Reflections upon the Opinions OF Some Modern Divines, CONCERNING The Nature of Government.   

Licenced,  
June 29. 1689. J. FRASER.   

THE CONTENTS.  
CHAP. I. 
COncerning the Original of Sovereign Power, Page 1  CHAP. II. 
The different Opinions of Philosophers and Divines concerning this matter Page 7  CHAP. III. 
That Sovereigns do not receive their Power immediately from God Page 10  CHAP. IV. 
An Examination of the Arguments which are alleged for the Proof of this Opinion Page 13  CHAP. V. 
Whether the Power of Sovereigns be absolute and unlimited Page 19  CHAP. V 
Concerning the Extent of the Power of Sovereign's Page 24  CHAP. VI 
Concerning Nonresistance Page 28  CHAP. VII. 
That the Scripture doth not assert the point of Nonresistance Page 31  CHAP. VIII. 
Whether the States can deprive Sovereigns of their Authority when they abuse it Page 34  CHAP. IX. 
Concerning Regal Dignity, and the Rights belonging to it among the Jews Page 38  CHAP. X. 
Concerning the Royal Law in favour of the Roman Emperors Page 50  CHAP. XI. 
That the States of the West, and of the North, never knew this Royal Law Page 56  CHAP. XII. 
That the Power of the Emperors of the West, is a limited Power Page 63  CHAP. XIII. 
That the Power of the Kings of Poland is limited Page 66  CHAP. XIV. 
That the Monarchy of France is not an absolute Empire, but a limited Royalty Page 68  CHAP. XV. 
That the Royalty of England never had any other form than the rest of the Northern and Western States Page 79  CHAP. XVI. 
An Answer to some Difficulties moved against this Truth Page 85  CHAP. XVII. 
An Answer to the last Objection Page 91  CHAP. XVIII. 
A Reflection on some Remarks made out in this Treatise Page 97    

APPENDIX.  

CONCILII TOLETANI IU. Canon. LXXV. Pag. 103  
The 75. Canon. of the Fourth Council of Toledo, ibid.  
Capitula super quibus facta est Magna Charta Regis Johannis, ex MS. Arch. Cantuar. Fol. 14. Quae etiam authenticè cum Sigillo extant in manibus Episc. Salisburiensis. 113  
Diploma Regium sive Ordinationes JOHANNIS Regis Angliae, queis statuit quid Nobiles, quid Plebeii observare debeant, ad pacem & tranquillitatem Regni stabiliendam 121    

THE PREFACE.  
'TIS a strange and almost incomprehensible thing, that at this time there should be found so many discontented Persons among us; when but a little while since, the whole Body of Protestants appeared so unanimous, viz. at the beginning of the miraculous Revolution. Though it hath already retrieved the State from Ruin, and will without doubt prove its Happiness; it might easily be guessed, that those who had contributed to the overthrow of the Laws, apprehending the Reward they had so justly deserved, would make up a Body of Malcontents, and that their Numbers would be considerable. 'Tis notorious also, that in all times, those who think they are not considered or treated according to the Justice of their Merit, are ready to murmur against the Government; and the Ambition that possesses them, renders them every where, a Race of discontented Persons. But whatever difference of Principles there might be among Protestants, the fear of their common danger having reunited them, and made their Interests the same with those of the State and Religion, which they saw equally exposed to inevitable Ruin, there seemed but small ground to apprehend, that as soon as the Fright was over, there should still be found a Generation of Men, whom their old Animosities, and habitual Prejudices, would engage in disaffection and murmuring against the Government. And yet it is but too true, that scarce did the State and Religion begin to breath again, but immediately there appeared a Party, who made it appear by their snarling, that what filled the generality of Men with Joy, and made them give Thanks to God, afforded them very small Satisfaction. I pretend not to tax the whole Body of the English Church: It is well enough known, that as their Settlement was furiously struck at by Popery triumphant, and observing no kind of measures, her principal Members, as well as the generality of those that resort under her, have, and still do witness their Zeal for the Government, which God has been pleased to establish among us. I speak only of some certain Members of this Church, whom the Court has long employed in overthrowing, by their Maxims, the Foundations of the Public Liberty, in order to a sure Establishment of Popery. Those Disciples of L'Estrange, the Pensioner and Drudge of a Popish Court, no sooner perceived that what was like to happen upon James the Second Desertion, would extremely expose them, as Men that had betrayed the Interests of their Religion and the Government, by Maxims which they had maintained with so much boldness, every where began to publisb their discontent, and still endeavour to inspire the same into the People, as founded upon pure Tenderness of Conscience.  
It cannot be denied, but that hitherto the Government has showed an extraordinary lenity, in reducing them to Reason, whom Danger seemed to have made wiser. The method and careful management which has been made use of to obviate whatsoever might afford them the least Jealousy, or give them the least trouble, is an evident Mark hereof. But in fine, since they continue in their Mistakes notwithstanding all this care and tenderness, and that nothing will satisfy them; what can be more prudently undertaken, than to prevent the pernicious Effects which their Example, and the Maxims wherewith they are leavened, might produce in the minds of the People. We have thi● Satisfaction already, that the Public is well ware they know not themselves what they would be at; for how free soever they may be to disperse their Murmurs and Disaffection, yet probably there is scarce one among them that would have James II. recalled; neither indeed would it be so difficult a thing for them to find him out, in case their Consciences linked them so closely to him, as they would make us believe.  
But we may have also another satisfaction in this Point; which is, That in examining their Maxims in good earnest, we may make it appear, That they know not themselves what they affirm; and that the Opinions they have so long maintained, concerning the Nature of Government in general, and that of England in particular, are properly and truly a Heresy in Matters of State. Let no Man wonder that I call this Opinion of some of the Clergy of England, a Political or State-Heresie. Their Opinions respect a Political Question truly such; but these Gentlemen have been pleased to mould it into an Article of Faith, forsooth, of the Church of England; and their aim was to make that pass for an Article of the Law, which indeed was no better than a dangerous Error in Policy. And truly all the Characters of Heresy so fitly suit these their Sentiments, that it is a hard thing to resist the Temptation of giving them that Title. These Assertions are a perfect Novelty in Policy, as well as Divinity. Some late Writers have fully made out, That their Opinions are little more than of fifty years standing. And it is as true, that they are the fruits of Ambition. Consider whether all those that ever undertook the defence of them, did not do it, to raise themselves in the Church, and to be promoted to higher dignities than they could hope for from their merit. Truth never employs any thing for its own defence, but the light and evidence which are so connatural to it; but would to God the Authors and Defenders of these Opinions had never practised any violent means, to make their Party triumphant, by which both Church and State have equally suffered, and been both reduced to within two inches of their utter Ruin and Destruction.  
I confess these Gentlemen have endeavoured to delude the World, by alleging the Holy Scripture and Fathers, in favour of their Opinion. But herein they have behaved themselves as the Heretics do, in citing the Scripture and Tradition in defence of their Novelties; that is to say, wresting them to their own Perdition, as St. Peter saith; and making the Father's speak what best pleaseth them, rendering them as pliable as the Sound of Bells, which (according to the Proverb) do think as the Fool is pleased to think. And this is that which I undertake to justify and make out, by my Reflections on this Matter.  
To perform this with some method, I shall first of all explain the Original of the Power of Kings. Secondly, I shall examine the Extent of that Power. And Thirdl●, I shall consider the Remedy that may be justly opposed against the Abuse of it. And in the sequel, shall make it my business to apply these general Matters to most of the Western Kingdoms; and shall make it evident, That there is no pretext at all for the vast Pretensions of those, who set no bounds to the Power of Kings, and who believe that nothing but a Stoical and invincible Patience, can lawfully be opposed to their Injustice and Tyranny. And for as much as in examining these three Articles, I shall be obliged to oppose the Prejudices of some New Divines, I think myself bound to advertise the Reader, That it is not against their Character, but against their Opinions, that I set myself; and that I do not in the least pretend, by entering into the Lists with them about a Political Question, to derogate in the least from their Authority, or to render their knowledge in Theological Questions suspected. Tractent Fabrilia Fabri, Let Smiths keep to their own Anvil; for by their disregarding of this Proverb, they have wandered and lost themselves. They have cut the King lumping Pennyworths out of the Rights of the People, and imprudently made way for the Establishing of that Tyranny, which would infallibly, in continuance, have destroyed their Religion. We must therefore, if it be possible, oblige these Gentlemen to permit others to enjoy their Rights, and then the World will be happy. I am not ignorant, that there be many among those, who are dipped in this Opinion, that make great show of Virtue and Piety: But forasmuch as by this their Conduct they delude and hoodwink the People, it is but fitting to endeavour to prevent this ill effect, in defending the Truth. Shall we account the Rights of Truth the less certain, because they have escaped the discerning of some honest and virtuous Men? Or the Delusion the less dangerous, because proceeding from those that are such? Let it be lawful for us then to bring back these Men from their Wander; and to convince them, that they ought no longer to defend Maxims, whose falsity is not more visible, than it is prejudicial to the Interest of the Church and Community.   

REFLECTIONS UPON THE OPINIONS OF SOME MODERN DIVINES, CONCERNING The Nature of Government in General, AND That of ENGLAND in Particular.  

CHAP. I. Concerning the Original of Sovereign Power.  
WE may assert, That the Rights of Sovereignty, to speak properly, have no Institution in the Law of Nature. A Father indeed has his Children in his power, and they are subject to him by a Natural Institution, as well because they have received their Life from him, which is the Foundation of all Good, as also for that they are beholden to him for their Education; which is another Life, no less precious than the former. But though this Power were not included within the narrow Bounds of each particular Family, and though we should suppose it extended to the taking away of the Life of Rebellious Children, yet certain it is, that the Paternal Power is not unbounded, with respect to Time; for as soon as a Man is married, and gins to form another Family, this Act emancipates him from the Paternal Authority, as Jesus Christ supposes, when he said to the blessed Virgin, John 2.4. Is not my hour come yet? Which words Gregor Nyss●n explains thus, An nondum venit mea hora, quae praebet aetati ut imperet, & sui sit Juris? Is not my hour come yet, which allows my Age to command, and leaves me at my own dispose? But the case is not the same with Magistrates, whose Authority reacheth over a whole Society composed of several Families; for as they do not owe their Birth to the Magistrate, nor are obliged to him for their Education, as they are to their Parents, their Command cannot be founded on the Right of Nature, which subjects Children to their Parents.  
Neither can we suppose that the Authority of Magistrates is bottomed upon some Excellence they have by Nature above their Subjects. I own there be some Virtues and Talents which do ordinarily submit the Spirits of such as know them, to those who are adorned therewith; and the highest degrees of Virtue and Wisdom do naturally procure a veneration for those that possess them. But who sees not, that this is insufficient to be the foundation of Civil Power. A Magistrate is not always distinguished by these illustrious Talents and Qualifications, which so powerfully attract Veneration in particular. A Man may be very wise, and yet be ne'er the more obeyed by those who done't understand the price of Wisdom. He may be very valiant, but his Courage, being unaccompanied with Prudence, may render him contemptible in the Eyes of those who apprehend his Temerity. It is plain then, that it is not this natural difference God hath put between Men, which is the ground of the Magistrates Authority▪ Indeed, the same is the case of Magistracy, as of the Ceremonial Law, which entered into the World because of Sin; for certainly, if Men in their behaviour lived up to the Precepts of the Law of Nature, one Man would never invade what his Neighbour is possessed of, either by Inheritance, or by his own Industry: One Man would not defile the Bed of his Neighbour, or spill his Blood, to hinder the Opposition his Neighbour might make against his Enterprises. But because Men are so prone to violate those equitable Laws, to sati fie their Passions, and corrupt Inclinations, therefore is the Magistrates Authority become necessary.  
And how great soever we may conceive this Authority to be, yet we must acknowledge, that God never instituted it till after the Deluge, as appears from Gen. 9.6. We read in the Scripture, that Cain, when he had killed his Brother Abel, told God, That he feared that every one that met him, would kill him; but do not find, that he did in the least apprehend, that his Father, as his Natural Sovereign, should sentence him for that Murder. This Impunity of Cain proved an encouragement to Lamech, as we see Gen. 4.24. It seemed indeed that the Authority of Adam, their common Father, together with that of the Patriarches, might have been sufficient to contain Men within the Bounds of their Duty, as well as the near Relation and Alliance that was between them. But this Paternal Authority, having by the space of fifteen Ages been found incapable to restrain the licentiousness of Men, and too weak to put a stop to their Debaucheries and Murders, which at last drew down the Deluge upon them; we find that God afterwards instituted Magistracy, as a stronger Curb, to stop the impetuosity of men's exorbitant Passions. Moreover, Men being obliged to separate themselves from one another, in order to their peopling of the whole Earth, consequently could not observe the same Principles of Communion which linked them together under the Patriarches; wherefore it was Natural to substitute to that Patriarchal Authority, a Government more accommodated to the state of Men in their different and dispersed Habitations. Wherefore, because Men had learned from the Example of those who were drowned by the Flood, to make small account of the remonstrances of their Parents, as well as of the Divine Denunciations, God thought fit to lay a more strong Curb in their Mouths, and to restrain them, by making temporal Death the Reward of those who would not be contained within the Bounds of their Duty by the fear of Eternal Sufferings, in these words, Whosoever sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed. This being the sense and full import of this Declaration, according as the Jews unanimously agree. Now this granted, it is evident, that since Sovereign Power was instituted by God for a Curb to sin, we must suppose that there be Laws, which serve for a foundation of Society, and for the conservation of which Sovereignty was introduced at first: 'tis to make these Laws inviolable, and by punishments to restrain the unruliness and exhorbitance of the passions of Men, from transgressing of those Laws, that the Sword at first was put into the Sovereign's Hand, and power given him to punish Criminals, or utterly to cut them off, as destructive to Society itself.  
From these two Principles, we very naturally deduce a third, viz. That the Character of a Sovereign, consequently requires, That he who is clothed therewith, be one of the most perfect of the Society, that is one at the greatest distance, from a disposition to violate the Laws: for if he encourages others by his Example to violate them, and if by this means he subvert the foundations on which the Society subsists, directly crossing the design and aim for which he was made a Sovereign; it is evident to a demonstration, that he possesses the Sovereignty contrary to the intention of God, and the natural end of Society.  
Nothing is more evident, than what I have here laid down; but it respects only the Society, considered with regard to those of whom it consists: for if we look upon it with respect to those who are strangers, and who may destroy it, by invading it by force of Arms, it appears clearly that the Sovereign, being the defender of Justice at home, finds himself naturally obliged, to protect the Society by Force; so that together with Justice, he ought also to be qualified with the Character of Valiant, that he may oppose himself, with Success, to all Enemies from abroad, and hinder them from destroying the Society.  
And lastly, the Character of W●se is particularly required in a Sovereign, for neither Justice, nor Valour, are of any great use, as lo●g as they are separate from Wisdom and Prudence. Wisdom is useful in Peace, and no less in time of War, is necessary with respect to Subjects as well as Enemies; she shines forth in Treaties, as well as Ruptures; she is of use in the prosecuting of injuries, as well as in the choice of means to obtain reparation; she finds out Expedients, against the greatest difficulties; and, in a word, we may say that without her, the Political Government is as a Body without a Soul, and a Ship without a Pilot, or Helm, which is abandoned to the Winds to be tossed at pleasure, and which at last perisheth infallibly by dashing itself against the first Rock it meets with.  
If we attentively heed what hath been here advanced, we shall find that this has served as a common Principle, to all the different forms of Government, that have at any time obtained amongst Men. Indeed it is not easy to determine, what form of Government God instituted by that Law, mentioned in the Ninth of Genesis, whether he by those words determined the Authority to one or more Magistrates; because the word Man, is often taken collectively, to express many; so that the words are too general to decide this question: they conclude only that Murder is to be punished with Death. From whence we infer that the Magistrate has power to punish Murderers and other Criminals, that destroy the Laws, whereby the Society subsists. It is manifest therefore that by reason and experience Men came to prefer one kind of Government before another, and variously to divide the Authority amongst many, according to the different acts to which it ought to be extended.  
It seems that force was at first only made use of as a refuge for the weak, either to destroy the wild Beasts, that devoured their Cattle, and some times Men too; or to put a stop to the injustice of those, whose bodily strength inspired them with designs to rob the weaker sort of their possessions. And it is very probable, that forasmuch, as soon after, they observed that the force which protected them, might as well oppress the Society, for whose defence and protection it was armed, they found that Magistracy could not be looked upon as an advantage, if it were not committed to the wise conduct of the most ancient of the Society, who seem to have been the Judges, Magistrates and Counsellors of State, among all Governments, that were ever instituted with any prudence. Those who considered the great parts that are necessary for the governing of a Society, preferred the way of choosing their Governors. Those who had experienced the ill effects of corrupt Elections by Bribes or other ways, followed the way of taking for their Governors, the Children of those who had ruled them with Prudence. They who observed that one person is rarely capable of resisting and moderating so many different passions as may trouble a Society, thought good to divide the command amongst many. Those who took notice that this equality produced dissensions amongst many Governors, placed the power in one person only. Those that were ware that a single person might overturn the Laws, and set up his will as the only rule of his conduct, found it necessary to preserve to the People their share in the Government. In a word, every Nation chose that way they thought most sure and proper to obtain the true ends of an happy Government in order to secure and preserve the Society.  
What I have said in general, concerning the original of Sovereignty or Magistracy amongst Men, shows that it cannot be denied, but that the institution thereof is Divine, though God did not think fit to determine it to any certain form of Magistracy, whether of Monarchy, Aristocracy or democracy, but left it to the People's free choice, to pitch upon that form they should judge most convenient for them. But to procure a farther light to this matter, we must consider the Judgement of Philosophers and Divines concerning this point.   

CHAP. II. The different Opinions of Philosophers and Divines concerning this matter.  
IT may be said, That there are three Opinions concerning the original of Sovereign Magistracy. Cicero, in his Books of the Commonwealth, was of Opinion, as appears from the definition he sets down, That Governments were at first form by an effect of pure necessity, 
St. August. de civet. D.  which forced the weaker to seek for aid and succour, from those that were stronger, to secure themselves from oppression. This was also the Opinion of the famous Archbishop of Burgos in the Council of Basil. Fascic. Fol. 7.  
The Body of Christian Divines maintains that the Authority of the Sword was instituted by God, as may be seen Gen. 9 And it appears that whereas before the Deluge the Patriarches were the only Masters of their Families, which gave occasion to abundance of Crimes, Justice not being executed with vigour enough, to put a stop to the course of exorbitances: as long as it was in the hands of a common Father, God was pleased to enact a Law whereby the Sword should no longer be bound up to each head of a Family, but committed to one who should be particularly charged therewith by the common consent of the Society.  
The Third Opinion is that of some new Divines, and other flatterers of the unbridled power of Princes, who maintain that Kings derive their Authority immediately from God, and not mediately from the consent of the People. Thus Peter de Marca declares himself on this point, de concord. lib. 2. c. 2. v. 1, 2, 3. following therein the sentiments of Victoria and Duval, the one a Spaniard and the other a Frenchman.  
We need not wonder, if Cicero was mistaken in the deciding of this matter, as being destitute of that light, which Moses furnisheth Divines with. He determines this point only as a natural Philosopher. However we must observe that Cicero himself, and the most wise amongst the Heathens, have sufficiently given to understand, that they conceived Magistracy, without which it is impossible for a Society to subsist, to be of Divine Original, as well as all other good and profitable institutions for the benefit of Mankind.  
But not to insist upon this, forasmuch as all Divines agree that the original of Magistracy is from God, our business only is, to inquire, which is the truer Opinion, theirs who acknowledging the Divine institution of Magistracy, maintain that this Authority is communicated to the Powers and Magistrates by the People, or of those who pretend that God immediately communicates the same to the Magistrates that are invested therewith.  
In order to the resolving of which, before we pass any further, we are to observe, 1st. That the Body of Divines who defend the former of these Opinions, do agree, That the Authority of Magistrates is not to be accounted less Divine, because it does not immediately come down from God. They own these Two things. 1st. That God has ordered there should be Sovereign Magistrates to regulate and govern Societies. 2ly. That God having divested private Persons of the right of doing themselves Justice, in case of Offences given them, has ordained that the Magistrates should have the Sword put into their Hands, by Capital and other Punishments, to stop the violence of those who disturb the Peace of the Society, and violate the Rules of Justice. And in this respect they acknowledge Magistracy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a divine Settlement and Institution.  
Secondly, We are to observe, That when on the other hand they maintain, That the Power of the Magistrates is conferred by consent of the People; in which respect they pretend, That St. Peter calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that doth not in the least diminish the Authority of this Divine Institution of Magistrates, which they refer solely and immediately to God.  
Thirdly, That whatsoever Notion we may frame of the Power of Magistrates, whether we suppose it conferred upon them immediately by God, as M. de Marca pretends; or whether it be only mediately derived to them from God, by the intervening consent of the People, the thing is still the same; because it is evident, that this Power is not communicated to them, but for the subsistence of the Society, the Preservation whereof is the natural End of Government and Sovereignty.  
Fourthly, That they do not oppose this Notion of the immediate Collation of the Sovereign Power by God, save only that they might express themselves more exactly, and distinguish the ordinary Governments of the World from the Kingdom of Israel. For the same Divines generally own, That the Institution of the Royal Power in Israel, was an immediate Act of God; but withal maintain, That the same cannot be said of other Sovereigns.  
This laid down, I say, That nothing can be imagined more vain, than the second of these Opinions; and it is enough only to understand the terms which those Divines make use of to express their Sentiment, concerning the Original of Sovereign Magistrates in every State, and to consider the Proofs they allege, to evidence the falseness of it; which Opinion accordingly I shall refute in the following Third Chapter.   

CHAP. III. That Sovereigns do not receive their Power immediately from God.  
I Say then, That it is false, That Sovereigns receive their Power immediately from God. This is a Truth may be easily made out. Indeed, though the Power of Magistrates, of what sort soever they be, be of Divine Institution; which of all the present Sovereign Powers, whether Monarches, Commonwealths, or any other Form of State, was instituted immediately by God? And who are the Persons invested therewith, whom God has immediately called to that sort of Power? All States are form either by Conquest, or by Consent of the People; which intervenes in the Election at the first Founding of a State, and which is renewed in every subsequent Election of Princes, or which is perpetuated in successive Kingdoms. Was there any thing like to this in the advancement of David to the Royal Dignity?  
Secondly, Is it not visible, that in order to an immediate Establishment from God, there is required an express Revelation, such as may be equivalent, at least to a public declaration of his Will, in favour of him whom he will set on the Throne? Thus things were carried with respect both to Saul and David; and who will affirm there is any King now in the World that has attained the Regal Power after this manner? If there be any, let them acquaint us with his Name, and the manner of God's revealing himself to the People, to make them know, that he immediately made choice of such a Person to supply that Place.  
Thirdly, Who sees not, that the whole Discourse of these Divines is nothing but a continual Equivocation? An Office is instituted immediately by God; wherefore all that are called by ordinary ways and methods, are immediately established in it by God. I had as lief they should tell me, That because Marriage derives its first institution and beginning from God in the Person of Adam and Eve, whom God joined to Adam, That therefore all Marriages are made immediately by God, and that he is the immediate Author of them. The one is every whit as reasonable as the other, and in the mean time the second is absolutely false. The Author of Ecclesiasticus saith, Chap. 7.16. That the Art of Tilling the Ground was created by God: Doth it follow from thence, that God hath immediately settled such and such a one in the Calling of Husbandry.  
Fourthly, If all Sovereign Magistrates desire their Institution immediately from God, how is it that we find so great a diversity in the Form of these Sovereign Governments. In some States we find Kings, in others Aristocrasies' or Democrasies': Doth not this variety make it evident, that though God indeed have instituted Magistracy in general, yet he hath left it to the People to determine the Form of it, according to their Need, their Inclinations, and the Circumstances wherein they find themselves.  
Fifthly, Doth it not most evidently appear, That if the Person were immediately instituted by God, it would be great folly for any Society to trouble themselves about enacting Laws for a Free Election at every Change, or to establish it by way of Succession in Monarchies? If God establisheth all Sovereign Magistrates immediately, to what purpose are all those Rules and Limitations, which by their variety afford us a sufficient demonstration, that this Institution is not an immediate effect of the Deity.  
The Philosophers were fully of this Opinion, as we may see in the Books of Aristotle's Policy; where he makes out, That the cause of the various sorts of Governments that are in the World, is nothing else but the different Judgements of the People, concerning the several sorts and manners of Government: Some of which have chosen one Form, to avoid the Inconveniencies they foresaw and apprehended from another; and others again being induced to embrace that Form, by the advantages they discerned in it, rather than another. This is a matter we ought to mind very carefully, that we may not put a ridiculous sense upon some Expressions of the Ancients when they speak of Magistracy, as founded in the Law of Nature.  
The Lawyers agree with the Philosophers in this Point. Ulpian and Justinian both of them tell us, That the People of Rome bestowed upon the Emperor Augustus, by the Royal Law, all the Right and Empire by which they were subjected unto that Emperor, lib. 1. ff de Constit. Princip. Theophilus explains what properly a Prince is, in these terms; A Prince (saith he) is a Person who has received from the People the Power of Commanding and Ruling over them, §. 6. de Jure Natur. & Gent.  
The Canonists of the Church of Rome are no less express in this Matter, than the Philosophers and Lawyers. Cardinal Bertrandi lays it down for his Foundation, in his Treatise of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, Bibliotheca Patrum, which was copied by an English Monk, and is found among the Manuscripts.  
The Divines of that Communion make a Principle of it, as appears by the Discourse of the Archbishop of Burgos, which I have before cited. And Soto saith, lib. 4. the Just. & Jure, Regalem potestatem, Populi naturali lumine erexerunt, That the People, by the Light of Nature established Kingly Power  
M. de Marca owns, That the Canonists of his School do not favour his Opinion; but withal maintains, That they have fallen upon the Opinion contrary to his, that they might make a greater difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, than there is indeed; and to depress the Civil Power below the Ecclesiastical. He might also have alleged against the Divines of his School, That in this Question they relied too much on the Judgement of Aristotle, who was their St. Paul, until the times of the Reformation. However, that which M. de Marca declares as his Judgement concerning this Matter, is too generally spoken: For we see Marsilius of Padova following the same Principles, in his Defensorium Pacis, though he undertook the Defence of the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, against the Enterprises of the Pope; but however he pretends, That the Scripture and Antiquity furnish us with quite other Notions about this Matter; which we shall next make it our business to inquire into.   

CHAP. IU. An Examination of the Arguments which are alleged for the Proof of this Opinion.  
HE alleges only two places of Scripture, the one is that of St. Paul, Rom. 13. and the other is taken from the Sixth Chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon, which is an Apocryphal Book; but neither the one nor the other proves the thing he pretends.  
It appears by the former of these Texts, That the Apostle endeavours to oppose the Opinion of those among the Jews, who pretended, That because the Monarchies or States of the Heathens had not an immediate Institution from God, as that of Israel, to which God had in a particular manner subjected the Jews, that therefore they were not obliged to submit themselves to the Authority of Heathen Magistrates. Wherefore he points them from that immediate Institution made in favour of the Kings of Judea, to that common and more ancient Institution of Magistracy among the Posterity of Noah, which Moses sets down, Gen. 9 as being sufficient to make the Authority of Magistrates respected, whatsoever Nation or Religion they might be of; whether they derived their Power from the Consent of the People, or whether they had obtained it, by Robbing the lawful Sovereigns of their Authority, as the Romans had done, with respect to the Kings of Judea. In a word, the Apostle in that place intends nothing else but to authorise the Maxim of the Essenians, as it is related by Josephus, lib. 2. de Bello Jud. cap. 12. Fidem omnibus servare, maxim verò principibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be faithful and true to all Men, but more especially to Princes; because the Sovereign Command never befell any one without the Divine Providence. These Essenians maintained against the Sect of the Pharisees, that they might lawfully submit themselves to a Heathen Conqueror, without always fostering a Spirit of Rebellion against him, and without disputing or questioning his Authority, under pretext that the Jewish Government had been established immediately by God. But doth this Text of St. Paul in the least prove, that every Pagan Prince was immediately set upon the Throne by God?  
The Passage quoted from the Sixth Chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon, is nothing at all to their purpose; because the Author of that Book addresses himself, in all appearance, to the Kings of Judea, who, as all agree, derived their Accession to the Throne immediately from God; so that it might well be said to them, Power is given you of the Lord, and Sovereignty from the Highest.  
True it is, That Jesus Christ expresseth himself in words much to the same purpose, John 19 speaking to Pilate the Governor of Judea; Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above. But it is visible that he speaks this only with respect to the Order of the Divine Providence, which had suffered the Throne of Judea to be overthrown by the Romans; so that instead of her Natural Magistrates, she was now subject to Strangers. The Empire of Nimrod was founded in the same manner with that of the Romans, and yet I scarce think any Man will pretend, that God committed the Sovereign Power to him, in the same manner that he did vouchsafe it to David.  
True it is, That the Scripture gives Cyrus the K●ng of Persia the Title of the Lord's Anointed; which seems to import, as if God had in an immediate manner raised him to the Throne like David: But this is no due consequence; for the Notion of the Lord's Anointed, signifies only his particular Destination of him, to be the Instrument of the Jews deliverance from their Captivity. I freely own, That a Divine Providence may ordinarily be observed in the Elevation of Kings; and that the same may be taken notice of, as intervening in a more especial manner, in the raising of those Kings whom God designs to make use of for the good of his Church, which is linked with the Civil Society: But I do not conceive that from thence it will follow, either that the acts of ordinary Providence, manifesting themselves upon occasions, are sufficient to make an immediate divine Institution of Princes, no more than other Events, wherein Providence intervenes, can properly be called immediate Effects of the Deity; nor that the extraordinary Acts of Divine Providence, as were those that respected Cyrus, aught to be alleged as an Argument in common Events.  
The words we find in the Eighth Chapter of the Proverbs, are also commonly quoted to this purpose, By me Kings Reign, and Princes decree Justice; but it is manifest, that this is said with regard to Wisdom, of which he was speaking before, and which displays itself in the management of Humane Affairs, without intimating any immediate Act of the Deity.  
Moreover we are carefully to observe, That though the Scriptures attribute to God the Institution of Magistrates, in which respect also they call them a Divine Institution, and ascribe to God the Exaltation of Princes in particular; yet they never express themselves but in a very general manner, as when they set forth to us the part God bears in all Events. Thus God is said to overturn Thrones, in like manner as he is said to erect them; he is said to settle Tyrants, as well as the most lawful Kings: All which Expressions relating to his Providence, which does or permits things by the intervening ministry of Second Causes, can have no influence upon the Judgements we are to make concerning the Authority of Princes, with regard to their Divine institution.  
M. de Marca makes use of some Passages out of the Fathers, to confirm his Opinion. But, First, they infer nothing but what we are ready to grant, viz. That God having ordained Magistracy, those who are invested therewith, aught to be considered, as the Ministers of God; which is sufficient for a foundation of their Authority, without any necessity of supposing, that God immediately endows every King with the Royal Power, wherewith he is invested. This is the Opinion of Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, ad Autol. Lib. 1. where he saith, That the Prince has received in some sort from God the administration of the Government (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which expression doth visibly respect a mediate institution, but doth not at all express an immediate institution, as M. de Marca conceives. Secondly, They distinctly lay down, That Magistracy is a humane institution, as St. Peter qualifies it, because all Magistrates, and Kings themselves are ordained, and established by Men; as Oecumenius explains that place, 1 Pet. 1.2.  
St. Irenaeus says no more, lib. 5. contr. Haer. C. 24. He refutes the Opinion of the Gnostics, who would have Magistrates to be an institution of the Devil, and he makes it appear, that both the Old and New Testament confirm, That Magistrates are one of the means which Providence has judged necessary to put a stop to the Current of Wickedness and Crimes, which had deluged the Heathen World, whom the fear of God alone was not able to keep within the bounds of Justice. To which purpose he saith, Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges instituuntur; by whose command Men are born, by his command Kings are ordained. Neither doth Epiphanius advance any thing more than this. Haeresi 40. contra Archontic.  
Tertullian expresseth himself to the same purpose, in his Apologet. cap. 30. Ind est Imperator, unde & homo antequam Imperator; inde potestas illi, unde Spiritus. Thence is the Emperor, from whence Man is before he was Emperor, thence he has his power from whence he has his Breath.  
St. Chrysostom exactly follows their footsteps, as well as St. Isidore Bishop of Pelusium, Lib. 2. Epist. 206. Indeed how could St. Chrysostom teach any other Doctrine, who in his 23. Hom. upon the Epistle to the Rom. plainly asserts, That Jesus Christ never gave his Laws with design to overturn the received forms of Government, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and expressly denies that those words in the 13. Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans; for there is no power but what is of God, must be understood concerning Government in general, and not of those who are invested therewith. Quid dicis, Omnis ergo Princeps à Deo constitutus est? Istud, inquit, non dico. Neque enim de quovis Principe sermo mihi nunc est, sed de ipsa ●re. Quod enim principatus sunt, quod isti quidem imperant, isti vero subjecti sunt, quodque non simpliciter ac temere cuncta feruntur .... divina sapientiae opus esse dicit. Propterea non dicit, Non enim Princeps est nisi à Deo, sed de re ipsa disserit dicens; Non enim Potestas est nisi à Deo. What do you say then that every Prince is constituted by God? No I don't say so, for I am not speaking here of every particular Prince, but of the thing itself. For that there are Principalities, that some rule, and others obey, and that all things are not carried rashly and without order; this the Apostle declares to be an effect of the Divine Wisdom. Wherefore also he does not say, for there is no Prince but who is of God, but, for there is no power but what is of God.  
St. Augustin de Civitate Dei, Lib. 5. cap. 21. holds forth no other Doctrine. Qui Augusto Imperium dedit, ipse & Neroni, qui Vespasianis, vel Patri vel filio, Suavissimis Imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo. He that bestowed the Imperial Dignity upon Augustus, gave it also to Ne●o, and the same who advanced the Vespasians, Father and Son, most beneficent Emperors, exalted also the most cruel Domitian. All which expressions do evidently refer to nothing else, but the order established by the Divine Providence, without, in the least, deciding the question in Controversy.  
Neither do I find that the Bishops of France entertained any different Opinions concerning this matter, when they represented to Lewis the good, the greatness and importance of his Dignity, and the necessity that lay upon him, to afford Justice to all his Subjects, because he owed his Sovereign Dignity to God himself and his Predecessors. Quapropter, say they, quisquis caeteris mortalibus, temporaliter imperat, non ab hominibus, sed à Deo, commissum sibi regnum credat. Multi namque munere Divino, multi etiam Dei permissa regnant. Wherefore whosoever temporally rules over other Men, aught to think his Kingdom committed to him, not by Men but by God. For many do reign by a Divine Grant, and many only by Divine Permission. Which words were used by them, only as a motive, to oblige that Emperor, not to look upon the Royal Dignity as an Inheritance or Possession, but as a charge or office instituted by God, of the administration whereof he was to give an account to God. Concil. Paris. Lib. 2. cap. 5. Anno 829. The Fathers also of the Council of Trosly, simply declare, That the Royal Dignity was instituted by God, when the Apostle said, Be subject to the King as chief, which would be a strange Conclusion, if he had not had an eye to the institution of the Office, and not to the immediate institution or consecration of the Person.  
I know it has been customary for Emperors and Kings, to look upon themselves as chosen of God, Crowned of God, etc. which hath given occasion to some Painters and Gravers to represent them, as receiving their Crowns from Heaven. I am not ignorant also that the Emperor Lewis, of Bavaria, maintains, That the Imperial Power and Authority, is immediately from God, and not from the Pope; but his first expression respects only the order of Providence, and the second the Pope's pretensions, who maintained, That Emperors held the Empire as a Fief, whereof the Pope was the Lord Paramount.  
After all, though these Gentlemen, who attribute to every Sovereign Magistrate and to every King, the power which they enjoy, as immediately conferred upon them by God, think by this means to lay a more sure foundation for the veneration which the People own to the Royal Power, it is very evident that they advance little by this their Opinion, if it be true, that this power, though we should suppose it granted immediately by God, must be limited by certain Laws, and that the People have right to impose them upon them, when they elevate them to that Dignity.   

CHAP. V Whether the Power of Sovereigns be absolute and unlimited.  
IT is commonly conceived that there are two sorts of Government, the one Absolute, and the other Limited: Absolute Government is supposed to be that, wherein the Governor doth so absolutely enjoy all the Authority necessary for the subsistence of the Society, that none share with him in it, so that he exerciseth it according to his good pleasure. In such a Government as this, the Prince can make Laws, and again revoke, or dispense with them. He can settle inferior Magistrates, and discharge or remove them again at pleasure, and repeal their Acts or Decrees. He can declare War to the Enemies of the State, and make Peace with them. He can save the Lives of Criminals, or take them away: all which he may do without any one having any right to contradict or oppose him. Neither is there any thing contrary to the nature of Government, in this Absolute Power: for since it is necessary to make Laws for the good of the State, according as there is need, to nominate Magistrates, and to remove them; to examine the Judgements of inferior Courts, and repeal them, if they be unjust: it is a thing indifferent to the State, by whom these things are done, so they be but done in such a manner, as to answer the natural end of Government, which is the good of the Society.  
But we must take heed of conceiving any such Absolute Power inherent in any Sovereigns whatsoever, whereby they may lawfully frustrate and overthrow the ends of Government. For how absolute so ever a Prince may be conceived to be, yet can he not be so in all respects: for first he is subject to the Divine Laws, as well as the meanest of his Subjects. Secondly, He is subject to the Laws that are founded on the Right of Nations. Thirdly, He is obnoxious to the fundamental Laws of the State, which he governs. Fourthly, he lies under an obligation of following the Laws of the Government, committed to his charge, so far as to endeavour to obtain the ends thereof, by procuring the happiness of the Society.  
But if any Man conceives a Government absolute in all respects, and whereof the Sovereigns are not bou●ht up by the four Ties abovesaid, he imagines an illegal and monstrous Government; neither can there be any such, but the Tyrannical, which is no Government at all. For seeing that Tyranny is diametrically opposite to the natural end and aim of Government, I do not see how it can be ranked with lawful Governments, there being as much absurdity in supposing it such, as to suppose an unjust and impossible Law, to be a good and true Law, because published by one, who has the Authority to do it.  
I cannot find that ever there was any Empire or Authority Absolute in all respects, as is pretended. Those very Sovereigns which are conceived to be resolute to this degree, as those of the Medes and Persians, had notwithstanding some irrevocable and inviolable Laws, which were fundamental to that State; as appears from the Book of Daniel, Aristotle seems to speak of these s●●●s of Government. Polit. Lib. 3. 210. where he disti●●●ishes them from a Tyrannical Government, forasmuch as they were established upon some fundamental Laws or Customs. And I very much question, whether any such example can be produced, no not in the Empire of the Turks, which has been always looked upon as the most Absolute and Despotical Government, where the Sovereign's have attributed to themselves so vast and unbounded a Power, and actually enjoyed the same.  
I know it is commonly apprehended, that Conquerors, such as Nimrod, and many others, did in so absolute a manner possess themselves of all the Rights of Sovereignty, that there was nothing left to their Subjects of what Rank or Order soever. But to declare my sense of this matter, we are to observe, First, That Conquerors had no other aim, but to rob other Sovereigns of their Power, without changing any thing in the Government of the State they had invaded. Secondly, That those Invasions having no other foundation, but a Conquest by force of Arms and Violence, contrary to the Law of Nature, which made Seneca call this sort of Conquerors Magnos & furiosos Latrones, great and furious Robbers; these Conquerors easily perceived, it was necessary for them, to trim and rectify this their unjust Power, if they would have their Authority to be lasting: whereupon they accordingly took care to moderate it, by Conventions and Laws, to the Justice of which the People gave their consent. Thirdly, That these Conventions and these Laws, were to speak truly and properly, the lawful Title of all the Authority their Subjects owned in them. Fourthly, That this consent of the Subjects, always supposeth, that the ends of Government be preserved, except we should persuade ourselves, that there be Subject's Fools enough to consent to a Government, whose aim should not be leveled at their Advantage and Prosperity.  
'Tis horribly to delude one's self, to found the Idea of an Absolute Government in all respects, amongst Men, upon a notion of the absolute Empire God has over all his Creatures: for is it not evident that this Divine Empire, supposeth an  Justice, and infinite wisdom, and a most tender love for his Creatures, which are the Essential Attributes of God, and which cannot be found in any mortal Man? But some, it may be, will tell me, That I contradict the Style of Holy Scripture, in denying that Tyrants can lawfully enjoy so absolute a Power, when the Prophets tell us, concerning some Kings, That God gave them such absolute Power: as we find it expressed in particular concerning Nabuchadnezzar, Dan. 5.18, 19 But the answer to this Objection is obvious, First, That which ought to be referred to God's Permission only, is not to be attributed to a concession of the Deity, which latter is only sufficient to establish a lawful Right; for otherwise, we must say, That God had given a just right to the false Prophets to deceive Ahab, by their lying Oracles. If this be not the case, let any Man answer me these Two Questions, First, Whether Nabuchadnezzar sinned, in using this absolute Power, which he had, without any consent or concurrence of his Subjects, in killing them without cause, and contrary to the Laws of Justice and Equity? Secondly, Whether God could justly punish Nabuchadnezzar, as he did, for making use of this Tyrannical Power, which he had suffered him to invade. Nemini injuriam facit qui jure suo utitur. He that makes use of his own Right injures no body, is a Maxim of Law.  
Secondly, Otherwise we should be fain to suppose, That those, who at any times have raised themselves against Tyrants, had been great Criminals, whereas the Holy Scripture doth set them forth for Heroes, such as Ehud, who have undertaken to rid the World of their unjust oppression, by killing them.  
Possibly it may be further objected to me, That by these assertions I oppose the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament, which equally command all both Jews and Christians to submit themselves to the Powers that had conquered them, and particularly to the Power of the Romans, who pretended to be absolute over all their Subjects. But it will be found that there is nothing at all of any contradiction between that which I maintain, and what is here objected. The Jews being conquered by Nabuchadnezzar, were become the Slaves of that Monarch, and owed him all manner of obedience, which Bondmen do to him who has saved their Lives, when it was in his power to kill them. And for the rest, the Scripture does not determine, whether the Tyrannical power they attributed to themselves, be lawful or no. Sure it is, that an unlawful and Tyrannical Sovereign may rule legally in several respects, in which case, it imports little, to those who are subject to it, contrary to their wills, whether the Power, under which they are, be lawful in all respects or not.  
Let this therefore be laid down for a certain truth, That every lawful power is necessarily limited by Laws, That these Laws are the foundation of the Government; from which the Sovereigns cannot departed, without overturning the Society, for the subsistence of which, the Political Government was at first instituted by God.  
But this is not the only kind of limitation, which may be observed in the Powers that govern Societies. As God has not prescribed any sort of Government, in preference to others, the Wisdom of Men have diversely limited the way and constitution thereof. Most People finding by Experience, That Monarchy, though it have many advantages before other Governments, is apt to degenerate to Arbitrary Power, thought it fitting that the greatest Lords of the Community, should concur with the King in the exercise of his Authority: others again were of Opinion, That the People ought to have the chiefest share in the Government, forasmuch as the main end of the Government is to make them happy. These different apprehensions of Men, have established the several forms of Government, the aim of those, who contrived those different forms, being only to prevent oppression and injustice, which directly cross the end of Government.   

CHAP. V Concerning the Extent of the Power of Sovereigns.  
WHat I have here set down concerning the Nature of Governments, the most Absolute of which are not unbounded by the Laws of God, by the Laws which constitute the Right of Nations, by the fundamental Laws of the State, and more particularly by Bounds prescribed to the Authority of Sovereigns: sufficiently shows what is the just extent of Sovereign Power, and how far Men are obliged to yield Obedience to it. Indeed, forasmuch as Authority and Obedience are relative terms, which reciprocally establish or overthrow one another, it is easy to judge, That Obedience cannot be due to Authority, but in proportion to the extent of the Authority.  
Paternal Authority, in the manner as God had established it under the Law, could not inflict Death upon a Son, but in the presence of the Judges, and upon the hearing of Witnesses. The Authority of a Judge cannot be discharged, but in the due Forms of Judicature, and according to the Laws; he cannot punish a Criminal extrajudiciously, notwithstanding he might have absolute knowledge of his Offence.  
This laid down, and there is nothing more evident, it will be easy to determine, how far the Obedience of Subjects is engaged in the various sorts of Government under which they resort.  
As to those Governments or Powers, which have no other Law but their own Will, whether at first they were raised by way of Conquest, which seems to reduce Subjects to the condition of Slaves; or whether from lawful Governments they have by degrees degenerated into Tyranny by the Injustice of Sovereigns, we ought naturally to distinguish between the use these Powers make of their Authority; and their abusing of it, by rendering their Authority unlawful, and extending it beyond its just limits. The Captain of a company of High-way-men, that is a Father, may exact of his Son the Obedience which a Child owes his Father; but his quality of Captain of High-way-men, does not give him any right to command his Son to rob or murder: And so far is the Son from being obliged to obey such kind of Commands, that he becomes Criminal by obeying them.  
It is evident then, That in these sorts of Governments, as long as the Prince enacts Laws conformable to the fundamental Laws of the State, and that he behaves himself as a Father of his Country, there lies a necessity upon the People of obeying him; and this necessity is founded upon their Relation to the Authority, which is just and legal, with respect to its Function and Exercise.  
But we must judge otherwise, when the Question is of unjust Laws which the Power enacts for the Oppression of his Subjects: For then there seems no further necessity of obeying, to lie upon the Subjects, than what results from a desire of avoiding their own destruction, which depends on the Pleasure of the Power that oppresseth them, which cannot settle a lawful Right on Tyrants, other than such as a Master may have over his Slave or Bondman, according to the Laws of Servitude.  
And as to Governments which are bounded by fundamental Laws, it is apparent, That the Powers having no Authority at all, but according to the Laws whereby they are established, their Subjects are set free from obeying them, as soon as they transgress those Laws. If a King, who has no Power to make Laws, will of his alone Authority undertake to publish any, without the concurrence of those who share with him in the Legislative Power, none of his Subjects are obliged to obey him. If a King, who has no right to lay any Taxes on his People, undertake to charge them with Impositions, the People are not obliged to pay aught of them. If the King, who has no Power to declare War, doth do it without consent of the State, the People are not obliged to go to War.  
Nothing is more visible, than that Obedience may yet more justly be refused, when Sovereigns undertake to overthrow the State, in dispensing with all the Laws, and in attempting to rule by an Arbitrary Power: whereas the fundamental Laws of the State, which are the Bond of the Society, do only allow them a limited Power.  
Hitherto our New Divines agree with others, That Subjects are dispensed with from giving Obedience to an Illegal Power. But forasmuch as a State must necessarily perish, when subject to a Power that is resolved to overthrow all; the Question is, What may be expedient and lawful for People to do in this case?  
There are but Two means imaginable to remedy so urging an Extremity: The one is to resist the Power that abuseth his Authority, thereby to oblige him, for time to come, to keep himself within the Bounds that are set him.  
The other is to reject him altogether, and to rid themselves of him, when there appears no probability of reducing him to the terms of Justice, and to the Rules of his Institution.  
'Tis against these Two Articles our New Divines oppose themselves might and main. They conceive on the one hand, that though the People be not bound to obey unjust Commands, yet they never can have any Right to resist the Sovereign Power; no, not when they make use of Violence, to oblige the People to execute their wicked Designs. This is the Doctrine of Nonresistance or Passive Obedience, which has been so much agitated of late years.  
And as to the other Article, they maintain the People have yet less right to cast off their Princes, or rid themselves of them, how high soever the Abuses may be they commit, in exceeding the bounds of their Authority, and how Tyrannical or Arbitrary soever their Government may be: That Sovereign Powers depend on none but God, so that the People cannot, without invading the Rights of the Deity, undertake to depose or punish them.  
These are the Points we are to consider at present. I begin with Non-Rresistance, otherwise called Passive-Obedience.   

CHAP. VI Concerning Nonresistance.  
THis Doctrine of Nonresistance, seems to me to be founded upon Three Suppositions, which may be easily convinced of Falsity.  
First, These Gentlemen forge to themselves an Idea of Sovereign Powers, and ascribe certain Rights to them, which they afterwards look upon as Essential to Government, and consequently as Rights inseparable from Sovereignty, whatsoever sort of Sovereignty it may be. Which Essential Rights, according to their account, are these: First, Not to be accountable to any but God. Secondly, To have the whole disposal of the Sword. Thirdly, To be exempt from all Coercive Power whatsoever. Fourthly, Not to be liable to suffer Resistance, on any pretext. Fifthly, to be invested with the Legislative Power. They conceive, that without these Rights a Prince is still but a Subject; and consequently, that they are all Essential to Sovereign Power, and therefore inseparable from it. Upon these Premises they with ease establish this Conclusion, That forasmuch as the Right of not being liable to Resistance, is inseparably annexed to Sovereignty, the People can never of Right resist their Princes on any pretext whatsoever.  
If we object against this their Scheme, That the Rights they attribute to Sovereignty, are such as cannot agree with a Sovereignty limited by Laws, which allow of Resistance, because there can be no Authority but by Law, and according to Law: Whence it follows, That it is lawful to Resist him who has no Authority.  
They suppose in the Second place, That all Limitations whatsoever, do only respect the Exercise of the Sovereign Power, without being able in the least to derogate from the Essentials of Sovereignty; and that after all, these Limitations are only the Effects of the consent of Sovereigns; which proceeding only from their good will, are revocable, ipso facto, as soon as it pleaseth them so to do.  
The Third Supposition is this: They pretend that the Holy Scripture holds to us such a Power inherent in Sovereigns, as can never be lawfully resisted; and that it exhorts People to submit themselves so absolutely to it, that they never undertake to oppose themselves against its unlawful Effects otherwise than by Patience, when they are convinced in Conscience, of the Injustice of the Laws and Commands enjoined.  
'Tis an easy matter to overthrow the First of these Suppositions.  
First, I would fain know who has given these Gentlemen the Power of determining, as they do, what is Essential to Sovereignty. Do they derive these their Notions from Revelation, or from Reason, which is common to all Men? If they say they derive the definition they give us of Sovereignty from Revelation, they will do well to point us to the places of Scripture where this Notion is set down.  
If they draw it from Reason, than I cannot but wonder that so many Statesmen and Writers of Civil Matters have failed of stumbling on the same Notion; and it seems to me an inextricable thing, that so many Nations should agree to reject what they approve, and to approve what they reject.  
To say here, That they draw this definition from the Idea of Sovereignty, which loseth its nature when divested of these Characters, shows they are willing either to abuse themselves or others by a pitiful Equivocation. The word Sovereign imports a relation to Inferiors; and as the relation has a certain foundation, so it is likewise evident, that it hath its bounds set proportionable to its foundation. Where there is no Authority, neither is there any foundation for Obedience: Now there is no Authority but in proportion to the Laws which establish the Authority; wherefore it incontestably follows, There can be no Authority where the Law is so far from allowing any, that it opposes it.  
It will never cease to be true, That the Authority is Sovereign, though it be not so in all respects. The Consuls of Rome were Sovereign Magistrates, though the People had Power to oppose themselves against their Authority, when they abused the Power they were entrusted with, for the good of the Commonwealth. In France they give their Parliaments the Name of Sovereign Courts, though their Sentence be not always irrevocable.  
The Second Supposition is only founded upon this Notion, That Conquerors having invaded the Liberty and Privileges of the People, were afterwards so kind, to restore some part thereof to them again by their Concessions; but that these Acts of Grace do not at all divest them of the Right of Acting whenever it shall please them, as if their Power was altogether Unlimited and Arbitrary. This Notion is much the same with that of the Partisans of the Court of Rome, who maintain, That the Liberties of the Gallican Church are only Acts of Grace and Favour granted to that Church; whereas the French pretend, That they are common Rights and Franchises which their Ancestors have constantly maintained, according to what P. Pithou declares concerning them.  
But indeed, to speak truly, this Supposition cannot be admitted with respect to conquered States, at least for the most part. Ordinarily a Conquest is made upon the Power that governs the State; so that the State only changes its Master, the fundamental Laws of the Land receiving no Alteration from this Change. Of this we have an Instance in England, when King William conquered it, who at his Coronation swore to keep the Laws of St. Edward; and his Successors were fain to swear the same. Now one of these Laws (c. 15. T. 1. Spelm. p. 622.) imports, That a Prince that abuseth the Power he is entrusted with, does lose the Title of King: From whence it follows, That his Subjects need not own or obey him, and that consequently it is lawful to resist him.  
To maintain, That a King, whose Power is limited by the fundamental Laws of a State, and which he is invested with upon that condition, when at his Coronation he swears to the People, is indeed obliged to keep the said Oath, for fear of God; but that he is not at all engaged by this his Oath to the People, is rather a piece of Raillery, than Reasoning. What, Does not the Oath the People swear to the King oblige them in Allegiance to him? and how can we then suppose that the reciprocal Oath of the King should not as well oblige him to his People? Surely, if we well weigh the case, 'tis impossible but we must discern a palpable falsity in this Opinion of Passive Obedience, in the way these Gentlemen propose it.  
First, They grant a Right unto Sovereignty which is diametrically opposite to the end of Sovereignty, according to the Divine Destination. For the good of the Society, and its Subsistence, was God's End in insticuting of the Sovereign Power; whereas by their Hypothesis the Sovereignty may become an instrument of the utter ruin of the Society, whensoever it shall please the Sovereign; his Subjects in the mean time having no means to attain the said End, or being in any condition to hinder their being deprived of it.  
Secondly, They suppose, That God in allowing a lawful Right to Sovereigns, has subjected the People to a necessity of groaning under an Illegal Right, and which God has never bestowed upon them; and for the Usurpation of which he will condemn those who do arrogate the same to themselves; which is much to the same purpose, as if I should say, That because God has established Judges, he has thereby obliged the People to suffer Robbery, when the Judges shall think fit to turn Robbers.  
Thirdly, They make the condition of a Civil Society more unhappy, than was the condition of Families in the state of Nature, before Societies were form. For the liberty of defending one's self is permitted to every one by Nature; but after the Society is once form, it would follow, That the whole Society would be obliged, by a Principle of Conscience, to suffer their Throats to be cut by a Prince of the humour of a Nero or a Caligula.  
Fourthly, They turn to mere Chimaeras and Visions, whatsoever the wisdom of Men have been able to find out to make States happy, by securing them against Tyranny. I speak of Laws and Oaths; the Laws are the bands and cement of the Society, and the foundation, as well as the measure of the Obedience we own to Princes. The Oaths are the Seal of the Contract, by which the Subjects are obliged to obey them, upon condition that they govern according to Law. But all this is to no purpose, and is of no use to the People, as soon as the Tyrant thinks fit to overturn the Laws, and to m●ke a Scoff at his Oaths.  
Forasmuch as the Third Supposition, viz. That the Scripture maintains Nonresistance, with regard to Sovereigns, whether they act according to or against Law, is of greater importance, it will be convenient to examine the same more heedfully; and the rather because Men of Abilities and Learning have endeavoured strongly to assert it, and to make it pass current with others, and that with all their might.   

CHAP. VII. That the Scripture doth not assert the point of Nonresistance.  
FOrasmuch as the Doctrine of Nonresistance directly thwarts a natural Principle, to wit, that of our own preservation, and that of the Society whereof we are Members; we may easily judge, That in case the Scripture does assert it, we must suppose it has done it, with all possible clearness and distinction; but we do not find any such thing.  
I find but one place in the Old Testament, which can be wrested to this purpose with any probability; 'tis the Description of the behaviour of a King, set down 1 Sam. 8. & 10. where the vulgar Translation interprets Mispath, by the Word Right, hoc est Jus Regis. But I am astonished how any could be mistaken in this case. For First, It appears that God in that place gives us the Description of a Tyrant, and not of a King: for indeed we find nothing like to it in the Description he gives us of a King by Moses, Deut. 17. Which appears to be so, because Samuel held forth this Looking-glass to them, to make them quit their demand of having a King set over them, as the rest of the Nations about them. Secondly, It is apparent that what he saith of their crying to the Lord, when oppressed by their King, would have been most ridiculous, supposing the King to have these Rights from God, and by his Concession. When Moses tells the Jews, That they should cry unto the Lord, when they should be oppressed by their Neighbours, waging War against them, because of their forsaking of the Lord; Does he not plainly suppose, That they would do this to obtain his Protection against the injustice of those Tyrants? And can any one be supposed Fool enough to imagine, that according to God's Intention it was unlawful for the Israelites to defend themselves against the Moabites, Philistims and other Nations that oppressed them. Thirdly, It is evident that this supposed, God could not in Justice punish a Tyrant; or if he did, it would be for making use of a Right, himself had conferred upon him. This reason made R. Juda to oppose R. Jose, as Kimki observes upon this Text. The same is also acknowledged by the wisest of Divines. Marchat in horte Pastorum, Lib. 3. Tr. 4. Lect. 13. explains himself thus, Hoc est jus Regis, idem est ac si diceret, Haec est consuetudo Regum: This is the Right of a King, is the same as if he had said, This is the Custom of a King, Jus Regum, Jus non legitimum sed usurpatum. Estius. Samuel speaks there not of a lawful Right of Kings, but of an usurped and arrogated Right, and the same is the Opinion of Cornel. à Lapid. and the Jansenists of Port Royal.  
After all that has been said, it is natural to observe, That forasmuch as all the several kinds of Government, are no less founded on Divine Authority, than the Kingly, yet according to this Hypothesis, none of them would be invested with this Right so fatal to Society, but Kings only, which certainly is the worst Argument they could have lighted on, to recommend a Government, which God by his own institution, has constituted a true Tyranny.  
The second place is that of St. Paul, Rom. 13. where the Apostle forbids resisting of the Powers, for fear we should resist the Ordinance of God. But we are to take notice, that the Apostle in that place does not in the least touch this Question, Whether it be lawful to resist the Pours, when they endeavour to overthrow the Government.  
First, He considers the Powers in the lawful use of their Authority, punishing the Evil, and protecting the Good. Now it is ridiculous to suppose, that the same Privilege that appertains to him, who makes a lawful use of his Authority, is every whit as applicable to him who has lost his Title by the abuse of his Power. Rex, saith St. Isidore, à recte agendo dicitur; si enim piè & justè & misericorditer agit, merito Rex appellatur; si his caruerit, non Rex, sed Tyrannus est. A King has his name from acting right and well; for if he acts piously, justly and mercifully, he is deservedly called a King; but if he want these qualifications, he is no King, but a Tyrant. Addit. 2. ad capit. Carol Magn. cap. 21.  
Secondly, This would suppose the Powers that act under Sovereigns to be every whit as irresistible as the Sovereign's themselves; which is an extravagant position in the sense of all Modern Divines. Besides we are to observe that Sovereigns with their Power, are only the Organical chiefs of the Society; the true head or chief is the Principality with its Members, which are the integral parts of it. This is the same that was acknowledged by Charles Moulin, the Prince of French Lawyers, and the great defender of the Kings of France and their Authority.  
Upon this account it is that the People have right to prosecute the misdemeanours of the King's Attorneys and Ministers, and to punish them; which would be strangely ridiculous, if the State were not persuaded, that all the Power they have, is a power received from the State, though the King have the Power to elect and raise them to those Employments.  
It is apparent therefore, That these words of St. Paul, only have an eye to the repugnance the Christian Jews had, to submit themselves to the Dominion of Heathens. This was the Opinion of the Pharisees, who tempted Jesus Christ, upon occasion of the Tribute which the Emperor levied in Judea; Josephus shows that the Essenians opposed them in this point, and St. Paul here takes the Part of the Essenians. And indeed we don't find that the Christians did any way oppose the Decree of the Senate, when they declared Nero, The Enemy of all Mankind. We find also that the Christians of Tertullian's time, and those that followed after, did very well agree with the Sentiment of Heathen Authors, about the Justice of the People's or Senate's resistance against such Tyrants; as is apparent from Lactantius de Montibus Persecutorum, and the like may be seen in Eusebius, Orosius, and in St. Augustine de Civit. Dei. But I can say more than this, viz. That the Scripture is so far from teaching the Doctrine of Nonresistance to an unjust Power, and that violates the Laws, that she represents to us contrary Examples, with commendation, and sufficiently intimates that we rather sin in not resisting. For don't we see David taking up Arms to defend himself against Saul? Don't we see him offering Achish to fight for him against Saul, notwithstanding he was his Father-in Law? Don't we see the Ten Tribes opposing themselves against Rehoboam, upon his declaring for Tyranny and Arbitrary Government?  
Let us take the pains heedfully to consider the carriage of the Highpriest, and his Colleagues, when King Vzziah presumed to exercise the Functions of the Priesthood in offering Incense, and it will plainly appear, they did not think it unlawful to resist Sovereign Authority, when it goes beyond its bounds, 2 Chron. 26.17. Azariah the Highpriest follows him with fourscore Priests, all valiant men, drives him out of the Temple; and afterwards he is deprived of his Government, and his Son placed on his Throne. It cannot be alleged by these Gentlemen, that this happened to him because of his Leprosy, because they suppose that a Prince cannot be resisted, whatever his behaviour may be, or devested of the right of Governing, for any reason whatsoever.  
After all, Let us consider how severely God punished Israel, for the sin of Saul, in breaking the Troth plighted to the Gibeonites, and we shall find they were enveloped in the punishment of his sin, because they had not opposed themselves against Saul's breach of Faith. And we make the same Reflection, about the punishment God inflicted on the People, for their consenting to David's numbering of them, which God had forbid. And why so, but because they did not oppose themselves against this enterprise of David, as they ought to have done? We do not fi●d the People engaged in the punishment of David's Adultery with Bathsheba, because indeed the People had no share in that sin. We see the inhabitants of Libna rejecting Joram, because he had forsaken the Lord his God, 2 Chron. 21.10.  
Lastly, I desire that those, who talk so much of Passive Obedience, would be pleased attentively to consider the behaviour of the Maccabees, when they shut the Gates of Modin against the Envoys of Antiochus, and afterwards took up Arms for the defence of their Liberty and Religion, 1 Mac. 2. As also that of Mathias, who shut the Gates of Modin, in exhorting his Children to continue in their resistance; and does the same at the hour of his Death, without believing that he was guilty of any sin in taking up Arms; and his Children follow his Exhortations, with an extraordinary Courage and Piety.  
I own that the Books which have preserved this History are not Canonical, no more than Josephus, who has followed them. But I must observe,  
First, That it sufficiently appears, what the Opinion of the Jewish Church was in this point; who still retains an Abridgement of these Books, in her Books of Prayers, highly praising the Maccabees for their Virtue and Piety.  
Secondly, That the Christian Church has allowed the public reading of them, notwithstanding they were not Canonical, and that with great esteem too; which would have been extravagant and impious, in case the resistance of the Maccabees had been a true Rebellion.  
Thirdly, I have still more to say, viz. That the Apostle St. Paul, in the Eleventh of the Hebrews, makes an Encomium of the Maccabees, and approves the War they undertook. This is that which is acknowledged by the learned Thorndike in his Right of the Church, Page 306. by St. chrysostom Hom. 27. in Epist. ad Hebr. and by Haymon Bishop of Halbarstad, as also by Menochius and Estius in their Commentaries.  
Fourthly, That Lucifer de Cagliari in his Book, De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus (a Book approved by Saint Athanasius, who calls this Lucifer a New Elias, Page 1068.) openly sets down, not only that he believed it was lawful to resist Kings, under the Old Testament, but also to put them to Death, in case of Idolatry, which he maintains the Arrians were guilty of. Si veteris Testamenti temporibus vixisset (Constantius Imperator) gladio potuisset extingui, & defuncti ossa igne absumpta fuissent. If Constantius the Emperor had lived in the times of the Old Testament, he might have been killed with the Sword, or at least his Bones after his Death would have been burnt.   

CHAP. VIII. Whether the States can deprive Sovereigns of their Authority when they abuse it.  
THEY who maintain it is not in the Power of the Subject, justly to resist the Authority that is once established, though it abuse the Power committed to it. believe also consequently, That it is not lawful for a State to reject their Sovereign, nor to deprive him of his Authority, though he make use of it, to overthrow the Government: but forasmuch as the former Opinion is wholly contrary to all good Sense, and Justice; the lesser cannot be less so. I own it is unjust to deprive a Sovereign of the Power he enjoys, as long as he useth it lawfully: and in this regard it is, we must not attempt any thing against the Authority of Kings, or other Sovereign Magistrates. I acknowledge also that the People may not rise up against their Superiors, for the first Fault they commit, in matter of Government, Kings being no more infallible than other Men; we cannot with justice expect from them, that they should commit no faults at all in their managing of the Government.  
It is also evident enough that the People must not oppose themselves against every thing that seems to have some air of severity or hard usage in the Government; as St. Paul also orders Servants to suffer patiently the hard usage of a too severe Master. Good sense alone is sufficient to inform People, That they must not expose the public Tranquillity to danger, for some severity, or for some interest which respects only some particular persons. And indeed with this respect we may say that private persons are obliged to sacrifice their particular interest, to the public Good and Peace. But there is a vast difference between a King, that governs justly, or that falls into some error, which he is willing to retract and amend upon a remonstrance from his Subjects; and a Tyrant who overturns the Laws of the State, and the end of the Government designedly and of deliberate purpose. It would be a strange delusion for us to attribute to a Tyrant the Privileges of a King; or to suppose, as otherwise we must, That there is no means to distinguish them; both which Extremes are equally ridiculous. For,  
First, All wise Men that ever were, have declared, That it is easy to know the difference between a King and a Tyrant. Aristotle gives us an exact Idea of a Tyrant, Polit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Pol. 6. Hist. lib. 5. gives us the Character of a Tyrant, in opposition to that of a King. Synesius also gives us a very lively Portraiture of one de Reigno. Isidorus gives us this description of Tyrants, Origin, lib. 9 cap. 3. Jam postea in usum accidit Tyrannos vocari pessimos atque improbos Reges luxuriosae Dominationis cupiditatem, & crudelissimam Dominationem in Populis exercentes; Now it is become customary to call bad and wicked King's Tyrants, who are ambitious of Arbitrary Power, and oppress their Subjects by a most cruel Dominion. A King (saith the Scholiast of Aristophanes) differs from a Tyrant, in that a King possesseth his Kingdom, certis sumens conditionibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, receiving it on certain conditions; whereas a Tyrant enters upon it by force and violence. Bartholus, among the Lawyers, gives us a Description of a Tyrant, and the Characters wherewith he sets him forth are infinitely different from those that aught to be in every King. Wherefore we cannot imagine, that the difference between a King and a Tyrant should be none at all, or imperceptible.  
Secondly, Heathens as well as Christians, Papists as well as Protestants equally agree, That it is lawful for a State to rid themselves of a Tyrant, by wholly casting him off.  
This is a constant Maxim among Heathens, whereof we may see the Proofs in Thucydides, lib.— in Pausanias in Attic. in Polyb. lib 2. in Cicero, lib. 3. de Offic. & Orat. pro Milone, & lib. 2. de Invent. in Seneca, lib. 2. the Benefic. cap. 20. in Seneca the Tragedian, in Hercule Furente; in Pliny, lib. 3●. cap. 4. in Valerius Maximus, lib. 2. cap. 10. in Plutarch. in vita B uti, and in Themistius Orat. 14.  
The Jews have reduced this Maxim into practice, as we may see in the History of the Maccabees, who took up Arms against the Authority of Antiochus Epiphanes.  
As for Christians, we find this Sentiment confirmed by Lucifer de Cagliari, and approved by St. Athanasius. We find that St. Austin 
* August. libro contra Adim. c. 17. Nec tamen hoc secerunt justi homines, nisi authoritate divina, ne quis arbitretur passim sibi esse permissum necare quem velit, aut judicio persequi aut poenis quihussibet afficere. Aliquando autem aperte ponitur in scriptures ipsa divina authoritas, aliquando autem occultatur, ut & manifestis lector instruatur, & exerce●tur obscuris. Certè inimicum & persecutorem suum, nimis ingratum & nimis infestum Saul Regem accepit David in potestatem ut ei faceret quod vellet, & elegit parere potius quam occidere. Non enim erat jussus occidere, sed neque prohibitus, imo etiam divinitus audierat se impune facere quicquid vellet inimico, & tamen tantam potestatem ad mansuetudinem contulit. Dicatur mihi quem timuit, cum interficere noluit? Nec hominem possumus, dicere timuisse quem acceperat in potestatem, nec Deum qui dederat. Vbi ergo nec difficultas fuit occidendi nec timor, dilectio profuit inimico. Ecce David ille bellatur implevit praeceptum Christi quod accepimus, ut diligamus inimicos.  maintains against Adimant, cap 17. That though David did not kill Saul, yet he had right to do it. Brontius agrees with this Judgement of St. Austin. And Sozomenus, lib. 6. proves, That if the Roman Soldier, who was suspected to have killed Julian the Apostate, had done it indeed, that he had done it justly and of right. We find the same thing asserted by Englishmen, as by Joannes Sarisbur. Polycrat. de nug. curial, lib. 7. cap. 17, 18, 19; by Matthew Puris ad An. 1233, in the business of the Bishop of Winchester.  
The Church of Rome has always been of this Opinion, before the Reformation, as appears by the Judgement of Thomas Aquinas 22. qu. 24. art. 2. of Aureolus and all the Schoolmen. In a word, we can affirm, That this was received as an indubitable Opinion, in the Council of Basil, who laid it down as a Principle, whereupon they grounded their right of Deposing the Pope.  
This has always been the Opinion of Popish Lawyers and Canonists, as we may see in L. decerminus de Sacrosanct. Eccles. in Bartholus, in tractatu de Tyrannia: in Paris de Puteo: in Syndic. where he puts the Question, Whether it be lawful to kill a King that is a Tyrant. In Andreas Iserus institut. quae sint Regalia. In Mar. Laudun. in tractatu de Princip. §. 3. in Angelus de Clavasio in Summa voce, Seditio. Quaest. ultima, in St. Antonin. in summa 2. par. tit. 4. c. 8. §. 1.  
Neither do the Protestants differ from them in this point, as is evident from the Writings of Zuinglius, Luther, Calvin, Paraeus, Bilson, Abbot, etc. Conringius lays it down as an indubitable truth, ad Lampadium de Imp. Rom. 119.  
And the Papists since the Reformation are of the same judgement, as will appear, if we consult Gregor. de Valentia, Tit. 3. disp. 5. qu. 6. Tolet. in summa l. 5. c. 8. Mariana de Rege Lib. 1. Cap. 3. & 6. Lessius de Jure & Justitia Lib. 2. cap. 9 dub. 4. Molina tr. 3. disp. 6. de Justitia & jure. Eman. sa in Aphor. verbo Tyrannus. Suarez in defence. fidei, lib. 6. cap. 4.  
Neither let any one imagine, That this is only a Doctrine of the Jesuits: We may see the contrary, in those who have written concerning the Deposition of Henry the Third, and who have maintained the Justice of that Deposition. And we may affirm, That among so many French Authors, who have writ against Baronius and Bellarmine, who attribute the Deposing of Childeric to Pope Zachary, and the placing Pepin on the Throne in his stead, there is scarce any to be found, who whilst they dispute the Pope's Right to Depose Kings, do not acknowledge, That it is a Right inherent in the States of the Kingdom.  
And indeed to weigh the thing in itself, it is evident, That when a Prince is become the Enemy of his People, and endeavours to destroy them, he thereby loseth the Right of Governing them. If we take the Sword out of the hand of a Madman, that he may do no hurt with it; who doubts but we have the same right to take away that Power from a Prince, which he makes use of, as if he were a Madman.  
The History of Portugal fully sets forth to us the Judgement of that Nation, with respect to King Alphonsus III. This Prince minding nothing but hunting, his Council represented to him, That if he did not apply himself to the business of State, they would Depose him, and place another on the Thone. What would not they have said, think we, had they seen him Murdering his Subjects in cold Blood, as their last King, whom they banished, because of a like madness.  
I acknowledge, That the Commonwealth has put its rights into the hands of the Prince, by which she seems to have deprived herself of that Power. But it is a strange and uncouth imagination to suppose, that a State should deprive itself of the right of resisting injustice and violence, which is a right, that Nature communicates to every Creature together with its Being. Besides it is certain, That if a State be limited by Laws, and that the People are the Authors of them; so that they share and exercise the Sovereign Power, in this case they are naturally supposed to possess and hold the Authority, which is necessary to preserves the Right that belongs to them.  
Let Men Philosophise as long as they please, they shall never be able to make out, either that a Prince can pretend to a Power of destroying the Society, without any danger of being called to an account for it; or that a People can ever be esteemed to have granted him a Right, tending to their own Ruin and Destruction.  
But some may say, That the Title of a King, aught to secure a Tyrant against any resistance, he might be liable to from his Subjects; even as the name of a Father is a Title that puts Children out of a Condition of setting themselves against him, whose cruelty they have experience of. But besides that, there is a great deal of difference between these two Titles, which is the ground of the difference there is between the Subjects and a King, and the Children and a Father; is it not notorious, and practised every day, that a Father who is become the Enemy of his Children, is deprived of the administration of his Goods, and of the disposal of his Children; which practice being grounded on the Law of Nature, doth not in the least violate the order of the Society.  
Moreover it is certain that a Title, how venerable so ever it may be, cannot secure him that bears it, from the resistance of those that are oppressed by him. Let us conceive a Physician, that has a design to Poison his Patient; the Title of a Physician which has induced his Patient to commit the care of his Health to his trust, can it hinder the Patient from prosecuting him as a Murderer, in case he resolved to take away his Patient's Life, instead of contributing to his Cure.  
We know that Divines look upon the Government of the Church, as a Government instituted by God, and immediately instituted by him: and yet who knows not, that they have deposed the Pope, Bishops and Popish Priests, by withdrawing themselves from their Dominion, and that upon this Ground, that though there be something lawful in their Ministry, yet they oppose themselves to the end of their Ministry, by reason of the Tyranny which they exercised over their Consciences.  
But some may imagine, that because God has not expressly given this Right to People to cast off their Kings when turned Tyrants, and that he has thought it sufficient to recommend Obedience to them, he has thereby authorized all their unjust Proceed and Violence, without leaving any means to the People of opposing themselves against their Oppression by deposing them. This is a mere Delusion; and to see through it, we need only consider God's Silence concerning the irregular comportment of the High Priest, who notwithstanding was subject to the same Punishments, as were the meanest Levites, in case of his violating the Rules of his Institution, and transgressing the Laws which God had given to all the People of Israel, and to the Priests in particular. Indeed, it was not needful that God should prescribe any such thing to the People, because Nature alone is sufficient to teach People aright they are possessed of, by giving their Consent to the Elevation of the Powers that govern them. In a word, I say, that God had sufficiently intimated to the Israelites, that they could not lawfully be oppressed, in that he had expressly forbidden their Kings to heap up vast Riches, or to multiply the Number of their Cavalry, which the Kings could not do without violating the Law of God, and without drawing upon themselves the Resistance and Opposition of their Subjects; as Josephus very well infers, who maintains, Lib. 4. cap. 8. That the People ought of Duty to oppose themselves against a Prince, who transgressed the Bounds God had prescribed to him in the 17th of Deuteronomy.  
But this Point leads us insensibly to consider more particularly, what kind of Royalty it was, that obtained amongst the Jews, which deserves carefully to be examined. This I intent next to consider, and afterwards shall proceed to take a view what was the Law of Royalty among the Romans; and shall make it appear, that the Kingdoms of Europe, which have been form out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire, have neither followed the one nor the other of these Models, though some Divines have asserted it without respect to Truth.   

CHAP. IX. Concerning Regal Dignity, and the Rights belonging to it amongst the Jews.  
I Am to make out four Things in order to the clearing of the Character of Royalty, which obtained amongst the Jews.  
The first is, to inquire, whether it was immediately established by God?  
2ly, To show, that it was limited according to the Description we have of it in the 17th of Deuteronomy.  
3ly, To evince solidly, that all that Samuel declared concerning the Right of Kings, was only a Prophecy about the Tyranny of Kings, and not the Right of Royalty.  
4ly, To make it appear, that supposing that of Samuel's, to be a Description of a Lawful Right, yet that particular Settlement could not be of any Consequence to those Estates that had another Institution.  
For the first, I say, that the Institution of some Magistrates amongst the Jews, was by express and immediate Revelation from God: Moses his Ministry and Authority was established and confirmed by miraculous Signs and Tokens, as appears Exod. 3. And for the Judges of the People of Israel, as may be seen in the 18th Chapter of the same Book; But we find nothing like this, in the establishment of the Kingly Authority amongst them. For we do not find that God, in the 17th Chapter of Deuteronomy, enjoins the People to establish a King over them, as the Jews themselves believe; but only that he foresaw the disorderly Inclinations of the People, who in Time to come would demand a King to rule over them, in conformity to those of their Neighbour Nations. A demonstrative Proof of what I say is, because that God himself having declared himself solemnly to be their King, in giving them Laws, in leading their Armies, etc. they could not reject him without committing a great Sin. This is that which Gideon was very sensible of, as appears by his absolute refusal of the Royal Dignity. The same thing may also be gathered from the words of Samuel, 1 Sam. 8. and of God himself.  
I own indeed, that when the People shown themselves obstinately resolved to have a King, there happened something of an immediate designation of Saul to that Dignity, as may be seen 1 Sam. 10. for the Election was made by casting of Lots in the presence of Samuel, to show that the appointment of Saul was immediately from God. But for all this it continues a great Truth, That the establishment of the Royal Power in Israel was an Act of the People, and not an immediate Act of the Deity. And we ought to give the more heed to what was immediate in the Institution, because it is the Foundation of many particular Expressions we find in Scripture; when it is said of the Judges of Israel, Deut. 1.17. That their Judgement was God's Judgement; That they are Gods, Exod. 21.16. & 22.8, 9, 28. Psal. 82.1. John 10.35. That God is with them in their Judgement, 1 Chron. 19.6. All those Expressio●s refer to their immediate Divine Institution. When the Scripture, speaking of the Kings of Judea, saith, That Solomon sat upon the Throne of God, 1 Chron. 29.23. that is to say, that God had placed him on the Throne of Israel, which God himself was possessed of, till their demanding a King of Samuel, 2 Chron. 9.8. When it calls them the Kings of God, 1 Sam. Psal. 18.50. and his Anointed Ones, 2 Sam. 22.51. which Title is given to Saul, as well as David and Josiah; all those Expressions respect God's Establishment of Kings, after that the People had earnestly and obstinately demanded to be governed by their Ministry.  
As to the second Head which respects the Laws that God prescribes to the Jews, to regulate the Choice, and the Conduct of their future Kings, set down by Moses, in Deut. 17. v. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.  
We may therein observe these two things.  
1st. That God supposeth, that forasmuch as they would some time after set up a King over them, they would also suppose it lawful for them, to prescribe to the Royal Power, the Form and Rules which their Neighbour-Nations, amongst themselves, had set to that Form of Government.  
2ly, That God leaving to the People the natural Right of limiting the Royalty amongst themselves, according to their own liking and fancy, or for giving it more scope and liberty, as their Neighbours had done, only thought good to prescribe to them these Rules and Limitations. 1. God limits their choice as to the Person of a King, that he must be one chosen by himself. 2. They might not choose a Stranger. 3. He does not allow the King to multiply Horses; 4. Nor to lead back the People to Egypt; 5. Nor to have great store of Wives; 6. Nor to heap up vast Riches. 7. He enjoins him to study the Law of God, and have it always with him to observe and keep it. And, 8. To do Justice equally to all without distinction.  
These are the Laws which Josephus hath compendiously set down, Lib. 4. cap. 8. p. 123, after Philo, in his Treatise, concerning the Creation of the Prince.  
Now it is natural and obvious, to conclude from all this; 1. That God doth not in that place proscribe a platform of a Monarchy for the Government of the Jews; but only supposeth that the Jews, being desirous of Monarchy, would be apt to borrow the Model of it from the Neighbour-Kingdoms. 2. That in prescribing some Rules concerning the choice and behaviour of a King, he endeavours to prevent the State of Israel from falling into the Inconveniences, into which their Neighbour-Nations had cast themselves, by allowing their Kings, or at least suffering them to take too great a Power and Authority, whether in Matters of State or Religion. 3. That he supposeth, that the People ought to oblige the King to observe these Laws of God, and that they might oppose themselves to Princes, who at any time should have the boldness to violate them; as Josephus expresseth himself in the place quoted before. 4. That he allows the People of Israel the same Rights to oppose themselves against the unjust Erterprises of their Princes, turned Tyrants, which other Nations were possessed of against their Princes, when they abused their Authority: the Reason why People desire a King, being, that he may Judge and Govern them, not that he should Destroy them by playing the Tyrant.  
It is of importance to make these Observations, because it appears that in all this God did so far accommodate himself to the Design of the Jews, that he never pretended to carry his Laws any farther: for we see he does not speak to them concerning the Manner how they ought to behave themselves, when they should be attaked or subjugated by Foreign Powers, as supposing that common sense would be sufficient to instruct them, that in those Cases they were to follow the Example of other Nations, who bore patiently the Yoke of the Prince that conquered them.  
These things thus laid down, it clearly appears, that God set Bounds to the Royal Power, long before he established any King in Israel, and that the Jews could not but believe, that Kings had another Law set them than that of their own Wills.  
Indeed we see, 1st, That this Institution did not at all derogate from the Rights of the People, to choose their own Kings, under certain Conditions, and by a form of Treaty, Compact, or Capitulation. We find that the Election of Jephtha, Judg. 11.10. clearly supposeth this, as likewise afterward the same may be seen in the Election of Saul, David and Solomon, 1 Chron. 28.8. and 1 Chron. 29.24. We find that Ishbosheth was brought into the Camp by Abner, only to show him to the People, that they might consent to the choice of him, 2 Kings 2.9.  
2ly, Though this Institution seem to be immediate, yet did it not at all hinder or prejudg the People's Right of making Treaties and Capitulations with their Prince, and consequently of rejecting them, when at any time they should invade or violate the said Rights and Capitulations. And of this we have an illustrious Example in the Sons of Samuel, whose ill administration gave the Jews an occasion to demand a King, by which means Samuel himself was, as we may say, obliged to renounce his Power as Judge, which notwithstanding he had received immediately from God himself.  
3ly, How immediate soever the Kings of Juda may have been established by God, yet they never had the Character of an Arbitrary and unbounded Power, as is supposed by those, who would infer, that because Monarchy was instituted by God, the Power of him that is invested with it cannot be justly limited, neither can, for any Misdemeanour whatsoever, be deposed.  
To make it more sensible and evident, we need only take notice of what the Scripture tells us in several places.  
1st. They could not alienate the Lands and Countries that belonged to the State, to any Strangers, neither could they take them from their Subjects by way of Truck or Exchange, as appears from that History of Naboth, 1 Kings 21.  
2ly. They could not invade the Sacerdotal Functions, as is apparent from the History of Vzzia, who was boldly and courageously resisted by the High Priest Azaria and his Colleagues, 2 Chron. 26.18.  
3. They could not constrain the Levites to go to War; that Tribe being excepted from all the rest, who were subject to that Service, as Abulensis owns it, 1 Kings 9.22.  
4. They could impose no Tributes but in case of Necessity, and with the consent of the People; and those who have undertaken to do otherwise, have been censured therefore by the Prophet, Mic. 3.1. Not to mention, that the excessive Tributes Solomon imposed on the People, were the cause of the ten Tribes shaking off Rehoboam's Yoke, 1 Kings 12.3.  
4ly. I say that though God had seemed, to fix the Royal Dignity to one Family, to wit, that of David, yet was it not so bound up, that the Succession must always pass from the Father to the eldest Son, and not to the younger. Thus we see that Solomon was preferred to Adonijah by David, by the consent of the People. Thus Rehoboam designed to settle the Succession upon Abijah the Son of Maachah, as thinking him most fit for Government, though he had elder Brothers, 2 Chron. 11.22. Jehoshaphat on the contrary preferred Jehoram to the Succession before all his other Sons, because he was his Firstborn, 2 Chron. 21.3.  
All which evidently proves that both Kings and People, supposed themselves to have right, from the Divine Grant or Concession for the Establishment of Kings, to regulate the Rights of Royalty, and the Questions depending thereon, according to the Maxims of Political Prudence, and the Rights of Nations.  
Neither do we find that Samuel grounds his Discourse on any other Principles, or that he supposes that Kings ought to be invested with a boundless Power, as some imprudently do imagine. See in what manner he expresseth himself, to dissuade the Jews from their importunate Demand to have him settle a King over them, 1 Sam. 8.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, to the end. And it came to pass, that when Samuel was old, that he made his Sons Judges over Israel. But his Sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after Lucre, and took Bribes, and preverted Judgement. Then all the Elders of Israel assembled themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy Sons walk not in thy ways; now therefore make us a King to judge us like other Nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a King to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Harken unto the Voice of the People, in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the Works which they have done, since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other Gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their Voice, howbeit protest solemnly unto them, and show to them the manner of the King that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the Words of the Lord unto the People that asked of him a King; and he said, This will be the manner of the King that shall reign over you, he will take your Sons, and appoint them for himself, for his Chariots, and to be his Horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariot; and he will appoint him Captains over thousands, and Captains over Fifities, and will set them to ear his Ground, and to reap his Harvest, and to make his Instruments of War, and Instruments of his Chariots; and he will take your Daughters to be his Confectioners, and to be his Cooks and Bakers. And he will take your Fields and your Vine-yards, and your Olive-Yards, even the best of them, and give them to his Servants. And he will take the tenth of your Seed, and of your Vineyards, to bestow it upon his Officers and his Servants. And he will take your Men-Servants and your Maid-Servants, and the goodliest of your young Men, and your Asses, and put them to his Work. He will take the tenth of your Sheep, and ye shall be his Servants: And ye shall cry out in that Day because of your King, which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you in that Day. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the Voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we will have a King over us, that we also may be like all the Nations, and that our King may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our Battles. And Samuel heard all the Words of the People, and he rehearsed them in the Ears of the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Harken unto their Voice, and make them a King: and Samuel said unto the Men of Israel, Go ye every Man unto his City.  
'Tis obvious to observe from this account: 1st. That the Injustice and Miscarriage of Samuel's Sons was the cause why the Jews demanded a King to be set over them.  
2ly. That their Demand is couched in those terms, that make it evident, they desired to be governed after the manner of their Neighbour-Nations. 3ly. That this their Demand was displeasing to Samuel. 4ly. That God looked upon it as a Contempt of himself, and a casting off of his Authority, for the Reasons before alleged. 5ly. That God strictly enjoins Samuel to protest and declare unto them, how they must expect to be treated by the Kings that should reign over them. 6ly. That Samuel in this his Declaration delineates to them the complete Portraiture of a Tyrant rather than of a King, to affright the People from the Demand they had made; and that as a Prophet he foretells the things should happen to them under the Government of their Kings. 7ly. That he represents to them the Miseries annexed to Royalty, as their Bondage in Egypt, and the several other Servitudes, which had forced them to cry unto God, but denounces to them, that God, to punish them for this their Rebellion against him, and their Contempt of his Administration, would not hear them. 8ly. That the People dazzled with the Lustre of Royalty, and the Advantages they thence promised to themselves; in time of War, notwithstanding this Remonstrance, persevered in their Demand. 9ly. That finally therefore God commands Samuel to give way to their Request, and to set a King over them according to their Desire.  
This in short is the sense, which Josephus gives of this History. 
Antiq. lib. c. 4.  From whence it is evident, that the Synagogue never believed that God had granted to the Kings of Judea, any of those Tyrannical Rights, which some would appropriate to Kings from these Words, Hoc est jus Regis.  
Josephus makes out, that what is said, 1 Sam. 10.25. that Samuel wrote the Right (or rather the Manners and Behaviour) of a King in a Book, and laid it up before the Lord, was done by him for this end, that the People for time to come might know, that he, as a Prophet, had, in this his description of the Manners of a King, 
Ibid. cap. 5.  foretold them all the Calamities and Miseries that would overtake them under a Monarchy, changed into Tyranny, that thereby they might be induced to Acknowledge their unthankfulness towards God, and their Folly in being so earnest for a King, as often as they should cast their Eyes on this his Prophecy.  
I know that some to assert the unbounded Power of Monarches, have endeavoured to prove from these Words of the vulgar Latin Translation, hoc est jus Regis, that the Monarchical Government amongst the Jews was of this Nature, and that therefore Samuel does not represent the Kings here as subject to any Laws or Punishments, which it seems he consequently aught to have done, after that he had declared their Conduct and Behaviour, as absolutely contrary to the Rights of the Society.  
But as I have already before observed, never was so weak a Foundation made use of, whereon to raise such vast Pretensions as may be easily made out so as to convince those, who make use of an improper Translation, both to delude themselves, and to abuse others, about a Question which is of so great Importance to the Society.  
Now that Samuel had not any the least Design to appropriate an unbounded Power to the Kings of Israel, 1 Sam. 8. by these Words, hoc est jus Regis, appears 1st. Because the word Mispath ordinarily signifies, consuetudo, agendi ratio, a custom, manner or way of acting, in case we do not explain this word in the same sense it carries in the 2d. chap. of the same Book, ver. 13. we shall make this passage to contradict Deut. 17. which cannot be otherwise avoided. This is acknowledged by Learned Men, who therein agree with Schickardus de jure Hebraeorum, Cap. 2. Thess. 7. p. 65.  
2ly. The Fathers are of the same opinion; see what Beda saith in his Exposition upon Samuel, Lib. 2. Hoc erit jus Regis, qui imperaturus est vobis. Non qualis esse debeat, moderatus & justus Imperator, exposuit, cujus & in plerisque Scripturae sacrae locis, & maxim in Deuteronomio, perfectio docetur, sed potius Rector improbus, qui austeritate, subjectos sit oppressurus, intimat, ut per hoc populum a pertinaci ejus petitione revocet. This will be the Behaviour of the King that shall rule over you. He doth not s●t forth the Qualifications of a moderate and just Ruler, who is fully represented to us in many places of Scripture, but especially in Deuteronomy, but rather those of a wicked Governor, who by his Cruelty should oppress his Subjects, that thereby he might deter them, ●●om their obstinate demanding of him.  
3. The Divines that did not understand Hebrew, yet by good sense and Reason were led to the true meaning of this word. Gerson lays it down as a certain Truth, that this word does not express a lawful Right, but an unjust Power. Dictio haec [Jus] non significat semper Jurisdictionem, sive Justitiam, sed significat interdum Potestatem quae non est justa, etc. sicut haec dictio Rex, quandoque sumitur pro Tyranno, & Benedictio, pro maledictione, & Lex injustitiae, pro injustitiae execratione, & Deus pro Diabolo. This word [Jus] doth not always signify Right or Justice; but sometimes an unjust Power, etc. even as also the word King, is sometimes taken for a Tyrant, and Blessing for Cursing, and the law of unrighteousness, for the execrable unrighteousness, and God for the Devil. Opusc. contr. Adulator. Princip. in Consid. 8.  
The same also was the Judgement of Claudius Espenseus a famous Divine of the Romish Church, who told Henry TWO of France: Your Majesty ought to abhor that Right nothing less than Regal, and nothing more than Tyrannical, which God by the mouth of Samuel did not allow the King, but wherewith he threatened the People, saying, Hoc erit Jus Regis, this will be the Right of a King. Treatise of the Institution of a Prince Ch. 8.  
4. It appears evidently that Samuel represents to us the picture of a Tyrant, in opposition to the description of a King, God had set down in the 17 chap. of Deuteronomy.  
5. The Jews of old have always owned as much, as appears from Josephus, Lib. 4. cap. 8.  
6. It appears that those who conceive the matter otherwise, suppose a greater Power and Authority in Princes, than they ascribe to God himself, who never commands any Thing but what is reasonable and just; as St. Paul judged, who calls all the Duty we own to God, a Reasonable Service, Rom. 12.  
7. If any one will take the pains to read the Characters Solomon has given of a King, in divers places of the Proverbs, he shall find that nothing can be more opposite to this Idea of an unbounded Power, which some would gather from these words of Samuel.  
8. The Kings of Israel never enjoyed any such Power, or ever pretended to it: the History of Naboth, whose Vineyard King Ahab greatly desired, is a proof hereof beyond all exception. 1. King's ch. 21. Jezebel would never have been put to the trouble, to employ false Witnesses to destroy Naboth as a Blasphemer, if she had had in Israel some of those Divines, Flatterers of the Grandeur of Princes, who abuse the Holy Scripture to authorise all the injustice and oppression they are guilty of. I am sure it is impossible to read without astonishment the extravagance of some Divines, who conceive that the words of Samuel contain an Explication of the Rights of Royalty, and that Samuel wrote them in a Book as being the public and incontestable Rights of Monarchy.  
Withal let us make this Reflection which is very natural: The Jews here complain of the injustice and violence of Samuel's Sons, who made a mock of the Laws; whereupon 'tis supposed that they to remedy this mischief, require of Samuel to set a King over them, that might govern them according to his own Fancy, and treat them like Slaves: Is there any thing of sense in the Supposition? We suppose that the King has already a Rule prescribed him in the 17 of Deuteronomy, and at the same Time we maintain that Samuel a Prophet, has in a public Record set down the Description of a Tyrant, to whom God gives Right, to violate all the Rules he had prescribed in his Law. Sure it is that neither the Ancient nor Modern Jews, did ever conceive any such thing. If we read Josephus, where he sets down an abridgement of the 17 of Deuteronomy, we shall find that he expressly asserts, that it was not only the Right, but also the Duty of the People to oppose themselves against their Designs in case they violate the Rules of the Royalty God had prescribed them. Let us consider the carriage of the Maccabees against Antiochus, and we shall find that they did not believe it unlawful to resist Tyrants, and to oppose themselves to their destructive Government.  
Let any one read the 14 of the first Book of the Maccabees, and he will see whether the Rights of the King, which at that Time were engraven on Brass, had any resemblance with what we find in the 8th chap. of Samuel. This is a sure way to judge whether the Jews ever pretended that God, by these words of Samuel, had granted to Kings an unlimited Power. They to this day acknowledge, that the Scripture does not only prescribe Moral Laws, which their Kings could not violate; but also positive Laws, to which they were obnoxious, and which they could not transgress, without submitting themselves to the same punishments with the rest of their Subjects. This is the common opinion of the Jews, as we may see in Maimonides de Regibus Cap. 3. Sect. 4. and in the treatise of the Sanhedrim cap. 19 num. 166, 167, 168. which Doctrine he borrowed from the Talmud cap. Cohen Gadol, and from Siphri upon the Parasche Schophetim.  
2ly, They hold that if the King did change the form of Government into Tyranny, the People had Right to reject him. The History of Rehoboam rejected by the ten Tribes, is a proof hereof beyond exception.  
3ly, They hold that the People supposed themselves to have Right, and that it was their Duty to reject Athaliah, who though she was a Woman, yet had invaded the Throne, 2 Kings 11 ch. ver. 3. which the Jews pretend to be contrary to the Law set down in the 17 of Deuteronomy.  
4ly, They declare that King Herod appeared as a Criminal and indicted Person before the Sanhedrim, though they mistake themselves in the story related by Josephus lib. 14. cap. 17. Antiq. whence it appears that he was only Viceroy.  
I acknowledge that Casaubon, Exercit. 13. §. 3. (from whence Bishop Usher seems to have taken it) maintains, that the Jews believe, That no Creature can judge the King but God alone; and to this purpose quotes a passage out of Midrasch Devarim Rabath in Shophetim: but it is now 64 Years since Schickard has observed Casaubon's mistake, in handling a matter he did not understand; for indeed the Jewish Maxims are directly opposite to it. 1st. In the place by him cited, we find a Gloss, which shows that that passage did not concern the Kings of Judah, but those of Israel, who by their Power had changed the Government into Tyranny. Schickard de Jure Regio, pag. 63, 64. and trampled under Feet the Laws of God, which made them obnoxious to punishment. 2ly, We must observe that the Jews believed, that the Maxim never took place, but a little before the last extirpation of their States, upon occasion of one of their last Kings named Jamneus, Gemar in cap. 2 Sanhedrim.  
I own that Samuel doth not set down any express Law for the deposing of Kings, or punishing of them when turned Tyrants: but yet he supposed as a thing certain and evident, 1st. That their Crimes being contrary to the Law, were punishable according to the general Definitions of the Law against Idolaters and other Criminals: We don't find that God has spoken any thing in particular neither concerning the Highpriest, from whence the Papists falsely conclude, That he was exempt from Punishment, though he did transgress the Law. 2ly, I say that though the Execution of those Laws was not committed to Inferior Magistrates, yet did it of right belong to the public, according to the natural Dictates of common Sense.  
But after all, whatsoever Idea we may frame of the Jewish Monarchy, I maintain that it cannot be of any consequence to other States. 1st. Because that State was form immediately by God, for particular Ends which do not respect other Societies. God might, by Example, grant to the Family of David, which he had a mind to distinguish from others, some Prerogatives, which he had no design to communicate to other Sovereigns. 2ly, Because it is false that God has granted any particular Right to the Kings of Israel, contenting himself to give way to the People's desire, who would be governed by a King like their Neighbours. 3ly, Because whatever the Rights of Royalty may have been amongst the Jews, it is certain they have been abolished by an Order of Providence, which has wholly destroyed the State of the Jews, and the Rights of their Kings. We don't find that Jesus Christ obliged his Followers to regulate their Obedience to Sovereigns, according to the measure of Obedience the Jews rendered to their Kings. 4ly, Neither do we see, that the Jews since their dispersion did ever take part with Tyrants, when the States where they lived rejected them, or that they thought themselves obliged thereto by the Law. 5ly, We should be forced to suppose that all the Christian States, and all the Bishops and Pastors in the Churches and States without the Roman Empire, had been pitifully mistaken in not following or recommending this Judaical Form of Despotical Royalty, and purely Tyrannical, described by Samuel, which is so strangely extravagant, that it is unworthy to insist on the refutation of it.   

CHAP. X. Concerning the Royal Law in favour of the Roman Emperors.  
'TIS a difficult thing to understand the Nature of the Western Governments, without being acquainted with the Nature of the Government of the Roman Emperors, of that Empire, whose Ruin has been the rise of most of the Western Monarchies. Now it is certain, that as Contraries serve to illustrate one another, so the opposition which is found between the Constitution of those Kingdoms, and that of the Roman Empire will afford us a clear sight of the Characters which distinguish them.  
We must know then, that in the Year 729. of the City of Rome, 
Dion. lib. 53. Tacit. annal. lib. 2.  Augustus and Norbanus being Consuls, Lata est Lex Regia, quâ summa & Regia Potestas, quam sibi Populus Romanus ab ejectis Regibus sumpserat, in unum Principem translata est, ita ut is, nulla Legis necessitate teneretur, omnique jure scripto solutus esset; ei verò parerent omnes. The Royal Law was enacted, whereby the Sovereign and Kingly Power which the People of Rome, ever since their rejecting of the Kings, had taken to themselves, was transferred upon the Prince alone; so that he was not bound to the Law at all, and was exempted from all written Constitutions, but that all were to obey him. This is the true Epocha of the Power which the Roman Emperors had of making Constitutions, and to publish Answers to Questions of Law proposed to them.  
Antonius Augustinus has published some of the Remains of the Royal Law, which was divided into several Tables. See here some of the chief Articles of it, which Gruterus has inserted in his Inscriptions, pag. 242.— foedusve cum quibus volet facere liceat, ita uti licuit Divo Augusto Ti. Julio Caesari Augusto, Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico.  
Vtique ei Senatum habere, relationem facere, remittere, Senatus-consulta per relationem, discessionemque facere liceat, uti licuit Divo Augusto, etc.  
Vtique cum ex voluntate Authoritateve, jussu mandatuve ejus, praesenteve eo Senatus habebitur, omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur, servetur, ac si è lege Senatus edictus esset, habereturque.  
Vtique quos Magistratus potestatem, Imperium, Curationemve, cujus rei petentes Senatui Populoque Rom. commendaverit, quibusque suffraga●●onem suam dederit, promiserit, eorum Comitiis quibusque extra ordinem ratio habeatur.  
Vtique ei fines Pomoerii proffer, promovere, cum ex Republica censebit, esse, liceat, ita uti licuit Ti. Claudio Caesari Augusto.  
Vtique quaecumque ex usu, Reipublicae Majestate, Divinarum, Humanarum, Publicarum Privatarumque rerum, esse censebit ei agere, facere jus potestasque sit, ita ut Divo Augusto, Tiberioque Julio Caesari Augusto, Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico fuit.  
Vtique quibus Legibus, Plebísve scitis scriptum fuit, ne Divus Augustus Tiberiusve Julius Caesar Augustus, Tiberiusve Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus tenerentur, his Legibus Plebisque scitis, Imperator Caesar Vespasianus solutus sit, quaeque ex quaque Lege, rogatione Divum Augustum, Tiberiumve, Julium Caesarem, Tiberiumve Claudium Caesarem Augustum Germanicum facere oportuit, ea omnia Caesari Vespasiano Augusto facere liceat.  
Vtique quaecunque ante hanc Legem Rogatam acta, gesta, decreta, imperata, ab Imperatore Caesare Vespasiano Augusto jussu mandatuve ejus à quoquo sunt, ea perinde justa rataque sint, ac si Populi plebísve jussu acta essent.  

SANCTIO.  
Si quis hujusce Legis ergo, adversus Leges, Rogationes, Plebísvescita, Senatusve-consulta fecit, fecerit, sive quod eum ex Lege Rogationeve, Plebisvescito, S ve C. facere oportebit, non fecerit hujus Legis ergo, id ei ne fraudi esto, neve quit ob eam rem Populo dare debito, neve cui ea de re actio, neve Judicatio esto: Neve quis de ea re apud se agi sinito.  
These are the chief Articles of the Royal Law, which were engraven in Marble, from whence Antonius Augustinus copied them. This Marble stood in the Palace of St. John of Lateran, and was engraven under the Reign of Vespasian.  
We are to observe, for the better understanding of this Law;  
1st, That it was extorted, Vi & Metu, by Force and Fear, as Dion Cassius tells us, Lib. 53. Indeed, we read in Cicero against Verres, Regiè seu potius Tyrannicè statuit; He ordained Kinglike, or rather Tyrantlike. There is but little appearance that the Law was called Lex Regia, or the Royal Law, the Emperors choosing rather to take that Title, which signified only the General of an Army, than that of Kings, which the People of Rome had an horror for, ever since the Tarquins. And Dion Cassius relates in the before-cited place, with what sweetness Augustus always carried it towards the Senate, and how great a share he left in the Administration of the Affairs of the Empire, reserving chief for himself the Care and Conduct of the Provinces, which were exposed to the Violence of Enemies.  
2ly, That the wisest of the Roman Emperors have condemned the Government which this Law supposeth, for a Tyrannical Government. This was the Judgement of the Emperor Pertinax, in a Speech of his to the Senate, set down by Herodian, pag. 372 Edit. Steph.  
3ly, That after all, Justinian agrees, that the People of Rome had transferred all the Power upon the Person of the Emperor: See how he expresseth himself; Come enim Lege antiquâ, qua Regia nuncupatur, omne jus, omnisque potestas Populi Rom. in Imperatoriam translata sint potestatem. Lib. 4. cod. de veter. Jure enncleando, & tit. de Jure Naturae & Gentium & Civili.  
4ly, That by this Law the Roman Emperors were not above all Laws, but some Laws only, being subject to the rest as well as any of their Subjects.  
5ly, That the Power which the People of Rome had granted to their Emperors, expired together with them, and was fain to be renewed upon every Succession.  
6ly, That  was done in virtue of this Law, before such renewal of it, did make the Doer of Right liable to Punishment.  
But however thus much is apparent, That though the Roman Emperors were above certain Laws; yet they had not wholly deprived the Commonwealth of their Authority, nor the People of their Liberty, of which we can give some very evident Instances.  
1st, This Royal Law did not overthrow the Propriety of the Subject, as appears from the recital of Bodin, concerning Justinian, who himself was obliged to demand leave of a Widow to pull down her House, for to build the Church of Sancta Sophia, which she had refused the Lords he had sent to desire her to surrender her House to him.  
2ly, It did not expose the Subjects to the blind Fury of the Emperors, otherwise it would have been a great Folly in Theodosius to have undergone the Public Penance which St. Ambrose laid upon him, for having caused some of the Inhabitants of Thessalonica to be murdered by his Soldiers, for assisting in a popular Sedition, where a General of his Army had been killed.  
3ly, The Emperors never pretended that the People were become their Slaves: In which Point the Romans differed from the Persians, which made Lactantius say, speaking of Maximian, as of a Tyrant; Post devictos Persas, quorum hic ritus, hic mos est, ut Regibus suis in Servitium se addicant, & Reges Populo suo, tanquam familia utantur, hunc morem nefarius homo in Romanam terram voluit inducere, quem ex illo tempore victoriae, sine pudore, laudabat. After he had overcome the Persians, whose Custom and Manner it is to be Slaves to their Kings, the Kings using their People as their Servants and Domestics, this wicked Man was willing to introduce the same Custom amongst the Romans, which from the time of his this Victory he commended without all shame.  
4ly, The Emperors made no alterations in the Laws, though they attributed to themselves the right of interpreting them, and to enact new Ones upon emergent Occasions.  
The Right of assembling the Senate, and the Nomination to Offices and Places of Trust, as well as the Power of appointing Governors in the Provinces, which before were left to the disposal of the Senate, was the greatest Right of the Emperors.  
The Right of making Peace and War, was of the same Nature: There was only this difference, viz. That this Right was granted to the Emperors for ever, whereas it was but rarely granted to the Generals which Rome formerly nominated.  
And as for the Right of not being subject to Laws, that was only a Right limited to certain Laws, and was not to be understood with respect to all Laws whatsoever; Accordingly we see, 1st. That the Emperor Constantine expresseth himself thus: Contra Jus rescripta non valeant, quocunque modo fuerint impetrata. Quod enim publica Jura praescribunt, magis sequi Judices debent. Orders contrary to Law are invalid, which way soever they be obtained. For the Judges ought to keep themselves to what the Public Laws prescribe, Lib. 1. cod. Theod. de divers. rescript. The Emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian, speak yet more expressly; Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis, legibus alligatum se Principem profiteri. Adeo de Authoritate Juris, nostra pendet Authoritas. It is a saying worthy of the Majesty of a Ruler, for a Prince to profess himself bound by the Laws: so far does all our Authority depend upon the Authority of the Law. Lib. 4. cod. de Leg. & constitut. Princip. We see in the second place, that the Senate sentences Nero, without believing that by this Act they violated the Oaths they swore to the Emperors every New-year's day. The Senate declares some Emperors, as Heliogabalus, Enemies of the State, and arm their Subjects to destroy them, and make void all their Acts: which makes it evident, that though the Emperors often boast themselves of their not being tied to Law, yet they were fain to approve the Proceed of the Senate against their Predecessors. The Reason of this Conduct is, that though it be a general Compact of Humane Society to obey Kings, as St. Austin speaks, lib. 3. confess. c. 8. yet it is no less notorious, that this Compact doth not respect Tyrants.  
Accordingly we see that the wisest of the Emperors did so little believe that it was lawful for them to govern arbitrarily, that Trajan, in favour of whom the Royal Law was renewed, at the time of his exaltation to the Empire, addresseth himself in these words to the Perfect of the Praetorium; Accipe hunc gladium, pro me si rectè agam; sin aliter, in me magis; quod moderatorem omnium errare minus fas sit; Take this Sword and use it for me, in case I rule well; but if not, rather against me; because it less becomes him that rules over all, than it does others, to commit an Error. Dion. & Aurel. Victor.  
2ly, That the Emperors, who were most renowned for Virtue, did never affect to publish any Laws of their own Heads, till after they had got them approved by the Senate. This is that which Lampridius records concerning Alexander Severus; and we see the same practised by Theodosius, l. Humanum C. de F.  
But whatever this Royal Law may have been, sure it is,  
1st, That the same was abolished together with the Roman Empire, which ended in the West with Augustulus.  
2ly, That it ceased in the East with the Emperors of Constantinople.  
3ly, It is certain that they who ruin'd the Empire in the West, did never adopt this Royal Law, to govern their Subjects by that Arbitrary Rule.  
4ly, It is also certain that the Princes, who since the Year 800 have succeeded Charles the Great, and who have taken to themselves the Names of Roman Emperors, did not govern according to this Law, nor ever pretended that that Law ought to be observed in favour of them, under pretence of their bearing the Title of Roman Emperors.  
This is that, which I believe it will be of use solidly to evince, though I intent to do it very compendiously, that I may not tyre the Reader.    

CHAP. XI. That the States of the West, and of the North, never knew this Royal Law.  
THough the People of the West allowed their Princes the Title of King, yet it may be averred, that the most part of those Kingdoms, which had their Rise from the Ruins of the Roman Empire, never owned this Royal Law. The Power of their Kings was originally limited, as Caesar witnesseth in his Commentaries concerning the Germane Kings, which were, to speak properly, only Commanders or Generals. I make particular mention of the Germans, because, for the most part, they were the Founders of the Northern and Western Kingdoms; Germany having been, as it were, the Nursery, from whence have proceeded most of those Nations, who at this Day have any Name in Europe. See what Tacitus asserts concerning the Germane Kings; Nec Germanorum Regibus infinita aut libera potestas est; de minoribus rebus Principes consultant, de majoribus omnes. Rex aut Princeps auditur Authoritate suadendi, magis quam jubendi potestate; si displicuit sententia, fremitu aspernantur. Neither is the Power of the Germane Kings altogether free or unbounded. Matters of lesser Moment are left to the Advice of the Princes, but those of greater Concern are debated by the whole Society; they hear the King as one having Authority to persuade, rather than any Power to command them; and if his Sentiments displease them, they are rejected with boldness.  
Caesar gives us much the same portraiture of the Kings of the Gauls.  
And that their Successors, who tore the Roman Empire to pieces, have retained this Form of a Limited Monarchy, is Matter of incontestable Evidence, to every one that will take a little pains to peruse the Histories of those Nations, to run over their Laws, and take notice how they have carried it towards their King's  they fell to Tyranny.  
They who would be informed how far the Power of the Gothick Kings in Spain was limited, need only to cast their Eyes upon the account which Gregory of Tours gives us, Lib. 2. cap. 31. concerning this Matter, and upon their History in the Chronicle of St. Isidorus. We have the fundamental Laws of their Kingdom set down by Molina, de Hispan. Primogenit. Cap. 2. N. 13.  
But this appears yet more clearly from the Body of their Laws, which is still extant, and published by Lindenberg.  
1st. It appears that their Laws were enacted, ex universali consensu Civium & Populi, by the universal Consent of the Citizens and People, Lib. 1. Tit. 7.  
2ly, It appears that the Kings were no less obnoxious to the Laws, than the Subjects themselves. Lib. 2. Tit. 2.  
3ly, It appears not that the Romans Laws, and much less their Royal Law, had any Authority amongst them. Lib. 2. Tit. 9  
4ly, It appears, that their Kings had not so much as the Power to pardon Crimes, without the consent of the Bishops, and chief Lords, Lib. 6. Tit. 7.  
Lastly, It is evident from their History, that their Kings were liable to be deposed by the States, when ever they went about to transgress their Bounds, and tyrannize over their Subjects.  
I confess, that the Council of Toledo iv in their last Canon thus express themselves. Quicunque amodo ex nobis, vel totius Hispaniae populis, qualibet conjuratione vel study, sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro Patriae Gentisve Gothorum statu, vel conservatione Regiae salutis (vel incolumitate Regiae Potestatis) pollicitus est, temeraverit, aut potestate Regni exuerit, aut praesumptione Tyrannicâ Regni fastigium occupaverit, Anathema in conspectu Dei Patris & Angelorum, atque ab Ecclesia Catholica, quam perjurio profanaverit, efficiatur extraneus, & ab omni Coetu Christianorum alienus, cum omnibus impietatis suae fociis: quia oportet ut una poena teneat obnoxios, quos similis error invenerit implicatos. Whosoever from this time forwards, either of us, or of any of the People of Spain, shall by any Conspiracy or Attempt, break the Oath of his Fidelity he has taken for the welfare of his Country, and the Gothick Nation, the conservation of the King's Life, and maintenance of the Royal Power; or who shall deprive him of his Kingdom, or by a Tyrannical Presumption usurp the Throne, let him be Anathema in the sight of God the Father, and the Angels, and be cast out from the Catholic Church, which he has profaned by his Perjury, and be turned out of all Christian Assemblies, with all the Complices and Associates of his Wickedness: because it is but fit, that all they should be liable to the same Punishment, who are involved in the same Crime. The same is repeated in the Council of Toledo V cap. 1. and in the Council of Toledo X. Cap. 2. But we may affirm with truth, that those who have worn this Canon threadbare by their frequent citing of it, did either not understand it, or changed the sense of it to impose upon and delude others.  
Wherefore let those that read these words well observe;  
1st. The Order which the Fathers of the Council of Toledo iv observe in speaking of Oaths, Sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro Patriae, Gentisque Gothorum statu, vel conservatione Regiae salutis (vel incolumitate Regiae potestatis) pollicitus est. I own it is to be considered that the [vel] here signifies as much as [&], this being the common stile of those Times. I say it is remarkable, that the good and happy State of the Nation, was the first Object of their Oaths, the second Object was joined with it, viz. the Conservation of the King, yet with the understood Proviso, if he did not oppose the first, but was subservient to it. For indeed, I cannot believe that God made the Goths of another nature than the rest of Mankind, or so much Fools (enough) as to prefer the Means before the End; and to believe that they ought to engage themselves to seek the Means, any further than they are of use to obtain the End. Ad Tutelam Legis Subditorum Rex creatus est. The King, saith Chancellor Fortescue, is made for a Safeguard to the Subject's Laws. The Preservation of the Subject is the first Obligation, and the next that of the Prince.  
2ly, We must observe, that the words of the Canon regard those, who by a Conspiracy undertake either to kill the King, or to deprive him of his Kingdom, or to usurp the Throne by a Tyrannical Presumption. But all this while they suppose a lawful King, that is to say, a King acknowledged as such by the State, attacked by some furious Conspirators, with design to dethrone him, against all Right and Justice, for to place another in his stead. The Council does not in the least suppose that it is unlawful for the State to deprive a Tyrant of the Authority he abuseth. If we suppose the contrary, we must take St. Isidore, who was Precedent of that Council, for a Fool, fit to be shut up in Bedlam, for he expressly makes this Observation, that Rex à rectè agendo vocatur; si enim piè & justè & misericorditer agit, merito Rex appellatur: si his caruerit, non Rex sed Tyrannus est. Addit 2 ad Cap. Caroli Magni, c. 21.  
3ly, I maintain that of all the Passages of Antiquity which are alleged by the Defenders of Passive Obedience, there is not any to be found which they ought to have been more careful to suppress in silence, than that of this Council. And we must judge them possessed with a brutal Stupidity, or guilty of strange Malice, in employing such a Passage as this to support their Prejudices in favour of those Princes who overturn the Government. For who were these Fathers of the 4th Council of Toledo? They were the very Men, who three Years before this Council, had cast off Suinthila, after he had reigned ten Years over them; who had raised Sisinandus in his room, against whom they justly feared that some furious Fellows might hatch a Conspiracy. They were the Men who pronounced three anathemas against Suinthila for the Crimes he had been found guilty of, whilst he was possessed of the Royal Power. They were the Men who declared, That if a King does not well acquit himself of the high Charge he is entrusted with, he ought to be excommunicated, and consequently deprived of all Power in his Kingdom. All which is contained in Chap. 75. of the same Council, where they observe, that the Election of Kings took place after the Death of their Fathers. Which makes it apparent, that there is no ground at all to suspect the Goths, or the Bishops of Spain and of Gallia Narbonensis, who assisted at that Council, to have espoused the Maxims that some would fix upon them.  
The Lombard's observed the same Rules in their Government, as we may see in their History written by Paulus Diaconus.  
And as for what the other Kingdoms that were form of the Ruins of the Empire of Charles the Great, we find that their Power was always limited in the same manner, none of those Princes having ever thought of reviving the Royal Law of the Ancient Roman Emperors in favour of themselves.  
And because this Affair bears so great a resemblance with the present Revolution, I desire the Reader not to take it ill, that I have copied the 75th Canon of the 4th Council of Toledo, at the end of these Remarks, and that he may make his Reflections thereupon: for he will find that those who make use of it, have no reason to complain, That they who have made choice of the Prince of Orange, upon the desertion of James TWO, after so many unjust Proceed and Erterprises, tending to the total overthrow of the State and Government, have exactly followed this Example of the Kingdom of Spain; and that the Clergy who have followed these Decisions of State, have therein imitated the Conduct of this Council of Toledo; and that those who oppose themselves against it, are found in the same Case with those whom the Church of Spain and of Gallia Narbonensis did so solemnly excommunicate.  
The Kings of Burgundy reigned with the same Limitations: For which we may consult the Law of Gondebaud, which is still extant, and which was made, Habito Consilio Comitum & Procerum, with the Advice of the Earls and Lords, who signed the Law as well as King Gondebaud: which makes it very evident that the Kings of this People had not the Legislative Power invested in them alone. We find the same Clause in the second Addition to that Law. And indeed we need only to take notice of what Marius Aventicensis relates concerning King Sigismond in his Chronicle, to enable us to judge that those People had other Laws besides that of the Will of their Princes. For this Prince having caused his Son to be strangled without any Form of Justice, his Subjects conceived so great an Indignation against him, that he was forced to hid himself, and to take upon him a Friar's Habit, for a Mark of his Repentance, which yet was not able to give them Satisfaction, for as soon as he appeared, they delivered him to Clodomer King of Orleans, who carried him to France, where soon after he lost his Life in a Tragical manner.  
We find Instances of the sharing of the Sovereign Power between the Lords and the King in the Ancient Histories of Sweden, as may be seen in Joan. Magnus, Hist. lib. 15, & 29. and in Crantzius, lib. 5. We find also that by the Oaths taken at the Coronation of their Kings, the Bishops, Nobles, Citizens and People oblige themselves, in case the King commit any thing by himself, or by another, contrary to the Articles or Treaty he swears to at his Coronation, to oppose themselves to his Erterprises upon their Honour, and upon their Oath, Chytraeus, lib. 2. They who do not know the Manner of the States of Sweden deposing of Sigismond, and the Reasons they alleged for it to King James, may peruse the Relation of it in Goldast.  
We find the same Limitations of the Regal Power in Denmark, as Pontanus observes in his 8th Book; and it was for endeavouring to break through these Bounds, that Christiern the II. was deposed, as may be seen in Petersen, in Chron. Holsat. Where he hath set down the Acts and Reasons of the State of Denmark about that Proceeding.  
That the Power of the Kings of Hungary, was a Power limited by the Fundamental Laws of the State, is a Matter so notorious, that Chalcondilas has made it his Observation, in the second Book of his History, where he compares the Royalty of Hungary in that respect to the Kingly Power in England. And which may be farther made out by the Fundamental Laws of Hungary, set down by Bonfinius, Decad. 4. lib. 9 Where we also find the Oath taken by those Kings at their Coronation, being the most expressly conditional that can be imagined.  
Chalcondile saith the same Thing of the Kingdoms of Arragon and Navarre, Lib. 5. where he observes, that the Kings did not create the Magistrates, that they could not make any Garrison without the Consent of the People, and that they could not require any thing of them, contrary to their Customs, that is to say, contrary to their Laws. Accordingly we find that the Kings of Spain have no Power to lay any new Impositions upon their Subjects without their consent. They are obliged to swear they will observe the Laws. And in Arragon the People declare to the King at his Coronation, that if they do not perform their Oath and Promise, their Subjects are thereby set free from their Oath of Allegiance.  
We find the same Thing in the History of the Kingdom of Portugal, but especially in that part of it which gives an Account of the Reign of Alphonsus III. The Fundamental Laws of which Kingdom we find in the 17th Title of the Ordinances of Portugal, Lib. 2. §. 2, 3. & seq.  
So true is it that all those Kingdoms never in the least supposed that their King had an Absolute Power over them. And it is as certain, that almost all those States have always maintained, That the Power of their Sovereigns was so limited,  
1. That they could make no Laws without the State's General of the Kingdom.  
2. That they could not levy any Money on their Subjects without their Consents.  
3. That they could not break the Laws according to their Will and Pleasure.  
4. That in case of their violating the Fundamental Laws of the State, they were liable to be deprived of a Power which they abused.  
5. That the States were free to choose such a Form of Government, and such a Person for to govern them, as they thought most expedient for them.  
This is that which I intent to prove more particularly by Examples taken from the Empire, and the Kingdoms of Poland, France, Scotland, and England; to which I shall add some Remarks upon those Titles which deceive some, who consider Things of this Nature with too little attention.   

CHAP. XII. That the Power of the Emperors of the West, is a Limited Power.  
THis is a Matter that may be easily gathered from these following Instances:  
1. Because Charles the Great, who was the first that took upon him the Title of Roman Emperor, reigned according to the Customs of the Princes of Germany, of whose Opinion concerning an Absolute and Despotical Government, Tacitus has given us some Account, who represents them, as having the greatest abhorrence for it.  
2. Because Lewis the Good, did himself acknowledge, that the Sovereign Power was shared between him and the chief Members of the Empire; Capitular. Lib. 2. Tit. 3. Sed quanquam summa hujus ministerii in nostra persona consistere videatur, tamen & Divinâ Authoritate, & humanâ ordinatione, ita per partes divisum esse cognoscitur, ut unusquisque vestrûm in suo loco & ordine, partem nostri Ministerii habere cognoscatur. But though the whole of this Ministry seem to consist in our Person, yet it is known to be so shared and divided, as well by Divine Authority, as Humane Ordination, that every one of you in his respective Place and Order, is known to partake of this Ministry. Thus was he pleased to express himself in the Assembly of the State's General, whose Authority he owned to be as much of Divine Right as his own; which made Charles du Moulin, the most famous of all French Lawyers, say, Ergo solum Caput non omnia potest, imo persona Principis non est Caput nisi Organicum, sed verum Caput est Principatus ipse, cum membris integrantibus eum; Wherefore the Head alone cannot do all, yea, the Person of the Prince is only the Organical Head, but the true Head is the Principality itself, with its integral constituting Members. Which are his express words in his Commentaries upon the Style of Parliament, dedicated to the first Precedent of Paris, and printed with Privilege.  
3. Because though the Western Empire did seem to be so Hereditary, that the Emperors had divided it amongst their Children; yet, in process of time, it became Elective, which began to take place in the Eleventh Century, in the Person of Rudolphus.  
4. In that they always excluded Females from the Succession to the Empire, though they had respect in their choice to the Imperial Blood.  
With respect to the Rights of Sovereignty we find, that though the Empire be a Monarchical Government, yet we see it is mixed with Aristocracy; for the Emperor cannot enjoy it, but with the Consent of the States of the Empire, without making himself liable to be contradicted and deposed also.  
He has not the Right of making Laws, without the Consent and Authority of the States of the Empire.  
He has no right to declare War, without the foregoing consent of the States.  
He has no right of levying any Imposition on the States, without the Consent of the Diets.  
Whenever he gins to usurp the Rights that do not belong unto him, and to infringe the Rules of Government he has sworn to observe, the States have a Right to oppose his Erterprises, to repel Force with Force, and finally to deprive him of the Empire, in case he continue in the Design of changing the Form of Government. For though there be no Laws, which bound and regulate the Article of the Deposing of Emperors, when they abuse their Power for the overturning of the State, or for invading the Rights of the Princes of the Empire, and Imperial Cities; yet the Germans have always held, and still do hold it for a certain Truth, that it is a Right inherent in the Empire, to deprive an Emperor of the Imperial Power and Dignity, and to confer the same on another. This is the common Opinion of the Germane Lawyers represented to us by Lampadius, Arnizaeus, Diderick, Conringe, and many others.  
And indeed we may say, that there is nothing more certain, if we consider the Examples of Emperors that have been deposed since these 7 or 800 Years; Examples that are neither rare nor unknown, and upon occasion of which the States of the Empire have had an opportunity to declare & make out their Rights and Pretensions. One of the first Examples we find respecting this Matter, is the Deposition of Lewis the Good, in the Year 833. The Acts whereof we may see in Baronius, Goldast, du Chesne, and le Comte; Whereupon we may make these Reflections; 1. That the Thing was done with the Consent of the Bishops, and of all the Nobility. 2. That the Estates above all accuse him for having broke his Coronation-Oath. 3. That though this Lewis was afterwards restored to the Throne of the Empire, yet those that restored him, never contested the Power the State had to reject a Prince, who overturned the Rules of Government, but supposed only that he had not been duly convinced of the Crimes laid to his charge.  
We have another Example, in the Deposition of Henry IU. The Archbishops, Bishops, Dukes and Earls, declare, that they had not sworn to him, till after he had engaged himself by his Oath to them, to observe the Laws and the Capitulations of the Empire: so that having now violated them, they were set free from the Oath they had sworn to him, and that they considered him as an Enemy, against whom they would wage war to their last breath. Lambert Schafnaburg.  
One of the last Instances we find in the deposing of the Emperor Wenceslaus, who was deposed by the Electors of the Empire in the Year 1400, after that he had been twice taken Prisoner, and had been exhorted by the State, to amend and take up from his irregular Actings. Aventin. lib. 7. Annalium & Cuspinian. in Vita Venceslai. We may see the most part of these Articles, and many more solidly confirmed in the Book of Carpsovius, de Lege Regia Imperatorum Germaniae, and in the Imperial Capitulations, and other Laws, which he has caused to be printed at the End of his Treatise.   

CHAP. XIII. That the Power of the Kings of Poland is Limited.  
WE find the same Limitation in other States, whether they be Successive or Elective, I shall content myself to allege only one Example concerning the Kingdoms that at present are Elective, and that shall be of the Kingdom of Poland.  
Poland, from the Relation of Cromer, gives us an illustrious Example of the Wisdom of Northern People, in bounding the Power of their Princes. After that the Family of Lech, the first Founder of that Kingdom, was extinct, that State changed the Royal Government, into that of XII Waywods, otherwise called Palatines. These Palatines abusing their Authority, they reestablished the Regal Government, in favour of Cracus, whose second Son was expelled by the Polanders for killing his Elder Brother.  
They afterwards chose the Daughter of Cracus for their Queen, who, 'tis said, having drowned herself to avoid Marriage, the Polanders again established 12 Palatines, as they had done before: but afterwards suppressed them again, because they found them insufficient to defend the Country, and chose Premiel for their King. This is Lesko the 1, who lived about the year 750. It was not till the Year 965 that Miesco turned Christian, and took upon him the Title of King of Poland, which Title was confirmed by the Emperor Otho III to Bosletas his Successor.  
His Successors having reigned until Lesko Surnamed the Black, who was forced by Flight to quit the Kingdom, because he was not able to resist the Tartars, and died without Issue: the Poles wearied with intestine Wars, excited by the Ambition of their great Lords, chose Premiel to be their King, who being killed, without leaving any Children behind him, they made choice of Ladislaus, who was afterwards disposed, for Maladministration, by the State's General. Wenceslaus King of Bohemia, who had been chosen in his stead, dying in the Year 1305, Ladislaus was recalled to the Government, to whom Casimir his Son succeeded; who in the Year 1370 designed for his Successor, with consent of the States, Lewis, the Son of Charles King of Hungary, by his Sister. The Poles after the Death of Lewis, chose Edwiga his Daughter, upon condition that she should marry the Person whom the States should recommend to her for a Husband; the Person recommended by them was Jagello Duke of Lithuania, who had the name of Ladislaus given him by the Archbishop of Gnesna, who anointed and Crowned, after he had first baptised him. He outlived Edwiga who died without Children, and had for Successors the children of his fourth Wife, who reached until Sigismond Augustus, after whose Death the States chose in the Year 1573 Henry Duke of Anjou, who after he had reigned four Months in Poland, abandoned the Kingdom, to take possession of the Crown of France, and was deprived of that of Poland, by the States, as may be seen from the Acts recorded by Historians. This Vacancy occasioned a Division in the States, one part of them having chosen the Emperor Maximilian the Second; and the other part Anne the Sister of Sigismond Augustus, to whom they gave Stephen Battori Prince of Transylvania for her husband, who Married the said Anne, and was Crowned at Cracovia in 1576. After the Death of Stephen, the States chose Sigismond, Son of John III King of Sweden, and of Katherine Daughter of Sigismond I. of that name, King of Poland.  
It is evident from this Abridgement, 1st. That the Poles always pretended to be the Masters that had right to give the Form to their State, which seemed to them most comporting with the Good and Welfare of it.  
2ly, That they took it for granted that they had Power to reject those Princes or Palatines, whose Behaviour was contrary to the Public Good, for which they had raised them.  
3ly, That they ever had an Eye to Succession, so far as to bestow the Crown sometimes upon Daughters, yet not thinking themselves bound to it, but only so far as the good of the State did permit.  
4ly, That they had regard to the appointing of a Successor, when the States had first consented to it.  
5ly, That the Flight or Desertion of their Kings, has appeared to them a sufficient Ground to proceed to a new Election, in their stead, and to reject them. This is evident from the History of Lesko, surnamed the Black, and of Henry the III of France.  
6ly, That the anointing and Crowning of their Kings, was of no avail to dispense with their Oath in which they publicly declare, That if they do not observe the Laws of the State, the People are dispensed from their Oaths of Fealty they have sworn to them.   

CHAP. XIV. That the Monarchy of France is not an Absolute Empire, but a Limited Royalty.  
'TIS not of to day only, that some have imagined the Monarchy of France, to be an unlimited Power, and an Absolute Empire: Bodinus was of that opinion before them; but they that follow his sentiment, understand nothing of that Constitution: or if they do, have a greater desire to flatter the unjust Pretensions of that Court, than to maintain the Truth.  
We need only to lay open the nature and ancient Power of the State's General, with the manner of their Behaviour towards those Kings, who abused the Power committed to them, to make it evident, that the French Monarchy is limited in its Constitution.  
Under the first and second Race of the Kings of France, there was no mention of any Assembly of the State's General, but only of the Franks, that is to say, the Nobles and Prelates, who were used to meet together, on the first of May, in the open Field, where they deliberated with the King, concerning matters of Peace and War, and took Resolutions of what was to be done all the Year after. After the breaking up of this Assembly, the Court of the Royal Palace, otherwise called the Court of France, composed of the Prelates and Great Barons, that is to say, the immediate Vassals of the Crown, met together five or six times a Year to take care of the Execution of what had been resolved upon in the General Assembly, to deliberate about public Affairs that offered themselves, and to determine as Judges the most important matters of private Persons.  
Under the declination of the 2d Race, the Governors of Cities and Provinces, having made themselves Hereditary Lords of the places of their respective Governments, under the Title of Counties and Dutchies, cut themselves large Portions out of the Sovereign's Lands: by which means the Court of France was no more frequented by the Lords, except only, when they were obliged to do Homage, and take the Oath of Fidelity, or when an Enemy invaded France: for than they presented themselves before the King, to advise about the present necessity. This Disorder continued until the Reign of Philip Augustus, who having conquered Normandy, and the Counties of Tourain, Anjou, Maine, from John without Land, King of England, and the Country of Vermandois from the Earl of Flanders; restored in some manner the Royal Authority, and forced the Barons to frequent his Court, and to be present at the Assemblies he called for the Affairs and Necessities of State. Nevertheless those Assemblies consisted only of the Prelates and Barons, and this till the Reign of King John (some Authors say of St. Lewis) who being taken at the Battle of Poitiers, and carried to England, they were forced to raise a great Sum of Money for his Ransom; and to this End they applied themselves to the Merchants, and other Inhabitants of Cities, who were then the richest Men of the Kingdom, who agreed to pay the King's Ransom, upon condition that they might be received into the Charges and Offices, as well of Peace as of War, and be allowed to have a Place and deliberative Voice in the States-General, which was accordingly granted to them.  
The Power and Prerogative of the States-General was such, that the Kings of France could not make any new Levies of Money without them. Which continued so till the Reign of Charles VII. as is acknowledged by Philip de Commines Lib. 6 c. 7. Neither could they make any new Ordinances, nor repeal or suppress the old, without the consent of the said States, as is owned by Davila lib. 2 the li Guerri Civili.  
Under the First, and second Race of the French Kings, the Ordinances were likewise made in the Assembly of the Prelates, and Barons, which constituted the Sovereign Court of France; 'twas there the Treaties of Peace were made between the Kings of France and Foreign Princes, and Nations; the Portions of the Children of France were there regulated; there they treated of their Marriages, and generally of all that concerned the Affairs of State, of the King's Household, and the Children of France. The Ordinances that were made in the said Assemblies, in the Name of the Kings of France, were conceived in these Terms; Nos de consilio & consensu Procerum nostrorum statuimus, etc. We with the Advice and Consent of our Lords do ordain. And from hence is derived the Custom observed at this Day, of verifying the Royal Edicts in the Parliament of Paris, which in some sort represents the Assembly of the Prelates and Barons, who composed, as we have said, the Sovereign Court of France.  
In the Treasury of the French Kings, at Chartres, are found several Treaties between King Philip Augustus, and Richard and John without Land, Kings of England, at the bottom of which are the Seals of the Prelates and Barons; by whose Consent and Approbation the said Treaties had been made. And Pope Innocent VI having sent to entreat St. Lewis that he would be pleased to permit him to retire into France, to secure himself from the attempts of Frederick II. the said King answered the Pope's Nuncio, that he would communicate the Matter to his Parliament, without whose Consent the Kings of France could do nothing of Importance. This is related by Matthew Paris, in the Life of Henry the III. King of England, ad Annum 1244.  
We find also the manner how the States determined all Affairs respecting the Crown and Succession, as for Example the Process which was between Philip de Valois, and King Edward. In this Assembly of the States, saith the Chancellor de l' Hospital, was Tried and Debated the most Noble Cause that ever was, viz. To whom the Crown of France did belong, after the Death of Charles the Fair, to Philip of Valois his Cousin, or to Edward King of England, King Philip not presiding in that Assembly, because he was not yet King, and besides was a Party.  
It appears clearly from the Power of the State's General, That the Power of the King of France is bounded by Law; indeed this is a Truth whereof we cannot make the least doubt, forasmuch as we find it acknowledged by Lewis XI. the most unbridled Monarch that ever was. See what he writes in the Rosary of War, composed by him a little before his Death, for the use of Charles VIII. his Son. When Kings or Princes, (saith he) have no respect to the Law, they take from the People, what they ought to leave them possessed of, and do not give them what they ought to have; and in so doing they make their People Slaves, and thereby lose the name of a King. For no body can be called a King, but he that rules and has Dominion over Freemen.  
This thing was so notorious even to Strangers themselves, that Machiavelli maintained that the Stability of the Monarchy of France, was owing to this, because the Kings there were obliged to a great number of Laws, which proved the Security and Safeguard of all their Subjects. Lib. 1 di Discorsi c. 16.  
Messire Claudius de Seissel, in his Treatise of the French Monarchy, part 2. chap. 12. dedicated to Francis I. maintains upon this account, That the Monarchy of France does partake of Aristocrasy, which makes it both more perfect and durable. Yea he asserts that it was also in part Democratical, and expressly maintains that an absolute Monarchy is no other than true Tyranny, when it is made use of against Religion, Justice and the Government; That a Prince who passeth these Bounds, must be held and esteemed for a wicked Tyrant, cruel and intolerable, who by this means pulls down the Hatred of God and his Subjects upon himself.  
Du Haillan Historiographer of the Kings Henry III and Henry iv follows the same notion of Claudius de Seissel, in his third Book of the state of the Affairs of France, dedicated to Henry III maintaining that the Government of France is composed of Aristocrasy and Democrasy, p. 168.  
And indeed who can judge otherwise, when he attentively considers these six things, which are a part of the public Constitution of the Kingdom of France.  
1st. That though the Crown for a long time since has followed the form of Succession, yet the form of Election is still observed at the Coronation. Hunc vultis, hunc jubetis esse Regem, This is he whom you will and require to be your King; these Words are spoken to the People before the Coronation. We find the People's Election is mentioned, and the King called elect in the form of Coronation, published by Hugo Menard a Benedictin.  
2ly. The King is there engaged by his Oath, to rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom; as may be seen in the Ceremonial of France.  
3ly. He can make no Laws but in the Parliaments or States General; whereof we have an Instance in the States of Orleans, in the Year 1560. and is the same with what D'avila has obin his 2d Book of the Civil Wars.  
4ly. He can make neither Peace nor War but by the Advice of the State's General. This is acknowledged by Lewis XI as we find in Philip de Commines 2 Book ch. 14.  
5ly. He can raise no Money but by Concession from the State's General. We find this point thus decided by the States of 1338, with the consent of King Philip, That no Taxes could be imposed or levied on the People of France, without urgent and evident Necessity did require it, and then only by the grant of the States. Gila Fol. 157. Philip de Commines, lib. 5. c. 18. saith, with respect to this point: Is there any King or Lord on the Earth, who has Power, besides his Demesne, to impose so much as a Penny upon his Subjects, without the Grant and Consent of those who are to pay it, except it be by Tyranny and Violence?  
6ly. The Kings of France are liable to be deposed by the State's General, in case they abuse the Authority they are entrusted with.  
This last Article, viz. of the Proceed of the French against those of their Kings, who abused their Authority, does evidently demonstrate, That the Monarchy of France is altogether limited, according to the Platform Caesar gives us of the Government of the ancient Germans or Francs, who are descended from them. There is a passage, which is ordinarily abused, to prove that unjust Kings and Tyrants cannot be deposed, wherein Gregory of Tours thus expresseth himself, to Chilperic Lib. 5. c. 19 If any one of us who are Lords transgresseth the Bounds of Justice, you have the Power to punish him; but if you yourself do not keep within them, who is it can correct you? We indeed speak to you, and you hearken to us, if you please, and if you will not, who is it shall condemn you? except he who has said, that he is Righteousness itself. I don't believe there was ever any Author, that undertook to defend the Doctrine of Nonresistance and Passive Obedience, who has not made use of this Proof: but give me leave to say, that they have quoted this passage with as much Judgement as they alleged the 75th Canon of the 4th Council of Toledo: for 1st. Observe that this is the Discourse of Gregory of Tours, who was accused by Chilperic, for opposing himself to the Justice that Prince demanded of a Council, against Pretextat Bishop of Roven, whom he accused of high Treason, and forasmuch as the Bishops were persuaded of his Innocence, whom they saw attacked by false Witnesses, this Gregory had the Courage, to maintain that it was their Duty to make their Remonstrances to the King concerning this matter. The King took their Design of remonstrancing him for an opposition to the Justice he had demanded; whereupon Gregory of Tours made the Discourse just now mentioned. So that it plainly appears; that this Discourse only respects the order of Bishops, who under that Relation, have no other way to redress themselves, with regard to Kings, but only by Remonstrances, but does not at all speak of the Body of the State, who are invested with other Rights, in Reference to a King who undertakes to pervert Justice. But to make it appear that Frenchmen, at that time, did not believe, that Kings had the Privilege, that they could not be deposed by the States: Though they abused their Authority, we need only to consult the History of the deposing of Childeric, Father of Clovis, which is set down by Gregory of Tours, Lib. 2. ch. 11. and approved of by him.  
We find that they had preserved this their Right by the Deposition of another Childeric in the 8th Century, and whereupon it is obvious and natural to make these Reflections.  
1. That the Francs had the Power of choosing and deposing their Kings.  
2. That the Oath they swore to their Kings was conditional, and supposed their acquitting themselves of the charge and trust reposed in them, and which they were obliged by Oath to make good.  
3. That it is false that King Childeric was deposed by the Authority of Pope Zachary, as the Papists have maintained; forasmuch as that proceeding was an Act of the State's General, who made use of their Right on this occasion.  
This is so true, that Pope Zachary himself laid it down as a Maxim in his Letter to the Francs, that this was a right inherent in the People. Nam si Princeps Populo, cujus beneficio Regnum possidet, obnoxius est; si Plebs Regem constituit, & destituere potest: For if a King, saith he, be obnoxious to his People, by whose grant he possesseth his Kingdom; if the People constitute a King, they may also depose him.  
If we come to the Race of Charles the Great, we find Lewis the Good deposed by the States assembled at Thionville. The whole Proceeding whereof may be seen in Baronius, du Chesne Le Cointe, where we may observe 1. That it was done with consent of the Bishops. 2. We see there an Indictment on divers Articles, which contains as many Crimes against the State. 3. When this Deposition was recalled afterwards, they did annul the Acts of the former Assembly, not as if they had acted without Power, but because they had proceeded on false Accusations, and insufficient Grounds. We find also the same Proceeding with respect of Charles the Gross, and Charles the Simple.  
Indeed it was then so notorious, that the Power of the Kings of France, though they took to themselves the Title of Emperors, was limited, the Estates being invested with part of the Sovereign Authority, that Lewis the Good solemnly avows the same, Lib. 2. Capitul. c. 2, & c. 12. We find also that the Clergy of France was so far convinced that the States of the Kingdom had right to dispose of the Crown, for the good of the State, that when Charles the Bald was chosen by the Kingdom of Lorraine in Prejudice of the Children of the King his Brother; and that Pope Adrian II. wrote to them thereupon by Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims, threatening to excommunicate them, they sent back this Answer to him by the said Hincmar: Petite Dominum Apostolicum, ut quia Rex & Episcopus simul esse non potest, & sui Antecessores Ecclesiasticum ordinem quod suum est, & non Rempublicam, quod Regum est, disposuerunt, non praecipiat nobis habere Regem, qui nos in sic longinquis partibus adjuvare non posset contra subitaneos & frequentes Paganorum impetus, & nos Francos non jubeat servire, cui nolumus servire, quia istud jugum sui Antecessores nostris Antecessoribus non imposuerunt, & nos illud portare non possumus, qui scriptum esse in sanctis libris audimus, ut pro libertate & haereditate nostra, usque ad mortem certare debeamus. Desire the Apostolical Lord, that forasmuch as he cannot be King and Bishop both together, and that his Ancestors have concerned themselves with the Ecclesiastical Order, which is their particular Province, and not with the Commonwealth, which is the Office of Kings, not to command us to take such a one for our King, who at so great a distance, is not able to help us against the sudden and frequent Assaults of Heathens, and to require us Francs to serve him, whom we will not serve, because his Ancestors never offered to impose this Yoke upon our Ancestors, neither can we bear it, who find it written in the Holy Books, That we ought to fight for our Liberties and our Inheritance even unto Death.  
We see also that he who was the Head of the Third Race, viz. Hugh Capet, was chosen King of France, notwithstanding the apparent Rights of Charles of Lorraine, who was the next Heir of Lewis V by reason that the said Charles seemed too much linked to the Interests of the Germans, who at that time were Enemies to France, Guil. de Nangis ad An. 987. and others in du Chesne.  
Who does not know the History of Henry III. who having been deposed in Poland, for deserting that Kingdom, was afterwards deposed in France, by advice of the Sorbonn, and of the greatest part of the States.  
We may easily judge from these two Characters, that Frenchmen never were infected with the Doctrine of Nonresistance: The one is, because they looked upon this Doctrine as an Error. See what Gerson the famous Chancellor of the University of Paris saith of it; Error est dicere terrenum Principem in nullo, suis subditis, dominio durante, obligari; quia secundum jus Divinum & Naturalem aequitatem, & verum Dominii finem, quemadmodum subditi debent fidem, subsidium & servitium Domino, sic etiam Dominus subditis suis fidem debet & protectionem. Et si eos  & cum obstinatione in injuria & de facto prosequatur Princeps, tunc Regula haec Naturalis, vim vi repellere licet, locum habet. Opusc. adversus Adulat. consid. 7. It is an Error, saith he, to assert, that an Earthly Prince, as long as his Dominion lasts, does not stand engaged to his Subjects in any thing; because, according to the Divine Law, Natural Equity, and the true End of Dominion, as the Subjects own to their Prince Faithfulness, Subsidy and Service, so their Prince owes them Faithfulness and Protection; and in case he doth publicly and with obstinacy imperiously oppress them, than that natural Rule takes place, That it is lawful to repel Force by Force.  
The second is, that they have always with horror rejected the Abuse that has been made of the Expression in 1 Sam. 8. Hoc est Jus Regis, for to maintain the Tyranny of Princes. If we will believe the Laws amongst you Princes, (saith Claudius d' Epense to King Henry II.) you are Lord of our Body and Goods; or to speak more like Christians, we and ours are at your command. Your Majesty ought to abhor that Right nothing less than Royal, and nothing more than Tyrannical, which God by the Mouth of Samuel did not allow to Kings, but only threatened the People with, telling them, This shall be the Right of the King, etc. And then adds, Go to now ye Dogs and Flatterers of the Court, go to, and allege henceforward this Right, not Regal but Barbarous, but Turkish, but Scythian, or if any worse Epithet can be invented.  
I acknowledge that the Face of Affairs is very much changed since these hundred Years. The State's General have not been assembled almost these Seventy Years. The Parliaments themselves, which were established by the Kings and the State's General, to preserve the Rights of the States, have been forced, by the present King, to verify without any Debate, all manner of Edicts for the Imposition of Mony. But yet after all, this Change is of so late standing, that there is little appearance it should be looked upon as a sufficient Prescription against the Interest of the State. Those Frenchmen who have any knowledge of the Laws of the State, and its Constitution, set down the Epocha or Date of this Change of the Ancient Maxims of the Kingdom, to wit, the time which followed the Cessation of the Holding of the Estates General, or the Minority of Lewis XIII, and the Reign of Lewis XIV.  
Let no Body imagine that the Ancient Idea of the Government of France, is quite effaced out of the Spirit of the Nation. I own, that Lewis XIV. by a Reign both very long and very violent, has made the French lose a great deal of their Courage. The Clergy of that Kingdom have, above all, endeavoured to support his Tyranny; by Maxims advanced and contrived by them for the ruin of the Protestants, with as little regard for their Country, as they have showed Conscience in their base Panegyrics pronounced to his Honour. But however there are still in being a great number of honest Men, who adhere to those Ancient Maxims. I can at this present produce one of these from amongst the Clergy, the Learned and illustrious M. Joly, Canon of the Church of Paris, who in the Year 1663., published a Book, with this title, Important Maxims for the Education of a King. This Man alone may suffice to prove my assertion, for he very vigorously confirms these Maxims, by the Testimony of Kings themselves, Chancellors, Ministers of State, Lawyers, and Historians of France, that they were always of Opinion in that Kingdom, That the King holds his Authority from the People; That the Power of Kings is Limited; That the French Monarchy is a Monarchy allayed and tempered with Aristocrasy and Democrasy; That the Kings can do nothing without the State's General, which are the very same things, with our Parliaments; That the Judges are the People's Officers; That the words so much abused, Such is our Pleasure, signify only, This is the Decree of our Courts of Judicature: That they have no Right to levy any Impositions, without the Consent of the States; and many other Articles of that Nature.   

CHAP. XV. That the Royalty of England never had any other form than the rest of the Northern and Western States.  
I Have insisted the longer to show how the Royalty was limited in France, because the most part of our Modern Writers, seem to have had in their aims to reduce our Monarchy to the Form of that Kingdom, as supposing that it would have been a most glorious and advantageous Thing for our late Kings, to transform them into so many Lewis' XIV; that is to say, to change us into Slaves, and our Princes into Tyrants.  
I shall say nothing of the Royalty in Scotland, nor of the Bounds have been always set it by the Fundamental Laws of the State. There has been lately so much writ concerning this Matter, to justify the Proceed of the Convention of that Kingdom, that it would be of no use to repeat it here.  
And for the same reason I shall excuse myself of the trouble of treating what concerns the Limitation of the Royalty in England so largely, as the Subject seems to deserve: however what I shall say will be sufficient to make it appear, that Royalty has been always on the same foot in that Kingdom, as it is still in the other Western Kingdoms.  
If we consider the most remote times that History gives us any account of, we shall find that the Saxons, as to the Power of their Kings, followed the Example of the Ancient Germans, whose Authority, if we may believe Caesar and Tacitus, was altogether limited and restrained.  
We find in the Mirror of Justices, cap. 1, 2. that the first Saxons created their Kings, that they made them take an Oath, and that they put them in mind that they were liable to be judged as well as their meanest Subjects.  
After that the Right of Succession was received in England, yet it never deprived the English People of the Right of choosing their Kings. This is evident from the Form of the Coronation published by Hugh Menard, at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory, p. 278. which Form was as follows. After they had made the King promise to preserve the Laws and the Rights of the Church, we read these words: Deinde alloquantur duo Episcopi populum in Ecclesia, inquirentes eorum voluntatem, & si concordes fuerint, agant gratias Deo Omnipotenti, decantantes Te Deum laudamus? Then let two Bishops speak to the People in the Church, and demand their Will and Pleasure, and in case they do agree, let them give thanks to Almighty God, singing, We praise thee, O Lord. And, pag. 269, & 270, We pray thee most humbly to multiply the gifts of thy Blessings, upon this thy Servant, whom we choose to be our King, viz. of all Albion and of the Franks. That the Kings of England are as well bound by their Oath, as their Subjects, appears by the confession of Henry III, upon occasion of one of his Councillors of State, pretending, that he was not obliged to preserve the Liberties of the Nation, as being extorted from him, expressing himself in these terms recorded by Mat. Paris under the Year 1223. Omnes libertates illas juravimus, & omnes adstricti sumus, ut quod juravimus observemus, pag. 219. All these Liberties we have sworn to, and we are all bound to observe and make good what we have sworn. English Men were always so well persuaded of this Truth, that in their deposing of Richard TWO, they thought they had done enough to prove, That the King had forsworn himself by the Oath he had taken, having broken several of the Articles he had promised to his Subjects by Oath to observe, as we may see in the Acts of his Deposal recorded in the Chronicle of Knighton.  
James the First was convinced of this, when he told the Parliament of 1609. the 21st of March, That the King is bound by a double Oath, tacitly, as being King, and so bound to protect his People and the Laws, and expressly by his Coronation Oath, so as every just King is bound to preserve that Paction made with his People by his Laws, framing the Government thereunto; and a King leaves to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to govern by Law.  
For what concerns the Laws, we find that the Kings alone had not the Authority of making them. King Edwin published his Laws, Habito cum Sapientibus & Senioribus Consilio, with Advice of the Wise Men and Elders. Ina King of the West Saxons did the like. The Laws of Alfrede were made after the same manner, Ex consilio prudentissimorum, atque iis omnibus placuit edici eorum omnium Observationes.  
As for the Government of the State, we find that the Parliaments met, and that their Meetings were fixed once a Year by Alfred; which was renewed by Edward TWO, by two Laws. Moreover the King was obliged to assist at them, in case he was not sick; and nothing but his Sickness could dispense with his Attendance.  
That Englishmen never believed that the King of England could violate the Laws, and overturn the State at his Pleasure, without making himself thereby liable to punishment, clearly appears from the Laws of St. Edward, and by the manner of holding Parliaments, confirmed by William the Conqueror, and printed by the care of Dom. Luc. D'achery, in the 12 To me of his Spicilege.  
Sure it is, that we clearly find these three things, 1st. That by the Agreement and Consent of King John, upon the Complaints made against him by the whole State, there were chosen 25 Barons, with Power to represent to the King his unjust Oppression of the Nation, and to oblige him by force of Arms to redress them, which he himself published by his Letters Patents in the Year 1215. which piece was published by Dom. Luc. D'achery, in the old Norman Tongue. Spicil. Tom. XII p. 583, 584, 585. as it is to be read in Matthew Paris ad An. 1215.  
Secondly, We find that the opinion of the English Nation of old was, That they could not only resist their Prince, which abused his Authority, but wholly deprive him of it, by driving him and his wicked Councillors out of the Kingdom; as we see in Matth. Paris, in the Year 1233, where he relates, that Henry III, having called a Parliament, upon the Complaints that came in from all Parts against his Ministers, and the Strangers, whose Service he made use of in the management of the Affairs of the Kingdom, the Members of the said Parliament perceiving that they could not with safety meet together, refused to come up; Denunciantes Regi per nuncios solennes, quatenus omni dilatione remota ejiceret, by solemn Messengers requiring the King, that without any delay he should turn out those Strangers.  
3ly, They judged that if the Sword of St. Edward, called Curtana, signified, that the King reserved to himself the Right of exercising Justice against Delinquents; yet he was liable to the same Penalties with private Persons, whenever he transgressed the Laws of the State, whereof he was the Keeper and Defender, as the same Matth. Paris explains it in the Life of Henry III. much after the same manner as Aurelius Victor reports in the Life of Trajan, That that Emperor understood the Ceremony of delivering the Sword to the Perfect of the Pretorium.  
Surely if we consider our History, we shall find,  
1. That the Kings alone never had the Power of making Laws.  
2. That they had no Power to lay Taxes on the People.  
3. That they had not always the Power of making Magistrates.  
4. That they had not the Right of waging War, without the Advice of Parliament, as is observed by Philip de Commines, Lib. 4. cap. 1.  
5. That as they were chosen by the People, they had also Power to depose them. Nennius the most ancient English Historian after Gildas, tells us, That Vortigerne was deposed by St. , and the Council of the Britain's, because he had married his own Daughter, who placed his Son Vortimer upon the Throne. Edward II. Richard II.  
6. That the States have cut off the Succession, may be seen by Henry VII.  
Indeed we find that our Ancient Lawyers, our Ministers of State, and our Kings, who of all Men ought well to understand the Form and Constitution of our Kingdom, were so far from believing that the Royalty in England was an Absolute and Unlimited Government, that they have expressly declared that it is a Government bounded by Fundamental and Essential Laws, and composed of a mixture of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. See how Bracton expresseth himself to this purpose, Lib. 2. c. 16. Fleta l. 1. c. 17. In populo regendo Rex habet Superiores, Legem per quam factus est Rex, & Curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones: Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis, & qui habet Socium habet Magistrum; & ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno, id est sine Lege, debent ei fraenum ponere. In Ruling the People, the King has above him the Law, by which he is made King, and his High Court, viz. the Earls and Barons; Earls are so called as being the King's Companions; and he who has a Companion, has a Master; and therefore if the King be without Bridle, that is, without Law, they must bridle him.  
Chancellor Fortescue saith, That the King cannot alter the Laws of his Kingdom, for he governs his People, not only by a Regal, but a Political Power; when it is said the Prince's Will has the Force of a Law, this (saith he) is to be understood of a Regal or Absolute Power, from which a political Power much differs, for such can neither change the Law, nor charge the People with new Impositions, against their Wills.  
This is a thing so notorious that Philip de Commines has taken notice of it in his Memoires, Lib. 4. cap. 1. and elsewhere; as also Polydore, lib. 11.  
Neither have those only, who have expressly treated of the Government of England, as Secretary Smith, considered our Monarchy as a Government mixed and bounded; but Charles I himself spoke of it in these terms: There being three kinds of Government, absolute Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and all having particular Conveniences and Inconveniences; the experience and Wisdom of our Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of those, as to give this Kingdom the Conveniences of all three, without the Inconveniences of any one, as long as the balance hangs even between the three Estates, and they run jointly in their proper Channels. The ill of absolute Monarchy, is Tyranny; of Aristocracy, Faction and Division; of Democracy, Tumults, Violence, and Licentiousness. The Good of Monarchy is uniting a Nation under one Head; the good of Aristocracy, is the conjunction of Counsel in the ablest Persons for the Public Good; the good of Democracy, is Liberty, and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begets. The Lords being trusted with Judicatory power, are an Excellent Screen and Bank, between the Prince and the People, by just Judgement to preserve the Law: wherefore the Power of punishing is already in your hands according to Law.  
Let any one judge after all this, whether our Ancestors ever entertained any of those pernicious Maxims, maintained by some of our Modern Divines, Maxims that have been the fruitful Mother of Tyrants: viz. That Princes can dispose of the Goods, Body, and Lives of their Subjects at their pleasure; That they are not subject to Laws, or to give any Account; That their Succession to the Throne, is by Nature and Generation, and not at all by the Authority or Approbation of the States; That neither their Merits or Demerits can be brought into consideration, to alter any thing about the Right of their Succession, which is unalterable, That without precipitating ourselves into eternal Condemnation, we may not oppose their Designs, though directly and openly levelled at the Ruin of the State, and the Change of Religion: In a word, that they may commit all manner of Injustice and Violence they please, and that safely and securely, because none but God alone can punish them.   

CHAP. XVI. An Answer to some Difficulties moved against this Truth.  
AFter having set this Matter in so clear and evident a Light, it is not without some Shame and Reluctancy that I make a stop to answer some insignificant Difficulties, which those who defend the unlimited Power of the Kings of England, oppose, to the proofs I have alleged. However such as they are, I am willing to consider them, that I may rid the Makers of them, from the least pretext of continuing any longer in so gross and dangerous an Error.  
They allege in the first place the Title of Imperial given to the Crown of England, which, in their Judgements, seems to equalise our Kings with the Roman Emperors; and to attribute an absolute Empire or Dominion to them: concerning which I have already showed, that though this Title were well grounded, yet the consequence they draw from thence would be null, whether we consider the ancient Roman Empire, or whether we consider the Empire, as it is now in Germany.  
I add here for a further clearing of this Matter, that the same thing happened to the Kings of the West, with regard to the Emperor of the West, as befell the other Kings, who risen after the Destruction of the Roman Empire, and to the Emperor of Germany, with respect to the Emperors of the East. The Emperors of the East, as appears from the Embassy of Luitprand at Constantinople, could not endure that other Princes should take upon them the Title of (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Kings, or Emperors, believing that the Name of Kings, left them in some dependence upon the Empire of the East: this obliged the Emperors of the West, to take upon them the Title of Emperor, to intimate their independency upon the Princes of the East. Which Title the Emperors of the West having afterwards made use of, as a pretence, to raise themselves above the rest of the Princes of Europe, the Western Kings did the same which the Emperors of the West had done before, to assert their Independency.  
For not only the Kings of England, but some other Western Kings, have taken upon them the Title of Emperors.  
Alphonsus' VI, King of Spain, took upon him this Title by a Concession from Pope Vrban TWO, because he had suppressed the Mosorabick-Office: Alphonsus VII, and VIII, assumed the same Titles, and Alphonsus VIII, was Crowned in that quality by Raymond Archbishop of Toledo, in the Church of Lions, with the consent of Pope Innocent TWO, as is reported by Garibay lib. 8. hist. cap. 4. We find that Peter de Clugny, writes to this Alphonsus, as Emperor of Spain, Epist. 8. And long time before these Princes, it is certain that the Kings of the Goths, since Richaredus, had taken to themselves the Title of Flavians, in imitation of the Roman Emperors; as may be seen in the Councils of Toledo. Yet Philip TWO, having demanded this Title in 1564 of Pope Pius IV, it was refused him.  
The Kings of Lombardy had assumed the Title of Flavians, even since Autlaric, according to the Account given us by Paul Diacon. lib. 3. cap. 8, which they did to show, that they were Emperors in their own Lands and Territories, and that they acknowledged no Sovereign or Superior.  
And it seems that in Process of Time, some Western Kings affected that Title for the same reason; and were the rather persuaded so to do, because some Canonists and Lawyers, have impudently maintained, That the Kings of Spain, France and England, were Subjects of the Emperors of the West. Glossa in cap. Venerabil. de Elect. in verbo transtulit, & in caput Venerabil. qui filii sint legitimi. Bartolus in caput hosts ff. de captivis. Alciat. lib. 2 disjunct c. 22. Baldus in cap. 1 de Pace, juramento fervando in usibus Feudorum. Tho he contradict himself, by asserting elsewhere That the King of France is not subject to the Emperor.  
And thus much for the first Illusion some make use of to persuade us that the Kings of England possess the same Rights as the Emperors. A second which seems to have some more Ground is this: They say that as the Emperors that were after Vespasian, had the Right to divide the Empire, and to settle it by their Wills on their Heirs, the Kings of England having done the like; it appears thereby, they were in Possession of the same Right the Emperors had: to this purpose they allege the last Will of William the Conqueror, in favour of his Son William Rufus.  
But nothing can be more vain than this Objection.  
1. We cannot deny, but that the Election of Kings took Place, during the Reign of the Saxons; not that they did it with that Freeness, as to prefer the Uncle before his Nephew, that was under Age' tho the King's Son, and the youngest Brother before the Eldest.  
2ly, It is true that William the Conqueror did act in an extraordinary manner, in disposing of his Kingdom in Favour of William Rufus, in the same way as one disposeth of a Conquest (and this in prejudice to Robert his Eldest Son) as was also done by William Rufus. But these two Princes dying without Heirs, Henry, who had Married the Daughter of King Alexander of Scotland who had the Rights of the Saxon Kings, and who in Consideration of that Marriage, renounced the Rights he might pretend to England, as heir Presumptive of the Saxon Kings, having obtained the Government by the Right of his Wife, the Laws recovered their Strength, and Things returned to their ancient Channel, as they were in the time of the Saxons. So that it appears that it is Folly for any one to imagine that the Kings of England may alienate their Estates, as a private Person can alienate his Inheritance. This was evident in the case of King John, who was opposed by the whole State, for pretending to subject the Crown of England to Pope Innocent III.  
And indeed if we consider the Thing in itself, and according to the unanimous Opinion of all Lawyers, these last Wills can really be of no Force, without the consent of the States, to authorise them, as we find that the same did intervene in both the  Cases. The reason whereof is invincible, forasmuch as all States do not consider their Kings as Proprietors of their Kingdoms, but only as public Ministers, who are entrusted with a Jurisdiction and Administration for the Good of the public. And this is the Title by which even Conquerors themselves are at last obliged to hold their Authority.  
They tell us in the 3d place, that the Kings of England entitling themselves Kings by the Grace of God: it appears that their Power being come from God, cannot be limited by their Subjects, over whom God has set them. A wonderful way of arguing, and never known till these our Times: at least, it is evident, that he who has defended Nicholas de Lyra against Burgensis, hath made a very different use of these words, Dei Gratia, by the Grace of God, wherewith the Kings of the North preface their Titles, from what some now a days make of it. For he maintains that it is the Character of a limited and tempered Government: see how he expresseth himself upon the 8. ch. of the 1 Book of Kings. Titulus Imperatoris modo regendi vitiato (that is to say, illimitato, as he expresses himself before) contradicit; nam titulus ejus est, N. Dei gratia Romanorum Rex & semper Augustus, hoc est Reipublicae non privatae accommodus. Ita & aliorum Regum Protestationes sunt sub Dei gratia quae vitiatum Principatum non admittit. The very Title of the Emperor, saith he, is a Contradiction to an Arbitrary and Unlimited kind of Government; for his Title is, N. by the Grace of God, King of the Romans, always Augustus (that is enlarger of the Empire) which implies that his Government is accommodate to the Common good and not his Private Interest. So likewise we find that the Protestations of other Kings are under Dei Gratia (the Grace of God) which doth not admit of Arbitrary Government.  
There remain but two difficulties more; the first is this, Several Members of the Church of England having persuaded the People, that a necessity was laid upon them to suffer all from the Hands of their Kings; The Kings of England have accordingly usurped those Rights, and were actually in possession of them, when the same began to oppose themselves to King James; this is that they call a right of Prescription. They consider the State, as having lost its Liberty, since their consenting to the Establishment of Tyranny, and consequently having no right to attempt any thing towards the Recovery of it.  
But I desire those who fain would obtrude this Delusion upon others, as they have upon themselves, to consider,  
1. That known Maxim of Right, Possessor malae fidei non praescribit, An unjust Possessor makes no Praescription. Indeed if this be true, That a Man needs only usurp the Goods and Rights of another, to make himself the lawful Master of them; Robbers, Usurers, and those who by abusing of the Law deprive others of their Rights, will be found to be of the best and most thriving Trades in the World. If this be so, the Church of Rome and the Pope, by the Possession they have been in for so many Ages, must carry it by Prescription, to hang, burn, and massacre; neither can any one oppose himself against their just Title.  
2. They ought to consider that if Kings be accounted Minors or under Age, because they cannot alienate their Dominions, as being only granted them for the good of the State, the People are so, on a much better Title, and Prescription can never prejudice them.  
I know it is a Maxim in Law, Praetor cum injustè judicat, jus dicit; that a Judge, though he judges unjustly, his Judgement stands good in Law, and accordingly must be obeyed: from whence some might conclude, That the most unjust Kings cannot be contradicted, and that it is unlawful for any to oppose themselves to their Decisions. But those who should make this Objection, probably would not take notice of the Consequence of it. It is for the Interest of the Society, that the Judgements pronounced by the ordinary Judges should be valid, though some of their Judgements may be unjust: but no body ever believed, that this Maxim authorizeth the Magistrate, either Subaltern or Sovereign, to tread under-feets the Laws, and to make public Profession to judge all things according to their fancy. 2ly. 'Tis a constant truth, That Kings could never justly touch the People's Rights, they being commissionated neither by God nor Man to judge what be the Rights of the People, and having no more right to deprive them thereof than a party at Law, has right to deprive his party of the Right that justly belongs to him.   

CHAP. XVII. An Answer to the last Objection.  
AFter all that hath been said, I cannot suspect that any should make an Objection, that has so little Appearance of any Probability, as is that which is the 2d of those that remain to be examined by me; some suppose their conceit to be of some weight, who urge the Acts of Parliament under King Charles TWO, as destructive of this form of the English Government. The Words are these; That it is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King, etc. Indeed it cannot be denied but that these Words seem to suppose, that those who swear to them, cannot believe it is lawful to take up Arms against the Kings of England, howsoever they may behave themselves, nor by any opposition to hinder the overturning of the Laws and Government. We may well acknowledge that Power to be unbounded, which it is not lawful to oppose by force of Arms; now these Acts of Parliament declare that it is not lawful to resist the King; wherefore the King of England must be supposed an unlimited and absolute Monarch, and by Consequence we must conclude, that the Government of England is wholly changed and destroyed; so that whatsoever we have alleged in the foregoing Discourse, can only be made use of as a History of what is past, but not as a Rule or Precedent for what is to come.  
This conceit is so unreasonable, that it seems scarce worth the pains to stop at it; however I shall endeavour in few Words to satisfy those who seem unwarily to be taken in the Snare, which the Malice of a Popish Court had laid for them.  
1st. They must know that the Fundamental Laws of any State, are of the Nature of Contracts, Pactions and Capitulations, which according to the common opinion of Lawyers are irrevocable. Buxtorf. in Bull. aurea cap. 1. § 7. whence it follows, That all Oaths that are taken against Capitulations of this nature, may be Sins to those who take them, but cannot oblige them, as being unlawful Oaths.  
2ly. They cannot suppose that the Parliaments of Charles TWO did ever think of repealing these Fundamental Laws, without accusing the Members that composed them of having been prevaricators and betrayers of the Interest of their Country, by changing the limited Monarchy into a true Tyranny.  
3ly. They cannot do this Injury to these illustrious Assemblies, without casting the same Blemish upon the Bishops, in the House of Lords, during those Sessions of Parliament, and making them altogether odious either for their Stupidity, or for their Malice: for their Stupidity, if imprudently they gave their consent to Laws made on purpose to change the Kingly Government into Tyranny; or for their Malice, if they wilfully betrayed the Interest of the State, though they knew well enough what must be the end and aim of these Regulations. I desire these Gentlemen to make some Reflection on this truth. Is it possible they should have no Consideration at all, either for the Reputation or Conscience of their Ancestors. They have showed themselves so jealous of a change in the form of the Government, by making of a successive State, an Elective one, and yet they suppose that the Parliament and the Bishops that sat in them have in sport changed the form of the Government, by making it of a limited Royalty, to become an absolute and unbounded Monarchy.  
4ly, They must needs accuse these Parliaments of a strange Folly; for these Gentlemen suppose that the Disorders which then ruled in the State, obliged the Parliament to restore Charles II. They suppose that the Anarchy and various Sects which had the upper hand before his recall; making wise Men not without cause to apprehend the Ruin of the Protestant Religion, as well as the Overthrow of the State, they thought themselves obliged to employ all their strength, for restoring of Charles II. as supposing him a good Protestant and a King whom his Adversities had made wise, in hopes of being governed by him according to the ancient Laws of the Kingdom. And yet after this they will persuade us, That the Parliament thought it fit and reasonable, to destroy the Nature of the Royalty in England, by making it Mistress of the Laws, and authorising it to destroy the Protestant Religion, whenever the Popish Faction should think fit to have it done.  
5ly. They must accuse these Parliaments of the commission of a horrid piece of Imprudence, in attempting upon the Liberty of the People: For if this were indeed their Design, were they not obliged at the same time to repeal all the other Laws which restrain the Power of the Kings of England? For we know that a Law cannot be valid nor derogate from other Laws, except in the said Law express mention be made of the said Derogation with a Notwithstanding to the Reglements set down in other Laws that are in Authority on that Subject. De Decimis c. nuper. Ought not they also in like manner to have declared, and that very precisely too, that they dispensed Charles TWO from keeping his Coronation-Oath, and to have set down in very distinct terms, that in case the King should think fit to call in an Army of French Dragoons to ravish their Wives and Daughters, and to force all his Subjects to change their Religion, they do not think it lawful to take up Arms against him or them, for to repel their Violence.  
6ly. They are to take notice that Charles TWO did never conceive that those Acts had changed the Government of the State. Do we not know that he offered to the Parliaments of Westminster and Oxford, to impose such Conditions on the D. of York, as the Parliament should judge necessary, provided only the Succession might be assured to him: now could any thing be more ridiculous and extravagant than this Proposition of the King, had he believed that the Acts already past in his Favour, had given him and his Successors a Right to overturn all, without being able to be challenged or opposed by any one for so doing? They themselves did suppose the same thing, and went upon that Ground; what else could be their meaning in Crowning James TWO, if they supposed that he was in full and rightful Possession of the Government by virtue of the Succession, without being obliged to take the Oaths, by which the Kings of England oblige themselves to keep the Laws of the State.  
7ly. They ought to take notice, that they themselves supposed that the Fundamental Laws of the State were not abolished. I don't speak here of those loud Murmurs that were heard every where, when James TWO by an Act of his Council, of his own Authority raised the same Sums, which had been granted to Charles TWO which he could not do without the Authority of Parliament; nor of the Complaints that were generally made when he turned out my Lord Clarendon from being Lord Deputy of Ireland, banished several Protestant Lords out of his Council, and put Papists into all Offices whether Civil or Military. I only take notice here of the Petition presented in the Name of the Clergy by the seven Bishops upon occasion of reading the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience; for had they been of another opinion, with what pretence of reason could they have complained of James TWO, governing with an Arbitrary Power, and his dispensing with the Laws? Why in their Petition did they allege those Acts of Parliament which had condemned that Power in 1673, when Charles TWO published his Proclamation for Liberty of Conscience. These Acts of theirs, upon this Supposal, could not be accounted of otherwise, than as Acts of Rebellion, nor could they be made use of with a good Conscience, after they had been convinced that the Fundamental Laws being repealed and abolished, they were now subject to an arbitrary and unbounded Government.  
Indeed we cannot enough commend the Constancy of the Clergy and those worthy Prelates, who refused to read the Declaration of James TWO for Liberty of Conscience: that Declaration being grounded upon the Power he attributed to himself of dispensing with the Laws. But on the other Hand neither can we imagine any more convincing Proof to make out that at that Time they did not conceive, any more than the whole State, who so generally applauded them, that they themselves, as well as the whole State, had cast themselves headlong into Slavery by their Oaths, because the Power of the Kings of England was become unbounded and Arbitrary.  
In a Word, how ample an extent soever these Gentlemen may give to the Oath they have taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament in the 13 Year of Charles TWO, they must remember one Thing which is always supposed, which is the natural Condition of all Oaths, rebus sic stantibus, c. ad naturam, Things continuing in the same State; for indeed as soon as things have changed their Nature, or that Circumstances are altered, there remains no more Obligation in Cases, where exceptions are naturally supposed. I am bound to Obey my Father in all Things, this being what the Scripture expressly teacheth me; but I am not bound to Obey him any farther, than he Acts like a Father, neither am I obliged to keep this Command of obeying him in all Things, but only so far as the Things enjoined by him are just and lawful. I am bound to obey the King according to the Laws, neither may I lawfully resist Him, in his executing of the Laws, or upon any pretext whatsoever take up Arms against him: but if in stead of governing according to Law, he useth his utmost Endeavours to overthrow the Society, by destroying the Laws which are the Band of it, than all the Oaths I have taken are no longer of any Force, 'tis my Right to Endeavour to preserve the Society, which he goes about to overthrow, and to oppose his Violence by taking up Arms against him, and to put a stop to the unjust Proceed of a Prince, who declares himself an Enemy to the State, by the ways which providence affords me for my Security.  
But if after all these Considerations, these Gentlemen will still maintain, that they have taken these Oaths in so straight a Sense, that nothing is capable of satisfying their Consciences; we have great Reason to be Astonished, how it was possible that Men of so Tender and Delicate a Conscience, could take such Oaths, which taken in their Sense do visibly overturn both the State and Religion. Indeed there is no need of any one's being a Prophet to make him conceive, that they were rather obliged in Conscience to refuse the taking of such Oaths, and to fly to the End of the World, rather than take them, than they are bound to keep them, with the hazard of the utter Ruin of their Native Country and their Religion; or see them Perish without having any Power to Defend them, as they are obliged by the Laws of nature, and by all the Duties of the Society and Religion.  
It has already been made out by several Writings, that God seeming to spare and wink at the weakness of those who believed themselves thus fast bound and tied by their Oaths, and destined to become victim to Popery and Tyranny, has been pleased happily to deliver them from the trouble wherein they had involed themselves in sending them a Deliverer, whose Rights, in a War which James II. unjustly wageth against him, are above all those Difficulties, which seem to be matter of Scruple to them: so that it is not needful for me to insist any longer on this Matter.   

CHAP. XVIII. A Reflection on some Remarks made out in this Treatise.  
I Am persuaded, that every equal Reader cannot but acknowledge, that to judge aright of Things, the Proceed of England, with respect to James II. have been the most just and lawful that could be.  
The Things I have made out in this Treatise, are summarily contained in the following Articles.  
1. That the Constitution and Establishment of any Government, is the Effect of the Original Consent of the People, though the Authority of the Magistrates be a Thing established by God.  
2. That this Establishment supposeth the Subsistence of the Laws, which are the End of the Government in the Design of God; for indeed Kingdoms without Justice, are no better than great Robberies, as St. Austin calls them, De Civit. Dei, Lib. 4. cap. 4.  
3. That these Fundamental Laws, for the Subsistence of the Society, are a Bond which so strictly ties the Sovereigns, that nothing is able to dispense with their Obligation to them.  
4. That when the Sovereigns do violate them, they break the Ties, whereby their Subjects are bound to their Lawful Authority.  
5. That the Subjects can never be deprived of their Right to hinder the Ruin of the Society, and of the Laws, for the conservation of which only they have put their Rights into the Hands of the Prince.  
6. That there was never any State that subsisted under other conditions than these.  
7. That England in particular, and Scotland, have always had this Right.  
Now these Things supposed, it is evident,  
1. That James II. has forfeited all his Rights to the Crown, even before his Desertion.  
2. That the Lords and People justly took up Arms against him, to oblige him by Force to reform the Disorders he had caused.  
3. That the States had Power, without any regard had to Him, to raise the King and Queen to the Throne.  
4. That the Subjects are more than enough freed from their Oath of Allegiance to King James.  
5. That they have Right, and are under Obligation, to take up Arms, and oppose themselves against James II. and to maintain the Authority of the King and Queen.  
6. That those who oppose themselves to this, are declared Enemies of the State, and of our Religion, and the Authors and Abettors of Tyranny and Popery.  
7. That those who pretend themselves scrupulous in these Points, are the Cause of the Division, and consequently of the Ruin of the State and Religion, whereby they grievously sin against God, and therefore are obliged in Conscience to repent and make amends for the Mischief their Division has caused.  
The thing is very evident, and forasmuch as it is of the highest importance for their Salvation, I beg of them well to weigh and consider these following Articles, and witness their Repentance in all these respects.  
1. Then they ought to repent, for that they making profession to have so strong an Affection for James II. they have made him fall upon the Designs of changing the Government into a Despotical and Arbitrary Power, and thus by their Maxims have advanced and precipitated his Ruin. They are the Men who have made him conceive the Design of establishing a Tyranny in England; they have given birth to his hope of being able to compass it according to his Heart's desire, and his Ruin proceeding from the opposition that was made against these his Designs, 'tis them he may thank for all the Miseries into which he is plunged; and consequently they have great reason to repent, for having precipitated his Ruin by their false and deceitful Foundation. See what Gerson saith, In opusc. contr. Adulat. consid. 10. Clericus ille Regem suum aut Principem amaret minimè, qui perversas, & tales vellet dare doctrinas, aut toto posse & scientia illas non impediret— quia non est modus certior, quo Rex aut Princeps se perderet in corpore & in anima, totamque ejus damnationem, quam habendo falsas tales opiniones, & eas opere exequendo. Cur? Quoniam Dominatio sua in Tyrannidem verteretur & in infidelitatem. That Clergyman would be far from loving his King or Prince, who should teach him such perverse and false Doctrines, or that with all his Power and Skill should not oppose them; because there is not a more sure way for a Prince to destroy himself, Soul and Body, and to procure his total Damnation, than by entertaining such false Opinions, and reducing them into practice. Why so? Because his Government by this means would be changed into Tyranny and Perfidiousness.  
2. They ought to repent, for their having contributed so much towards the establishing of Tyranny, not only because that would have destroyed the Public Liberty, but because his Design at the same time was, to overthrow the Protestant Religion, and substitute in the place of it the Idolatry, Superstition and Tyranny of Popish Usurpation. This was a thing they could not do without imitating the Conduct of the Popish Clergy, who since the Popes have undertaken to tread under their Feet the Rules of the Gospel, and of the Church, have endeavoured to inspire Princes with an indifferency for their Oaths, and contempt of the Laws, which are a Safeguard and Security of the Civil Society.  
3. They must repent, at least some of them, for having obstinately endeavoured to hid and disguise the Conspiracies which were designed for the Ruin of our Religion and Liberty.  
4. They must repent for having writ in favour of an Opinion contrary to the Judgement of the Ancient Reformers of England; and for having traduced, as Rebels, the Protestant Churches beyond the Sea, for their maintaining the Maxims which the first Reformers of England have Asserted, and for which they have Writ, in defence of their Protestant Brethren.  
5. They must repent, for that by their Sermons and Writings they have insinuated to the People those Maxims which have put them upon betraying the Natural Rights of the Society, and in the Sequel, upon imprudently exposing themselves to betray the Interest of the Protestant Religion, which they were obliged to deliver safe to their Posterity.  
6. They must repent, for having by this means encouraged the Judges to tread underfoot the Authority of the Laws, and to dispense with them, as having taught them to look upon the Laws, as the Concessions of Princes, and Acts of their Will, and by Consequence revocable at their good Pleasure.  
7. They must repent, at least some of them, for having mounted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, by publicly appearing in the Lists for defence of these pernicious and tyrannical Maxims, directly levelled at the Ruin and Overthrow of our Liberty and Religion.  
8. They must repent, for that their Opinions at this Day are the Causes of the present Conspiracies, Rebellions and Treasons against the Government, by which God has been pleased so graciously to secure our Liberty and Religion, from the inevitable Ruin wherewith they were threatened.  
However, we have cause to bless God, that those who are guilty of these Sins, are but inconsiderable in their Numbers. And I ardently wish for them, they may once seriously enter into themselves, and that by the Example of their Brethren, they may, for Time to come, employ all their Endeavours to make reparation for the Mischief and Scandal their Errors and Prejudices have in a great measure brought both upon the Church and State.   
FINIS.   

THE APPENDIX CONTAINING 

1 Concilii Toletani IU. Canon. LXXV.  
II. Capitula super quibus facta est Magna Charta Regis Johannis, ex MSS. Arch. Cantuar. Fol. 14. Quae etiam authenticè cum Sigillo extant in manibus Episc. Salisburiensis.  
III. Diploma sive Ordinationes Johannis Regis Angliae, queis statuit quid Nobiles, quid Plebes observare debeant ad pacem & tranquillitatem Regni stabiliendam.    
LONDON, Printed for Ric. Chiswell. 1689.   

APPENDIX.  

The 75. Canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo.  
AFter some Ordinances and Decrees made by us, with respect to the Ecclesiastical Order, and their particular Discipline, the last Resolution taken by us Priests, is to enact a final Pontifical Decree for the puissance of our Kings, and the stability of the Gothick Nation, in presence of the Great Judge of the World. For many Nations are so false and perfidious, that they make slight of the Oath of Faithfulness they have sworn to their Kings, and though with their mouths they profess Allegiance to their Prince, yet retain Perfidiousness in their hearts: they swear indeed to their Kings, but are as ready to break it again upon occasion, not fearing that Roll of Judgement, which brings a Curse and manifold Punishments upon those who swear falsely by the name of the Lord. What hope is there that such as these should either stand to their Capitulations in time of War, or observe their Treaties of Peace with other Nations? Or what Covenant or Contract will they not break? Or what Promise made to their Enemies will they keep, when they violate the Allegiance sworn to their own Kings? For who is so mad as to endeavour to cut off his Head with his own Hand? This is notorious, that unmindful of their own Preservation they kill themselves, turning their force and violence against themselves and their own Kings. And whereas the Lord saith, Touch not mine Anointed: and David, Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless? these are neither afraid of Perjury, or murdering their own Princes. Sure it is, that a Promise, though made to Enemies, aught to be kept: Now if we must keep Faith and Truth in War to our Enemies, how much more are we to keep them on all other occasions? For it is a piece of Sacrilege for Subjects to violate the Faith promised to their Kings, because in so doing they not only sin against their Princes, but against God himself, in whose name they make their promise. Hence it comes that the wrath of God doth oft change and transfer many of the Earthly Kingdoms, the breach of Faith and corruption of Manners, making way for the destruction and change of the Government. Wherefore also it ought to be our great care to avoid the mishaps attending these Nations, lest we be involved with them deservedly in the same Punishment. Thus we see that God did not spare the Angels that rebelled against him, who by their disobedience forfeited their Heavenly Mansions. Wherefore 'tis said also by the Prophet Isaiah, My Sword is made drunk in Heaven; how much more than ought we to stand in awe, and fear the same disaster, lest by our perfidiousness we be destroyed by the same Sword of an angry God. If therefore we desire to avoid the divine wrath, and to have his severity turned into Favour and Clemency towards us, let us above all things with fear keep and observe to God the Religious Worship and Service we own him, and to our Kings the Faith and Allegiance we have promised them: Let there not be found amongst us, as in some other Nations, any wicked contrivance of Unfaithfulness, or cunning Perfidiousness, or the horrid Crime of Perjury, or mischievous Plottings of Conspiracies: Let none amongst us, egged on by Presumption, invade the Throne, or stir up Seditions amongst his Fellow-Citizens, or compass and contrive the Death of Kings: but when the King is departed this Life in Peace, let the Lords of the Nation, together with the Priests, by joint Advice and Consent, appoint and constitute a Successor of the Kingdom; that so whilst this band of Unity and Concord is thus preserved amongst us, none may endeavour to make a rent in the Kingdom by force or unjust ways. But in case this Admonition prove not of sufficient force, to correct the bad impressions which may be on the minds of any, and to incline the hearts of all to promote the common good, we think good to pronounce Sentence. Whosoever therefore, either of us, or any of the People of Spain, shall by any Conspiracy or Endeavour come to break and falsify the Oath he has taken, for the good State and Welfare of the Gothick Nation, and the safety of the King, or shall presume to kill the King, or deprive him of his Royal Dignity, or by a Tyrannical presumption shall Usurp the Throne, let him be Anathema in the Eyes of God the Father and the Holy Angels, and be cast out of the Catholic Church which he has profaned by his Perjury, and be turned out from all Christian Societies, together with all the Complices of his wickedness, because it is but just that they who are guilty of the same Crime should be involved in the same punishment. Which therefore we think good to repeat again; saying, Whosoever from this time forwards, either of us, or of all the People of Spain, shall by any Conspiracy or Endeavour, break the Oath which he has taken for the good State of his Native Country, and of the Gothick Nation, and for the safety of the King's Person, or shall presume to kill the King, or deprive him of his Kingdom, or by a tyrannical presumption shall Usurp the Throne, let him be Anathema in the sight of Christ and his Holy Apostles, and be cast out of the Catholic Church, which he has profaned by his Perjury, and thrust out from all Christian Societies, and as a damned Person be delivered up to the just Judgement of God to come, together with all his complices and partakers. Yea we repeat a third time, That whosoever of us, or any of the People of Spain, in contrivance or deed, break his Oath which he hath taken for the good Sat and Welfare of his own Native Country, and the Gothick Nation, and the safety and preservation of the King's Person, or attempt the life of the King, or deprive him of his Royal Dignity, or by a tyrannical presumption shall Usurp the Throne, let him be Anathema in the sight of the Holy Ghost and the Martyrs of Christ, and be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, which he has profaned by his Perjury, and be renounced all Christian Communion, without ever having any share or part with the Righteous, but with the Devil and his Angels be condemned to Eternal punishments, with all his Partners joined with him in the same Conspiracy, that the same punishment of final perdition may reach all that are Complices and Partakers of the same guilt. Wherefore if this thrice repeated Sentence be according to the mind of all you that are here present, confirm the same with your Unanimous Voices. Accordingly the whole Body of the Clergy and People have said and declared, Whosoever shall presume to do any thing against this your Decree, Let him be Anathema, Maranatha, that is, accursed and damned at the coming of our Lord, and have his share and lot with Judas Iscariot, both they and their Complices. Amen.  
In consideration therefore of the Premises, we Priests do admonish and warn the Holy Church of Christ, and all the People, to take care that this tremendous and so oft repeated Sentence of Excommunication may not make any of us obnoxious to present and eternal condemnation, but that keeping the Faith we have sworn to our most Glorious Lord, King Sisenandus, and serving him with sincere Loyalty, we may not only incline the Divine Clemency and Goodness towards us, but may also deserve the favour of our Gracious Prince. Amen.  
We also with the Humility that becomes us, do entreat thee, 
These qualifications of a good Prince, are most of them taken out of St. Austin. Lib. 5. de Civitate Dei.  O King, here present amongst us, and all Princes thy Successors for time to come, that behaving yourselves with all moderation and gentleness towards your Subjects, you may in Righteousness and Godliness rule the People by God committed to your charge, that so you may be able to give a good account of your Stewardship to Christ who has constituted you; governing your Subjects with humbleness of Heart, and being found in a constant endeavour of procuring their Good and Welfare. That none of you alone may undertake to judge of Capital Matters, or any Man's Estate; but that by public consent of the Judges and other Magistrates, and in an open Trial, the Gild of Delinquents may be made apparent, observing a merciful disposition towards those who have offended, that your indulgence and mercy in sparing may appear, as well as your Severity in punishing: So that all things, by the assistance of God, being administered and preserved by you, with a godly Rule and Government, you Kings may have reason to rejoice in your People, as well as your People in you, and that God, may rejoice in you both. And as to what belongs to all future Kings, we pronounce this our Sentence, that in case any of them without being restrained by the Reverence due to the Laws, shall by a proud Lordliness, being puffed up with the Royal dignity, by injustice, violence and oppression, exercise a tyrannical and cruel Power against his Subjects, let all such be condemned and anathematised by Christ, and be separated from God, and subjected to his Judgements; for that he presumed to act wickedly, and to endeavour the hurt and ruin of the Kingdom. And as for Suintilanus, who fearing the punishment of his Crimes, has deserted the Kingdom, depriving himself thereby of the Royal Power, we, with the Consent of the People, have Decreed that neither he nor his Wife nor Children, shall ever be received by us into our Society, because of the wickedness they are guilty of; or restored to those Honours from whence they have been so justly cast down; and that they shall not only for ever stand deprived of the Prerogatives of the Royal Dignity, but also forfeit all the Wealth they have got by oppressing the miserable People, except only that which shall be allowed them by the goodness of our Gracious Prince The same Sentence we likewise pronounce against Geilanus, the said Suintilanus his Brother, as in Blood, so in Crimes and Wickedness, who was perfidious to his own Brother, and has broken his Faith promised to our most glorious Lord, wherefore we also cast him and his Wife, and banish them from our Society, together with those , and exclude them from the Commonwealth of our Nation, and that they shall not be restored to the Possessions, which by wickedness they had gotten, except only what they may obtain from the Bounty of our most Gracious Prince, who as he is ready to enrich those that are good with bountiful Rewards, so neither does he altogether exclude those that are wicked, from his diffusive. Beneficence. Now Glory and Honour be ascribed to our Almighty God, in whose name we are here Assembled, and may Happiness, Peace, and a long continued Reign be the Portion of our most Pious Lord and Lover of Christ, King Sisenand, whose Piety and Devotion has ca●l to this Assembly, to establish and enact this wholesome Decree. May the Glory of Christ strengthen and establish his Kingdom and the Gothick Nation in the Catholic Faith, and multiply his Years and Virtues, preserving him to the highest old age; and may he after the Glory of his Reign here on Earth, pass over to the Eternal Kingdom in Heaven, that he may Reign there without end, who here has Reigned well and happily by the grace and help of him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, with the Father and Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.  
The things above written being thus decreed and determined by us, with the Consent and Approbation of our most Religious Prince, we also have engaged never to infringe any Point thereof, but exactly to keep and observe the same; and because these things do greatly concern the good of the Church, and the welfare of Souls, we have thought good to strengthen and confirm the same by our particular Subscription, that they may stand ratified for ever. And accordingly was subscribed by all of them.   

Concilii Toletani IU. CAN. LXXV.  
POst instituta quaedam ecclesiastici ordinis, 
Concilio Tolet. v. cap. 7. decernitur ut hoc decretum in omnibus synodis peractis publicâ voce pronuncietur.  vel decreta, quae ad quorundam pertinent disciplinam, postrema nobis cunctis sacerdotibus sententia est, pro robore nostrorum Regum, & stabilitate gentis Gothorum, pontificale ultimum sub Deo judice ferre decretum. Multarum quippe gentium (ut fama est) tanta extat perfidia animorum, ut fidem Sacramento promissam regibus suis servare contemnant, & ore simulent juramenti professionem, dum retineant ment perfidiae impietatem. 
Zach. 7. ef. 8.  Jurant enim Regibus suis, & fidem quam pollicentur praevaricant, nec metuunt volumen illud judicii, per quod inducitur maledictio multaque poenarum comminatio super eos qui jurant in nomine Dei mendaciter. Quae igitur spes talibus populis contra hostes laborantibus erit? quae fides ultra cum aliis gentibus in pace credenda? quod foedus non violandum? quae in hostibus jurata sponsio 
* stabilis perm.  permanebit, quando nec ipsis propriis regibus juratam fidem conservant? Quis enim adeo furiosus est, qui caput suum manu proprià desecet? illud notum est, immemores salutis suae proprià manu seipsos interimunt, in semetipsos suosque reges proprias convertendo vires, & dum Dominus 
† Dicat Psalm. 104. 1 Regum 26.  dicit, Nolite tangere Christos meos: & David, Quis, inquit, extendet manum suam in Christum Domini, & innocens erit? illic nec vitare metus est perjurium, nec regibus suis inferre exitium. Hostibus quippe fides pacti datur, nec violatur. Quod si in bello fides valet, quanto magis in 
* caeteris.  suis servanda est. Sacrilegium quippe est, si violetur à gentibus regum suorum promissa fides, quia non solum in eos fit pacti transgressio, sed & in Deum quidem, in cujus nomine pollicetur ipsa promissio. Ind est quod multa regna terrarum coelestis iracundia ita permutavit, ut per impietatem fidei & morum, alterum altero solveretur. Unde & nos cavere oportet casum hujusmodi gentium; ne similiter plagâ feriamur praecipiti, & poena puniamur crudeli. Sic enim Deus angelis in se praevaricantibus non pepercit, qui per inobedientiam coeleste habitaculum perdiderunt. Unde & per Isaiam dicitur, 
Isai. 34.  Inebriatus est gladius meus in coelo, quanto magis nos nostrae salutis interitum timere debemus, ne per infidelitatem eodem saevientis Dei gladio pereamus. Quod si divinam iracundiam vitare volumus, & severitatem ejus ad clementiam provocare cupimus, servemus erga Deum religionis cultum 
† atque timore, & usque ad mortem custod.  cum timore; custodiamus erga Principes nostros pollicitam fidem, atque sponsionem; non sit in nobis, sicut in quibusdam gentibus, infidelitatis subtilitas impia, non subdola mentis perfidia, non perjurii nefas, nec conjurationum nefanda molimina. Nullus apud nos praesumptione regnum accipiat; nullus excitet mutuas seditiones civium; nemo meditetur interitus regum; sed & defuncto in pace principe, primates totius gentis cum sacerdotibus successorem regni concilio communi constituant: ut dum unitatis concordia à nobis retinetur, nullum patriae gentis dissidium per vim atque ambitum 
† moliatur.  oriatur. Quod si haec admonitio mentes nostras non corrigit, & ad salutem communem cor nostrum nequaquam perducit, audite sententiam nostram. Quicunque igitur à nobis, vel totius Hispaniae populis, quâlibet conjuratione vel studio sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro patriae gentisque Gothorum Statu, vel 
* Observatione.  conservatione regiae salutis pollicitus est, 
† Tentaverit.  temeraverit, ut regem nec attrectaverit, aut potestate regni exuerit, aut praesumptione Tyrannicâ regni fastigium usurpaverit, anathema sit in conspectu Dei patris & angelorum, atque ab ecclesia catholica, quam profanaverit perjurio, efficiatur extraneus, & ab omni coetu Christianorum alienus, cum omnibus impietatis suae sociis: quia oportet ut una poena teneat obnoxios, quos similis error invenerit implicatos. Quod iterum secundo replicamus dicentes: Quicunque amodo ex nobis vel cunctis Hispaniae populis quolibet tractatu vel studio sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro patriae gentisque Gothorum statu, vel conservatione regiae salutis pollicitus est, violaverit, aut regem nece attrectaverit, aut potestate regni exuerit, aut praesumptione tyrannica regni fastigium usurpaverit, anathema sit in conspectu Christi, & 
† Angelorum  Apostolorum ejus, atque ab ecclesia catholica, quam perjurio profanaverit, efficiatur extraneus; & ab omni consortio Christianorum alienus, & damnatus in futuro Dei judicio habeatur, cum comparticipibus suis. Quia dignum est, qui talibus sociantur, ipsi etiam damnationis eorum participatione obnoxii teneantur. Hoc etiam tertio acclamamus, Quicunque amodo ex nobis vel cunctis Hispaniae populis qualibet meditatione vel studio sacramentum fidei suae, quod pro patriae salute, gentisque Gothorum statu, vel incolumitate regiae potestatis pollicitus est, violaverit, aut regem nece attrectaverit, aut potestate regni exuerit, aut praesumptione tyrannicâ regni fastigium usurpaverit, anathema sit in conspectu Spiritus Sancti, & martyrum Christi, atque ab ecclesia catholica, quam perjurio profanaverit, efficiatur extraneus, & ab omni communione Christianorum alienus; neque partem justorum habeat, sed cum diabolo & angelis ejus aeternis suppliciis condemnetur, una cum eis qui eâdem conjuratione nituntur: 
* Et  ut par poena perditionis constringat, quos in perniciem prava societas copulat: & ideo, si placet omnibus qui adestis. 
† Hoc tertio reïteratum sententia vestrae.  Haec tertio reïterata sententia vestrae vocis 
‖ Nostram.  eam consensu firmate, ab universo clero, vel populo dictum est: qui contra hanc vestram definitionem praesumpserit, anathema, maranatha (hoc est) perditio in 
† adventu.  adventum domini sit, & cum Juda Ischariot partem habeat, & ipsi & socii eorum. Amen.  
Quapropter nos ipsi 
† Et sacerdotes omnes sanctam Ecclesiam.  sacerdotes omnem ecclesiam Christi ac populum admonemus, ut tremenda haec & totiens iterata sententia nullum ex nobis praesenti atque aeterno condemnet judicio; sed fidem promissam erga gloriosissimum dominum nostrum Sisenandum regem custodientes, ac sincera illi devotione famulantes, non solum divinae pietatis clementiam in nobis provocemus, sed etiam gratiam antefati Principis percipere mereamur. Amen.  
Te quoque praesentem regem futurosque sequentium aetatum principes humilitate quâ debemus deposcimus, 
Haec omnia de formando optimo Principe, ferè desumpta sunt ex August. lib. 5. de civit. Dei, cap. 24.  ut moderati & mites erga subjectos existentes, cum justitia & pietate populos à Deo vobis creditos regatis, bonamque vicissitudinem qui vos constituit largitori Christo † respondeatis; regnantes cum humilitate cordis, cum studio bonae actionis. Ne quicquam vestrum solus in ‖ causis capitum, aut rerum sententiam ferat: Sed consensu publico, cum rectoribus ex judicio manifesto delinquentium culpa patescat; servata vobis in offensis mansuetudine, ut non severitate magis in illis quam indulgentia polleatis: Ut dum omnia haec, auctore Deo, pio à vobis moderamine conservantur, & reges in populis, & populi in regibus, & Deus in utrisque laetetur. Sane de futuris regibus hanc sententiam promulgamus, ut si quis ex eis contra reverentiam legum superba dominatione, & fastu regio in flagitiis & facinore, sive cupiditate crudelissimam potestatem in populis exercuerit, anathematis sententia à Christo domino condemnetur, & habeat a Deo separationem atque judicium, propter quod praesumpserit prava agere, & in perniciem regnum 
† deducere.  convertere. De se Suintilane vero, qui scelera propria metuens, seipsum regno privavit, & potestatis fascibus exuit, id cum gentis consultu decrevimus, ut neque eundem vel uxorem ejus, propter mala quae commiserunt, neque filios eorum unitati nostrae unquam consociemus, nec eos ad honores, à quibus ob iniquitatem dejecti sunt, aliquando 
‖ provehamus  promoveamus; quique etiam, sicut à fastigio regni habentur extranei, ita & à possessione rerum, quas de miserorum sumptibus 
† auxerant.  hauser ant, maneant alieni; praeter id quod pietate piissimi principis nostri fuerint consecuti. Non aliter & 
* Geilanem.  Gelanem memorati 
† Suintilanae.  Suintilani & sanguine & scelere fratrem, qui neque in germanitatis 
* fide.  foedere stabilis extitit, nec fidem gloriosissimo nostro domino pollicito conservavit, hunc igitur cum conjuge sua, sicut & 
† antefactum est.  antefatos, à societate gentis, atque consortio nostro placuit separari, nec in amissis facultatibus, in quibus per iniquitatem creverant, reduces fieri; 
* praeter in id.  praeter id quod consecuti fuerint pietate clementissimi principis nostri: cujus gratia & bonos donorum praemiis ditat, & malos à beneficentia sua 
† congruè non separat.  non separat. Gloria autem & honor omnipotenti Deo nostro, in cujus nomine congregati sumus. Post haec salus & pax, & diuturnitas piissimo & amatori Christi domino Sisenando regi; cujus devotio nos ad hoc decretum salutiferum convocavit; Corroboret Christi gloria regnum illius, 
* gentesque.  gentisque Gothorum in fide Catholica: annis & meritis protegat illum usque ad ultimam senectutem summa Dei gratia: & post praesentis regni gloriam, ad aeternum regnum transeat; 
† &.  ut sine fine regnet, qui 
* in saeculo.  intra Saeculum feliciter imperat; ipso praestante qui est Rex regum & Dominus dominantium, cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto in Saecula Saeculorum Amen.  
Definitis itaque iis quae superius comprehensa sunt, annuente religiosissimo principe, placuit deinde, nulla re impediente, à quolibet nostrum ea quae constituta sunt temerari, sed cuncta salubri consilio 
† conservari.  conservare: quae quia profectibus Ecclesiae, & animae nostrae conveniunt, etiam propriâ subscriptione, ut permaneant, roboramus 
* & subscripserunt omnes. .    

AN ADVERTISEMENT Concerning the ARTICLES OF MAGNA CHARTA of King JOHN. As also concerning The MAGNA CHARTA now printed in this APPENDIX.  
THESE Articles or Capitula were found in the Study of Bishop Warner, late Bishop of Rochester: They were communicated by a Gentleman of that Family to Mr. Geddis, and by him to the present Bishop of Salisbury.  
There can be no reasonable scruple raised against the Authenticness or Truth of the Writing: For first,  
1. It is in a Hand very ancient: They that are competent judges of such Antiquities, say, It well pretendeth to the Time of which it treateth.  
2. It hath yet appendent the Seal of King John, without any suspicion of being lately affixed.  
3. In the famous Library of Sir John Cotton, there are now to be seen many private Charters of King John, which exactly agree with this, both in respect of the Writing, and also of the Seal.  
4. In the Books of the Archbishopric of Canterbury, amongst many things there entered, of the time of King John, these Articles are Recorded, and were thence transcribed, many Years before the Original of them came into the Hand of the Bishop of Salisbury.  
5. This Instrument is the same which Matth. Paris mentioneth, Page 254. by the name of SCHEDULA. Archiepiscopus Schedulam illam, etc. The Archbishop, with others, bringing that Schedule to the King, recited before the King all the Capitula, etc.— Which tho' the King then rejected, yet shortly after upon better Advice, He granted; as may be gathered from the next Page of Matth. Paris.  
These Arguments may satisfy those, who since the late mentioning of these Articles in the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Salisbury, have had the Civility to doubt of the Truth of the whole matter.  
1. As to the substance of these Articles; It is to be observed, that they contain some part of the Rights of the Barons, due to them by the Unwritten or Common Law of the Land; which Rights, for more certainty, were in several Reigns drawn into Writing: And, for more obligatoriness, into Charters, after the entrance of the Normans. In the time of the Confessor, they were contained in the Laws of that King. William the Conqueror confirmed (to the old, and new Barons of his Investiture according to Custom of England) the Laws of the Confessor, as appeareth by the Record in Ingulf, and other Testimonies.  
2. These Articles, or the Laws of the Confessor, were recognized, and by Oath re-confirmed by William Rufus; no doubt, at His Coronation; or not long after. The old English Chronicle writeth thus, William Rufus by his Letters Summoned the Bishops, Earls and Barons to St. Paul's, and there he Swore, and made to them Surety by Writing, to sustain, and maintain the Right.  
3. King Henry I. ratified these Rights. In his Charter we find in general, Lagam Edwardi Regis vobis reddo cum its emendationibus, quibus Pater meus eam emendavit, etc. I restore to you the Law of King Edward, as it was mended (or enlarged) by my Father, with the Advice of his Barons.  
4. It is evident that King John (to omit others) both by His Coronation Oath, and at other times, confirmed these Articles or Explanations of the Old Law. Matth. Paris, pag. 239. The King (John) strictly commanded that the Laws of His Grandfather King Henry, should be observed by the whole Kingdom. But what this Law of King Edward, or Emendations contained, the same Matth. Paris setteth down in short, pag. 252. The Charter of King Henry [the First] contained certain Liberties and Laws of King Edward, granted to the Church of England, and the great Men; as also some Liberties superadded by King Hen. I. And pag. 254. Capitula quoque legum & libertatum, etc. The Heads (or Articles) of the Laws and Liberties which the Great Men desired to be confirmed, are already entered, partly above in the Charter of Henry I. and partly were gathered out of the Old Laws of King Edward. The Historian speaketh of these very Articles here Printed.  
5. 'Tis observable, That in these Articles, there is no care taken for the Liberties of the Church. The reason of which I conceive to be this: The Churchmen mostly than held with the King. And the Hand of the King was most heavy upon the Laity, who framed these Articles, without the Clergy.  
6. These Articles provide nothing concerning the Summons and holding of the Common Council of the Realm. The reason whereof probably was this: The Barons of that time had introduced a Practice, of themselves to appoint the Time and Place of the Meeting of the Common Council of the Nation: At the granting of these very Articles, King John sent to the Barons;  diem & locum providerent congruum, ad haec omnia prosequenda. That they (the Barons) would appoint Time and Place for the concluding that matter. In the time of Henry III (in whose Charter the Article de communi concilio habendo was omitted; and in whose time the Barons begun again to War) we find, that the Lords came unto the King and said, He must ordain and see for the Welfare of the Realm, and then set the King a Day to meet at Oxenford, and there to hold a Parliament. So the English Chronicle. However, this grand Affair, as also that of the Church, were provided for in the Magna Charta of King John. Whereby it further appears, That these Articles were but the Rudiments of that Charter, after further enlarged, upon further deliberation.  
I COME now in the second place to say a few things concerning the Perfect and Complete Magna Charta of King John, here printed in French.  
1. It was the Custom of old Times to make three several Copies of Public Acts and Charters. Of the Magna Charta we have one in Latin, in Matthew Paris. This in French (or old Norman Language) was kept in the Records of France, and thence Published some years passed by Luke Dachery, in his Spicilegium. That in English was sent into all Counties, but as yet no Copy in this Language appeareth.  
Thus also the Laws of Canute, and the Provisions of Oxford (to mention no more) made in the time of Hen. III. were Published in three Languages.  
2. The very same Charter Published in Latin by Matthew Paris, is also extant in the History of Rad. Niger, almost word for word; and also in two several Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library; where also about twenty years past the very Original was to be seen.  
3. The Magna Charta of King John is not extant in any Record in the Tower, or elsewhere, as several affirm; nor the Magna Charta of H. III. but only by Inspeximus in the time of Edw. I. A thing much to be wondered at. Rudburne writeth of the Charters of Hen. I. Sublatae sunt omnes variis fallaciis, exceptis tribus. All but three were embezel'd.  
4. The Magna Charta of King John, and that of Hen. III. are said to be the very same; where as they do exceedingly differ, as Mr. Selden in his Epinomis hath partly observed, and may further appear to any that will compare them. Matthew Paris pag. 323. The Tenor of these Charters is fully set down, above, where our History treateth of King John: So as the Charters of King John and Hen. III. are not found to differ in any thing. These words are not the words of Matthew Paris, but of Roger Wendover, (whom Matthew Paris often transcribeth very hastily) in whose History the Charter entered as King John's, is exactly the same with that Charter of Henry the Third.  
5. As to that remarkable Article, Et ad habendum commune concilium Regni.— And to the holding the Commune Council of the Realm, etc. I shall briefly say, 1. That it hath been left out of all the Charters after King John's time, but is found in several Copies very Authentic, and particularly in the French Copy now here printed. 2. That this Article doth not, as some have written, give the Original to our Parliaments; for such Parliaments (or communia concilia) were held before this time. King Richard the First, after his return from the Holy War, summoned a Common Council (or Parliament) at London, of the Clergy and Laity, where he demanded Council about his making War upon the King of France; Earl Roger answered for the whole Parliament, The Earls, Barons and Knights, will aid you, O King, with their Swords; the Archbishops, Bishops, Citizens, Burgesses, and Ecclesiastic Persons will aid you with Money; Abbates, Priors, and such others will aid you with their Prayers. So the English Chron. And to omit others, an Instance of such a Parliament is found in the Annals of Burton, pag. 263. compared with page 265. King John called to Northampton all the Earls and Barons of England: it followeth, Pandulfus spoke (at the same time) to the Earls, Barons and Knights, O that you, etc. The Clergy indeed are not here mentioned, but were certainly present, because the occasion of that Council was to restore Peace to the Church and Kingdom, as Matthew Paris, or as the Annalist of Waverly wordeth it, betwixt the King and the Archbishop. 3. I conceive the chief end of adding this Article, was to prevent the taking of Aids, (commonly called Talliage) or Escuage, by surprise, or by the consent only of a few, which King John had lately done. For the summoning of the Commune concilium here is plainly limited to the Sessing of Aids and Escuage: But the Mirror giveth another account of the meeting of Parliaments, worthy of Consideration, page 225. where the Author refers us to higher times.  
There is yet one Article more in this Charter of King John which deserveth our regards, the rather because it being lately alleged in the Pastoral Letter, hath much scandalised some, with its suprising Novelty.  
The words are, Barones cum communia totius terrae gravabunt nos. The Barons with the Community of the Land, shall aggrieve, or distress us, etc. But why should this sound uncouth to any, who have with Reflection perused the Histories of this, or the Neighbouring Kingdoms, wherein the same Practice is frequently found. Andrew King of Hungary allowed the same Liberty to his People, as may be seen at large in the Decrees of the Kings of Hungary, in the end of Bonfinius: Like Examples occur in the French Annals; and in the Annals of Waverly in the time of Hen. the Third, pag. 217.  
If any will yet suspect that Matthew Paris, in this Point, hath not writ fairly, or that the Articles produced by the Bishop of Salisbury are not to be relied on, (and some such dissatisfied People there are) then let them (if they can be believed desirous of satisfaction) repair to the Red Book of Exchequer, where fol. 234. they may find the very same Words, and Liberty granted, as before: Which Record cannot well be suspected of being corrupted, because it hath been always in good Custody.   

Capitula super quibus facta est Magna Charta Regis Johannis, ex MS. Arch. Cantuar. Fol 14. Quae etiam authentice cum Sigillo extant in manibus Episc. Salisburiensis.  
ISTA sunt Capitula quae Barones petunt, & Dominus Rex concedit signata Sigillo Johannis Regis.  
Post decessum Antecessorum haeredes plenae aetatis habebunt haereditatem suam per antiquum relevium exprimendum in Charta.  
Haeredes qui intra aetatem sunt & fuerunt in custodia, cum ad aetatem pervenerint, habebunt haereditatem suam sine relevio & fine.  
Custos terrae haeredis capiet rationabiles exitus, consuetudines & servitia sine destructione & vasto hominum & rerum suarum. Et si Custos terrae fecerit destructionem & vastum, amittat custodiam, & custos sustentabit domos, parcos, vivaria, stagna, molendina, & caetera ad terram illam pertinentia de exitibus terrae ejusdem. Et ut Haeredes ita maritentur ne disparagentur & per concilium propinquorum de consanguinitate sua.  
Ne vidua det aliquid pro dote sua, vel maritagio post decessum Mariti sui, sed maneat in domo sua per XC. dies post mort●m ipsius: & infra terminum illum assignetur ei Dos, & maritagium statim habeat & haereditatem suam. Rex vel Ballivus non saisiet terram aliquam pro debito dum catalla debitoris sufficient, nec plegii debitoris distringantur dum capitalis debitor sufficit ad solutionem. Si vero capitalis de●itor defecerit in solutione, si plegii voluerint, habeant terras debitoris donec debitum illud persolvatur plene, nisi capitalis debitor monstrare poterit se esse inde quietum erga plegios.  
Rex non concedet alicui Baroni quod capiat auxilium de liberis hominibus suis, nisi ad corpus suum redimendum, & ad faciendum primogenitum filium suum militem & ad primogenitam filiam suam semel maritandam, & hoc faciet per rationabile auxilium.  
Ne aliquis majus servitium faciat de feodo militis qu●m inde debetur: ut communia placita non sequantur ●uriam Domini Regis; sed assignentur in aliquo certo loco, & ut recognitiones capiantur in eisdem comitatibus in hunc modum. Ut Rex mittat duos Justitiarios per quatuor vices in anno, qui cum quatuor militibus ejusdem comitatus electis per comitatum capiant assisas de nouâ dissaisina, morte antecessoris, & ultima praesentatione, nec aliquis ob hoc sit summonitus nisi juratores & duae partes.  
Ut liber homo amercietur pro parvo delicto secundum modum delicti, & pro magno delicto secundum magnitudinem delicti, salvo contenemento suo. Villanus etiam amercietur, salvo Wainagio suo, & Mercator eodem modo, salva mercandisa, per Sacramentum proborum hominum de visneto. Ut clericus amercietur de laico feodo suo secundum modum aliorum praedictorum & non secundum beneficium Ecclesiasticum.  
Ne aliqua villa amercietur pro pontibus faciendis ad riparias, nisi ubi de jure antiquitus esse solebant.  
Ut mensura vini, bladi, & latitudines pannorum, & rerum aliarum emendetur, & ita de ponderibus.  
Ut assisa de nova dissaisina & de morte antecessoris abbrevientur & similiter de aliis assisis.  
Ut nullus Vicecomes intromittat se de placitis ad Coronam pertinentibus sine coronatoribus, & ut comitatus & Hundreda sint ad antiquas firmas absque ullo incremento, exceptis dominicis Maneriis Regis.  
Si aliquis tenens de Rege moriatur, licebit Vicecomiti vel alio Ballivo Regis seisire & inbreviare catallum ipsius per visum legalium hominum, ita tamen quod nihil inde amoveatur donec plenius sciatur si debet aliquid liquidum debitum Domino Regi, & tunc debitum Domini Regis persolvatur. Residuum verò relinquetur executoribus, ad faciendum testamentum defuncti. Et si nihil Regi debetur, omnia catalla cedent defuncto.  
Si aliquis liber homo intestatus decesserit, bona sua per manum proximorum parentum suorum & amicorum, & per visum Ecclesiae distribuantur.  
Ne viduae distringuantur ad se maritandum dum voluerint sine marito vivere, ita tamen quod securitatem facient quod non maritabunt se sine assensu Regis, si de Rege teneant, vel dominorum suorum de quibus tenent.  
Ne Constabularius vel alius ballivus capiat blada vel alia catalla, nisi statim denarios inde reddat, nisi respectum habere possit de voluntate venditoris.  
Ne Constabularius possit distringere aliquem militem ad dandum denarios pro custodia castri si voluerit facere custodiam illam in propria persona, vel per alium probum hominem, si ipse eam facere non possit per rationabilem causam. Et si Rex cum duxerit in exercitum sit quietus de custodia secundum quantitatem temporis.  
Ne Vicecomes vel Ballivus Regis vel aliquis alius capiat equos vel carectas alicujus liberi hominis pro carriagio faciendo nisi ex voluntate ipsius.  
Ne Rex vel Ballivus suus capiat alienum boscum ad castra vel ad alia agenda nisi per voluntatem ipsius cujus boscus fuerit.  
Ne Rex teneat terram eorum qui fuerint convicti de felonia, nisi per unum annum & unum diem; sed tunc reddatur Domino feodi.  
Ut omnes Kidelli de caetero penitus deponantur in Tamisâ & Medeway & per totam Angliam.  
Ne breve quod vocatur Percipe de caetero fiat alicui de aliquo tenemento unde liber homo amittat Curiam suam.  
Si quis fuerit dissaisitus vel prolongatus per Regem sine judicio de terris, libertatibus, & jure suo, statim ei restituatur, & si contentio super hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde disponatur per judicium XXV. Baronum, & ut illi qui fuerint dissaisiti per Patrem vel fratrem Regis, Rectum habeant sine dilatione per judicium parium suorum in curia Regis. Et si Rex debeat habere terminum aliorum Crucesignatorum, tunc Archiepiscopus & Episcopi facient inde judicium ad certam diem appellatione remota.  
Ne aliquid detur pro brevi inquisitionis de vita vel membris, sed libere concedatur sine pretio, & non negetur.  
Si aliquis tenet de Rege per feodi firmam, per soccagium, vel burgagium: & de alio per servitiu● militis, Dominus Rex non habebit custodium militum de feodo alterius occ●sione Burgagii, vel Soccagii vel feodifirmae; nec debet habere custodi●m Burgagii, Soccagii vel feodifirmae, & quod liber homo non amittat militiam suam occasione parvarum sergantisarum sicuti de illis qui tenent aliquod tenementum, reddendo inde cultellos, vel sagittas vel hujusmodi.  
Ne aliquis Ballivus possit ponere aliquem ad legem simplici loquela sua sine testibus fidelibus.  
Ne corpus liberi hominis capiatur nec imprisonetur, nec dissaisietur, nec utlagetur, nec exuletur, nec aliquo modo destruatur.  
Nec Rex eat vel mittat super eum vi nisi per judicium parium suum vel per legem terrae.  
Ne jus vendatur, vel differatur vel vetitum sit.  
Quod Mercatores habeant salvum ire & venire, ad emendum vel vendendum sine omnibus malis Toltis per antiquas & rectas consuetudines.  
Ne scutagium vel auxilium ponatur in Regno, nisi per commune consilium Regni, nisi ad corpus Regis redimendum & primogenitum filium suum militem faciendum & filiam suam primogenitam semel maritandam & ad hoc fiat rationabile auxilium. Simili modo fiat de Tallagiis & auxiliis de civitate London & de aliis civitatibus quae inde habent libertates, & ut Civitas London. plenè habeat antiquas libertates & liberas consuetudines suas tam per aquas quam per terras.  
Ut liceat unicuique exire de regno, & redire salva fide Domini Regis, nisi tempore Werrae per aliquod breve tempus propter communem utilitatem regni.  
Si quis mutuo aliquid acceperit à Judaeis plus vel minus, & moriatur antequam debitum illud solvatur, debitum non usurabit quamdiu haeres infra aetatem, de quocumque teneat. Et si debitum illud inciderit in manum Regis, Rex non capiet nisi catallum quod continetur in Charta.  
Si quis moriatur & debitum debeat Judaeis, uxor ejus habeat dotem suam; & si liberi remanserint, provideantur iis necessaria secundum tenementum, & de residuo solvatur debitum, salvo servitio Dominorum. Simili modo fiat de aliis debitis, & ut custos terrae reddat haeredi cum ad plenam aetatem pervenerit terram suam restauratam secundum quod rationabiliter poterit sustinere de exitibus terrae ejusdem de Carucis & Wainagiis.  
Si quis tenuerit de aliqua escaeta sicut de honore Wallingford & Nottingham, Bonon & Lancaster, & de aliis escaetis quae sunt in manu Regis, & sunt Baroniae, & obierit, haeres ejus non dabit aliud relevium vel faciet aliud servitium quam faceret Baroni, & ut Rex eodem modo eam teneat quo Baro eam tenuit.  
Ut fines qui facti sunt pro dotibus, maritagiis, haereditatibus & amerciamentis, injustè & contra legem terrae, omnino condonentur, vel fiat inde per judicium XXV. Baronum, vel per judicium majoris partis eorundem una cum Archiepiscopo & aliis quos secum vocare voluerit, ita quod si aliquis vel aliqui de XXV. fuerint in simili querela, amoveantur, & alii loco illorum per residuos de XXV. substituantur.  
Quod obsides & Chartae reddantur quae liberatae fuerunt Regi in securitatem.  
Ut illi qui fuerint extra forestam non veniant coram Justitiariis de Foresta per communes summonitiones, nisi sint in placito, vel plegii fuerint, & ut pravae consuetudines de forestis & de forestariis & Warrennis & Vicecomitibus & vivariis emendentur per XII. milites de quolibet comitatu qui debent eligi per probos homines ejusdem comitatus.  
Ut Rex amoveat penitus de Balliva parentes & totam sequelam Gerardi de Aties quod de caetero Ballivam non habeant, scilicet Engelardum, Andr. Petrum, & Gigonem de Cances, Gigonem de Cygon, Mattheum de Martino & fratres ejus & Gelfrid nepotem ejus & Philippum de Marke.  
Et ut Rex amoveat alienigenas milites, Stipendiarios, Balistarios & Ruttarios, & Servientes qui venerunt cum equis & armis ad nocumentum regni.  
Ut Rex faciat Justitiarios, Constabularios & Vicecomites & Ballivos de talibus qui sciant legem terrae & eam velint bene observare.  
Ut Barones qui fundaverunt Abbatias unde habent chartas Regum vel antiquam tenuram, habeant custodiam earum cum vacaverint.  
Si Rex Walenses dissaisierit vel elongaverit de terris, vel libertatibus, vel de rebus aliis in Anglia vel in Wallia, eye statim sine placito reddantur: & si fuerint dissaisiati vel elongati de tenementis suis Anglicis per patrem vel fratrem Regis sine judicio parium suorum, Rex eis sine dilatione justitiam exhibebit eo modo quo exhibet Anglicis justitiam de tenementis suis Angl. secundum legem Angl. & de tenementis Wall secundum legem Wall. & de tenementis Marchiae secundum legem Marchiae. Idem facient Wallenses Regi & suis.  
Ut Rex reddat filium Lewelini & praeterea omnes obsides de Wallia, & Chartas quae ei liberatae fuerunt in securitatem pacis.  
Ut Rex faciat Regi Scotiae de obsidibus reddendis & de libertatibus suis & jure suo secundum formam quam fecit Bar. Angl. nisi aliter esse debeat per Chartas quas Rex habet per judicium Archiepiscopi & aliorum quos secum vocare voluerit.  
Ut omnes forestae quae sunt aforestatae per Regem tempore suo deafforestentur, & ita fiat de ripariis quae per ipsum Regem sunt in defenso.  
Omnes autem istas consuetudines & libertates quas Rex concessit regno tenendas quantum ad se pertinent, erga suos, omnes de regno tam Clerici quam Laici observabunt quantum ad se pertinet erga suos.  
Haec est forma securitatis ad observandam pacem & libertates inter Regem & Regnum, Barones eligent XXV. Barones de tegno quos voluerint, qui debent pro totis viribus suis observare, tenere, & facere observari pacem, & libertates quas Dominus Rex eis concessit, & Charta sua confirmavit. Ita, viz. Quod si Rex, vel Justitiarii, vel Ballivi Regis vel aliquis de ministris suis in aliquo erga aliquem deliquerit, vel aliquem articulorum pacis, aut securitatis transgressus fuerit, & delictum ostensum fuerit IU Baronibus de praedictis XXV. Baronum: illi IV. Barones accedent ad Dominum Regem vel ad Justitiarium suum, si Rex fuerit extra regnum, proponentes ei excessum & petent ut excessum illum sine dilatione faciat emendari. Et si Rex vel Justitiarius illud non emendaverit, Si Rex fuerit extra regnum, infra rationabile tempus determinandum in Charta, praedicti IU. referent causam illam ad residuos de illis XXV. 
Communâ, C. M. Ep. Sal.  Baronibus, & illi XXV. cum communia totius terrae destringent & gravabunt Regem modis omnibus quibus poterint: scilicet per captionem castrorum, terrarum, possessionum & aliis modis quibus poterint, donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum. Salva Persona Domini Regis, & Reginae, & Liberorum suorum. Et cum fuerit emendatum, intendant Domino Regi sicut prius. Et quicumque voluerit de terra, jurabit se, ad praedicta exequenda, pariturum mandatis praedictorum XXV. Baronum, & gravaturum Regem pro posse suo cum ipsis. Et Rex publicè & libere dabit licentiam jurandi cuilibet qui jurare voluerit, & nulli unquam jurare prohibebit. Omnes autem illos de terra qui sponte suâ, & per se jurare voluerint XXV. Baronibus de distringendo & gravando Regem, cum iis Rex faciet jurare eosdem de mandato suo sicut praedictum est.  
Item si aliquis de praedictis XXV. Baronum decesserit, 
Sic & M. Ch. Episc. Sar.  vel à terra recesserit, vel aliquo alio modo impeditus fuerit quominus ista praedicta possit exequi, qui residui fuerint de XXV. eligent alium loco ipsius pro arbitrio suo, qui simili modo erit juratus quo & caeteri. In omnibus autem quae istis XXV. Baronibus committantur exequenda, si fortè ipsi XXV. praesentes suerint & inter se super re aliqua discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis notati nolint vel nequeant interesse, ratum habebitur & firmum quod major pars ex eye provident vel praeceperit, ac si omnes XXV. in hoc consensissent. Et praedicti XXV. jurabunt quod omnia antedicta fideliter observabunt, & pro toto posse suo facient observari. 
D. Matth. Par.  Praeterea Rex faciet eos securos per Chartas Archiepiscopi & Episcoporum & Magistri Pandulfi, quod nihil impetrabit à Domino Papa per quod aliqua istarum conventionum revocetur vel minuatur. 
Hic & Ch. M. Episc. Sar. sine date.  Et si al quid tale impetraverit, reputetur irritum & inane, & nunquam eo utatur. Sine dato.   

DIPLOMA REGIUM: 
Eruit D. d'Heroval.  SIVE Ordinationes JOHANNIS Regis Angliae, queis statuit quid Nobiles, quid Plebeii observare debeant, ad pacem & tranquillitatem Regni stabiliendam.  
VIII. JOHAN par la grace de Deu Roi Dengleterre, as Arceveskes, as Eveskes, as Abbez, as Contes, 
An. Chr. 1215.  as Barons, as justises, as Forestiers, as Viscontes, as Prevoz, as Ministers, & a toz ses Bailliz, & says féels, saluz. Sachiez que nos par la grace de Deu & pur le sauvement de nostre asme, & de toz nos ancestor's, & de noz eirs, & de lenor de Deu, & le sauvement de seinte Iglise, & lamendement de nostre Regne, par le consel de noz enorez peers Larceveske Estievene de Cantorbire Primate de tote Engleterre & Cardinal de Rome, & Larceveske Henri de Diveline, & Leveske Willaume de Londres, Leveske Pieres de Wincestre, Leveske Jocelin de Basilius, Leveske Hue de Nichole 
* Lincoln. , Leveske Gautier de Wirecestre, Leveske Will. de Cestre, & Leveske Beneit de Rovecestre, & Maistre Pandol Sodiacre nostre Seignor Lapostoire, & nostre ami frere Inner Maistre de la chivalry del Temple de Engleterre, & de nos Barons Will. le Marescal Comte de Penbroc, Will. Conte de Salisbires, Will. Conte de Warenne, Will. Conte de Arondel, Alain de Galwche, Conestable d'Escoce, Warin le fiz Gerod, Peres le fiz Herebert, Hubert de Borc Seneschau de Peitou, Huge de Nuevile, Matheu le fiz Herebert, Thomas Basset; Alain Basset, Philippe Daubeigni, Robert de Ropelée, Johan. Marescal, & Johan le fiz Hue, & de nos autres féels.  
Premierement que nos avons ottie 
* otriè.  a Deu & le confermons par ceste nostre presente Chartre, por noz, & por nos eirs a toz iorz, que les Yglises de Engleterre, seront franches & aient lor dreitures franches & enterines & plenieres, & volon que cili seit garde la que choose apert, par co que nos otriames par nostre pure volunte & de gre les franchises des Ellections que len tienent par plus grant & par plus necessaire as Yglises de Engleterre, devant que la descorde fust commencie entre nos & nos Barons, & la confirmames par nostre Chartre & parchacames que ele fu confirmée par nostre Seignor Lapostoire Innocent le tiers, laquelle nos garderons & volons que nostre eir la gardent toz jorz en bone fei.  
Nos avon encore otrie a tez les francs homes de nostre Regne pur nos, & pur nos eirs a toz iorz totes les franchises qui de soz sunt escrites, quill les aient & les tiegnent il & lor eir de nos & de nos eirs, se acuns de nos Contes, vo de nos Barons, vo des altres qui tienent de nos en chief par servise de Chevalier mora, et quant il sera mors & says eirs sera de plein age & deura relief, ait son heritage par l'ancien relief, co est a savier li eir, ou li eir del Conte, de Barony Contal entiere par C. liures li eirs ou li eir del baron de la baronie par C. liures: li eirs ou li eir de Chevalier de fie de Chevalier entier par C. sol au plus, & qui meins deura meins doinst solon lanciene costume deal fie.  
Si le eirs d'aucun di tels sera dedens age, & sera en garde; quand il sera parvenu a aage ait son heritage sans relief & sans fin.  
Les gardeors de la terree de tel heir qui sera dedens aage ne pregne de la terre de leir for'rs Reignables, eissues & Reignables costumes, & Reignables services, & ce senz destruiement, & senz vast des homes & des choses.  
Et se nes avons livrée la garde de la terre daucun itel a Visconte oh a acune altre qui nos dei respondre des eissues de la terre, et cil de la garde fera destruiement o gast, nos prendrons de celuy amend, & la terre sera livrée a deus leals prodeshomes de cel fei qui respoignent des eissues a nos, o celui que noz comanderons.  
Et se nos avons done oh vendu a aucun la garde de la terre de aucun itel, & cil enfra destruiement o wast per de cele garde, & seit liure a deus leials sage prodeshomes & dicele que I nous respoignent, si come nos avons devant dit.  
Et si le gardior tant dis come il aura la garde de tele terre, sostinges les meisons, les viviers, les pars, les estans, les molins, & les altres choses qui apartient a cele terre de eissues, & de celle meimes terre: & rendra all heir quant sera parvenus en plain aage sa terre tote estorée de charues, de granges, solon coque li ten de la gaignerie requera, & les eissues de la terre porront musurablement soffrir reisuablement.  
Li heir scient marry sans desparagement cissi ne purquant que ainz que li marriages seit fet, seit mostre all prochains deal lineage de cel heir.  
La Veve empress la mort de son mari namtenant & sans grevance ait son marriage & son heritage, ne riens ne doinst pour son marriage, ne pour son doaire, ne pour son heritage que elle & ses maris tiudrent, all ior de la mort del mari, & seit en la maison de son mari puis quil sera mort xl. forz dedens les quells forz li seit les doairez liurez.  
Nule Veve ne seite destreite de sci marier tant dis come ele voldra viure sanz mari, ●ssi ne purquant que ele face seurte que cle ne se marira sanz nostre otrei, se ele tinent de nos o senz lotrei de son Seignor de qui elle tient, se ele tient dautrui.  
Ne nos ne nostre Bailli ne seiseron terre ne rent deal dettor pour aucune dette tandis come this chattels soffisent a paier la debt, ne si plege ne seront destroit tant dis come le chevetaigne dettor soffira a la debt payer. Et se le chevetaigne detor na de quei payer sa debt, respoigne li pledge de la debt. Et sil volent aient les terres, & les rents deal debtor jusquil aient restorement de la debt quill ont devant paiée pour lui; se le chevetaigne detor ne monster quill en est quit verse cells pleges.  
See aucuns a emprunte as jeus 
* Id est Iui●s.  plus o meins, & muert devant quill lor alt pay lor avoir, ne croise mie la dette tant dis come li heirs sera dedens age, & see cele debt vient en nos maius nos nen prendron que le chastel 
* Id est, le capital, le principal.  que nos troveron en la charte.  
Et se aucun muret, & deit debt as jeus, sa feme ait son doaire, & ne paiet nient de cele debt, & see li enfant qui remaindront del mort sont dedenz age, porveu lor seit lor estoveir raisnablement solonc le tenement qui fu del mort, & del remanant seit paiée la debt, sauf le service des Seignors, & en tel manner seit feit de debts que l'on deit a altres que a jues.  
Leu ne mettra nul escuage 
† f. taille. , ne aye 
* aid.  en nostre Regne, for'rs par commun conseil de nostre Regne, for'rs a nostre reimbre 
† Id est, ad nostrum corpus redimendum si in bello capti fuerimus, ut infra.  & a nostre ainzne fiz fair Chevalier, & a nostre ainznée fille marier une feiz; & a cestes choses ne face len aye se raisnable non.  
En cele mainere seit feit days de lafoy cite de Londres, & estre co la cite de Londres ait totes ses ancienes costumes, & says franchises & par mer & par aigue.  
Nos volons estre co, & otrions que totes les altres citez & li borc, & les viles, & li port aient en totes lor franchises, & lor franches costumes, & aient le commun conseil del Regne, de lay a asseeir altrement que as treis' cas qui sont devant dit.  
E lescuage aseer ferous somondre les Arceveskes, les Eveskes, les Abbez, les Comtes, les greignors Barons: chacun par sei par nos letters, & estre co ferons somondre en commun par nos Viscontes, & par nos Bailliz toz ceus qui de nos tienent en chief a certain jor, co est all term de xl. jorz all mainz & a certain lieu, & nomerons lafoy cause en totes lettres de ceste somonse. Et quant la somonse sera issi feite voist li afaires avant, au jor assign solon le conseil di cels qui seront present; ja seit co●que ne seient pas venu tuit cil qui furent somons.  
Nos notrions a nul des ore en avant quill pregne aye de ses frans homes for'rs a son cors raimbre 
* Vide supra.  & a son ainzne fiz fair Chevalier, & a sa fille ainznée marier une feiz, & a co ne seit feit aye see raisnable non.  
Nuls ne seit destreinz a fair grenor servise de fieu de Chevalieo o daltre franc tenement, que tant come il tient & deit.  
Li commun plait ne suient mie nostre court, mais saient tenu en alcun certain lieu.  
Les reconussances de novele dessaisine de mort dancestre, & de darrain presentment ne seiente prizes for'rs en lor Contez & ceste manner: Nos o nostre Chevetains justicieres se nos fumes for'rs del Regne enveierons deus justices par chascun Conte par iv, feiz en lan qui o quatre des Chevaliers de chascun Conte esseuz par le Conte pregnent el Conte, & el jor del Conte, & en certain lieu les devant dites assizes, & se les devant d●●es assizes ne puent estre prizes el jor del Conte, tant Chevaliers & franchement tenanz remaignent de cels qui furent present all Conte en icel jor par qui puisent li judgement estre fait sofisaument, solon co qui li affair sera plus grant oplus petit.  
Frans hom ne set amerciez pour petit forfeit for'rs solon la manner del forfeit, & pour le grant forfeit seit amerciez solonc la grandesce del forfeit safe son contenement, & li marcheant ensemt sauve la marchendise. Li Vilaint ensemt seit amerciez saals son gaagnage sil chiet en nostre merci, & nule des devant dites merciz ne sera mice for'rs par le serement de prodomes & des leaus des visnez.  
Li Conte & li Baron ne seient amerciez for'rs par lor pers & solonc la manner del forfeit.  
Nus clers ne soit amerciez de son lai tenement, for'rs solonc la maniere des altres qui devant sunt dit, & nun pas solonc la quantite de la rent de Siglisde 
* f. des Iglise, ou de Liglise. .  
Ne vile ne home ne seit destreiz a fair ponz a rivieres, for'rs cil qui ancienement & par drect les devent fair.  
Nuls Visquens ne Constable's ne nostre Coroneor ne nostre alter Bailli ne tiegnent les plaiz de nostre Corone.  
Chascune Comtez, Hundrez, Wapulzac, & Treingues, soient as ancienes' fermes sens nul croisement, for'rs nos demeins manners.  
Se aucuns qui tient lai fie de nos muert & nostre Visquens, o altres nostre Bailliz, monster nos lettres overtes de nostre semonse de la dette que li mort nos deveit, leissie a nostre Visconte oh a nostre Bailli atachier & enbrever les chatels deal mort, qui seront trove el lai fie a lafoy vaillance dicelle debt, que li morz nos deveit par veue de leaus homes, eissi ne par quant que riens ne seit host jusque nos seit paiée la dette qui sera coneve; & li remanant seit saissie as executors a fair le testament del mort: & sil ne nos deivent rien tot li chatel seient otrie all mort, sauves les reignables party's de sa feme & de ses enfans.  
Se aucuns frans huem muert senz testament, li thatel seient departi par les mains des prochains parenz & de ses amis par la veue de seinte Iglise, sauves les debts a chascun que le mort lor devoit.  
Nus de nos Constable's ne de nos altres Bailliz ne pregne les blez, ne les altres chatels daucun, se maintenant nen pay les deniers, sil nen peewit aver respite par volente del vendeor.  
Nus Constable's ne destreigne nul Chevalier a donor deniers pour la garde del Chastel, sil lavoit faite en sa propre person u par alter prodome sil ne la peewit fair par aucune reignable achaisun 
* Id est raisonable occasion. , & se nos le menons oh enveions en , il sera quites dicele garde tant dis cum il sera par nos en lost.  
Nus Viscontes ne nostre Bailliz ne alter ne pregne les chevals ne les charettes daucun franc home, pour fair carriage, for'rs par la volente de cel franc home.  
Ne nos ne nostre Baillie ne prendrons altrui bois a nos Chastels, o a nos altres ours fair, for'rs par la volente de celui cui sera li vois.  
Nos ne tendrons les terres de cels qui seront convencue de felony, for'rs un an & un jor, & adon's les rendrons as Seignors des fiez.  
Tot li Kidel seient dici en avant host del tot en tot de Tamise & de Medoine, & par tote Engleterre, for'rs par la costiere de la mer.  
Li bries qui est apelez precipz des ci en avant ne feit faiz a nul daucun tenement, dont frans hoem peusi perdre sa court.  
Une mesure de vin seit par tot nostre Kegne, & une mesure de cerveise, & une mesure de ble, eo est li quartiers de Londres, & une leise de dras teinz, & de rosez, & de habergiez, co est deus aunes dedenz lists, & des peis 
* pois.  seit ensement come des musures. 
† mesures.   
Riens ne seit done ne pris des ci en avant pour le brief del enquest de vie, o de membres de aucun, mais seit otrée en pur don, & ne seit esconduit.  
Se aucuns tient de nos par feuferme o par, sokage, & tient terre daltrui par servise de Chevalier, nos n'aurons mie la garde del heir, ne de la terre qui est daltrui fie par achaison de cele feuferme, o del sokage, o del borgage. Ne n'aurons la garde de cele feuferme, o del socage, o del borgage, see cele feuferme ne deit service de Chevalier.  
Nos n'aurons la garde del heir ne de la terre dalcun, que il tient daltrui par servise de Chevalier, par achaison daucune petite serjanteri, quill tient de nos par servise de rendre saettes, o cotelz, o tells choses.  
Nuls Bailliz ne met des cien avant alcun a lei par sa simple parole, for'rs par bons tesmoins amenez aice.  
Nuls frans hom ne sera pris, ne emprisonez, ne dessaisiz, ne ullagiez, ne eissillieze, ne destruiz, ne aucune manner, ne  lui n'irons ne n'enveierons, for'rs par leal judgement de ses pers, o par la lei de la terre.  
A nulli ne vendrons, a nulli nescondirons ne ne proloignerons dreir ne justise.  
Tuit li merchant aient sauf & feur eissir d'Engleterre, & venir en Engleterre & demorer,, & aler par Engleterre, par terre & par eve a vendre & a chater, sans to●es males totes par les ancienes drettes costumes, for'rs el ten de guerre, cil ki sunt de la terre qui nos guerroie, & se tel sunt trove en nostre terre el commancement de la guerre, soient atachie sans damage de lor cors & de lor choseo, jusqu'il seit seu de nos o de nostre chevetein justifier comment li marcheant de la nostre terre seront traitie, qui donc seront trove en la terre qui contre nos guerroie, & see li nostre sunt ilucke sauf, seient si lor sauf en la nostre terre.  
Leise chacun des ci en avant eissir de nostre Regne & repairier safe & seur par terre & par eue sauve nostre fei, for'rs el ten de guerre par alcun petit ten pour preu del Regne: Mais di co sunt jet te for'rs li emprisone, & li utlagie solon la lei del regne, & la gent ki contre nos guerroie. Des marcheans seit feit, si come nous avons devant dit.  
Se aucuns tient daucune eschaette si come del honour de Walingeford, Notingehan, Boulogne, Lancastre, u dautres echaetes qui sunt en nostre main, & sunt de barony, & il muert, ses heirs ne doinst alter relief, ne face a nos alter servise, qui feist all Baron, ce cele Barony fust en main del Baron, & nos la tendrons en tele manner que le Baron la tint.  
Li home qui maignent for'rs de la forest, ne viegnent de ci en avant devant nos Iustises de la forest par communes somonces, sil ne sont en plait u pledge de aucun ou d'aucuns qui seient atachie pour la forest.  
Nos ne ferons Viscontes, justises, ne Bailliz, for'rs de tells qui sachent la lei de la terre, & la voillent bien garder.  
Tuit cil qui fonderent abbeys, dont il ont charges des Reis d'Engleterre, o anciene tenue, aiant en la garde quant eles seront voids, si come il avoit devent.  
Totes les forez qui sunt aforestées en nostre ten seient meintenant desaforestées, et ensement seit feit des rivieres qui en nostre ten sunt par nos mises en defence.  
Totes les males costumes des forez et des Warennes, et des Forestiers, et des Warrenniers, des Viscontes et de lor ministers des rivieres, et de lor guards, setent maintenant enquises en chascun Conte par xii. Chevaliers jurez de meimes le Conte, qui devent estre esseu par prodeshomes de meismes le Conte et de denz xl. jorz apres co quill auront fet lenqueste, seient del tot en tot ostées par cells meismes, si que jamais ne saient rapelées, eissi ne por quant que nos le sachons avanto nostre justise, se nos ne sums en Engleterre.  
Nos tendrons maintenant toz les hostages et totes les charters, qui nos furent livrées des Engleis en seurte de pais, o de feel servise.  
Nous osteron de tot en tot des baillies les parens Girard d' Aties, si que des ci en avant n'auront nulle baillie en Engleterre, et Engelart de Cigoigni's, Peron, Guion, Andreu de Chanceas, Gion de Cigoigni's, Gistrai de Martigni et ses freres, Phelippe, Marc et ses freres, Gefrai son nevo, et tote lor siute, et maintenant empres le reformement de la pais osterons de nostre Regne tos les estranges Chevaliers, Aubelastiers, serjans, soldiers quo chevals et o arms vindrent all nuisement del Regne.  
Se alcuns est dessaisiz o esloigniez par nos, sens real 
* Leal, ut infra.  judgement de ses pers, de terres, de chastels, de franchises, o de sa dretture maintenant li rendrons, et le plaiz en commencera di co, adonc en seit fait par jugement des xxv. Barons, dont len parole de soz en la seurt de la pais.  
De totes iteles choses dont alcuns fu dessaisiz o estoigniez senz leal judgement de ses Pers par le Rei Henri nostre pere, o par le Rei Richart nostre frere, que avons en nostre main, o alter tienent cui il nos c●vient garantir, aurons respite jusqu'a commun terme des croizier, for'rs que celes choses dont plaiz fu comenciez o enquest fair par nostre comandement devant que nos prissions la Croiz. Et se nos repairons deal pelerinage oh par avanture remanons deal pelerinage maintenant en frons pleine dreiture. Cest meimes respite aurons et en ceste maniere de dreiture fair des forez desaforester, o que remaignent forez que li Reis Henri nostre pere, o li Reis Richart nostre frere aforesterent, et des gardes des terres qui sunt daltrui fie; que nos avons eues jusques icy par achaison de fie que alcuns teneit de nos par servise de Chevalier, et des Abbeies qui furent fondée en altrui fie que el nostre, esquels li sire's del fie dit quila droiture, et quant nos feron repairie de nostre pelerinage, o se no remanons, nos enfrons maintenant pleine droiture a cells qui sen plaindront.  
Nuls ne soit pris ne emprisonez pour apel de feme de la mort daltrui, que de sun marri.  
Totes les fins et toz les amerciemens qui sont feit verse nos a tort et contre la lei de la terre, soient tot pardon, o len en face par judgement deal xxv. Baron's doubt len parole de soz, o par le jugement de la greignor party de cells ensemble, o le devant dit Arcevesque Stefne de Cantorbe sil I peewit estre: et cells quill vodra apeler odd sei, et sil ni pora estre neien meins ne voist li afaires avant senz lui en tel maniere que se alcuns oh alcun des devant diz xxv. Barons, seront en tel querele seient host de cest judgement, et altre esteu et jure seient mis a co fair en lieu de cels par le remanant des devant diz xxv. Barons.  
Se nos avons dessaisiz et estoigniez les walais de terre et de franchises, o daltres choses senz leal judgement de lor Pers en Engleterre, o en wales, maintenant lor seient rendues, et se plaiz en sera comanciez selor en seit fait en la Marche par jugement de lor Peres des tenemenz d' Engleterre solonc la lei d' Engleterre des tenemenz de wales solonc la lei de wales, des tenemenz de la Marche solonc de lai de la March, et ce meismes facent li walais a nos et as noz.  
De totes celes choses dont alcuns des walaix fu dessaisiz, o esloignie senz leal judgement de ses Pers par le Rei Henry nostre pere, o par le Rei Richart nostre frere, que nos avons en nostre main, o alter tienent cui il nos covient garantir, aurons respite jusqual commun term des Croisiez, for'rs de celes choses dont playst fu commenciez o enqueste faite par nostre commandement devant que nous prissions la Croiz, et quant nos serons repairiez o se par aventure remanons de nostre pelerinage maintenant lor enfrons pleine dreiture solonc les lez de wales, et les devant dites parties.  
Nos rendrons le fill Lewelin maintenant et toz les hostages de wales, et les chartres que l'en nos liura en seurte de pais.  
Nos ferons a Alisandre le Rei d'Escoce de ses setors et de ses hostages rendre, et de ses franchises, et de la dretture solonc la forme que nos frons a nos altres Baron's d' Engleterre, se altrement ne deit estre par les chartres que nos avons de son pere Willaume, qui fu jadis Reis d'Escoce, et co sera fait par jugement de ses Pers en nostre Cort.  
Totes ces costumes devant dites et les franchises que nos avons otriées a tenir en nostre Regne quant a nos apartient envers les nos, tuit cil de nostre Regne, et Clerc et lai devent garder quant a eus apartient envers les lor.  
Et car nos avons otriées totes les choses devant dites por Deu, et par amandement de nostre Regne, et por mielz plaisier la descorde qui es comanciée entre nos et nos Barons; nos voelliant que ces choses séent fermes et estables a tozjorz, faisons et otrions a nos Barons la seurte de soz escrite; co est que li Baron essisent xxv. Baron's del Regne telz quill vodrent, qui dient de tot lor poer garder et tenir, et fair garder la pais et les franchises que nos avons otriées et confermées par ceste nostre presente Chartre, eissi co est a saver que se nos, o nostre justise, o nostre Bailli, o aucuns de nos ministers mesfaisons en alcune choses vers alcun, o trespassions en alcun point de la pais, o de la seurte, et nostre mesfais sera mostrez a quatre Barons del devant dit xxv. cil quatre Baron viegnent a nes, o a nostre justise, se nos fumes for'rs del Regne, et nos mostrent nostre trespassement, et requierent que nos faciens amender cel trespassement senz proloignement et se nos namendions le trespassement, o se nous sums for'rs del regne nostre Iustise ne lamendra devant xl. jors' empress co que il sera mostre a nos, o a nostre Iustise se nous sums for'rs de la terre, adone li devant dit quatre reportent cele cause all altres de celz xxv. Barons, et adone cil xxv. Baron a la commune de tote Engleterre nos destreindront et greveront en totes li manieres que il porrout. Co est par prendre chastelz et t●rres et possessions, et en queles altres manners quill poront, jusquil seit amend solone lor judgement, sauve nostre personne et de nostre Rhine, et de nos enfans, et quant il sera amande il atendront a nos, eissi come devant. Et qui vodra de la terre jurt que a totes les devant dites choses parsivir, il obeira all commandment des devant diz xxv. Barons, et quil nous grevera ensemble oels a son poer, & nous donons comunement & franchement congie de jurer a chascun qui jurer vodra, & ja ne le defendrons a neis un, & toz cels de la terre qui de lor von gre voldront jurer as xxv. Barons, de destreindre & de grever nos, nos les frons jurer oels par nostre commandment, si come devant est dit.  
Et se alcuns des xxv. Baron's morra, o partira de la terre, o sera destorbez en aucune manner quill ne puist les choses qui sunt devant dites poursivir, cil qui seront remes des devant dit xxv. Barons, estisent un altre en lieu de celui solonc lor esgart, que jurera en tel manner come li alter ont fait.  
Et en totes les choses que li xxv. Baron devent poursivir se paraventure cil xxv. seront present, & descorderont entre els d'aucune chose, o aucun de cels qui seront somons ne vodront, o ne pouront estre present, seit ferm & certain co que la greignor party de cells qui seront present porverra, o receura ensement come se tuit I aveient consenti.  
Et li devant dit xxv. Baron juerent que totes les choses qui sunt devant dites, quill garderont feelement, & feront garder de tot lor poer.  
Et nos ne porchacerons dalcun par nos, ne par altrui rien pour quei alcuns de ces otreiemenz o de cestes franchises seit rapelez o amenusiez, & se alcune tel chose sera pourchacie seit cassée, & vein, & ja nen userons par nos ne par altrui.  
Et totes males volentes, desdeigz, rancours, qui sont nées entre nos & nos homes clers & lais, desk la descorde, comanca, avons plainement relaissiées & pardonées a toz, & estre co toz les trespassemens qui sunt fait par achaison di ceste descorde des la Pasche en la sezain de nostre Regne jusqual reformement de la pais avom plainement relaissie a toz clers, & a lais & quant a nos aportient lor avon plainement pardon & otrie di co lor avon fait fair letters de tesmoin overtes de Seignor Stefne l' Arceveske de Cantorbire, de Seignor Henri l' Arceveske de Diveline, & des devant diz Evesques, & de maistre Pandolf sore ceste seurte & ces otreiemenz, por la que choose nos volons & comandons fermement que l' Eglise d' Anglet●rre soit franche, & que li home en nostre Regne aient & riegnent totes les devant dites franchises, & les deitures, & les otreiemenz bien & en pais franchement & quittement, plainement & entierement a else, & lor heirs en totes choses, & en toz leus, a tozjorz si come devant est dit. Et si fu jure de nostre part, & de la part des Barons que totes choses qui desus sunt escrites, seront gardées a bone fei sanz malengin. Tesmoig en sont cil qui sunt devant dit, & mult alter.  
Ceste chartre fu donée el pre est appelez Roveninkmede entre Windesores & S●anes, le quinzain jor de juig l'an de nostre Regne dis & sept ans.  
johan par la grace de Deu Reis d'Engleterre as Visconte de Suthantesire, & a dosce esseuz en tel Conte a enquerre & oster les malv●●ses costumes des Viscontes & de lor ministers des fores & des forestiers, & des Warennes, et des Warrenniers & des ●●viers, & de lor guards saluz. Nos vos mandons que senz de●ai sa●sisiez en nostre main les terres, & les tenemenz, et les cha●eis de toz celz del Conte de Suthantesire qui ne vodront jurer as xxv. Baron's solonc la forme qui est escritte en nostre chartre des franchises, o a celz quill auront a co atornez; et s'il ne volent jurer maintenant empress quince jorz acompliz, puisque lor terres et lor tenement, et lor chatel seront seisi en nostre main: faites vendre toz lor chatelz, et les deniers qui en seront pris gardez sauvement a metre en laie de la sainte terre de jerusalem; et lor terres et lor tenemenz tenez en nostre main jusquil aient jure, et co fu pourveiu par le jugement l' Arceveske Stefne de Cantorbire et des Barons de nostre Regne. Et en tesmoig de ceste choose nos enveons cestes nos lettres overtes. Tesmoig mei meisme. A Odibaam le vint et septain jor de juig, lan de nostre Regne dis et septain.  
FINIS.   

The ARTICLES upon which the Great Charter of King John was framed: Taken out of a Manuscript of the Archbishop of Canterbury Fol. 14. The Original whereof, with the Great Seal annexed, is extant in the hands of Dr. Gilbert Burnet, now Bishop of Salisbury.  
THese are the Particulars which the Baron's demand, and the King grants, Signed with King John's Seal.  
Heirs of full age shall have their Inheritance after the decease of their Ancestors, paying the Ancient Relief to be expressed in the Charter.  
Heirs within age, and that have been in Ward, shall have their Inheritance, when they come at age, without paying Relief or making fine.  
The Guardian of an Heirs Land shall take the reasonable Issues, Customs and Services, without destruction or waste of his Men or Goods. And if such Guardian make destruction and waste, he shall lose the Wardship, and the Guardian shall keep in repair the Houses, Parks, Ponds, Pools, Mills and other Appurtenances to the Estate out of the Profits of the Land. And shall take care that the Heirs be married without disparagement, and by the Advice of their near Kindred,  
That a Widow shall give nothing for her Dower or Marriage after the death of her Husband, but shall be suffered to dwell in her Husband's House Ninety days after his death; within which time her Dower shall be assigned her, and she shall immediately have her Marriage and her Inheritance. The King nor his Bailiff shall not seize any Land for debt, if the Debtors Goods be sufficient; nor shall the Debtors Sureties be distrained upon, when the Debtor himself is able to pay the Debt. But if the Debtor fail of payment, the Sureties, if they will, may have the Debtors Lands, till the Debt be fully satisfied, unless the Principal Debtor can show that he is quit against his Sureties.  
The King shall not allow any Baron to take Aid of his free Tenants, but for the Redemption of his Person, for the making his Eldest Son a Knight, and towards the Marriage of his Eldest Daughter once, and hereunto he shall have but a Reasonable Aid.  
That none shall do more Service for a Knight's Fee, than is due for the same. That Common Pleas shall not follow the King's Court, but shall be holden in some certain Place: And that Recognitions be taken in their proper Counties, and after this manner, viz. That the King shall send two Justices four times a year, who together with four Knights of the same Shire, chosen by the Shire, shall take Assizes of Novel disseisin, Mordancester, and Darrein presentment; nor shall any be summoned hereunto, but the Jurors and the two Parties.  
That a Freeman shall be amerced for a small fault after the manner of the fault, and for a great fault according to the Greatness of the fault, saving his Contenement. A Villain also shall be amerced saving his Wainage, and in like manner a Merchant, saving his Merchandise, by the Oath of good Men of the Vicinage: That a Clerk shall be amerced according to his Lay-see in manner aforesaid, and not according to his Ecclesiastical Benefice.  
That no Town be amerced for not making Bridges nor Banks, but where they have been of old time, and of Right aught to be.  
That the measure of Wine, of Corn, and the breadth of Cloth, and the like, be rectified, and so of Weights.  
That Assizes of Novel Disseizin and Mordancester be abbreviated, and so of other Assizes.  
That no Sheriff shall intermeddle with Pleas of the Crown without the Coroners; and that Counties and Hundreds shall be at the ancient Farms without any Increase, except the King's own Demesn Manors.  
If any Tenant of the King die, the Sheriff, or other the King's Bailiff may seize and enrol his Goods and Chattels by the view of lawful Men; but yet so as that nothing thereof be taken away, till it be fully known whether he own any clear debt to the King; and then the King's Debt shall be paid, and the Residue shall remain to the Executors to perform the Testament of the Dead. And if nothing be owing to the King, all the Goods shall go to the use of the dead.  
If any Freeman die Intestate, his Goods shall be distributed by his nearest Kindred and Friends, and by the view of the Church.  
Widow's shall not be distrained to marry, if they are minded to live unmarried, provided they find Sureties, that they will not marry without the King's Assent, if they hold of the King, or without the Consent of their Lords of whom they hold.  
No Constable or other Bailiff shall take any Man's Corn or other Chattels, but he shall forthwith pay for the same, unless he may have respite by consent of the Seller.  
That no Constable shall distrain any Knight to give Money for the keeping of his Castle, if he himself will do it in his own proper Person, or by another sufficient man, if he may not do it himself for a reasonable Cause. And if the King lead him in his Army, he shall be discharged of Castleward for the time.  
No Sheriff or Bailiff of the King, nor any other person shall take the Horses or Carts of any Freeman to make carriage without his leave.  
The King, nor his Bailiffs shall not take any Man's Wood for Castles or other Occasions, but by Licence of him whose the Wood is.  
That the King do not hold the Lands of them that be convicted of Felony longer than a year and a day; after which they shall be delivered to the Lord of the Fee.  
That all Wears from henceforth be utterly put down in Thames and Medway, and throughout all England.  
That the Writ called Praecipe be not from henceforth granted to any person of any Freehold, whereby a Freeman may lose his Court.  
If any be disseized or delayed by the King, without Judgement, of Lands, Liberties, or other his Right, he shall forthwith have restitution; and if any Dispute arise upon it, it shall be determined by the Judgement of the Five and twenty Barons. And such as have been disseized by the King's Father, or his Brother, shall have Right immediately by the Judgement of their Peers in the King's Court. And if the King must have the Term of others that had taken upon them the Cross for the Holy Land, the Archbishop and Bishops shall give Judgement therein, at a certain day to be prefixed, without Appeal.  
That nothing be given for a Writ of Inquisition of Life or Member, but that it be freely granted without price, and be not denied.  
If any hold of the King by Fee-farm, by Socage, or Burgages, and of any other by Knight's Service, the King shall not have the Custody of the Heir, nor of his Lands that are holden of the Fee of another, by reason of such Burgages, Socage or Fee-farm: Nor ought the King to have the Custody of such Burgages, Socage or Fee-farm; and no Freeman shall lose his Degree of Knighthood by reason of petty Serjeanties', as when a Man holds Lands, rendering therefore a Knife, an Arrow, or the like.  
No Bailiff shall put any man to his Law, upon his own bare saying, without faithful Witnesses.  
That the Body of a Freeman be not taken, nor imprisoned, nor that he be disseized, nor Outlawed, nor Exiled, nor any way destroyed.  
Nor that the King pass upon him, or imprison him by force, but only by the Judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.  
That Right be not sold, nor delayed, nor denied.  
That Merchants have liberty to go and come safely to buy and sell, without any manner of Evil Tolls, by the Old and Lawful Customs.  
That not Escuage or Aid be laid upon the Kingdom, but by the Common-Council of the Kingdom; unless it be to redeem the King's Person, or to make his eldest Son a Knight, or to marry his eldest Daughter once; and for these a reasonable Aid shall be given. That it be in like manner with respect to Tallages and Aids from the City of London, and other Cities that have Privileges therein: And that the City of London may fully enjoy her ancient Liberties and free Customs, as well by Water, as by Land.  
That it shall be lawful for any Man to go out of the Kingdom, and to return, saving his Allegiance to the King, unless it be in time of War for a short time, for the common profit of the Realm.  
If any borrow Money of a Jew, be it more or less, and die before the Debt be paid, no Interest shall be paid for the same so long as the Heir is under age, of whomsoever he hold. And if the Debt become due to the King, the King shall take no more than what is contained in the Charter.  
If any Man die and owe Money to the Jews, his Wife shall have her Dower; and if he left Children, Necessaries shall be provided them according to the quantity of the Freehold, and the residue shall go to pay off the Debt, saving the Services due to the Lords. The like shall be observed in case of other Debts, and when the Heir comes of age, his Guardian shall restore him his Land as well stocked as he could reasonably afford out of the Profits of the Land, coming in by the Plough and the Cart.  
If any Man hold of any Escheat, as of the Honour of Wallingford, and Nottingham, Bonon, and Lancaster, or of other Escheats, which are in the King's Hand and are Baronies, and die, his Heir shall pay no other Relief, nor perform any other Service than he should have paid and performed to the Baron, and that the King shall hold such Escheats as the Barons held them.  
That Fines made for Dowers, Marriages, Inheritances and Amercements, wrongfully and contrary to the Law of the Land, be freely remitted, or ordered by the Judgement of the Five and twenty Barons, or of the major part of them, together with the Archbishop and such as he shall call to him; Provided that if one or more of the Five and twenty have themselves any like complaint, that then he or they shall be removed, and others put in their rooms by the residue of the Five and twenty.  
That the Hostages and Deeds be restored, which were delivered to the King for his Security.  
That they that live out of the Forest be not obliged to come before the Justices of the Forest by common Summons, unless they be Parties or Pledges: And that the Evil Customs of the Forests and Foresters, Warrens, and Sheriffs, and Ponds be redressed by twelve Knights of each County, who shall be chosen by the Good Men of the County.  
That the King remove wholly from their Bayliffwick, the Kindred and whole Dependence of Gerard de Aties, that hereafter they have no Bayliffwick, to wit, Engeland, Andr' Peter' Gigo de Cances, Gigo de Cygon, Matthew de Martino, and his Brethren, and Gelfrid his Nephew, and Philip de Mark.  
And that the King put away the Foreign Soldiers, Stipendaries, Slingers, and Troopers, and their Servants, who came with Horses and Arms to the Nuisance of the Realm,  
That the King make Justitiars, Constables, Sheriffs and Bailiffs of Men that know the Law of the Land, and will cause it to be well observed.  
That Barons who have founded Abbeys, for which they have Charters of Kings, or ancient Tenure, shall have the Custody of them when they are vacant.  
If the King have disseized the Welsh men, or esloyned them from Lands or Liberties, or of other things in England or in Wales, let them presently be restored to them without Plea: and if they have been disseized or esloined from their English Tenements by the King's Father or his Brother, without Judgement of their Peers, the King shall without delay do them Justice, as he does Justice to Englishmen of their English Tenements, according to the Law of England, and of Welsh Tenements, according to the Law of Wales, and of Tenements in the Marches, according to the Law of the Marches. In like manner the Welshman shall do to the King and his Subjects.  
That the King restore Lewelin's Son, and all the Welsh Hostages, and the Deeds that were delivered to him for security of the Peace.  
That the King do Right to the King of Scotland concerning restoring of Hostages, and his Liberties and Right, according to the Form of the Agreement with his Barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise by virtue of some Deeds which the King has, by the Judgement of the Archbishop and others, whom he shall think fit to call to him.  
That all Forests that have been afforested by the King in his own time be disafforested, and so of Banks, which by the King himself have been put in defence.  
All these Customs and Liberties, which the King has granted to the Kingdom, to hold and keep for his own part towards his Men, all Clerks and Laymen of the Kingdom shall observe and keep for their parts towards their Men.  
This is the Form of the security for keeping Peace and the Liberties betwixt the King and the Kingdom. The Barons shall choose Five and twenty Barons of the Realm, whom they will themselves, upon whom it shall be encumbent, that with all their might they observe and keep, and cause to be observed and kept, the Peace and Liberties which the King has granted to them, and confirmed by his Charter, to wit, That if the King, or his Justices, or Bailiffs, or any of his Ministers, offend any Person contrary to any of the said Articles, or transgress any Article of this Peace and Security: And that such offence be made known to four of the said Five and Twenty Barons; those four Barons shall go to the King, or to his Justitiar, if the King be out of the Realm, declaring to him that such an abuse is committed, and shall desire him to cause it speedily to be redressed. And if the King, or (if he be out of the Realm,) his Justitiar do not redress it, those four Barons shall within a reasonable time to be limited in the Charter, refer the matter to the residue of the Five and twenty Barons. And those Five and twenty, with the Commonalty of all the Land, shall distress the King all the ways they can, to wit, by seizing his Castles, his Lands and Possessions, and by what other means they can, till it be redressed according to their good liking, saving the Person of our Lord the King, and of the Queen and of their Children. And when it is redressed, they shall be subject to the King, as before. And whoever will, may swear to put these things in Execution, viz. To obey the Commands of the said Five and twenty Barons, and to distress the King, to the utmost of his Power with them. And the King shall give public and free Liberty for any man to swear that will, and shall never pohibit any to swear. And all those of the Nation, who will voluntarily of their own accord, swear to the Five and twenty Barons, to distress the King with them, the King himself shall issue his Precept, Commanding them to swear as aforesaid.  
Item, If any of the said Five and Twenty Barons die, or go out of the Realm, or be any other way hindered from performing these things, the residue of the Five and twenty shall choose another, whom they think best, in his place, who shall be sworn as the rest are. And in all matters referred to those Five and twenty Barons, if they happen to be all present, and differ amongst themselves, or if any of them being thereto appointed, will not or cannot come, what the major part of them shall agree upon and enjoin shall be valid, as if all the Five and twenty had agreed in it. And the said Five and twenty shall swear that they will faithfully observe and keep the Articles aforesaid, and with all their might cause them to be observed. Moreover the King shall give them the Securities of the Archbishop and Bishops, and Master Pandulphus, that he will not obtain any thing from the Pope, whereby any of these Articles of Agreement may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing be obtained, that it be reputed void and of none effect, nor shall ever be made use of.   

THE GREAT CHARTER OF KING JOHN, A True Copy, from the Original French.  
JOHN by the Grace of God King of England, to the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justices, Foresters, Sheriffs, Prevosts, Ministers, and all his Bailiffs and his Liege's, Greeting. Know ye that We by the Grace of God, and for the saving of our Soul, and the Souls of all our Ancestors, and of our Heirs, and for the Honour of God, and the safety of Holy Church, and for the amendment of our Government, By the Advice of Our Honoured Fathers, Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, and Cardinal of Rome; Henry Archbishop of Dublin, William Bishop of London, Peter Bishop of Winchester, Jocelin Bishop of Bath, Hugh Bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William Bishop of Chester, Benedict Bishop of Rochester, and Master Pandulph Sub-deacon of our Lord the Apostle, and of our Friend and Brother Inner Master of the Order of Knights Templars in England; And by the Advice of our Barons, William Earl Marshal Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Salisbury, William Earl of Warren, William Earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway Constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz-Gerard, Peter Fitz-Herbert, Hubert de Burgh Steward of Poictou, Hugh Nevil, Matthew Fitz-Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d' Aubenie, Robert de Ropelee, John Martial, and John Fitz-Hugh, and by the Advice of other our Liege's,  
Have in the first place granted to God, and confirmed by this our present Charter, for us and for our Heirs for ever, That the Churches of England shall be free, and shall enjoy their Rights and Franchises entirely and fully: And this our Purpose is, that it be observed, as may appear by our having granted, of our mere and free Will, that Elections should be free (which is reputed to be a very great and very necessary Priviledge● of the Churches of England) before the difference arose betwixt Us and our Barons, and by our having confirmed the same by our Charter, and by our having procured it moreover to be confirmed by our Lord the Apostle Innocent the third: Which Privilege We will maintain: And our Will is, that the same be faithfully maintained by our Heirs for ever.  
We have also granted to all the Freemen of our Kingdom, for us and our Heirs for ever, all the Liberties hereafter mentioned, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs of Us and our Heirs.  
If any of our Earls, our Barons, or others that hold of us in Chief by Knight-Service, die, and at the time of his death his Heir be of full age, and Relief be due, he shall have his Inheritance by the ancient Relief; to wit, the Heir or Heirs of an Earl, for an entire Earldom, C pounds'; the Heir or Heirs of a Baron, for an entire Barony, C Marks; the Heir or Heirs of a Knight, for a whole Knight's Fee, C Shillings at most; and where less is due, less shall be paid, according to the ancient Customs of the several Tenors.  
If the Heirs of any such be within Age and in Ward, they shall have their Inheritance when they come of Age without Relief and without Fine.  
The Guardians of the Land of such Heirs being within age, shall take nothing out of the Land of the Heirs, but only the reasonable Profits, reasonable Customs, and reasonable Services, and that without making destruction or waist of Men or Goods.  
And if we shall have committed the Custody of the Land of any such Heir, to a Sheriff or any other, who is to account to us for the Profits of the Land, and that such Committee make destruction or waist, We will take of him amends, and the Land shall be committed to two lawful and good Men of that Fee, who shall account for the Profits to us, or to such as we shall appoint.  
And if we shall give or sell to any Person, the custody of the Lands of any such Heir, and such Donee or Vendee make destruction or waist, he shall lose the Custody, and it shall be committed to two Lawful, Sage, and Good Men, who shall account to Us for the same, as aforesaid.  
And the Guardian, whilst he has the Custody of the Heirs Land, shall maintain the Houses, Ponds, Parks, Pools, Mills, and other Appurtenances to the Land, out of the Profits of the Land itself; and shall restore to the Heir, when he shall be of full age, his Land well stocked, with Ploughs, Barns, and the like, as it was when he received it, and as the Profits will reasonably afford.  
Heirs shall be married without disparagement; insomuch that before the Marriage be contracted, the Persons that are next of Kin to the Heir, shall be made acquainted with it.  
A Widow after the death of her Husband, shall presently and without oppression, have her Marriage and her Inheritance; nor shall give any thing for her Marriage, nor for her Dower, nor for her Inheritance, which she and her Husband were seized of the day of her Husband's death; and she shall remain in her Husband's House Forty Days after his death; within which time her Dower shall be assigned her.  
No Widow shall be compelled to marry if she be desirous to live single, provided she give Security not to marry without our leave, if she hold of us, or without the Lord's leave, of whom she holds, if she hold of any other.  
We nor our Bailiffs, will not seize the Lands or Rents of a Debtor, for any Debt, so long as his Goods are sufficient to pay the Debt: Nor shall the Pledges be distrained upon, whilst the Principal Debtor is able to pay the Debt. But if the Principal Debtor have not wherewith to pay the Debt, the Pledges shall answer for it: And if they will, they shall have the Lands and Rents of the Debtor, till they have received the Debt which they paid for him, if the Principal Debtor cannot show that he is quit against his Pledges.  
If any Persons have borrowed Money of Jews, more or less, and die before they have paid the Debt, the Debt shall not grow whilst the Heir is under age; and if such Debt become due to us, we will take no more than the Goods expressed in the Deed.  
And if any die and owe a Debt to the Jews, his Wife shall have her Dower, and shall be charged with no part of the Debt; and if the Children of the deceased Person be within age, their reasonable Estovers shall be provided them, according to the value of the Estate which their Ancestor had, and the Debt shall be paid out of the Residue, saving the Services due to the Lord: In like manner shall it be done in Cases of Debts owing to other persons that are not Jews.  
We will impose no Escuage nor Aids within our Realm, but by the Common Council of our Realm, except for our Ransom, and for the making our eldest Son a Knight, and for marrying out eldest Daughter once: And for these purposes there shall but a reasonable Aid be required.  
In like manner shall it be done within the City of London: and moreover the City of London shall have all her ancient Customs and Liberties, by Land and Water.  
We Will moreover and Grant, that all other Cities, and Boroughs, and Towns, and Ports, have in all respects their Liberties and free Customs.  
And as for coming to the Common Council of the Kingdom, and for assessing Aids, (except in the three cases aforesaid.) And as for the assessing of Escuage, we will cause to be summoned the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and the Greater Barons, each in particular by our Letters, and moreover we will cause to be summoned in general, by our Sheriffs and Bailiffs, all that hold of us in Chief, at a certain day, to wit, Forty days after at least, and at a certain place: and in our said Letters we will express the cause of the Summons. And when Summons shall be so made, business shall go on at the day assigned, by the Advice of such as are present, though all that are summoned do not appear.  
We will not allow for the future, that any take Aid of his free men, but only to ransom his Person, to make his eldest Son a Knight, and to marry his eldest Daughter once; and for these purposes there shall but a reasonable Aid be given.  
None shall be distrained to do greater Service for a Knight's Fee, or for any other Franktenement then what is due by his Tenure.  
Common Pleas shall not follow our Court, but shall ●e held in a certain place.  
Recognizances of Novel Disseisin, Mordancester, and Darrein presentment, shall be taken no where but in their proper Counties, and in this manner: We, or our Chief Justice (if ourselves shall be out of the Realm) will send two Justices through every County four times a year, who with four Knights of every County, to be chosen by the County, shall take the said Assizes in the Country, at a day when the County Court is held, and in a certain place; and if the said Assizes cannot be taken upon that day, so many Knights and free Tenants of them that were present in the County Court that day, shall stay, as may give a good Judgement, according as the concern may be greater or less.  
A Free man shall not be amerced for a little offence, but according to the manner of his offence, and for a great offence he shall be amerced according to the greatness of his offence, saving his Contenement: And so a Merchant saving his Merchandise: And a Villain in like manner shall be amerced saving his Wainage, if he fall into our Mercy: and none of the said Amercements shall be afeard, but by Oaths of good and lawful Men of the Visinage.  
An Earl and a Baron shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and according to the manner of their Offence.  
No Clerk shall be amerced but according to his Lay-fee, and in like manner as others aforesaid, and not according to the quantity of his Church Living.  
No Ville nor any man shall be distrained to make Bridges over Rivers, but where they anciently have, and of Right aught to make them.  
No Sheriffs, Constables, Coroners, nor other our Bailiffs shall hold the Pleas of our Crown.  
All Counties, Hundreds, Wapentakes and tithings shall be at the ancient Farms without being raised, except our own demesne Manors.  
If any that holds of us a Lay-fee die, and our Sheriffs, or other our Bailiffs, show our Letters Patents of Summons for a Debt, which the deceased owed to us, our Sheriff or Bailiff may well Attach and Inventory the Goods of the Dead, which shall be found upon his Lay-fee to the value of the Debt, which the deceased owed to us, by the view of Lawful Men, yet so as nothing be removed till such time as the Debt which shall be found to be due to us, be paid; and the residue shall go to the Executors to perform the Testament of the dead: and if nothing be owing to us, all his Goods shall go to the use of the Dead, saving to his Wife and Children their reasonable Parts.  
If any Freeman die intestate, his Goods shall be divided by the hands of his near Kindred and Friends, by the view of Holy Church, saving to every one their Debts which the Dead owed them.  
None of our Constables, nor other our Bailiffs, shall take the Corn, nor other the Goods of any Person, without paying for the same presently, unless he have time given him by consent of the Vendor.  
Our Constables shall distrain no man, who holds by Knight Service, to give Money for Castle-garde, if he has performed it himself in proper Person, or by another good Man, if he could not perform it himself for some reasonable Cause: And if we lead him or send him into the Army, he shall be discharged of Castle-garde for so long time as he shall be with us in the Army.  
Our Sheriffs, our Bailiffs, nor other, shall not take the Horses nor Carts of any Freeman, to make carriage, but by leave of such Freeman.  
Neither ourselves nor our Bailiffs shall take another Man's Wood for our Castles, or other occasions, but by his leave whose Wood it is.  
We will hold the Lands of such as shall be convict of Felony, but a year and a day, and then we will restore them to the Lords of the Fees.  
All Wears shall from this time forward be wholly taken away in Thames and Medeway, and throughout all England, except upon the Sea-Coast.  
The Writ called Praecipe henceforth shall be made to none out of any Tenement, whereby a Freeman may lose his Court.  
One Measure of Wine shall be used throughout our Kingdom, and one Measure of Ale, and one Measure of Corn, to wit, the London Quart. And there shall be one breadth of died Cloth, Russets, and Haubergets; to wit, two els within the Lists: And concerning Weights, it shall be in like manner as of Measures.  
Nothing shall be given or taken henceforth for a Writ of Enquisition of Life or Member, but it shall be granted freely and shall not be denied.  
If any hold of us by Fee-farm, or by Socage, and hold likewise Land of others by Knight-Service, we will not have the Custody of the Heir, nor of the Land which is of the Fee of another, by reason of such Fee-farm, Socage or Burgages, unless such Fee-farm own Knight-Service.  
We will not have the Wardship of the Heir nor of the Land of any Person, which he holds of another by Knight-Service, by reason of any Petit Serjeanty, by which he holds of us, as by the Service of giving us Arrows, Knives, or such like.  
No Bailiff for the time to come shall put any Man to his Law upon his bare word, without good Witnesses produced.  
No free man shall be taken nor imprisoned, nor disseised, nor outlawed, nor exiled, nor destroyed in any manner, nor we will not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by the Lawful Judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.  
We will sell to none, we will deny, nor delay to none Right and Justice.  
All Merchants may with safety and security go out of England, and come into England, and stay, and pass through England by Land and Water, to buy and sell, without any Evil Tolls, paying the Ancient and Rightful Duties, except in time of War, and then they that are of the Country, with whom we are at War, and are found here at the beginning of the War, shall be attached, but without injury to their Bodies or Goods, till it be known to us or to our Chief-Justice, how our Merchants are entreated, which are found in our Enemy's Country, and if ours be safe there, they shall be safe in our Land.  
It shall be Lawful for all men in time to come, to go out of our Kingdom, and to return safely and securely by Land and by Water, saving their Faith due to us, except it be in time of War, for some short time, for the profit of the Realm. But out of this Article are excepted Persons in Prison, Persons outlawed according to the Law of the Land, and Persons of the Country with whom we are at War; concerning Merchants, what is abovesaid shall hold as to them.  
If any hold of any Escheat, as of the Honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boloin, Lancaster, or of other Escheats, which are in our hand, and are Baronies, and die, his Heirs shall owe us no other relief, nor do us any other Service, than was due to the Baron of such Barony, when it was in his hand, and we will hold the same in like manner as the Baron held it.  
Men that dwell out of the Forest, shall not appear before our Justices of the Forest by common Summons, unless they be in suit themselves, or Bail for others, who are attached for the Forest.  
We will not make Sheriffs, Justices, nor Bailiffs, but of such as know the Law of the Land, and will keep it.  
All that have founded Abbeys, whereof they have Charters from Kings of England, or ancient Tenure, shall have the custody thereof, whilst they are vacant, as they ought to have.  
All the Forests that have been Afforested in our time, shall instantly be Disafforested; in like manner be it of Rivers, that in our time and by us have been put in defence.  
All evil Customs of Forests and Warens, and of Foresters, and Warenners, of Sheriffs and their Ministers, of Rivers, and of Guarding them, shall forthwith be enquired of in every County by twelve Knights sworn of the same County, who must be chosen by good Men of the same County. And within forty days after they have made such Inquisition, the said evil Customs shall be utterly abolished by those same Knights, so as never to be revived; provided they be first made known to us, or to our Chief Justice, if we be out of the Realm.  
We will forthwith restore all the Hostages and all the Deeds, which have been delivered to us by the English, for surety of the Peace or of faithful Service.  
We will wholly put out of Bayliffwicks the Kindred of Gerard de Aties, so that from henceforth they shall not have a Bayliffwick in England; and Engeland de Cygoigni's Peron, Guyon, Andrew de Chanceas, Gyon de Cygoigni's, Geoffrey de Martigni and his Brothers, Philip, Mark and his Brothers, Geffray his Nephew and all their Train: And presently, after the Peace shall be reformed, we will put out of the Realm all Knights Foreigners, Slingers, Sergeants and Soldiers, who came with Horse or Arms to the nuisance of the Realm.  
If any be disseized or esloyned by us, without Lawful Judgement of his Peers, of Lands, Chattels, Franchises, or of any Right, we will forthwith restore the same; and if any difference arise upon it, it shall be determined by the Judgement of the Five and twenty Barons, of whom mention is made hereafter in the security for the Peace.  
As to all things, whereof any have been disseized, or esloyned without Lawful Judgement of their Peers, by King Henry our Father, or by King Richard our Brother, which we have in our hands, or which any other has, to whom we are bound to warrant the same, we will have respite to the common Term of them that are crossed for the Holy Land, except such things for which Suits were commenced, or Enquest taken by our Order before we took upon us the Cross. And if we return from the Pilgrimage, or perhaps forbear going, we will do full Right therein. The same Respite we will have, and the same Right we will do in manner aforesaid, as to the Disafforesting of Forests, or letting them remain Forests, which the Kings, Henry our Father, or Richard our Brother have Afforested; and and as to Custodies of Lands which are of the Fee of other Persons, which we have held till, now by reason of other Men's Fees, who held of us by Knight-Service; and of Abbeys that are founded in other Men's Fees, in which the Lords of the Fees claim a Right: And when we shall be returned from our Pilgrimage, or if we forbear going, we will immediately do full Right to all that shall complain.  
None shall be taken nor imprisoned upon the Appeal of a Woman, for the death of any other than her Husband.  
All the Fines and all the Amercements that are imposed for our use, wrongfully and contrary to the Law of the Land, shall be Pardoned; or else they shall be determined by the Judgement of the Five and twenty Barons, of whom hereafter, or by the Judgement of the greater number of them that shall be present, or before Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be there, and those that he shall call to him; and if he cannot be present, Matters shall proceed notwithstanding without him; so always, that if one or more of the said Five and twenty Barons be concerned in any such Complaint, they shall not give Judgement thereupon, but others chosen and sworn shall be put in their room to act in their stead, by the residue of the said Five and twenty Barons.  
If we have disseized or esloined any Welshmen of Land, Franchises, or of other things, without lawful judgement of their Peers, in England, or in Wales, they shall forthwith be restored unto them; and if Suits arise thereupon, right shall be done them in the Marches by the Judgement of their Peers; of English Tenements according to the Law of England, and of Tenements in Wales, according to the Law of Wales; and Tenements in the Marches, according to the Law of the Marches: And in like manner shall the Welsh do to us and our Subjects.  
As for all such things, whereof any Welshmen have been disseized or esloyned without Lawful Judgement of their Peers by King Henry our Father, or by King Richard our Brother, which we have in our hands, or which any others have, to whom we are bound to warrant the same, we will have respite till the common Term be expired of all that crossed themselves for the Holy Land, those things excepted, whereupon Suits were Commenced or Inquests taken by our Order, before we took upon us the Cross; and when we shall return from our Pilgrimage, or if peradventure we forbear going, we will presently cause full Right to be done therein, according to the Laws of Wales and before the said Parties.  
We will forthwith restore the Son of lewelyn and all the Hostages of Wales, and the Deeds that have been delivered to us for security of the Peace.  
We will deal with Alexander, King of Scotland, as to the restoring him his Suitors and his Hostages, his Franchises and Rights, as we do with our other Barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise by virtue of the Charters, which we have of his Father William, late King of Scotland, and this to be by the Judgement of his Peers in our Court.  
All these Customs and Franchises aforesaid, which we have granted to be kept in our Kingdom, so far forth as we are concerned, towards our Men, all Persons of the Kingdom, Clerks and Lay, must observe for their Parts towards their Men.  
And whereas we have granted all these things for God's sake, and for the amendment of our Government, and for the better compremising the discord arisen betwixt us and our Barons, We, willing that the same be firmly held and established for ever, do make and grant to our Barons the scurity underwritten; to wit, That the Barons shall choose Five and twenty Barons of the Realm, whom they List, who shall to their utmost Power keep and hold, and cause to be kept the Peace and the Liberties, which we have Granted and Confirmed by this our present Charter, insomuch, that if we, or our Justice, or our Bailiff, or any of our Ministers, act contrary to the same in any thing, against any Persons, or offend against any Article of this Peace and Security, and such our Miscarriage be shown to four Barons of the said Five and twenty, those four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justice, if we be out of the Realm, and show us our Miscarriage, and require us to amend the same without delay; and if we do not amend it, or, if we be out of the Realm, our Justice do not amend it within Forty days after the same is shown to us, or to our Justice, if we be out of the Realm, than the said Four Barons shall report the same to the residue of the said Five and twenty Barons, and then those Five and twenty Barons, with the Commonalty of all England, may distress us by all the ways they can; to wit, by seizing on our Castles, Lands and Possessions, and by what other means they can, till it be amended, as they shall adjudge; saving our own Person, the Person of our Queen, and the Persons of our children; and when it is amended, they shall be subject to us as before. And whoever of the Realm will, may swear, that for the Performance of these things, he will obey the Commands of the said Five and twenty Barons, and that together with them, he will distress us to his Power: And we give Public and free leave to swear, to all that will swear, and will never hinder any one: And for all Persons of the Realm, that of their own accord will swear to, the said Five and twenty Barons, to distress us, we will issue our Precept, Commanding them to swear as aforesaid.  
And if any of the said Five and twenty Barons die, or go out of the Realm or be any way hindered from acting as aforesaid, the residue of the said Five and twenty Barons shall choose another in his room, according to their discretion, who shall swear as the others do.  
And as to all things which the said Five and twenty Barons are to do, if peradventure they be not all present, or cannot agree, or in case any of those that are Summoned, cannot or will not come, whatever shall be determined by the greater number of them that are present, shall be good and valid, as if all had been present.  
And the said five and twenty Barons shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the matters aforesaid, and cause them to be observed to their power.  
And we will not obtain of any one for ourselves, or for any other, any thing whereby any of these Concessions, or of these Liberties may be revoked or annihilated; and if any such thing be obtained, it shall be null and void, nor shall ever be made use of by ourselves or any other.  
And all ill will, disdain, and rancour, which has been betwixt Us and our Subjects of the Clergy and Laity, since the said discord began, we do fully release and pardon to them all. And moreover all Trespasses that have been committed by occasion of the said discord since Easter, in the sixteenth year of our Reign, to the restoring of the Peace, we have fully released to all Clerks and Laymen, and so far as in us lies we have fully pardoned them: And further we have caused Letters Patents to be made to them in testimony hereof, witnessed by Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry Archbishop of Dublin, and by the aforesaid Bishops, and by Mr. Pandulphus upon this Security and these Concessions: Whereby we will and strictly Command, that the Church of England be free, and enjoy all the said Liberties, and Rights, and Grants well and in Peace freely and quietly, fully and entirely to them and their Heirs in all things, in all places, and for ever as aforesaid. And we and our Barons have sworn that all things above written, shall be kept on our parts in good Faith without ill design. The Witnesses are the Persons  and many others.  
This Charter was given at the Meadow called Running-Mead, betwixt Windsor and Stanes, the 15th day of June, in the Seventeenth Year of our Reign.  
JOHN by the Grace of God King of England, to the Sheriff of Hampshire, and to the Twelve that are chosen in that County, to inquire of and put away the evil customs of Sheriffs, and of their Ministers, of Forests, and Foresters, of Warrens and Warrenners, of Rivers, and of guarding them, Greeting. We command you, that without delay, you seize into our Hand, the Lands and Tenements, and the Goods of all those of the County of Southampton, that will not swear to the said Five and twenty Barons, according to the form expressed in our Charter of Liberties, or to such as they shall have thereunto appointed; and if they will not swear presently, at the end of Fifteen days after their Lands and Tenements and Chattels are seized into our Hands, that ye sell all their Goods, and keep safely the Money that ye shall receive for the same, to be employed for the Relief of the Holy Land of Jerusalem; and that ye● keep their Lands and Tenements in our Hands till they have sworn, or that Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Barons of our Kingdom have given Judgement thereupon. In witness whereof we direct unto you these our Letters Patents. Witness ourselves: At Odibaam the Seven and twentieth Day of June, in the Seventeenth Year of our Reign.  
FINIS.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
THE Case of Allegiance in our present Circumstances considered, in a Letter from a Minister in the City, to a Minister in the Country. 4ᵒ.  
A Breviate of the State of Scotland, in its Government, Supreme Courts, Officers of State, Inferior Officers, Offices and Inferior Courts, Districts, Jurisdictions, Burroughs Royal, and Free Corporations. Fol.  
Some Considerations touching Succession and Allegiance. 4ᵒ.  
Reflections upon the late Great Revolution: Written by a Lay-hand in the Country, for the satisfaction of some Neighbours.  
The History of the Desertion; or an Account of all the Public Affairs in England, from the beginning of September 1688. to the Twelfth of February following. With an Answer to a Piece called, The Desertion discussed, in a Letter to a Country Gentleman. By a Person of Quality.  
K. William and K. Lewis, wherein is set forth the inevitable necessity these Nations lie under of submitting wholly to one or other of these Kings: And that the matter in Controversy is not now between K. William and K. James, but between K. William and K. Lewis of France, for the Government of these Nations.  
An Examination of the Scruples of those who refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, by a Divine of the Church of England.  
A Dialogue betwixt two Friends, a Jacobite and a Williamite; occasioned by the late Revolution of Affairs, and the Oath of Allegiance.  
The Case of Oaths stated. 4ᵒ.  
A Letter from a French Lawyer to an English Gentleman upon the Present Revolution, 4ᵒ.  
The Advantages of the Present Settlement, and the great danger of a Relapse.  
The Interest of England in the Preservation of Ireland.