AN Authentical Account OF THE FORMALITIES, AND Judicial Proceed, Upon ARRAIGNING, at WESTMINSTER, A Peer of the Realm Before A Lord High-Steward,  Funesta Securis, Regni Securitas. 
London, Printed for Y. H.   

THE FORMALITIES, AND Judicial Proceed, Upon Arraigning a Peer for Treason, etc.  
AS the Royal Power and Sovereignty of the King of England is a  compacted Body, and impartible; even so the Attributes thereof are (as Jurists speak) so indivisible in themselves, so naturally and intrinsically inherent in the Crown, that they cannot be made away, or in such manner communicated to the Subject, as to divest himself of them, to the lessening Sovereign Majesty; yet by Trust, and Delegate Power, the Executive Part may be transferred to others, to ease him of a trouble some Burden.  
Now among those several Ministers, or Officers of Law, that are by His Most Excellent Majesty substituted to ease him of Labour, (but not to deprive him of Power) the Lord High-Steward of England is one of the first Magnitude; the Nature of whose Office will the better be understood, by insisting upon, (in my way to a more direct Application to the substance of the Title, and Design in hand) the Heads or Particulars following, viz 

1. The Etymology of the words, (Steward and Seneschallns.)  
2. His Lordship's Style, and the Antiquity of his Office,  
3. How this great Office was formerly holden, and how at this time?  
4. The Extent of his Jurisdiction and Power, and the Rules he ought to judge by.    
For the derivation of the words Steward and Seneschallus, 
Cok. Litt. 61. a.  some say the first is derived of stew, i. e. a Place, and Ward which signifieth a Keeper Warden, or Governor.  
Others say that it comes from Steda a Saxou word, which signifies a place also, 
Lib. 9 Le Counter de Salop 's 48. b.  and Ward, as it were the Keeper or Governor of that place: 'tis a word diversely used in this Kingdom; In the first acception, 'tis taken for the Lord High-Steward, out of which Magistracy, lower Officers have their rise; Senechal de l' Hostel de Roy, the Steward of the Kings most Honourable Household, Anno 24. H. 8. c. 13. whose Title was changed to that of Great Master, 
Plomd. Com. f. 152  Anno 32 H. 8. c. 39 but this Stat. was repealed by that of 1 Mar. 2 Parl. c. 4. and the Office of the Lord Steward revived.  
There is also a Steward of the Marshalsea, Anno 33 H. 8. c. 12. and likewise a Steward of a Manor, whom Fleta fully describes. 
Lib. 2. c. 71.  To be short, this Word is of so great diversity, that there is no Corporation of any Account, or House of any Honour, through the Realm, but it shall have an Officer belonging to it of this Name.  
But I proceed to the Word Seneschallus. 
Minshaeus.   
Seneschal is a French Word, the Italians call it Seniscalco, dict. a Schalk, i. e. Servus aut Officialis & gesind, i. e. familia; but here 'tis taken for the High-Steward of England.  
Some derive it of Scin, a House or Place, and Schale an Officer; others say Sen is an ancient word for Justice, so that most naturally it signifies Officiarius Justitia, and this agreeth well with his Authority and Duty, to proceed secundum Leges & consu●tudinis Angliae.  
In the next place, I am to consider his Lordship's Style, which in Latin is Seneschallus Angliae, and his Court is Entitled, Placita Coronae coram Seneschallo Angliae; and when he sitteth by force of his Office, he sitteth under a Cloth of Estate, and such as direct themselves to him, say, 
Co. 4. Inst. 59  Please your Grace, my Lod High-Steward of England.  
As to the Antiquity of the Office, 'tis very ancient, and was before the Conquest: For Sir Ed. Coke tells us, that he himself hath read an Authentical Manuscript, entitled, Authoritas Seneschalli Anglia; which putting an Example of his Authority, saith, Sicut accidit Godwino, Comiti Kanciae, tempore Regis Edwardi, Antecessoris Willielmi Ducis Normandiae, pro hujusmodi male gestis, & consiliis suis, per Seneschallum Angliae adjudicatus, & fortis fecit Comitivam suam. In the time of William the Conqueror, William Fitz-Eustace was Steward of England.  
Next come we to consider, how this Great Office was formerly holden, and how at this time.  
This Magistracy was formerly of Inheritance, and belonged to the Earldom of Leicester, as appeareth by a Record produced by Sir Ed. Coke; Seneschalcia Angliae pertinet ad Comitivam de Leicester, & pertinuit ab antiquo.  
Other Records testify, that it belonged to the Barony of Hinckley; and my Lord Coke tells us; that in the Reign of William Rufus, and H. 1. Hagh Grant semenel, Baron of Hinckley, held that Barony by the said Office; so that there seems a diversity between these Records; but we shall reconcile it thus: Hinckley was parcel of the Possessions of the E. of Leicester; for Robert Bellamont, E. of Leicester, in the Reign of H. 2. married with Petronil, Daughter and Heir of the said Hugh Grantsemenel, Baron of Hinckley, and Lord Steward of England; and so it continued, till by the forfeiture of Simon Montford it came to King H. 3. who in the fiftieth year of his Reign created Edmond his second Son Earl of Leicester, Baron of Hinckley, and High-Steward of England; which continued in his Line, until Henry of Bullingbrook, Son and Heir of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was the last that had any Estate of Inheritance in the Office of the Steward of England.  
Since the time of H. of Bullingbrook, this great Office was never granted to any Subject, but only hac Vice: and the reason was, for that the Power of this Officer is so transcendent, that it was not holden fit to be in any Subject's hands: For a Record saith, Et sciendum est quod ej us Officium est supervidere & regnare sub Rege, & immediate post Regem totum Regnum Angliae, & omnes Ministros Legum infra idem Regnum, temporibus pacis & guerrarum, etc. and proceedeth particularly with divers high Powers and Authorities.  
It is a Place of that Transcendency and Height, 
Ephori 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistratus quidam Lacedemoniorum oppositi Regibus, qui inspiciebant ea quae ad Rempub. pertinebant.  that it might in some sort march the Epheri among the Lacedæmonians: The custom of our Commonwealth hath upon great consideration and policy brought it to pass, that this Officer is of no great duration, but only for the dispatch of some special business, as the Arraignment of some Nobleman, in case of Treason, etc. which once ended, his Commission expireth: so that we may describe him thus; Magistratus est Excelsus, qui pro uno die, a Rege ordinatur, cum-aliquis ex Proceribus Regni uno die, a Rege ordinatur, cum-aliquis ex Proceribus Regni in Judicium vocatur de noxa Capitali.  
Now we are to take a Prospect of the Extent of his Lordship's Jurisdiction and Power, and the Rules he ought to judge by.  
Although the Power and Authority of the Lord High-Steward hath been since the Reign of King H. 4. but hac vice, yet is the hac Vice limited and appointed; as when a lord of Parliament is Indicted of Treason or Felony, than the Grant of this Office under the Great Seal of England, is to a Lord of Parliament, reciting the Indictment: Nos considerantes quod Justitia est virtus Excellens, & Altissimo complacens, eaque prae omnibus uti volentes, ac pro eo quod Officium Seneschalli Angliae, cujus praesentia pro administratione Justitiae, & Executione ejusdem in hac parte faciend. Requiritur, ut accepimus jam valeat: de fidelitate Strenuitate, provida Circumspectione & Industria Vestris plurimum confidentes, Odinavimus & Constituimus Vos ex hac causa & causis Seneschallum Nostrum Angliae ad Officium illud cum omnibus eidem Officio in hac parte debitis & pertinentibus hac vice gerend. accipiend. & exercend. Dantes & concedentes vobis te nore praesentium plenam & sufficientem Potestatem & Authoritatem ac Mandatum speciale Indictamentum praedict. etc. So that this Great Officer is wholly restrained to proceed only upon the recited Indictment.  
At every Coronation he hath a Commission under the Great Seal, hac Vice, 
Coks Litt. 79. a. b. 4 Inst. 59  to hear and determine the Claims for Grand Serjeanties', and other Honourable Services, to be done at the Coronation, for the solemnising thereof; for which purpose he holds his Court some convenient time before the Coronation.  
The first Person that was created hac Vice for solemnising the Coronation of H. 4. was Thomas his second Son; and upon th' eArraignment of Thomas Holland, Earl of Huntingdon: the first that was created Steward of England, hac Vice, was Edward Earl of Devon.  
Lastly, The Order and manner of Arraigning a Peer of the Realm before this Create Officer is to be considered.  
As the Peers of the Realm, who are Tryers, are not sworn, so the Lord High-Steward, being Judge, is not sworn likewise; yet ought he to proceed according to his Letters-Patents, Secundum Legem & consuetuainem Angliae; 
Co. Litt. 142. a. 4 Inst. f. 60.  for all Commissions and Charters for Execution of Justice, are facturi quod ad Justitiam pertinet, secundum Legem & consuctudinem Angliae.  
But admit the Commission should be, Secundum sanas Discretiones vestras: How then?  
I answer, Discretio est discernere per Legem quid sit Justum; that is, to discern by the right Line or Law, and not the warped measure of private Opinion: Si a Jure discedas, vagus eris, & erunt omnia incerta: 'Tis certain he that outruns the Law, hastens to his own destruction. Commissions then that Authorize proceeding secundum sanas discretiones, etc. in sense are secundum Legem, etc.  
The Earl of Hantingdon was Indicted of High-Treason in London, 
1 H. 4. f. 1. a.  by a Commission before the Mayor and Justices; for that he, with other persons, agreed to go a Mumming (which the French call Ma querade) on the Night of Epiphany, in which they intended to kill the King, then at Windser: And after the King granted a Commission to the Earl of Derby, reciting, That whereas George, E of H. was Indicted of High-Treason, and that he would that right should be done; and because the Office of the Steward of England is now void, he grants it to the said E. of Derby, to do Justice to the said E. of Huntingdon, commanding by the same Commission all the Lords to be attendant upon him; and Precept was likewise given by the same to the Constable of the Tower, to be attendant on him, and to bring the Prisoner (viz.) the E. of H. before the said E. of D. on the day appointed: whereupon the E. of D. the same day sat in Westminster-Hall under a Cloth of Estate by himself, and the E. of Westmoreland, and other Earls and Barons, sat at a considerable distance, and all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer sat round a Table, and after three O Yes' made, and the Commission read, the Justices delivered the Indictment to the Lord Steward, which was delivered to the Clerk of the Crown, who read it to the said E. of H. which he confessed; whereupon Hill the King's Sergeant prayed Judgement, which the Lord Steward (after he had rehearsed the whole matter) pronounced in this manner; That the E. of H. should be taken back to the Tower of London, and from thence be drawn to the Gallows, and there hanged; and being yet alive, cut down, and his Entrails drawn out of his body, and burnt; and that he should be beheaded, and quartered, Et sic Deus propitiatur Animae suae.  
The Justices then said, that if the E. of H. had denied the Treason, the Lord Steward should have demanded of every Lord in open Court, what they thought in their Consciences, beginning with the Pulisny Lord; and if the greater number said Guilty, than the Judgement to be given as above.  
I refer your Lordships to Cambden's Annals of Q. Eliz. for the manner of the Trial of Tho. Howard, Duke of Norfolk, before George Talbot, E. of Shrewsbury, Lord High-Steward upon that occasion.  
Sir Ed. Coke describes the manner how a Peer is to be tried, in case of Treason, etc. before the Lord High-Seward of England.  
He Must be Indicted before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, or in the King's Bench, if the Treason or misprision, Felony or misprision of Felony, be committed in that County where the King's-Bench sit; when he is Indicted, than the King, by his Commission under the Great Seal of England, constitutes some Peer of the Realm to be, hac Vice, Steward of England, who is Judge in this case. The Commission recites the Judgement generally as 'tis found, and Power given to the Lord Steward to receive the Indictment, etc. and to proceed secundum Legem & consuetudinem Angliae. A Commandment is also given by the same to the Peers of the Realm to be attendant and obedient unto him; as also to the Lieutenant of the Tower, to bring the Prisoner before his Lordship.  
Then a Certiorari is awarded out of Chancery, to remove the Indictment itself before the Lord Steward; which may either bear date the same day of the Steward's Commission, or any day after. The Lord Steward directs his Precept under his Seal to the Commissioners, to certify the Indictment such a day and place. He also makes two other Precepts, one to the Constable or Lieutenant of the Tower, to bring the Body of the Prisoner before him, at such a day and place; as also to a Sergeant at Arms to summon, Tota & tales Dominos, Magnates & Proceres hujus Regni Angliae praedicti R. Comitis E. Pares, per quos rei veritas melius sciri poterit, quod ipsi personaliter compare antony's coram praedict. Seneschallo apud Westm. tali die & hora ad faciend. ea quae ex parte Domini Regis forent facienda, etc.  
In this Summons four things are observable.  

1. That all these Precepts, most commonly, bear date in one day.  
2. That no number of Peers are named in the Precept, and yet there must be twelve, or above.  
3. That the Precept is awarded for the return of the Peers, before any Arraignment or Plea pleaded by the Prisoner.  
4. that the Lords are not the Vicineto; and therefore the sitting and Trial may be in any County of England.   
At the day, the Lord High-Steward, with six Sergeants at Arms before him, takes his place under a Cloth of Estate, and then the Clerk of the Crown delivers to him his Commission, who redelivers it. After three O Yes' by a Sergeant at Arms, and Commandment given in the Name of the Lord High-Steward of England to keep silence, the Commission is read; then the Usher delivers to the Steward a white Rod, who redelivers the same, which he holds before the Lord High-Steward. It was delivered, upon the like occasion, to the Earl of Shrews bury, by Garter King at Arms.  
O Yes being again made, Commandment is given in the Name of the H. Steward to all Justices and Commissioners, to certify all Indictments and Records; which being delivered into Court, the Clerk of the Crown reads the Return, and the Sergeant at Arms is commanded to return his Precept, with the names of the E. and Barons by him summoned, and the Return of that is also read; then are the Peers summoned to answer to their Names, which are recorded.  
When they have taken their places, and the Prisoner set to the Bar, than the Lord High-Steward delcares unto them the cause of their Assembly, and persuades the Prisoner to Answer without fear, assuring him, that he shall be heard with patience, and that Justice shall be done to him.  
After this, the Clerk of the Crown reads the Indictment, and proceeds to the Arraignment of the Prisoner; and if he plead Not Guilty, the Entry is, Et de hoc de bono & malo ponit se super Pares suos, etc. After which the Lord High-Steward gives a Charge to the Peers, exhorting them to try the Prisoner indifferently, according to their Evidence, which is opened by the King's Learned Counsel, who produce their Proofs for the King against the Prisoner. So, or all of the Judges, are ever attendant upon the Lord High-Seward, and take their places at the feet of the Peers.  
After the Evidence is given for the King, and the Prisoners Defence made, he is withdrawn from the Bar, under the custody of the Lieutenant, whilst the Tryers go to some place to consider of their Evidence; upon debate of which, if they doubt of any matter, they cannot send to the High-Steward to ask the Judges any Questions of Law, but in the hearing of the Prisoner, that he may know whether the case be rightly put, for de facto jus Oritur; neither can they send for the Judges to know their Opinion, but the H. Steward ought to demand it in Court, in the presence of the Prisoner.  
When the Lords are agreed, they return into Court, and the Lord H. S. publicly in open Court, beginning with the Puisny Lod, says unto him, My Lord A. is W. v. S. guilty of the Treasons whereof he hath been iNdicted and Arraigned, or any of them? And the Lord standing up says, Guilty, or Not Guilty; and so upward of the rest serialim.  
The Peers having given their Verdict in the absence of the Prisoner, the Prisoner is brought to the Bar, whom the Lord High-Steward acquaints with the Verdict of his Peers, and gives Judgement accordingly, either of Condemnation, or Acquittal.  
After the Service is performed, and O Yes made for dissolving the Commission, the white Rod is taken by the Lord High-Steward in both his hands, and broken in pieces.  
Thus have I presented to your Lordships a Scheme of that solemn order and manner, how a Peer of the Realm is Arraigned before the Lord High Steward of England. I might amass several Precedents of like nature, wherein the Axe of Death is born before the Prisoner, with the Edge from him; and after being found Guilty, with the Edge to him. I wish your Lordships may never know more of this Point by a fatal experience.  
Now it remains that I give Solutions to those Queries your Lordships were pleased to put concerning Trials, Treasons, etc. by which I wish you may arrive at some reasonable satisfaction.  
QUERY I.  
How Ancient this Trial by Peers may be?  
SOL.  
Without doubt 'tis Coetaneous with the Office of the Lord High-Steward, and how old that is, hath been already shown: however, I shall present one Authority, which proves, that Trial by the Peerage was in use in the Reign of William the Conqueror, who in the beginning of his Reign created William Fitz Osborne (Earl of Betrevil in Normandy) Earl of Hereford. His Son Roger succeeded him, and was E. of Hereford, who under colour of his Sister's Marriage, near Newmarket in Camb. Shire, where many of the Nobility were assembled, conspired with them to receive the Danes into England, and depose William the Conqueror (who was then in Normandy) from his Kingdom of England; to effect which, he with others rose. This Treason was revealed by Walter, E. of Huntingdon, who was one of the Conspirators, and Son to the Great Syward, Earl of Northumberland; for which Treason, Roger E. of Hereford was apprehended by Urse Tiptof, then Sheriff of Worcestershire, 
A. 8. W. 1.  and after tried by his Peers, and found guilty of the Treason, per Judicium Parium suorum. But he ended his days in Prison.  
QUERY II.  
Whether a Peer can wave his Trial by Peers?  
SOL.  
He cannot wave his Peers, and put himself upon the Trial of Twelve Freeholders'; for the Stat. of Mao. 'Sheart. is, 
26 H. 8.  that he must be ryed by his Peers; and so it was resolved in the Lord Dacre's Case.  
QUERY III.  
What Lords shall be tried by Peers, in cases of Treason, & c?  
SOL.  
Every Lord of Parliament that hath Voice therein, and called thereto by the King's Writ, shall not be tried by Peers, but only such as sit Patron Nobilitatis; as Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, and not such as are Lords of Parliament, by reason of their Baronies which they hold in right of the Church, as Arch-Bishops, and Bishops of this Realm; for though they be Lords of Parliament, yet upon an Impeachment either of Treason or Felony, they shall not be tried by the Peers of the Realm, but by a Jury of Knights, and other substantial persons 'pon their Oaths; and one reason alleged by some (how truly let others judge) is, forasmuch as Archbishops and Bishops cannot pass in like cases upon the trial of any other of the Peers, their Lordship's being prohibited by the Common and Ecclesiastical Laws to be Judges of Life and Death; and this Trial ought to be Mutual, since the performance of it is upon their Honours, without any Oath taken.  
And here, by the way, your Lordships may take notice, how great regard the Law hath to the word of a Peer, when spoken upon his Honour. I need say no more upon this Topick, since your Lordships in that Excellent Poem, A PARADOX against Liberty, have expressed your thoughts so extremely well.  
No Temporal Lord, but only Lords of Parliament, shall have this kind of Trial; and therefore the Eldest Son, and Heir Apparent of a Duke, in the life of his Father, though he be called an Earl, is excluded: And this was the Case of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, Son and Heir Apparent of Thomas Duke of Suffolk, in the 38. of H. 8. Likewise the Son and Heir Apparent of an Earl, though he be called Lord, or Baron; and all the younger Sons of Kings are Earls by Birth, though they have no other Creation, yet shall they not be partakers of this, or other Privileges, incident to the Lords of Parliament.  
Those that are Barons of Ireland, or Scotland, 
Cok. Litt. 16. b. 3 Inst. f. 30. 2 Inst. f. 48.  committing Treason, etc. in England, shall not have their Trial by Peers, though they were born in England, for they receive their Dignity from a King of their Nations.  
If a Duke, or other Nobleman of France, 
Co. L. 7. Calvin's Case.  Spain, etc. comes into England by the King's safe Conduct, in which the King styles him Duke, according to his Creation, nevertheless in all proceed in the King's Courts he shall not be styled by his Name of Dignity, much less a partker of the Privilege of this Trial by Peers.  
But if the King of England at this day create one of his Subjects of Scotland to be Viscount within England, or by ordinary Summons under his Great Seal call him to the Upper House of Parliament, and assign him a Place, and to Vote there in his Great Council, he shall be thereby a Peer of this Realm, and enjoy all their Privileges.  
QUERY IU.  
What Witnesses are required in Indictments and Trials of Treason, or misprision of Treason?  
SOL.  
By the Ancient Common Law, one Witness or Accuser was not sufficient to Convict any person of High-Treason, for, in that case, it was to be tried before the Constable and Marshal by Combat; but they have no Jurisdiction to hold Plea of any thing which may be determined by Common Law: And that two Witnesses are requisite, appears by the Books of Law; and the Common Law herein is grounded upon the Law of God, 
Myrrh. cap. 3. Ordin. de Attaint. Brad. L. 5. f. 354. 48 Ed. 3.30. 35 H. 6.46. Fortescue c. 32.  expressed both in the old and New Testament, Deut. 17. v. 6. Numb. 35. v. 30. Deut. 19 v. 15. Matth. 18. v. 16. 2 Cor. 13. v. 1. and this seemeth more clear in the Trial by Peers, because they come not de aliquo Vicineto, whereby they may take notice of the Fact, in respect of Vicinity, as other Jurors may do. By the Stat. of 1 E. 6. c. 12. none shall be Indicted, Arraigned, Condemned, or Convicted for any Treason, etc. for which the Offender shall suffer pains of Death, Imprisonment, loss or forfeiture of his Goods, Chattels, Lands or Tenements, unless he be accused by two sufficient and lawful Witnesses, or shall willingly without violence confess the Fact. The same provision is made by 5 E. 6. wherein I must observe to your Lordships, that two lawful Accusers, in this Act, are taken for two lawful Witnesses; for by two lawful Accusers, and accused by two lawful Witnesses (as 'tis in 1 E. 6.) are Identical; which word (Accusers) was used, because two Witnesses ought directly to accuse, that is, charge the Prisoner, for the Common Law respects none else; and therefore lawful Accusers must be such as are allowed by Laws.  
And thus 'twas resolved by the Justices in the Case of the Lord Lumley; 
Hill. 14. El.  for if they should not be taken according to the meaning aforesaid, then there must be two Accusers, by 5 E. 6. and two Witnesses, 
Dyer f. 99 W. Thomas his Case.  by 1 E. 6. and the strange conceit in 2 Mar. that one may be an Accuser by Hear-say, was utterly denied in the Lord Lumley's Case.  
And here, since your Lordships did not make it a Query, I shall not so strictly consider it, whether the Testimony of a Foreigner may be admitted, in case of Treason. The Duke of Norfolk at his Arraignment said, that nothing which was yet produced was of any moment against him, save only the Bishop of Ross his Testimony; and that (by Opinion of Bracton) was not to be admitted, because he was a Foreigner; to which Callin, Lord Chief Justice answered, that in such Causes as this, the Testimony of Foreigners is of force, and it lies in the Peers to attribute to, 
Camb. El. A. 1572.  or derogate from such Testimony as they shall think fit.  
Where Bract. saith,  an Alien born cannot be a Witness, it is to be understood of an Alien Infidel; for the Bishop of Ross being a Scot born, was admitted to be a Witness, and sworn 14 El. by Opinion of all the Justice's Assistants.  
If a person be accused by one Witness touching one fact, and by another concerning another fact, the one committed in Middlesex, the other in Surrey, he that swears the fact done in London, joined to the other Witness that swears to the fact done in Surrey, shall be esteemed two sufficient Witnesses, in case of Treason; and so was it ruled by the Judges at the Old-Baily, upon the Trial of the Five Jesuits (Whitebread, Harcourt, Turner, Fenwick, and Gaven) according to the Resolution in Sir H. Vane's Case, at the King's-B. Bar, where one Witness proved the levying War in one County, and the other proved the levying War in another County; and so though they were but single Witnesles of single facts, yet both coming up to the Indictment, they were adjudged two sufficient Witnesses to maintain it.  
QUERY V.  
Whether a Nobleman being Arraigned, can challenge his Peers?  
SOL.  
If the party arraigned (says Coke) be a Lord of Parliament, and a Peer of the Realm, and is to be tried by his Peers, he shall not challenge any of them, for they are not sworn as other Jurors be, but find the party guilty, or not guilty, upon their Faith or Allegiance to the King; 
cock 's Litt. 156. b.  and they are Judges of the fact, and every of them doth separately give his judgement, beginning at the lowest.  
Again, 
cock 's Litt. 294. a.  he tells us, that the four Knights, Electors of the Grand Assize, are not to be challenged, for that in Law they be Judges to that purpose, and Judges cannot be challenged; and that's the reason why Noblemen cannot be challenged, for Mag. Charta saith, Per Judicium Parium suorum, 
Cap. 29. and not Veredictum.   
When the Peers (that were to be Tryers at the Arraignment of the Earl of Essex and Southampton) were called by name, 
Camb. Eliz. A. 1601.  the Earl of Essex demanded whether it were not lawful for them (as the use is to private men) to except against some of their Peers? The Judges answered, that such was the Credit and Estimation of the Peers of England, that they are neither compelled to an Oath in Arraignments, nor subjected to Exceptions.  
QUERY IU.  
Whether the Lord High-Steward can collect the Evidence against the Prisoner, or confer with the Lords, touching the same, in the Prisoner's absence?  
SOL.  
To this I answer negatively, for after the King's Learned Counsel have produced all their Evidence, the Prisoner ought to be present at all Conferences touching the same; and therefore it shall be necessary for all Prisoners, after Evidence given against them, before departure from the Bar, to require Justice of the Lord High-Steward, and of the other Lords; and that no Question be demanded, or conference had by any with the Lords, but in open Court in their own hearing, otherwise such Prisoners shall take no advantage thereof after Verdict and Judgement given.  
QUERY VII.  
If the Lords be equally divided, between guilty and not guilty, whether the party tried shall be acquitted or condemned?  
SOL.  
In an Information in the Court of Star-Chamber, by the Attorney against Sir Stephen Proctor, and others, for conspiracy against, and scandal of the Earl of Northampton, 
Co. 4. Inst. f. 64.  and Edward Lord Wootten, two of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council; at the hearing of which Cause there sat eight in Court, whereof four condemned the Defendants, and the other four (viz.) the Lord Chancellor, two Bishops, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, acquitted them; the Question was, according as your Lordships have proposed it, Whether the Defendants should be condemned or not: And here it was moved by the King's Learned Counsel, that when the Voices are equal, that in that case of which part the Lord Chancellor was, on that side it should be determined, without regard either to Plaintiff or Defendant: And it was resolved, that regularly and the communi Jure, in respect of the equality of Voices, that no sentence could be given as it holdeth in the High Court of Parliament, and all other Courts, according to the old rule, Paribus sententiis Reus absolvitur: And sentence was never given against Sir Stephen Proctor, agreeable to the general rule in other Courts. In this point the Civil Law concurs with the Common. Inter Pares Numero Judices si dissonae sententiae proferantur, in liberalibus quidem causis (secundum quod a Divo Pio constitutum est) pro libertate statutum obtinet, in aliis autem causis pro Reo, quod & in Judiciis publicis, obtinere oportet. 
Vid. Grot. lib. 2. c. 5. vu. 18. de Jure Belli, etc.   
Reus sententiis paribus absolvitur, & semper quicquid dubium est, humanitas milinat in melius.  
Altar Judex damnat, alter absolvit, & inter dispares sententias milior viniat.  
I shall here take leave to make a little digression from the Query, and consider if a person that is forthcoming, can by Parliament be attainted of High-Treason, and never called to answer? This seems as much worth the inquiry, as other your Lordship's Queries; and though omitted by you, I shall not let it pass without some notice.  
By the 2. of H. 6. we find a great Peer condemned without Arraignment or Answer; 
Co. 4. Inst. f. 37, 38.  the like in 32 H. 8. one Attainted (though living and forthcoming) of High-Treason, without ever being called to Judgement: The legality whereof was scrupled, and demanded of the Judges whether the Act were void or not: with some pause, they adjudged it perilous, and of bad example to the Inferior Courts; but 'twas agreed, if condemned by Parliament, to be indisputable, though Cap. 29. 5 E. 3. c. 9 28 E. 3. c. 5. of Mag. Char. affirms, that no man ought to be condemned without Answer, without a Quid fecisti? and all due proceed at Law. 
Senec. in Loco.  Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera, licet aequum statuerit haud aequus fuerit.  
With the Municipal Laws agree those of the Romans.  
Divi severi & Antonini Magni rescriptum est, 
D. 48.17.  ne quis absens primatur, & hoc jure utimur, ne Absentes damnentur, neque enim inaudita causa quemquam damnari aequitatis ratio patitur. 
Acts 25. v. 16.  It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to death, before the accused have his accuser's face to face, and licence to answer for himself.  
QUERY VIII.  
Whether the King, and one of the Houses alone, or both without the King, can declare a Treason within the Stat. of 25 E. 3. cap. 2?  
SOL.  
John Duke of Groyen and Lancaster, Steward of England, and Thomas Duke of Gloucester, Constable of England, the King's Uncles, complained to the King, that Thomas Talbot Knight, with others his Adherents, conspired the death of the said Dukes, as the same was confessed, and well known, and prayed that the Parliament might judge of the fault, (which Petition was just, and according to the Branch of the Stat. of 25 E. 3.) but the Record saith further, that the King and Lords in Parliament adjudged the same fact to be High-Treason, which Judgement wanting the assent of the Commons, was no Declaration within the said Stat. which is attended with this restriction.  
That if any other case, supposed to be Treason, should happen before any Justices, the Justices should tarry without going to judgement of the Treason, till the Case be showed before the King, and his Parliament (consisting of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons) whether it ought to be adjudged Treason or Felony.  
QUERY IX. Whether the Subjects of another Prince, Confederate with the King of England, can be held for the King's Enemies?  
SOL.  
It was objected against the Duke of Norfolk, concerning his relieving of the Scots, the Queen's Enemies, which was proved by Letters, and Banisters confession, etc. whereupon the Duke asked the Judges, Whether the Subjects of another Prince, 
Camb. Eliz. A. 1572.  Confederate with the Queen of England, were to be holden for the Queen's Enemies? Calelin Chief Justice answered, that they were; and that the Queen of England might make War with any Duke of France, and yet in the interim keep peace with the French King. And here 'tis to be noted, that the Judges ought not to deliver their Opinions beforehand, in any criminal case that may come before them judicially. In the Case of Humphrey Stafford, that Arch-traitor Hussey, Chief Justice, besought King H. 7. that he would not desire to know their Opinions beforehand for him, for they thought it should come before them in the King's-Bench judicially, and then they would do that which of right they ought, which the King approved of. Besides the nature of their Oath requires it, who are sworn that they shall well and lawfully serve our Sovereign Lord the King, and his People, in the Office of a Justice; and that they shall do equal Law and execution of Right to all his Subjects.  
QUERY X.  
Whether an Attainder of Treason may be falsified by the Plea of the Party?  
SOL.  
A. 1. Mar. A Commission of Oyer and Terminer in London was directed to Sir Tho. White, Lord Mayor, and to divers others, reciting, that where Sir Robert Dudley, Knight, 9 Jan. 1. Mar. was Indicted of High-Treason before Thomas Due of Norfolk, and fourteen other Commissioners in the County of Norfolk, (where in truth the Commission was directed to so many, but the Indictment was taken before Eight of them only) granting to them, or any four of them, Authority to receive the Indictment taken before fifteen Commissioners, and to proceed thereupon as Special Justices of Oyer and Terminer; by pretext whereof they proceeded, and upon confession of the said Sir Rob, Dudley, gave Judgement against him.  
In this Case it was adjudged, that Sir Rob. Dudley, than Earl of Leicester, might falsify the said Attainder by Plea, because it was void, and coram non Judice; for that the latter Commissioners had not power to proceed upon an Indictment taken before Eight, but before Fifteen, and so void. The Party is not driven to his Writ of Error, but may falsify the Attainder by Plea, showing the special matter, which proveth it void ut supra. In which case the party forfeiteth neither Lands nor Goods.  
'Tis holden by some, that if a person be attainted of High-Treason by the Common Law, that no Writ of Error should be brought for the reversal of that Attainder, by reason of these words in the Stat. 33 H. 8. cap. 20. And if any person or persons shall be attainted of High-Treason by the course of the Common Law, etc. that every such Attainder by the Common Law, shall be of as good strength, value, force and effect, as if it had been done by Authority of Parliament. But the contrary hereof was resolved at a Parliament holden A. 25. Eliz. that a Writ of Error should be maintained for the reversal of Erroneous Attainders of High-Treason by the Common Law; for that former Stat. is to be intended of lawful Attainders, and not where there is any Error in the same: for by that of the Queen 'tis provided, That no Record of Attainder of any person or persons, of or for any High-Treason, where the party so Attainted is or hath been executed for the same, shall be, etc. in any wise hereafter reversed, undone, avoided, or Impeached by any Plea, or for any Error whatsoever.  
QUERY XI.  
Whether torture, in case of Treason or Felony, may be used by our Law?  
SOL.  
Sir John Fortescue, Chief Justice of England, who wrote in commendation of our Common Laws, preferreth the same for Government before the Civil Law; and particularly, that all tortures were against the Common Law expressly; and he proceeds to show the inconveniencies and mischiefs thereof, by fearful examples; to which Learned Author I refer your Lordships. 
Cap. 22.   
It is against Mag. Charta, 
Cap. 29.  which says, Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel Imprisonetur, etc. aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale Judicium Parium suorum vel per Legem Terrae. And accordingly all the Ancient Authors are against the inflicting pains and tortures upon Prisoners, before or after Attainder, 
Co. 3. Inst. f. 35.  but such as answer the Judgement.  
John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, was by King H. 6. created Duke of Exeter, and A. 26. H. 6. the King granted to him the Office of the Constableship of the Tower of London. He and William de la Poole, Duke of Suffolk, with some others, intended to have brought in the Civil Laws; and for a beginning of the same, the Duke of Exeter first brought into the Tower the Rack, or Broke, allowed in many cases by the Civil Law; and for that reason it was called the Duke of Exeter's Daughter.  
QUERY XII.  
Whether the King, under the Great Seal, may command all Process in Criminal Causes to cease?  
SOL.  
We find (says Coke) a Discharge of further proceeding, directed to the Judges of the Court, etc. (not by way of pardoning the offence) but by the King's acknowledgement, under the Great Seal, of the Parties Innocence, with Commandment to the Judges, that in the former proceed they shall altogether surcease; whereupon the Court will award, that the Party shall go sine Die, and that there shall be no further proceed against him. William de Melton, Archbishop of York, was accused in the King's-Bench, coram Rege & Concilio suo in Anno 3. Ed. 3. for adherency to Edmond Earl of Kent in his Treasons; whereunto the Archbishop pleaded Not Guilty; and after two Writs of Venire Facias awarded, the King directed his Writ under the Great Seal to the Judges of the King's-Bench, to this effect.  
Licet Venerabilis Pater Willielmus Archiepiscopus Ebor. Stephanus London Episcopus per Diversa Brevia Nostra coram Nobis ad sectam Nostram Implacitentur de eo, quod ipsi Edmundo Comiti Cantiae adhasisse debuerant, quia tamen praedict. Archiepiscopus & Episcopus de adhaesione praedicta omnino Immunes reputamus, Vobis Mandamus quod placitis praedictis coram Nobis ulterius tenend. omnino supersedeatis Teste meipso, etc. The Award of the Court hereupon is very observable: Viz. Cujus Brevis praetextu, consideratum est, quod praedictus Archiepiscopus eat inde sine die, etc. & ulterius non procedatur versus eum.  
Stephen Gravesend, 
Pasch. 4. E. 3. Rol. 5.3.  Bishop of London, was charged with the same offence in Parliament, A. 3. E. 3. whence, by Order of parliament, he was referred to the King's-Bench to be tried, where he pleaded Not Guilty, and after was discharged, as the Archbishop. It may be thought, that accepting the Pardon, might be an implication of their fault, and therefore it run in a new strain; but no man that is well advised, says the great Oracle of the Law, will refuse God's or the King's Pardon; for in the King's displeasure there is death, says the Holy Writ; and who knows how often he offends, and consequently stands in need of it. But how far this Branch of the Prerogative may be extended, and what qualifications it may admit, belongs not to a private man to determine.  
QUERY XIII.  
Whether a Person can be Attainted of High-Treason by general words?  
SOL.  
Where by due course of Law a man cannot be Attainted of High-Treason, unless the Law fore-judge the offence such, he ought not to be Attainted by general words, by Authority of Parliament, (as sometime hath been used) but the Treason ought to be specially expressed, seeing that the Court of Parliament is the Highest and most Honourable Court of Justice, and aught to give Example to the Inferior, Magis Exemplis quam praeceptis ducimur.  
QUERY XIV.  
Whether a Subject of one Kingdom guilty of Treason, flying into another Kingdom, aught to be remitted to his own Sovereign?  
SOL.  
It is holden, and so it hath been resolved, that divided Kingdoms, under several Kings in League one with another, are Sanctuaries for Servants or Subjects flying for safety; and upon demand, are not by the Laws and Liberties of Kingdoms to be delivered: And this Opinion seems grounded upon the Law in Deut. c. 23. v. 15. Thou shalt not deliver unto his Master the Servant which is escaped from his Master unto thee.  
When the Lord Paget and Arundel came into France Sir Edward Stafford, Queen Eliz. Ambassador there, 
Camb. El. 1584.  diligently observed them, yet could by no means discover what they attempted; he desired nevertheless of the French King, that they, with Morgan, and other English, who were practising against their Prince and Country, might be removed out of France: To which he received this answer, That if they attempted any thing in Frence, the King would punish them according to Law, That all Kingdoms were free for Fugitives; and that it was the great concernment of Kings to maintain every one the Privileges of his own Kingdom: That Queen Eliz. had not long since received into her Kingdom Montgomery, the Prince of Conde, and others of the French Nation; and that Sagury, the King of Navarr's Ambassador, was in England at this very time, practising to move new troubles against the French King.  
King H. 8. in the 28th year of his Reign, being in League with the French King, and in Enmity with the Pope, who was in League likewise with France, and had sent Cardinal Poole Ambassador to the French King, of whom K. H. 8. demanded the said Cardinal, being his Subject, and Attainted of Treason; and to that end caused a Treatise to be published, that it ought to be done Jure Gentium, sed non praevaluit.  
Ferdinando, King of Spain, upon request made by H. 7. to have Edmond de la Poole, Earl of Suffolk, Attainted of High-Treason by Parliament, A. 19 H. 7. at first intending to observe the Privilege and Liberty of Kings, in protecting such as came to him for succour and protection, delivered him not; yet in the end, upon the earnest request of the King, and his promise not to put him to death, he caused the said Earl to be delivered up to the King, who kept him in Prison, and construing his promise to be but personal, commanded his Son Henry after his death to execute him; which he caused to be done in the fifth year of his Reign.  
I shall add one more Example of a Remission out of Zouch. Cum quidam Stywardus Scotus, 
Treat. de Judicio inter Gentes.  qui Mariam Scotorum Reginam uneno tollere conatus est, in Anglia deprehenderetur, Ed. Sextus Rex Angliae eum in manus Regis Galliae tradidit, ut debito supplicio Remitteretur, quod Nonnullis displicuit, quia etsi ratio suadeat, ut qui in Patria deliquit, in Patria Puniatur, aliter tamen de consuetudine, quod Remissionem usurpatum est.  
Having now run through the several Queries, which your Lordships have thought fit to propose; I Shall venture to set one step further, and start Another of my Own; with some Offers toward the Solution of which, I will make an end, Viz.  
QUERY XV.  
Whether in any Case it be Lawful for Subjects to Oppose their Prince?  
SOL.  
It must be resolved in the Negative: And that in any Case, or upon any Pretence whatsoever, it is utterly unlawful for Subjects, jointly or singly; collectively, or representatively, to make any violent Opposition against their Sovereign; or to Resist him either in an Offensive or a defensive way. This Assertion you will find to be a Truth, that is Consonant to Holy Writ, Reverend Antiquity, Sound Reason, and to the Municipal Laws of the Land; all the Sophistries and Argumentations, that Seditious and corrupted men are able to produce to the contrary notwithstanding.  
I. To begin with Holy Scripture. It is clear from Deut. c. 17. v. 12. which commands the Israelites to put away evil from amongst them, by bringing to Public Justice all such Mutinous and Presumptuous persons, as refused to Obey the High Priest and the Judge; that God imposed an Obligation, even upon his own People, not to Resist the Supreme Magistrate. And v. 13. makes the Reason of this Severity to be, to preserve the People from being Poisoned in their Allegiance by the Malignity of such Examples: That all the People (under what Notion or Qualification soever), may hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. The same express Warrant of the Word, (and to the selfsame purpose) there is in Joshua, C. 1. v. 18. Whosoever he be (says the Almighty speaking to him) that doth rebel against thy Commandment, and will not hearken to thy words, in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death. Saul is generally condemned for persecuting David, and attempting upon his Life: And yet though David had him twice at his mercy, he was not to be prevailed upon to do him any Harm: 
1 Sam c. 24. v. 6. and C. 26. v. 11.  For who (says he) can lay his hand upon (who can touch, who can stretch forth his hand against) the Lords Anointed, and be Guiltless? Now the Signification of the Scripture-phrase [Touch, or stretch forth the hand against the Lords Anointed] is of a Large Extent: And the Gild of this Horrid Crime may be incurred either by lifting up our heels in scorn against our King; 
Psal. 41. v 9  By taking up Arms in our own defence, for whosoever Resisteth the Power, Resisteth the Ordinance of God; 
Rom. 13.  By not bringing to light such Traitorous Conspiracies as we know to be forming against him; 
Leu. 5.  By not endeavouring to defend him, when we see him in danger, for Qui non vetat peccare, cum possit, jubet; By striking at his Crown, usurping upon his Prerogative, or depriving him of his Revenue; 
Jer. 18. v. 18  By Speaking or even Thinking evil of him; for as the Tongue can strike without a Hand, so the Heart can curse without a Tongue: Or (in a Word) by any sort of indignity or outrage offered either to his Authority, or Person. But to proceed.  
Doth not Saint Paul enjoin that every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers; for there is no Power but of God; and they that Resist shall receive to themselves Damnation? Nay, and doth not Saint Peter also inculcate a Patiented Toleration of injuries, and recommend unto our imitation the Example of our Blessed Saviour, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, 
1 Pet. 2. v. 19.20, 21, 22.  when he suffered he threatened not; but referred the Vengeance to him that judgeth Righteously. If ever man had just Cause to Resist, than had he; yet would he not do it, but checked Saint Peter's forwardness that way with a, Whoso taketh up the Sword, 
Mat. 26. v. 52.  shall perish by the Sword. We find in the Creed that Pontius Pilate is Recorded by the Holy Ghost (which influenced the Church in the composing of it) this now was certainly done for our Edification, and to insinuate, that as we tender our Salvation by our Faith in Christ, we must be careful of paying a Cheerful Obedience to the Lawful Commands of the Magistrate, and to submit humbly, and Suffering, to those that are otherwise. And this Obligation continues, even though the Prinoe should be a Heathen, and the Cause we smart for, Christ and his Church.  
II. As to Reverend Antiquity Saint Ambrose upon the Point of Nonresistance, discourses to this effect; I have not so learned Christ, (says he) as to seek by force to oppose Authority; I can mourn and Lament; but for Other Resistance I neither will nor aught to make any. Saint Cyprian speaks to the same purpose; It is out of a Principle of Conscience (says he) that none of us make any Opposition, when we are unjustly Seized upon, or study a Revenge upon our Tormentors; for the Numerousness of our Party were otherwise sufficient to bear us out in such a Design. And so does Tertullian. We are not (says he) despoiled of our Goods, they are only Sequestered for our benefit, and entrusted in safe hands; God keeps them for our use, and will return them with ample Increase. If you abstain from Fight, he will Espouse your Quarrel; and question not but your Enemies will have the worst on't, for your Wounds will Save you, and if you fall Martyrs you will rise Saints. What cannot our sufferings bring about? They make even God himself our Debtor; he owes us Heaven for ourselves, and he owes Hell for our Enemies: But yet we breathe our Souls in prayer that he may be entreated not to pay This.  
What Example now can there be more Glorious or more Instructive, then that of the Theban Legion, recorded in Ecclesiastical Story? The Emperor Maximinian commanding his army to offer Sacrifice to False Gods, this Band (consisting of about 7000 men) removed their Quarters, to the end that they might avoid giving offence; but yet he presses them to bear a part in this Diabolical service, and upon their humble refusal puts them forthwith to a Decimation, which they cheerfully submit unto, praying fur their Murderers: The Tyrant would not yet be sotisfied, but renewed his Commands to the Remainder of them, and finding them still to continue Resolute rather to die than to disobey God, he butchered them all, without the least Resistance on their part. This was truly to Confess him that was led as a sheep to the Slaughter! Nay so very Fruitful are the Ancient Fathers in Instances of this quality, that it would be but Superfluous to recount any more of them; the General Practice of the Primitive Christians being so evident in this point, that the greatest Sticklers for that sin of Witchcraft, Rebellion, have not the Confidence to deny it.  
III. That a Liberty to Resist those in whom the Law has placed the Power of the Sword is Repugnant to Sound Reason, I shall endeavour to make out by the following Arguments.  
1. Such a Licence to Subjects against their Rulers, is destructive of the very Nature of Government, and of Humane Society; for it dissolves the sinews of the State, and splits it into as many. Factions as it has Enemies. And it is impossible to conceive Two Equal Supremacies of Power in the Nation, and yet the Kingdom to remain One. For this it is that distinguishes England, France, Spain, and all other Independent Kingdoms one from another. But than it is Childish to Fancy the Policy of any Monarchy (much less of our own) to be so grossly defective, as to be the Author of its own ruin, by dividing the State Legally against itself. So that to take up Arms without or against Authority, is down right Rebellion, and the Consequence Murder and Rapine.  
2. It is both Reasonable, and necessary, that all Governments should have a Supereminent, Coercive Power over Particular Persons; for otherwise a City would immediately be hurried into an Anarchy, and that which ought to be One Entire Body, become so many Independnet men.  
3. That which to One Private Person is due, as a Man, the same is also due to Another; and if I may assume to myself a power of judging when to Resist my Prince, every private man may do so too. Now what Peace, what Society can there be hoped for, where every one is at freedom to discharge himself from the Obligation of all Humane Laws, and to oppose them at pleasure? Or what Obedience can consist with such Resistance? Nor will such Libertines know where to stop; for it is usual for them to fall foul upon all such as have a deeper sense of Honesty and Allegiance than themselves. And what Law of God or Man was ever heard of, that approved of my Murdering, a Loyal man becuase I myself am a Rebel? Beside that this Lewd Opinion Equally wounds the very Assertors of it; for any body may be allowed to do That to Them, which they have done to their Rightful Prince and his Faithful Subjects.  
4. Now Touching the Muncipal Laws of the Land; that this Resistance is against Them, I shall make it Evident. Bracton says, Si ab eo (scil. Rege) Petatur; cum Breve non Currat contra Ipsum, locus erit supplicationi, 
Lib. 5. c. 8.  quod factum suum Corrigat & Emendat; quod quidem si non fecerit, satis suffieit ei ad paenam, quod Dominum Expectet Vltorem: Nemo quidem de factis suis presumat desputare, Multo fortius contra factum suum venire. If a Subject find himself aggrieved by the King, he is put to his Petition (because no Writ can lie against him) for Redress; which if he will not vouchsafe, it is a sufficient Penalty, that he is to expect Punishment from the Almighty. No man may presume to question what He does, much less to Oppose him. Fleta concurs with Bracton in this point; Vid. Lib. 1. c. 17. And Lombard writes thus, Nemo Dominum (says he) judicet, vel judicium proferat super eum cujus Ligius sit. So likewise the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. c. 2. de proditionibus, makes it Treason to compass the Death of the King. And to what end should these, or any other Provisions against Treason have been established, if Resistance were in Any Case Lawful? Or what does the Oath of Aliegiance signify, if the people may take up Arms against their Prince at pleasure? The Form of it runs thus; You shall swear that from this day sorward you shall be True and Faithful unto our Sovereign Lord King Charles, and Truth and faith shall bear of Life and Member, and Terrene Honour; and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or Damage intended unto him that you shall not defend etc. My Lord Coke comments upon it, that the Subject and Effect, of this Oath is due by the Law of Nature, the Form and Addition is, ex provisione Hominis. To Conclude, the Famous Bishop Marks is Positive, That a King by Lineal Succession, being Lawfully invested, cannot upon Imputation either of Negligence or Tyranny be Opposed, or Deposed by his own Subjects.  
Thus having given a dsecription of the Lord High-Stewards Office, and the manner how a Peer is to be Arraigned before him, with such Solutions to several Queries, as I have collected out of the Books of Law and History, I shall conclude all with this Advertisement;  
That the surest way to escape both the Gild and Punishment of High-Treason, is to Fear God, and Honour the King. 
Eccles. 13. v. 28.  The Counsel given us by the wisest of Kings is worthy to be adverted to. Think not evil of the King in thy Heart, neither utter it with thy lips, lest a Bird of the Air carry the voice, and that which hath wings discover the matter. Let us detest the Principles believed and practised by those Audacious Violators of Royal Majesty, the Spawn of Loyola, and keep fast to the Doctrine of our own Church, which positively Asserts, That the sacred Bond of Subjects, in Obedience to their sovereign, is inviolable, and cannot be dissolved, either upon the account of supposed Crimes in the person of the Prince, as Tyranny, infidelity, Heresy, etc. Or by any Acts of the Bishops of Rome, as Dispensations, Excommunications, etc.  
It was once said in Vnlonger's Case, that he that is throughly Popish, may easily be wrapped from his Loyalty.  
FINIS.