speeeh, neither Lords nor Commons (though in a vulgar Sense, and to some purposes, they are sometimes so called) I say neither Lords nor Commons strictly and properly are a Parliament without the King; who summoning them by his Writs; and presiding over them as their Head, animates and informs them, and makes them a Legal Parliament, who otherwise, without the Royal Summons, would be no better than an unlawful and riotous Convention. The Lords and Commons have indeed an Authority, to meet and sit and debate as a Parliament; But they have this Authority solely from the King, and not from Themselves or from the People: For, the King Calls them when he pleaseth, and so makes them a Parliament; and he Dissolves them when he thinks fit, and so makes them none. Again, The Lords and Commons have an Authority, but not to Enact or make Laws (for the Words, Be it enacted refer only to the King) but to advise and consent to such Laws as shall be made by the King: And therefore this Phrase, Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, etc. hath an Ellipsis in it; and is to be read thus. Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, by the Advice and with the Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this Parliament assembled, etc. Advice and Consent though for Brevity's sake they are not always expressed, yet are still to be understood. And for the Truth of this, I appeal to the Form of our ancient Statutes (as also to some modern ones) and that not only in the Title, but also in the Preface and Sanction of them. For till the time of Henry VIII. the words Advice, Assent or Consent were never omitted. As appears from the Statutes themselves, to which recourse to be had. From these Premises it plainly appears, That the Supreme Power is solely in the King; and, That the Two Houses of Parliament are (not Partners in the Government but) his most Dutiful and Loyal Subjects; as in all their Petitions most truly they do style themselves. And that this Form in our Statutes, By the Authority of the same, when rightly understood, doth neither give them Title to make Laws, nor perform any other Act of Sovereignty, which may countenance this Fancy of a Coordinate Power. The next Pretence of these Republican Politicians (which I find they often urge in vindication of the late Rebellion) is this; That the King is One of the Three Estates; and from thence they infer: He hath but One share in the Government; and that the other Two are Copartners with Him. The which Suggestion being apparently False, I shall need to say the less in its Confutation, especially being so happily prevented by a late Learned Hand, viz. The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right, etc. The judicious Author of which Treatise having first premised; That the whole Parliament assembled, are the best Judges, which are the Three Estates in Parliament; and that their Authority is more to be valued, than that of any particular Persons, whether Lawyers or others; He then, in many Instances, informs us from the Parliament Rolls and public Records of the Kingdom; That the Three Estates are the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons. In these Records we read of Impeachments R. 2. made before the King, and all the Estates of the Realm. Of Commissions appointed by the Peers and Lords Spiritual R. 2. and Temporal, and the Commons of the Kingdom, representing all the States of the Kingdom. Of such and such things, 6 H. 6. n. 24. advised and appointed by the Authority of the King, assenting the Three Estates of this Realm. The Duke of Bedford appeared in Parliament 11 H. 6. n. 10. before the King and the Three Estates of this Realm. In the Parliament 1. H. 6. The Queen Dowager, in her Petition, mentions the Ratification made in Parliament, 9 H. 5. and saith; It was not only sworn by the King, but by the Three Estates of the Kingdom of England, i. e. by the Prelates, Nobles and other Grandees, and by the Commons of the Realm of England. And to add one Instance for latter times in the Parl. 1 Eliz. cap. 3. The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons declare, That they do represent in Parliament the Three Estates of the Realm. With several others which I shall not mention, but refer all those, who either want or desire satisfaction, to the Book itself. And as to my plain, honest Reader, who hath neither ability nor opportunity to consult these Public Records, I shall desire him to open his Common-Prayer-Book; and to turn to the Office for the 5th. of November. In the Preface of which he thus reads, A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving— for the happy Deliverance of the King, and the Three Estates of the Realm. And in the Collect before the Epistle, We acknowledge the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, in preserving the King, and the Three Estates of this Realm assembled in Parliament. It thus evidently appearing; That the King is not One of the Three Estates, and consequently, that his Authority is not limited or restrained, by the Coordinate Power of the other Two; we may with better assurance proceed to examine the Truth of their next Suggestion, viz. That the King of England is not an Absolute Monarch. In which Inquiry, lest I should diminish the King's just Right and Prerogative on the one hand, or encroach upon the Subjects Freedom and Liberty on the other, I must neither affirm nor deny without due Distinction. Now the King's Power and Authority doth admit of a Twofold Consideration. For, either we may observe it's efficient Cause, the Spring and Fountain from whence it flows; or else may take notice of the Execution and Administration of it. As to the First of these; If the Question should be asked; whence hath the King this Power to Rule and Govern these Nations? Who gave him this Authority? To this a just Answer may be suggested from His Majesty's Royal Motto; DIEU ET MON DROIT, God and my Birthright have given me these Kingdoms. If it further be demanded, How Birthright doth Entitle to a Crown? 'Tis then truly replied That it is a Fundamental Law of England, That the Crown doth descend to the next in Blood; England being not an Elective but an Hereditary Kingdom. And from hence we are occasionally instructed, how to understand that Controverted Place in Bracton (which I therefore mention because I find it repeated with great Triumph in several Pamphlets) Lex facit Regem; the Law makes the King; Lib. 1. c. 7. f. 5. and Lib. 3. c. 9 f. 107. The Law, i. e. The Law of Succession. In which Sense doubtless my Lord Cook (as I have somewhere read) told King James, That the Law set the Crown upon his Head. And it is the same Law that set the Crown upon the Head of His Present Majesty. For though His Majesty's personal Qualifications deserve a Crown; yet it was not any Acceptance or Consent of the People, expressed at his Coronation or otherwise, but it was his Birthright only which made him King, because Son and Heir apparent of King Charles the First. This is the full Import and Meaning of that saying of Bracton. But now from hence to infer (as some canting Politicians have done) That because The Law, in this Sense as now explained, makes the King; therefore the Law is Superior to the King; therefore the Law hath a Coercive Power over the King; therefore, If the King shall neglect to Discharge his Trust, the Parliament of England (who are not only the highest Expounders, but the sole Makers of Bradshaw's Harangue at the King's Trial. the Law) can by that Law which made him King, censure and condemn him for his Neglect. I say thus to infer, is not only false and explosive in itself; but Treasonable to the King, and Destructive to the Kingdom: But of this, God willing, more fully in its proper Place. It may suffice at present to observe, that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown, i. e. Such a Crown which as to the Coercive part; is not subject to any human Tribunal or Judicature whatsoever, as most plainly appears from our Law-Books and Statutes. It was asserted in our Laws in the Time 16 R. 2. c. 5. of King Richard the Second, That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no EARTHLY SUBJECTION BUT IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO GOD, in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown, and to none other. And in 24 H. 8. it was declared in Parliament, 24 H. 8. c. 22. That this Realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the World, governed by one Supreme Head and King, having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same; unto whom a Body Politic— of Spiritualty and Temporalty, been bounden and owen to bear NEXT TO GOD, a natural and humble Obedience. And 25 H. 8. It is Declared; That 25 H. 8. c. 21. This Realm, recognising NO SUPERIOR UNDER GOD, BUT ONLY THE KING, hath been, and is free from Subjection to any man's Laws, but only to such as have been devized within the same. V 1 Eliz. cap. 3. & 1 Jac. c. 1. which are very pertinent to be perused, in confirmation of these preceding Statutes. And if private Authorities may not seem superfluous after the recital of such Authentic Records, I might largely confirm this Supreme Independent Power of the King, by the repeated Testimonies of our most eminent and noted Writers. But because I would not be too tedious, I shall mention none but the forecited Bracton Lord Chief Justice under Henry the 3 d. And I the rather take notice of Him, because some passages in his Works have been perverted and abused, by the IGNORANCE or MALICE of ill designing Men. From this Learned and Judicious Author we are thus instructed. (a) Omnis quidem sub eo, & ipso sub nullo, nisi tantum sub. Deo. Parem autem non habet in Regno suo, quia sic amitteret preceptum. All Ranks and Degrees of Men are subject to the King; but the King himself is under none but God. There is none equal to him, or coordinate with him in the Kingdom; such a fancy being wholly inconsistent with his Kingly Power— (b) Si autem ab ro petatur (cum brevo non currat contra ipsum) locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat & emendet, quod quidem si non fecerit, satis sufficet ei ad paenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem. Nemo quidem de factis suis praesumat disputare, multe fortius contra factum suum venire. Vid Bracton de Leg. Ang. Lib. 1. cap. 8. Sect. 5. fol 5. And if any Man hath occasion to implead the King (since no Writ can be taken out against him) he must then proceed by way of Petition. But if the King shall still refuse to do him right, it will be sufficient punishment for him to expect the Lord as an Avenger. Doubtless no man should presume to question the King's Actions; much less to oppose them by force. And in his 5th. Book de Defaltis Cap. 3. Sect. 3. he speaks the same Language. For having put the Case, That if the King being Petitioned to redress the Grievances of his Subjects, should yet neglect to grant them Justice, what further course the Subject might take for his Relief? He Rules it thus. (c) Quo casu cum Dominus Rex super hoc fuerit interpellatus, in eadem voluntate quod velit tenentem esse defensum cum injuria, cum tentatur Justitiam totis viribus defensaro, ex tunc erit injuria ipsius Domini Regis, nec poterit ei necessitatem aliquis imponere quod illam corrigat & emendet nisi velit, cum superiorem non habeat nisi Deum, & satis crit illi pro paena quod Deum expectat ultoram. Bracton Lib. 5. the Defaltis c. 3. Sect. 3. fol. 368, If the King, who is bound to administer Justice to his utmost Power, will not recall the wrong he did upon a false Suggestion; in this case he injures his Subjects, but no body can force him to do Right; because he hath no Superior but God only. And it is sufficient that we shall have a day of hearing hereafter at a Just Tribunal. V Lib. 2. c. 24. Sect. 1. p. 55. & lib. 2. c. 37. Sect. 5. p. 87. & lib. 3. c. 9 Sect. 3. p. 107. But here I am Alarmed with that noted saying of this Author; Rex habet Superiorem, Deum & Legem etiam & Curiam. And there is scarce a Pamphlet, pretending Vid. Sidney's Trial p. 23. either to Law or Latin, which doth not triumph in this Sentence of Bracton. I am therefore obliged, for their sakes who may otherwise be misguided, to endeavour the full Sense and Meaning of these Words. In order to which Task, and that he may the better apprehend the clearness of my Answer, I must trouble my Reader to peruse the whole Section. De Chartis vero Regiis & factis Regum, non debent nec possunt Justiciarii, nec privatae personae disputare; nec etiam si in illa dubitatio oriatur, possunt eam interpretari, & in dubiis & obscuris, vel si aliqua dictio duos contineat intellectus Domini Regis erit expectanda interpretatio & voluntas, cum ejus sit interpretari, cujus est concedere, & etiam si omnino sit falsa propter rasuram, vel quia forte signum appositum est adulterinum, melius & tutius est quod coram ipso Rege procedatur ad Judicium. Item nec factum Regis, nec chartam potest quis judicare, ita quod factum Domini Regis irretetur. Sed dicere poterit quis, quod Rex Justitiam fecerit, & been, & si hoc, eadem ratione quod male, & ita imponere ei quod injuriam emendet, ne incidat Rex & Justice. in Judicium viventis Dei propter injuriam. REX AUTEM HABET SUPERIOREM, DEUM. S. ITEM LEGEM, PER QUAM FACTUS EST REX. ITEM CURIAM SUAM, viz. Comites, Barones, quid Comites dicuntur, quasi socii Regis, & qui habet Socium, habet Magistrum, & ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno, i. e. sine Lege, debent ei fraenum ponere, nisi ipsimet fuerint cum Rege sine fraeno, & tunc clamabunt subditi & dicent, Domine Ihesu Christ in chamo & fraeno maxillas eorum constringe, ad quos Dominus, vocabo super eos gentem robustam & longinquam & ignotam, cujus linguam ignorabunt, quae destruet eos, & evellet radices eorum de terra, & a talibus judicabuntur, quia subditos noluerunt juste judicare, & in fine, ligatis manibus & pedibus eorum, mittet eos in caminum ignis & tenebras exteriores, ubi erit fletus & stridor dentium. V Lib. 2. c. 16. §. 3 fol. 34. This is the whole Section, in which that controverted Passage, Rex habet Superiorem, etc. is contained. Now as preparatory to a just Explication, it will be pertinent to consider these Two Things. First, That all difficult and obscure places in any Author, aught to be determined by such as are plain and obvious; but not e converso. And therefore, Secondly, When we doubt of the true Sense of an Author, it is much more modest as well as charitable, to confess our own Ignorance, and to say, we do not know what he means, rather than to calumniate and mistake him, by affixing such a Sense to his Words as he never intended. And consequently, it might be a sufficient Answer to affirm; That since our Bracton hath so plainly and so often told us; That the King is under none but God. That all Orders and Degrees of Men are Subject to the King. That he hath no equal much less Superior. That no man should presume to question his Actions, etc. It evidently follows; That whatever can be understood by this Curia (whether Lords or Commons) yet this Curia is not Superior to the King: It neither gave him his Authority at first, nor hath the least shadow of a Coercive Power, to limit and restrain him. For certainly that cannot be the meaning of Bracton, which he hath so expressly contradicted in other parts of his Works. But that I may Answer as well as Evade, I now come to explain, what I think to be the true Sense and Meaning of these Words, Rex habet Superiorem, etc. The Subject matter of this Second Book of BRACTION is, De acquirendo rerum Dominio. It explains the nature of Legal Titles; and sets forth the several ways, by which a man may acquire such a Right and Property in the thing possessed as to call it his own. And amongst many others, DONATION as being the chief, is more particularly considered by him. Now these Gifts or Grants (as he tells us in the beginning of this 16 Chap. Sect. 1.) fiunt in scriptis, sicut in Chartis, ad perpetuam memoriam, propter brevem hominum vitam, & ut facilius probari possit Donatio. They are for Mortality's sake, put into Writing, that so the Donee (should his Title be questioned) by the Evidence of such enroled Deeds, may secure his Possession. Of these Grants or Charters, some are made by the King; others by private Men. And having largely discoursed of these private Charters, Sect. 2. 4. and so on; in this intermediate 3 d. Sect. he more particularly gives us his Judgement de Chartis Regiis; which by way of Eminency are styled Charters. De Chartis vero Regiis & factis Regum, non debent nec possunt Justiciarii, nec privatae Personae disputare: Neither the (a) Who are here meant by those Justiciarii, let the learned in the Law determine. Justiciarii nor private persons, have any Commission to dispute the King's Charters; or to question any other of his Majesty's Proceed; nec etiam si in illa dubitatio oriatur, possunt eam interpretari: For where the Royal Grant is doubtful and obscure, it would be presumption in them to pretend to explain it. Et in dubiis & obscuris, vel si aliqua dictio duos contineat intellectus, Domini Regis erit expectanda Interpretatio & voluntas; cum ejus sit interpretari cujus est concedere. But if any part of it be ambiguous, and doth admit of a double Sense, than the King's pleasure (since His Majesty who first made the Grant best knows his own Mind) is the surest and most authentic Interpretation; Et etiam si omnino sit falsa propter rasuram, vel quia forte signum appositum est adulterinum, melius & tutius est quod coram ipso Rege procedatur ad Judicium. Moreover should there be suspicion, that any Charter (either by erasing or corrupt Interpolation) hath been falsely transcribed, 'tis the best and safest course, to determine the matter before the King himself. Item nec factum Regis, nec chartam potest quis judicare, ita quod factum Domini Regis irritetur. However (as was said before) let no man presume to censure the King's Charters, or any other of his Proceed, so as to make null and void the Act and Deed of our Lord the King. Sed dicere poterit quis, But here it may be Objected, quod Rex justitiam fecerit, & been, If the King will do Justice, 'tis well; & si hoc eadem ratione quod male, & ita imponere ei quod injuriam emendet, ne incidat Rex & Justice. in judicium viventis Dei propter injuriam. and should he not do Justice, it seems that must be well taken too, since no body dares tell him that he doth amiss; and accordingly there will be none to admonish him to correct his fault, that so he may escape the Judgement of the living God. To this Objection BRACTON returns an Answer, though indeed not ushered in with the usual Formality of a Sic Respondeo. And his Answer is this; Rex autem habet Superiorem, etc. 'Tis true indeed, none can control the King's Person or censure his Actions (his Majesty being Supreme over all Persons, and in all Causes) autem; but yet we have these encouraging Reasons, that the King will do Justice, and govern his People according to Right. For 1. Rex habet Superiorem, Deum, sc. As high and as great as the King is, there is one higher and greater than he, even Almighty God; The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is therefore much hoped; that a due Sense of this dreadful Majesty (before whose Tribunal the greatest Monarches as well as the meanest of their Subjects must one day appear) may over-awe and restrain the King from all unjust and injurious Proceed. 2. Item Legem per quam factus est Rex. And moreover the better to enable the King to do Justice, there is a Law to direct him in his Interpretations, the which Law his Majesty is obliged even in gratitude to observe, since it was the Law which made him King. (But how this must be understood is already explained.) 3. Item, Curiam suam, viz. Comites, Barones; but besides these Two preceding Considerations, there is a Third Expedient to restrain the King from all unjust and exorbitant Proceed. For, as there is a God in Heaven to overawe him; and as there is a Law on Earth to direct him: So likewise he hath his Curia, to admonish and advise him, viz. Comites, Barones, quia Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis; His Nobility, his Earls and his Barons; who by reason of their constant attendance at Court, are admitted into a nearer Familiarity with his Majesty, and are, as it were, the King's Companions. Et qui habet Socium, habet Magistrum; and by such Intimacy as this, they are, in some sort, the Supervisors and Censors of his Actions; Et ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno, i. e. sine Lege, debent ei fraenum ponere. If therefore the King shall omit to observe the Laws; 'tis then their Duty to admonish him of his neglect; saying, SIR, This is the Law, this should bridle you; this should limit and direct your Actions. And this doubtless they will do, nisi ipsimet fuerint cum Rege sine fraeno; unless they themselves have a mind to be lawless as well as the King. But if matters should be brought to this pass, what shall then the poor Subjects do? how shall their Grievances be redressed? Shall it not then be lawful to take up Arms (in the just Defence of King and Kingdom) to remove these evil Councillors from the King? No such matter! & tunc clamabunt subditi & dicent, Domine jesu Christ, in chamo & fraeno maxillas eorum constringe; Our honest Bracton allows the Subject no other Arms against his Sovereign, but the old Primitive Artillery of Prayers and Tears. Ad quos Dominus, vocabo super eos gentem robustam & longinquam & ignotam, etc. And if the Subjects being under any Oppression, shall thus dutifully refer their cause to God, he will then take Care to do them right; and will not only restrain, but also punish their Oppressors: As our Author more fully explains to the end of this 16. Section, which I shall not need to translate any further, there being no difficulty in it. If this Paraphrastical Translation (which I thought would most naturally lead us to the true sense of the words) doth not yet fully remove the Doubt; I shall then, for the Readers satisfaction, give this further Interpretation. BRACTON in this 2 d. Book. Chap. 16. §. 3. is discoursing (as I have already observed) de Chartis Regiis. And he tells us; that the Royal Charters, when either doubtful or obscure, are to be determined coram Rege i. e. in the Courts of Kings-Bench and Chancery. (For these being the Kings own immediate personal Courts, in one of which the Kings of England have formerly sat in Person, all Writs returnable there run in this Style, coram nobis; and all judicial Records there are styled, and the Pleas there holden entered Coram Rege. And therefore this Phrase in BRACTON Coram Rege is, I think warrantably rendered, the Courts of Kings-Bench and Chancery. Now if the Plaintiff shall suspect, that the Proceed in these Courts are not just and equal, he may then make his Appeal. For the King hath not only Legem; his ordinary Courts of Justice, but also Curiam suam, (viz.) Comites, Barones His HOUSE OF LORDS. The Cause may then be removed by Writ of Error, or by Appeal into the House of Lords. But if the Party shall still complain that he hath not Justice; there is then no other Remedy but Prayers and Patience. For, this House of Lords being the Supreme and highest Court of Judicature, no Earthly Appeal can be made any further. Sistendum est in aliquo. In all Judicial Proceed, Ecclesiastical and Civil, there must be a non ultra. For, as the Law of Nature doth instruct us, that Appeals must of necessity be allowed (otherwise those Injuries which may be occasioned, through the Ignorance or Corruption of inferior Judges could never be redressed) so the same Law doth also teach us; That Appeals must not be Infinite; i. e. There must be some Supreme Power, in whose final Determination (be it right, or be it wrong) all Inferiors must acquiesce and submit. Otherwise, no Controversies could be decided; nay, there could be no Government, nothing but Disorder and Confusion in the World. These are my present Thoughts of this difficult Passage: And whether I have yet given its proper Sense is humbly submitted to the Impartial Reader. But whether I have or have not; the Republican Objector is again desired to take notice; That whatever else can be the meaning of these Words, yet our Bracton doth not affirm this Curia to be superior to the King; Such an Interpretation being inconsistent with Grammar as well as Loyalty. We have this Rule in our Syntaxis; that, If the Relative be referred to two Clauses or more, than the Relative shall be put in the Plural Number. If therefore this Relative word Superior do refer not only to Deum, but also to Legem and Curiam, it should not be Superiorem in the Singular, but Superiores in the Plural. Bracton was not only very learned and judicious as to his Sense, but also (considering the Age he lived in, and the Subject he discoursed on) very polite and elegant as to his Style; and consequently we must not suppose him guilty of so gross a Solaecism, which the meanest Schoolboy is able to correct. If the Patrons of the Faction, who are very hard to please, shall think fit to Reply; That it is a most unusual and Pedantic Method, to interpret a Law-Maxim by a Rule in Grammar; and thence are unalterably resolved to insist upon it; That unless we can explain, in what Sense this Curia is Superior to the King, all that hitherto hath been said on this occasion is trifling and explosive; If, I say, these Republicans will not otherwise be contented, let them then take it thus. Rex habet superiorem— Curiam— i. e. The King can do more with the Advice and Assistance of his Curia then without it. Or more plainly thus. The Kings of England have more Power and Capacity in Parliament, than out of Parliament. If this will not satisfy. Cras respondebo. For at present, I think fit to add no more in this matter. This passage of BRACTON (which hath given us so large a Digression) being thus dispatched; we shall now return to our former Discourse. 'Tis undeniably evident from the Authentic Records of the Kingdom (not to mention private Authorities) That the King of England hath no Superior but God. That His Majesty did not receive his Authority from any Earthly Power. That he is not Foeudatory, either to the Pope or any other Foreign Prince, much less to his own People. That he was not admitted to his Kingdoms with any Limitations or Conditions; As the Kings of Poland and some others are. And consequently, since the Terms Absolute and Conditional are opposite and contradistinct; If the King's Power and Authority (with respect to its Original Efficient Cause) be neither Conditional nor Dependent, it is then Absolute as well as Independent. And therefore we may safely conclude (in this sense as now explained) The King of England is an absolute Monarch. But here I expect it will be replied (and 'tis a very Popular Objection.) That the Coronation Oath, in which there is a plain Contract and Bargain between the King and his People, doth sufficiently intimate; That the Crown is Conditional, i. e. was conferred upon his Majesty with certain Limitations and Conditions. For, the King having promised, to keep and defend the Laws and rightful Customs of the Kingdom, etc. He is then publicly showed to the People; and their consent to his Coronation being first demanded; he is, by that solemn Action, accepted as their King. Plainly insinuating, that without such a Promise on his part, he would not have been accepted on theirs. And from hence Mr. SIDNEY (a very Authentic Author with some men) doth infer; That there is a mutual Compact between the King and his Subjects; and if the King doth not perform his Duty, the Subjects are discharged from theirs. His words are these, That those Laws were to be observed, and the Oaths taken by them, having the Force of a Contract between Magistrate and People, could not be violated without danger of dissolving the whole Fabric: Which in plain English is this: If the King breaks his Oath, and doth not govern according to Law; he than forfeits his Crown, and the People are absolved from their Obedience. In Answer to which, we are to take notice; that this plausible Objection is raised upon a false Foundation, viz. That the Coronation Oath makes the King; which is a most gross as well as dangerous Mistake; the King being as perfect and completely King before his Coronation as after. 'Tis a Maxim in our Law, The King never dies: There being no such thing here in England as an Interregnum. For the very same moment that the Predecessor deceaseth, the Rights of Majesty descend and fall upon the Successor. And herein I am instructed by those eminent Lawyers, the Lord Chancellor Egerton, and Sir Edw. Coke. By the former thus, The Sovereignty is in the Person of the King, L. Chanc. Egerton Postnat. p 73. the Crown is but an Ensign of Sovereignty. The Investure and Coronation are but Ceremonies of Honour and Majesty. The King is an absolute and perfect King before he be Crowned, and without those Ceremonies. By the latter in these Words: If the Crown descend to the rightful Heir, he is Rex Cooks Inst. part 3. p. 7. before Coronation. For by the Law of England there is no interregnum: and Coronation is but an Ornament or Solemnity of Honour. And so it was resolved by all the Judges, Hil. 1. Jac. in the Case of Watson and Clark Seminary Priests: For by the Law there is always a King, in whose name the Laws are to he maintained and executed, otherwise Justice should fail. Thus he, But that I may effectually convince our Associators of their mistake in this matter, I thus argue ad hominem. Was his present Majesty actually King (i. e. King de facto as well as de jure) before his Coronation, or was he not? If they acknowledge that he was; the Cause is then decided. But if they say he was not; I must then remind them of another point of Law, laid down by that Oracle of the Law in the preceding words, a Pardon granted by a King de jure, that is not also de facto is void. Now when they have first considered; That the Act of Oblivion was made before the King was Crowned, I shall then leave it to themselves to determine the Case. Doubtless upon second Thoughts which are usually the best, they will readily confess; That his present Majesty was actually King before his Coronation; and consequently, That the Oath which he then took, was not any Condition preparatory to his admittance to the Kingly Power. Coronation then is but a Ceremony, and no part of his Title: I say, it is but a Ceremony; and yet (that I may remove some impertinent Scruples against it) it is no trifling, insignificant Ceremony: For, First, The solemn Splendour in which the King appears in that Action (the generality of People being much affected with outward Pomp) doth naturally make Impressions of awe and reverence towards his Person. Secondly, The Oath which he then takes, may expel all jealous Fears; disposing his Subjects cheerfully to submit to his future Government. For when the King (who is not responsible to them for any of his Actions) shall condescend thus publicly to promise his People, in the Presence of that God who gave him his Trust (and to whom alone he must render an Account for the management of it) That he will govern his Subjects according to Law; That he will preserve Religion from Heresy and Schism; defend their Persons from wrong and violence; secure their Estates from Fraud and Rapine: Such assurance as this, must needs enlarge their Affections to their Prince; make their submission more hearty; their Obedience more cheerful, since under his Government (if it is not their own Fault) they may rationally expect to live a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty. It appears, I hope, from these Premises (notwithstanding this or any other Objection to the contrary) That the King's Power, in respect of its Original, is Absolute, i. e. He received it from none but God. Neither from the Pope, nor any other Foreign Prince, much less from his own People. But now when we speak of the King's Authority, with respect to the Execution and Administration of it, the Case is very different. For the Kings of England, out of their abundant Grace and Favour, and to make their Government more easy and acceptable to their Subjects, have suffered themselves to be so limited in the Exercise of their Power; That they can neither make Laws, nor raise Taxes but in Parliament; much less can they pretend to take away the Life, or dispose of the Estate of the meanest of their Subjects but by due course of Law: And therefore in this second Consideration of his Authority, viz. the Execution and Administration of it; The King of England is not an Absolute but a limited Monarch. And indeed, if these Republicans were not much more forward, to remind the King of his Duty than to discharge their own, these things did not need to be repeated. For the King hath very often most graciously promised; That he will govern by, and according to, the Laws of the Land and not otherwise: And that he will use the Power, Trust and Office committed to him, for the good and benefit of the People, and for the preservation of their Rights and Liberties. All this is readily granted, in the very words of the Objectors. Only this Phrase, That he will govern according to the Laws, and not otherwise for the avoiding of mistakes, must be a little explained. There are some Men, either through Ignorance or Malice, who have fancied; because the King is obliged to govern by Law, that therefore he must always act according to the Letter of it: So as that it shall not be in his Power, for instance (especially when it is their Interest to restrain him) either to Pardon Capital Offenders; to Change the manner of their Death; or to mitigate the rigour of the Law on any other occasion. And, in fine, these confident Reformers (who trade in Postscripts more than Bracton) do talk of the King's Prerogative at such a rate; as if it were an Arbitrary, Illegal Encroachment; and are so extravagant as to fancy; That by diminishing the King's Prerogative, they advance the Laws; and that to oppose the King, is to defend the Kingdom. In charity therefore to these men, and to rectify their mistakes, I shall briefly lay down the nature of the King's Prerogative: What it is? how it comes to be Established? And whether, as is pretended, it be destructive to the Liberty of the Subject. The Word (a) Jurecons. hac voce varie utuntur: modo pro authoritate & eminentia: quadam modo pro jure quodam praecipuo, speciali seu privilegio, Gal. Lex Jurid. verb Praerogat. Prerogative (to omit other Significations Foreign to our purpose) doth properly denote; some special peculiar Privilege or Pre-eminence, granted by Law. Hence the King's Prerogative is very fitly styled by Sir H. (b) Spelm. Gloss. Praerog. verb. SPELMAN, Lex Regiae Dignitatis, which in (c) 1 Instit. cap. 5. sect. 125. p. 90. Sir Edw. Cooks words may be thus Translated. The Royal Prerogative legally extends to all Powers, Preeminences and Privileges, which the Law giveth to the Crown. And Littleton, saith our Author, speaketh of the King's Prerogative but twice in all his Books, viz. §. 125 & 128. and in both places as part of the Laws of England. From whence our new Politicians may please to observe. That the King's Prerogative is established by Law; and his Majesty hath as good Law for his Royal Prerogatives. viz. The descent of the Crown to the next in Blood: The Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments: The Negative Voice: The Power of the Militia: Pardoning Offenders, etc. I say His Majesty hath as good Law for these and all other his Prerogatives, as any Subject hath for his Paternal Estate. Whoever therefore shall presume to dispute these Privileges of the Crown, he must not think me uncharitable whilst I tell him, He is an Enemy to the fundamental Laws of England, and a Betrayer of the Rights of the Kingdom. If the Case be thus, may some say; If these Royal Prerogatives are so sacred as not to be touched; it would then be a very suitable undertaking to enlarge your, etc. and to acquaint us more distinctly what they are, and where we may find them. In answer to which Demand we are thus instructed by that Loyal Judge JENKINS, (a) Jenk. Rediu. p. 136. The King's Prerogative and the Subjects Liberty are determined and bounded, and admeasured by the written Law what they are. We do not hold the King to have any more Power, neither doth his Majesty claim any other but what the Law gives him. The right method therefore to be informed in this matter, is to search the written Laws, with the learned Interpretations upon them. For though these Statutes are not Constitutive of the Royal Prerogatives (All (b) Jenk. Rediu. p. 4. Kings had them; the said Powers have no beginning; i. e. They are so ancient we cannot trace their Original) yet they are Declaratory of them. I say, though these Privileges of the Crown are most of them antecedent to our Acts of Parliament, and the written determined Cases of our Laws (and consequently are not primarily established by them) yet they are so often either explained, confirmed, or otherwise there mentioned; that he who is conversant in those public Writings must needs know what they are? But since every one hath not the Leisure or the Ability for so laborious a Task; those therefore who shall desire Compendio sapere, they may please to peruse a little Treatise called Jura Coronae; or His Majesty's Royal Rights and Prerogatives Asserted. And amongst several others there mentioned and explained, they will find this Prerogative. That the King hath Power, in many cases, to Dispense with the Laws: And that no (a) Jur. Coron. p. 84. Act of Parliament can bind the King from any Prerogative, that is solely and inseparably annexed to his Sacred Person and Royal Power; but that he may dispense with it by a non obstante. The Reason of which Prerogative (which to some unthinking Men may seem extravagant) is plainly this. All human Constitutions are liable to Defects: And there was never any Law yet framed with such Policy and Skill, which might not, on some occasion or other, be burdensome to the Subject. For particular Cases and Contingencies are so infinitely various, that it is impossible for human Wisdom to foresee or prevent them. And therefore it is absolutely necessary; That there should in all Governments be some Power, Superior and Paramount to the written Laws: By whose Authority the Subject might be relieved and pardoned; when the nice and strict Observance of the Law (through some unexpected Event) might be grievous to himself, or destructive to the Public. And (b) Bish. sanderson's Judg. of subm. to Usurp. p. 18. this Power of dispensing with particular Laws (as the learned Bishop Sanderson informs us) is such a Prerogative, as without which no Commonwealth can be well governed; but Justice would be turned into Gall and Wormwood: Nor can the Supreme Governor, without Forfeiture of that Faithfulness which he oweth to the Publick-Weal divest himself thereof. If some Men (who are very unwilling to give the King his Due) are still dissatisfied in the point; the present posture of Affairs here in England may then fully convince them. We all know that according to the Law High-Treason is punishable with Death. And the Judgement of the Court, on such occasions, is to be Hanged, Drawn and Quartered. This is Law. Let me therefore ask these Men. Can the King by his Prerogative dispense with this Law, so as to free the Criminal from the Punishment (a Toto or a Tanto) or can he not? If they say not. Ipsi viderint. Let them look to that who are most deeply concerned. But if now at the last they are grown so considerate, as to say that he can: Give me leave then to expostulate with them, concerning that late Instance of the unfortunate Lord Stafford. When his Majesty, out of Compassion to that Nobleman's Person and respect to his Quality, had changed the manner of his Death, and given him the favour to be Beheaded: What a noise was then raised, That the Law must be observed? What Fears and Apprehensions of Arbitrary Power! What a Tumult did those scrupulous Sheriffs make on that occasion, by Petitioning the Two Houses; Whether the King's Writ ought to be obeyed? But what Answer they received both from Lords and Commons is sufficiently known. I shall make no Reflections upon it, though indeed the Impertinence of that Action (in which I doubt they were encouraged by some greater than themselves) might deserve a Remark. From these Premises it is evident, That there is Lex Coronae, a Royal Prerogative granted by the Common Law to the Crown of England, Superior to all written Laws. By virtue of which Prerogative-Law, the King hath Authority (on emergent occasions, and when such Dispensation may promote the ends of Government) to Dispense with most Statutes or Acts of Parliament. Salus populi suprema Lex esto; when rightly understood is a full proof of this Assertion. As therefore on the one hand; When Sedition is rampant, and affronts the Government; when the Mercy of a King shall be voted his weakness; and his Royal compassion and unwillingness to Punish, shall have this Gloss put upon it; He dares not do it. As in such a Case, Reason of State (which is Salus Populi) doth require; That some should be executed in terrorem; to repress the insolence of others; So on the other hand, When Tumults are abated; when Faction is broken, and that Men begin to acknowledge their Mistakes, and return to their Wits: If under such inviting Circumstances as these, the King out of his Grace and Mercy, shall either Pardon a Traitor, or abate the rigour of his Sentence, who will pretend to say, that such undeserved Favour is Illegal? Or that the King, whether he pardon or punish, doth not govern, in both Instances, according to Law? The Objectors go on. If the King thus entrusted to keep the Laws and preserve Religion, should be guilty of a wicked Design, to subvert our Laws, and destroy our Religion, by introducing an Arbitrary, Tyrannical Government; he must then understand, that he is but an Officer of Trust. All this is granted; If the word Trust do only refer to Almighty God, but not to the People. The King doth cheerfully acknowledge, that he is Authorised and Deputed by the most High, to govern these Nations; and that he must render an Account for so great a Trust committed to his charge. And though the King hath many Enemies, both Spiritual and Temporal, yet his Support is this. He who gave him his Commission is able to Protect him. He hath hitherto very signally preserved him. And it is the constant, hearty Prayer of all Loyal Subjects; That his God, and the God of his Fathers will preserve him still. His Majesty hath indeed many Enemies (and good Princes did never want them) but in the Mercy of the most High he shall not miscarry. But if this Trust do refer to the People, as if the King's Power and Authority were derived to him from the People by way of Pact or Contract: Let them then explain, Who are this People, with whom he did thus Contract? When was this Bargain made? What are the Conditions? Before what Witnesses? Who must Judge of the Delinquency? Where are the Records of these Transactions to be perused? If no Evidence to confirm any of these Instances; the Case is then decided by that known Maxim, Idem est non esse & non apparere. This Fundamental Contract of the Nation, is only a hard Word to amuse the vulgar. We know not what it is, nor where to find it. But it follows in the Objection. The Parliament of England (the Representatives of the People, in whom all Power doth Originally reside) they are to take Order for the Animadversion and Punishment of such an Offending Governor. Parliaments were ordained to restrain the exorbitant Power of Kings and to redress the Grievances of the People. The Sum of which charge is this. There is a Coercive Power over the King. Which Power (Mr. SIDNEY tells us) Originally in the People of England, is delegated Sidney's Trial. p. 23. unto the Parliament. To which I do thus Answer. That though his Majesty hath a just esteem for Parliaments; and thinks the Parliament of England the happiest Constitution that ever Nation did enjoy; and hath graciously assured us; That no Irregularities of Parliaments, shall make him out of Love with Parliaments; but that he will have frequent Parliaments: Yet such an extravagant Power of Parliaments as is here pretended, is such height of Treason; as deserves a sharper Confutation than can be given it from this Treatise. As to the point of Nonresistance (most seasonable to be enforced at this time) I did once design very fully to have enlarged upon it. To have showed its Obligation from all Laws Natural, Positive, Divine, Human. As also to have Answered the most Popular Pleas for such Resistance. But I am so happily prevented by the Learned Labours of others (particularly my Lord Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Falkner and Dr. Sherlock; who have indeed exhausted that Subject) that I shall give no further trouble; but conclude my short Discourse with this following Argument. The Supreme Power must not be resisted; But the King of England hath Supreme Power; Therefore His Majesty cannot lawfully be resisted. The Proposition is the voice of Nature. There can be no Order nor Government, unless this Truth be admitted. Reason tells us; Par in parem non habet potestatem, much less hath an Inferior a Coercive Power over his Superior. To which let me observe; That even the late Rebels themselves were convinced in this matter. For, to vindicate their former Treasons, and to patronise their intended Murder of that Blessed Prince, they voted, Jan. 4. 1648. Resolved, That the People are (under God) the Original of all just Powers. That the Commons of England Assembled in Parliament, being chosen by, and representing the People, have the Supreme Power in the Nation. That whatsoever is Enacted or declared for Law by the Commons in Parliament hath the Force of a Law, and the People concluded thereby, though consent of King and Peers be not had thereunto. Plainly insinuating, That whilst the Subjects of England, according to their Duty, did acknowledge the Supreme Power to be in the King, they must needs apprehend, That the War was Rebellion; and his pretended Judges were Traitors. And as to the Assumption, viz. That the King of England hath Supreme Power; this, I hope, hath been so fully proved in this little Treatise, that I might suppose the Conclusion without any further Enlargement. But because some late Seditious Pamphlets have very impertinently advanced the Power of Parliaments; I shall, ex abundanti, thus undeniably convince them, That the Parliament of England is Subject to the King. Mr. SIDNEY Informs us, That the Sidney's Paper p. 2. Right and Power of Magistrates in every Country, is that which the Laws of that Country make it to be. If therefore it do appear by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, That the Parliament of England is Subject to the King, than the Controversy is at an End. For Proof of this, they are desired to Consult, 12 Car. 2. c. 30. Where the Lords and Commons thus Petitioned to his Majesty. We your Majesties said Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled, do beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be Declared; That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People Collectively or Representatively, nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had, have, hath or aught to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. Words so plain and undeniably evident that they are not capable of any further Explication. Only it will be pertinent to observe Two Things. First, the Lords and Commons do not here petition, that it may be Enacted, but that it may be Declared; intimating that the King's Supremacy was not first established in this Statute (as if before the making of this Act, the Parliament had been Superior to the King) but is here only Declared to have been Established by the undoubted Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom; i. e. by such Laws as are the Foundation of the Government. Whoever therefore shall Affirm, That the Parliament hath a Coercive Power over the Person of the King, he altars the Foundation and destroys the Government. Secondly, I do from this Statute observe, That their famous Axiom, major singulis, minor universis, will no longer support their Cause, it being plain from this Act; That the King is major universis as well as singulis. When our Republican Clubs, who talk so much of Law, shall have answered this Statute; they may then expect to hear further from me. In th' interim, I shall recommend a Text, to be held forth in all their Conventicles, the next time of their meeting. Prov. 24. 21, 22. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change. For their Calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both? From whence may be raised these good Obversations, viz. Honesty is the best Policy, and Loyalty the best Religion. FINIS. THE PARALLEL. DOLEMAN THERE can be no doubt but that the Commonwealth hath Power to choose their own fashion of Government, as also to change the same upon reasonable Causes. In like manner is it evident, that as the Commonwealth hath this Authority to choose and change her Government, so hath she also to limit the same with what Laws and Conditions she pleaseth. Conference about Succession. Part. 1. cap. 1. pag, 12, 13. All Law, both Natural, National and Positive doth teach us; That Princes are subject to Law and Order, and that the Commonwealth which gave them their Authority for the Common good of all, may also restrain or take the same away again, if they abuse it to the Common-evil. The whole Body, though it be governed by the Prince, as by the Head, yet is it not Inferior but Superior to the Prince. Neither so giveth the Commonwealth her Authority and Power up to any Prince, that she depriveth herself utterly of the same, when need shall require, to use it for her defence, for which she gave it. Part. 1st. cap. 4. p. 72. And finally the Power and Authority which the Prince hath from the Commonwealth is in very Truth, not Absolute but Potestas vicaria & delegata, i. e. a Power Delegate, or Power by Commission from the Commonwealth, which is given with such Restrictions, Cautels and Conditions, yea with such plain Exceptions, Promises and Oaths of both Parties (I mean between the King and Commonwealth, at the day of his Admission or Coronation) as if the same be not kept but wilfully broken on either Part, then is the other not bound to observe his Promise neither, though never so solemnly made or sworn. Part 1st. cap. 4. pag. 73. By this than you see the ground whereon dependeth the righteous and lawful Deposition and Chastisement of wicked Princes, viz. Their failing in their Oath and Promises, which they made at their first entrance— Then is the Commonwealth not only free from all Oaths made by her of Obedience or Allegiance to such unworthy Princes, but is bound moreover for saving the whole Body, to resist, chasten, or remove such evil Heads, if she be able, for that otherwise all would come to Destruction, Ruin and public Desolation. part 1. cap. 4. pag. 77, 78. BRADSHAW THE People of England, as they are those that at the first (as other Countries have done) did choose to themselves this Form of Government even for Justice sake, that Justice might be administered, that Peace might be preserved; so Sir, they gave Laws to their Governors, according to which they should Govern; and if those Laws should have proved inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, they had a Power in them, and reserved to themselves to alter as they shall see cause. King's Trial p. 64. CHARLES STUART King of England; The Commons of England Assembled in Parliament, according to the fundamental Power that rests in themselves, have resolved to bring you to Trial and judgement. p. 29. If so be the King will go contrary to the end of his Government, Sir he must understand that he is but an Officer of Trust, and he ought to discharge that Trust, and they are to take Order for the Animadversion and Punishment of such an Offending Gover. p. 65. Sir, Parliaments were ordained for that purpose, to redress the Grievances of the People. And then, Sir, the Scripture says, They that know their Masters will and do it not, what follows? The Law is your Master, the Acts of Parliament. pag. 66, 67. This we know to be Law, Rex habet superiorem, Deum & Legem, etiam & Curiam, and so says the same Author; and truly Sir, he makes bold to go a little further, Debent ei ponere fraenum, They ought to bridle him. pag. 65. That the said Charles Stuart being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited Power. Vid Char. p. 30. The House of Commons, the Supreme Authority and Jurisdiction of the Kingdom. pag. 48. Which Authority requires you, in the name of the People of England, of which you are Elected King, to answer them, pag. 36. Sir you may not Demur the Jurisdiction of the Court— they sit here by the Authority of the Commons of England; and all your Predecessors and you are responsible to them. pag 44. For there is a Contract and Bargain between the King and his People, and your Oath is taken, and certainly Sir, the Bond is reciprocal.— Sir, if this Bond be once broken, farewel Sovereignty. pag. 72. Sir, though you have it by Inheritance in the way that is spoken of, yet it must not be denied that your Office was an Office of Trust: Now Sir, if it be an Office of Inheritance, as you speak of your Title by Desient, let all men know that great Offices are seizable and forfeitable, as if you had it but for a year and for your Life, p. 73. And Sir, the People of England cannot be so far wanting to themselves, which God having dealt so miraculously and gloriously for, they having Power in their hands, and their Great Enemy, they must proceed to do justice to themselves and to You. p. 75. SIDNEY and other of The True-Protestant Party. GOD hath left Nations unto the Liberty of setting up such Governments as best pleased themselves. The Right and Power of Magistrates in every Country, was that which the Laws of that Country made it to be, Sidn. Pap. p. 2. St. Peter 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. styles Kings, as well as the Governors under him, the Ordinance of Man, which cannot have any other Sense, but that Men make them and give them their Powers: Hunts postsc. p. 37. By all which it is evident; That the Succession to the Crown is the People's Right. And though the Succession to the Crown is Hereditary, because the People so appointed it; would have it so, or consented to have it so; yet in a particular Case for the saving the Nation, The whole Line and Monarchy itself may be altered, by the unlimited Power of the Legislative Authority. Hunt's Postsc. pag. 43. Some Men will talk as if they believed themselves, That the Legislative Power is in the King, when no King of England yet ever pretended to it. A Legislative Authority is necessary to every Government, and therefore we ought not to want it, and therefore Parliaments, in which our Government hath placed the making of Laws, cannot be long discontinued. Hunt's Postsc. p. 28. BRACTON saith that the King hath three Superiors, to wit, Deum, Legem & Parliamentum; that is, the Power Originally in the People of England is Delegated unto the Parliament. Sidn. Trial p. 23. All Government is founded in Trust, and settled in such a Person, or limited to such a Family, for the safety and advantage of the People, as well as of the Ruler. It is remarkable that there was never a Conveyance of the Crown of England to any Person, but upon the tacit Concurrence, and with the Virtual or Implicit Consent of the People. And therefore anciently before an King of England was actually Crowned, the People being first acquainted with the Day appointed for that Solemnity, were three several times publicly asked, whether they would have such a Person to rule over them. Let. from Gentl. in the City concerning D. Y. pag. 13, 14. Those Laws were to be observed, and the Oaths taken by them, having the force of a Contract between Magistrate and People, could not be violated without danger of dissolving the whole Fabric. Sidn. Pap. pag. 2. If he doth not like his condition, he may Renounce the Crown; but if he receive it upon that Condition (as all Magistrates do the Power they receive) and swear to perform it, he must expect that the performance will be exacted, or revenge taken by those he hath betrayed. Sid. Try. p. 23. I will hope there are very few in this Nation so ill instructed, that do not think it in the Power of the People to depose a Prince, who really undertakes to alienate his Kingdom, or that really Acts the Destruction or the Universal Calamity of his People. Great consid. relating to D. Y. considered p. 6. To give every one his due, is to administer Defence to the Innocent, and by Authority of Law to subdue the Aggressors of Mankind, how great and mighty soever they be, Fiat justitia therefore. Id. Pag. 16.