A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 VIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Engliih Conftitution 
 
 WITH 
 
 Refpefl: to the Sovereign Authority 
 of the PRINCE, 
 
 AND 
 The Allegiance of the S U B J E C T. 
 
 By way of R EPLY to thefeveral 
 Anfwers that have been made to it. 
 
 mm 
 
 By WILLIAM Hi G DEN., ).). 
 
 London, Printed for S. Keble at the Turfa~Heael 3 
 and R.Gofling at the Miter in Fleetftreet. 1 710.
 
 
 
 : T \ 
 
 
 lM 
 
 ' 
 
 i 
 
 . ;
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 , 
 
 TO reduce this Controverfy to 
 Matter of Fad, wasj thought, 
 the Way to bring ic to a fhort 
 and a fair Ifliie. For, that it has been 
 the Common Ufage ot: the Realm, 
 for all Orders and Degrees of Men af- 
 ter Revolutions to lubmit to the Princes 
 that were poflefs'd of the Throne with 
 the Content of the States : ^That 
 the Authority of thefe Kings, to which 
 the Subjects fubmitted, fwore, and paid 
 Allegiance, was owned in the fuccee- 
 ding Reigns of the Kings who were 
 their Rivals : That the Judicial Pro- 
 ceedings, and adjudged Cafes in the 
 Courts of Kings de jure, which do ful- 
 ly acknowledge that /Jutbority, are ex* 
 tant in the Tear Books of thofe Reigns : 
 That the folemn Refolutions, and de* 
 clared Opinions of Judges, and greac 
 Lawyers, both ancient, and modern^ 
 which I have produced for this Autho- 
 rity, were really delivered by thofe Jud* 
 ges and Lawyers : That all the publick 
 A a Sea; 
 
 816313
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 Statutes,which were made by Kings de 
 fattojhwt ever had the Force of Laws of 
 this Realm, have been always pleaded 
 as Inch in the Courts of fncceeding 
 Kings that were their Rivals, without 
 any Confirmation, or pretended Con- 
 firmation, and have been recited as Juch 
 by Kings de \ure and their Parliaments : 
 That when the 25 Ed. III. was made, 
 as well as in all times before that Sta- 
 tute, by the Common Cuftom and U- 
 fage of the Realm,the Unpoflefs'd, Un- 
 recognised Heir was never (tiled and 
 held to be our Sovereign Lord the King 
 by any : That the Prince in poflef- 
 fion of the Crown and Kingdom was 
 always ftiled and held to be our Sove- 
 reign Lord the King : That in the 1 1 
 Year of Henry VII. a Statute was made, 
 which declares that to ferve the King 
 for the Time being is the true Duty and 
 Service of Allegiance, and fecures the 
 Subjects in the Difcharge of that Ser- 
 vice ; and that this Law has never been 
 Repealed by any iucceeding King or 
 
 Qyeen,
 
 The PREFACE. 
 Queen, but ftands, at this day in the 
 Statute Booldfl Law of this Realm : Are 
 all Matters of Faft. 
 
 Now chere is but one way to anfwer 
 Matters of Fact,which is to deny them. 
 And tho' thefe Authors have attempted 
 this in an inftance or two,yet they have 
 done it fo faintly and unfuccefsfully, 
 and the Evidence againrt them is.fo 
 clear and full ; that inftead of roundly- 
 denying thefe Fafts, they have had re- 
 courfe to the Salvos ofjub ratione )uris 9 
 and the Prefumftive Confent^ &C. with 
 which (tho' they have not the leaft 
 Authoriry for either from our Lawyers ' 
 or Lawbooksj they think to turn oft the 
 force of what has been urged both from 
 the Common Laws and the Statute 
 Book. But this is not anfwering, but 
 evading, 'tis fetting up their private 
 Opinions againft Facft and Law, or 
 laying the Laws afide, and fetcing an 
 Hypothefis in their Place. 
 
 It is certain, that the Schemes of Go- 
 vernment which have been form'd by 
 A 3 feme
 
 The PREFACE, 
 fome Men of leifure, are perfedt Stran- 
 gers toourLaws. Laws are Rules given 
 by the Supreme Authority , obli- 
 ging the Subjeds to regulate their A- 
 ftions by them,in order to the Publick 
 Peace aad Tranquility of the Realm ; 
 without any regard to the Patriarchal,or 
 Popular Scheme, And therefore to 
 fuch as diftate from either of -thefe 
 Schemes, that Maxim of Law is a fuf- 
 ficient Anfwer, Lex non dicit^ neque tu 
 dicere debes. 
 
 Some, I know, doubt, whether Hu- 
 man Laws are lufficient to juftify our 
 AdHons in foro interno^nd tofatisfy Con- 
 fcience. But they are to confider, that 
 Confcience is to be directed by lome 
 Rule. In Matters of Faith, and Di- 
 vine Inftitutions, Divine Revelation is 
 our Rule ; In Ecclefiaftical Matters, 
 as diftinguifhcd from Divine Inftitu- 
 tions, the Laws of the Church ; In 
 Civil Matters, the Laws of the 
 State, fo long as they enjoin nothing 
 contrary to the Law of God : If they 
 
 do
 
 The PREFACE, 
 do, we have a plain Apoftolical 
 TO obey God rather than Man ; If they do 
 not, we have another Apoftolical Rule, 
 as plain, To obey Magifirates. 
 
 God has given no particular Laws in 
 Civil Affairs as to the Form of Govern- 
 ment, or the Meafures of Obedience, 
 except it were to the Jewifh Nation, 
 Neither has the Revelation of the Go- 
 fpel made any Alteration in this Matter. 
 We are therein,! fay,commanded in ge- 
 neral To obey Magiftrates, &C. but are 
 left to learn from the Laws of every 
 Country, who the Magiftrate is, and 
 what Obedience is due to him. Our 
 Bleflcd Lord himfelf fubmitted to the 
 Government under which he lived, and 
 made no Change in the Governments 
 of the World, but left them in the 
 fame State in which he found them,His 
 Apoftles,and their Succeffors after them 
 did the fame, whether they propagated 
 the Gofpel within, or without the Li- 
 mits of the Roman Empire. The Ad- 
 vantage which Divine Revelation has 
 A 4 brought
 
 The PREFACE. 
 brought to Government, and the Se- 
 cnrity it gives to the Thrones of Prin- 
 ces, is not by altering the Objeft 5 or the 
 Meafures of Civil Obedience, but by 
 Eftablifliing that Obedience, which hu- 
 man Laws exaft for fear of Punifliment, 
 on a higher and a furer Principle, and 
 with a more weighty and awful San- 
 ction, than they can give ; whilft it 
 obliges us to be SvlrjtBjiot only for Wrath, 
 but a if o for Conscience Sake. Could it be 
 proved that a particular Model of Go- 
 vernment and Rule of Succeflion to it, 
 hath been InlVituted by God as a Law 
 to Mankind, I fbould think my felf not 
 only obliged to Submit to it, but obli- 
 ged to Submit to no other ; fince no 
 humane Authority can prefcribe againft 
 a Divine Inftitution : But till that is 
 proved, I fhali think my felf obliged to 
 fubmit to every Ordinance of Men, or, as 
 it may be rendred, to ever} Human m- 
 jjttution, for the Lord's fake, and to make 
 the Laws of my Country, the Rule of 
 my Obedience in Civil Matters, 
 
 It
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 It has been objefted that the Aft of 
 the 13 Eliz,. c. i. is expired. If that 
 were true ; it is never the lefs true,that 
 the Legiflature of the Realm hath in 
 that Aft afferted the Limitation of the 
 Defcent and Inheritance of the Grown 
 to be within the Verge of its Power. 
 But it is not true that the Aft 1 3 Eliz,. 
 c. i. is expired : The Penalty of High 
 Treafon indeed was Temporary, that 
 Aft making it High Treaty, only during 
 the Queen s Life, jor any one to ajjirm that 
 the Sixteen and her Two Houfes of Parlia~ 
 ment could not mak? Laws offufficient Force 
 and Validity to bind the Defeent and Inheri- 
 tance of the Crown. But the Aft it felf 
 was fo far from being Temporary, or 
 expiring with the Queen's life, that it 
 exprefly makes it forfeiture of Goods and 
 Chattels, for any one to affirm the Jame af- 
 ter the Queens Death, * 
 
 After I have proved the Legislative 
 Authority of the King for the time 
 being, with his two Houlcs of Parlia- 
 
 * See Numlw V, in tfc Jfpendix, 
 
 ment :
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 ment : I think, I need fay no more of 
 the Hereditary Defcentof the Crown 
 being hmkable by Aft of Parliament, 
 which is the principal Queftion betwixt 
 me and thefe Authors on this Head.Not 
 whether the Crown is Hereditary ? For 
 that it is io, is agreedon both, Hands: 
 And the aforefaid Ail is fo far from 
 making it Eleftive, that it plainly ack- 
 nowledges the Inheritance of the Crown, 
 vvhilft ic afferts that its Inheritance may 
 be limited by Parliament ; nay the Aft T 
 exprefly makes it equally penal, for 
 any to affirm or maintain that the Common 
 Laws of this Re aim ^ not altered by Parlia- 
 men^ ought not to direft the Eight of the 
 Crown of England^ as to affirm that the 
 }ueen and her two Houfes of Parliament 
 could not limit the Descent and Inheritance 
 thereof. * 
 
 And therefore the Queftion betwixt 
 thefe Authors and me is, whether the 
 Hereditary H ight and Defcent of the 
 
 * See tie 'beginning of tie Clavfe of tie 4tt Numb. V. 
 
 Crown
 
 The PREFACE. 
 Crown is indefeazible and unalienable ? 
 as they affirm : Or under the Dire&ion 
 of the Legiflative Power ? as I have 
 not only affirmed, but I think, fully 
 proved. 
 
 Having referred in p. 7. to Letting- 
 ton the Scotch Secretary's Letter, and 
 to Sir Thomas Craigs Book of the Right 
 ofSuccefliwi for farther Proof that Hen- 
 ry VIILdid not execute the Power given 
 him by Parliament, to nominate a Sue- 
 ccflbr by his laft Will and Teftament, 
 Signed with his own Hand, I have 
 thought fit to Print a Citation from 
 each of them in the Appendix. * 
 
 What Lethwgton fays,carries the grea- 
 ter Weight, becaufe he appeals for the 
 Truth of ir,not only to Sir William Ce- 
 cily the Minifter of State to whom he 
 writes, but to feveral Noblemen then 
 alive,who could not but know, whether 
 what heaffiims to have been done in o- 
 pen Parliament thirteen Years before, 
 was really done,or not ; for his Letters 
 
 * Number WIL 
 
 bear
 
 The PRE FACE. 
 
 bear date Jan. 1 4. 1 565, and that was 
 done in Parliament in the firft Year of 
 Queen Mary, which was in 1555. I 
 need fay nothing of Sir Thomas Craig, 
 who wants no Authority with the Wri- 
 ters on that fide of the Queftion : And 
 therefore let me put the Remarker in 
 mind that how little foever the Cafe of 
 Barbartcus or Barbarius, which he cites 
 from Hottomavy was to his purpofe, he'l 
 find by Craig * that it is miftaken too. 
 If the Remark?? has not miftaken 
 Hottoman 5 Hottoman has miftaken the 
 Cafe in Law. 
 
 I have been larger in my Reply to 
 the Author of the Remarks on Mr. Hig- 
 den's Eutopian Constitution , as he is 
 pleafed to call it, than to the Author 
 of A Letter from the Natural Born 
 Suhjetty becaule he does not fo fre- 
 quently and fo long wander from the 
 Queftion 3 as the latter, who fometimes 
 
 Riglt of Sitcce/ion, p. 197. 
 
 lofes
 
 The PREFACE, 
 lofes Sight of it for many Pages toge- 
 ther, however what is faid to one of 
 them,is generally a Reply to both. 
 
 As to the Bngliflj Confiitutwn fully ftated 
 which came very late tomy Hands, I 
 have only taken fo much nocice of it, 
 as to fhew, it would not have delerved 
 more, had it come fooner. 
 
 I cannot but think my Anjwerers 
 after they have read my Defence^ muft 
 be convinced they have made very many 
 and great Miftakes in our Englifh Hi- 
 ftory, which yet they have delivered 
 with as great Affurance, and drawn im- 
 portant C onfequences from them. It 
 may poflibly not be lo eafy to convince 
 them of their Miftakes in Law, becaufe 
 the Senfe of Laws will more eafily bend 
 to an Hypothefis,than Matters of Faft, 
 which are inflexible. However a Con- 
 viftion of their Miftakes in Hiftory 
 fhould, methinks, lead them to fufpedl 
 they may be miftaken in the Senfe of 
 our Laws, where their Affurance can- 
 not be greater, than it has been in the 
 
 former^
 
 .% The PREFACE 
 former, and their Study, I believe, has 
 beenlefs. They ihould fufped: this the 
 rather, when they confider, that they 
 differ from thole,, whole Profeffion it is, 
 and who are in a manner unanimous in 
 thefe Points of Law, whilft themfelves 
 who differ from them, do in feveral of 
 thefe Points differ from one another too. 
 But whether the Writers fhall make 
 thefe Reflections or no, methinks fome 
 of their Readers, who are apt too im- 
 plicitely to take things upon truft, 
 fhould not, if they read on both fides, 
 fail to make them. However I think 
 neither ihould efteem it (as my An- 
 /iperfrj-have donej an ill Office in thofe, 
 who believe them miftaken, to endea- 
 vor to fet them right^and to bring them 
 into an Eftablifhment, which uf they 
 could lay down theirScruples)they them- 
 felves would believe was for the Intereft 
 of their Country ,and for the Intereft 
 and Prefervation of: a Community ,that 
 ought to be yet ftill dearer to us, I 
 mean^that of our excellent Chuurch. 
 
 The
 
 The CONTENTS; 
 
 <A Reply to the Remarker's PREFACE* 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 A Defence of the fajl Chapter of the View 
 that the Supreme Authority^ tbe En- 
 gltflj Government refts in the King for the 
 Time being, and the Allegiance of the Sub- 
 jetf is due to him by the Common Law of this 
 Realm. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 A Defence of the Second Chapter 
 of the View, that the Sovereign Authority , 
 particularly the Legislative Authority of Kings 
 for the Time being^and their Two Houfes of 
 Parliament^ is acknowledged by the Statute 
 Law of this Realm. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 A Defence of the third Chapter , wherein 
 fome other Objections to the Legislative Au* 
 thority of thefe Kings are anfwered, 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 A Defence of the Fourth Chapter, in which 
 the Allegiance of the SubjeB was proved to 
 be due to the King for the Time being^ by 
 the Statute Law of this Realm, 'with an An* 
 fwer to the weft confi durable Objections. 
 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 A Defence oftheffth Chapter of the View, 
 wherein the ObjeEtion from the Aft of Re- 
 <ognition, i Jac. I. is anfaered. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 The CONTENTS. 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 A Defence of the Sixth Chapter, wherein 
 this Account of our Conftitution and Laws was 
 fitpported by the Opinions and Authorities of 
 fome of the greateft modern Lawyers, who 
 lived in the Reigns of Hereditory Kings , and 
 the Cafe of the Oaths refolved from this ac- 
 fount of our Legal Conflitution. 
 C H A P. VII. 
 
 A Defence of the Seventh Chapter ; that 
 cur Laws in this Point, are not contrary to 
 the Holy Scriptures, and the Doftrine of our 
 Church, but rather agreeable to both. 
 J C H A P. VIII. 
 
 A Defence of the Eighth Chapter of the 
 View, that our Laws in this Point are agree- 
 able to the great }Lnd and Defign of Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 A Defence of the Ninth Chapter of the 
 View, that our Laws in this Point are -agree* 
 able to the PraElice of all Mankind, particu- 
 larly of God's own People, the Jews, and the 
 Chrijiians of the ear lie ft Ages. 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Reflections on fome of the Errors of the 
 Natural Born Subjed, and on his Oppofoion 
 to the Remarker in fome Points. 
 
 THE
 
 A Defence of the View of the Englifi Conflz- 
 tutien, &c. by way of Reply to the Utopian 
 Remarker, with fome Animadverjions, on 
 the "Natural Born SubjeBs Letter. 
 
 A Pepfy to /fe Remarker's Preface. 
 
 N the Preface we meet with nothing 
 to detain us, unlefs it be this Re- 
 mark, / might have find, that 
 fome Affs made even by Kings de 
 Jure, (a* fome made by Hen. VIII. a King 
 de Jure and his Parliaments,} were never 
 Repealed, and yet no more Notice taken of 
 'em in following Reigns, than if they had 
 never been made, being againfl the Englifb 
 Conflitution, and that Mr. H. knew this 
 well enough, but wifely took no notice of it, 
 becaufe it would have fpoil'd his Hypothecs. 
 The Remarker, I think, ought to have 
 been more particular, and told us what were 
 thefe Laws of King Henry VJII. which were 
 never Repealed, and yet no more Notice ta- 
 ken of 'em hi following JLeignS) than if the) 
 B ' fad
 
 EM 
 
 bad n?ver been made. However, I doubt 
 
 not but he means thofe Ads, which were 
 wade-iy-King Henry VILL to ..Limit the 
 Defcent of the Crown :, fince he 
 Remark p. 84. f a y S) tnat a ll ABs made to Dif- 
 ivherit the next Heir, are A 7 // and Void, 
 being again ft the Confutation of an Heredi- 
 tary Monarchy. 
 
 But the Keinarker was a little too forward, 
 in laying, that J knew there was no notice 
 taken of thefe ABs in fucceeding Reigns. 
 I know indeed there is a like Remark in the 
 Preface to Jovian,- (a Book which he re- 
 
 - commends to mej but I knew- it to be -a 
 iiiiftake there, and lhall prove it to be fo 
 here. In the Opinion of the learned Au- 
 thor of that Preface, there is a funda- 
 mental Law of the Monarchy, which feems 
 to Invalidate all Aft* of Parliament that limit 
 and bind the Succe/Jwn. It was by this Law, 
 
 -faith he, that the Ad of Parliament, which 
 ImpoweSd King Henry VUL to difpofe of 
 the Crown by his la ft Will amlTeftament, to 
 what Perfon or Perfons he pltafed, proved 
 Ineffectual to the Hoi if e #/ Suffolk, to which 
 be" bequeathed it. after the Death of Queen 
 Elizabeth. If, faith he, thefe Statutes of 
 Kins, Henry VllL were not Null and Void, 
 fy what Authority iv as the Houfe of Suffolk 
 
 Excluded, and King James admin 'ed, con- 
 trary
 
 en. 
 
 trary to fo many Statutes .<? To which 
 Queftion this fhort Anfwer might fuf- 
 fice, that there was no Statute for the 
 Admiflion of the Houfe of Suffolk^ nor for 
 the Exclufion of King James, and the Houfe 
 of Scotland^ nor was that Power of dif- 
 pofing of the Crown, which was given Hen- 
 ry the VIII. by Ad of Parliament, ever 
 put in Execution by that King for the 
 Admiflion of the former Houfe, or Exclu- 
 fion of the latter. And therefore to fay., 
 that the Houfe of Suffolk was excluded 
 and King James admitted to the Throne 
 contrary to many Statutes, is a Miilake both 
 in Law and Hiftory. 
 
 But becaufe this imaginary Nullity of 
 the Ads of Settlement made by King Hen- 
 ry the VIII, has been urged with fo much 
 AfTurance, to prove, that the Defcent of 
 the Crown cannot be limited by Ad of 
 Parliament : I mall mew, that thofe Ads 
 were held valid infucceeding Reigns, and 
 put in Execution according to their true 
 intent and meaning. 
 
 The laft of thofe Ads paiTed in the 
 Thirty fifth of Henry the VIIL which made 
 fome Alteration in the former Ads of Set- 
 tlement, and fixt the Defcent of the Crown ^ 
 
 Prefi to Jovian p< 43. 44, 
 
 b 2 and
 
 and which the Author of Jovian exprefly 
 referrs to in the Marten, as an AB that 
 was null in it filf. ----- This Act, I fay, con- 
 fided of two Parts. Firft, the Crown was 
 to defcend to that King's Son, Prince Ed- 
 ward, and the lifue of his Body ^ in de- 
 fault of fuch Iflue, to the Heirs of the 
 Kings Body by his prefent Marriage, whe- 
 ther Male, or Female-, in default of fuch 
 Iffue, to the Lady Mary and her Heirs j 
 and if (he dyed without Iffue, to the La- 
 dy Elizabeth and her Heirs. 
 
 Secondly, In cafe all thefe mould die 
 without Iflue, the King had full Power 
 and Authority given him by this Aft, to 
 difpoife and limit the Crown to defcend 
 on fuch Perfon, and Perfons in Remainder, 
 and Reverlion, as he mould name, and de- 
 clare in his Letters Patents under his 
 Great Seal, or by his laft Will in writing 
 flgned by his own Hand. 
 
 And was there no Notice taken of this 
 Ad of Settlement in fucceeding Reigns > 
 Nor in Utopia it feems, but in England 
 moft fignal Notice was taken of it, both 
 in Fatf, and in Law. Firfl, in FaEl$ for 
 Queen Mary * claimed the Crown chiefly by 
 
 * See her Letter to the Privy Council in Hi^nt Hi- 
 ilory of the Reformation p. 1 57. 
 
 Virtue
 
 US] 
 
 Virtue of this Ad, and She, or Queen Eli- 
 zabeth could have no other Title to it. 
 Both of them could not have a Title by 
 Birth, and yet Both fucceflively afcended the 
 Throne by this Ad. of Settlement. Both 
 had been declared by Law Illegitimate, in 
 the Twenty Eighth of Henry the VIII. and 
 one of them was not of Legitimate 
 Birth, and therefore could have no other 
 Title to the Throne, but what this Ad 
 gave her. 
 
 Secondly, In Law, there was as fignal 
 Notice taken of it:, for the very Ad of 
 Recognition of Queen Elizabeth, part of 
 which the Remarker has printed in his 
 Appendix Num. 13. doth, in the other part, 
 which he hath left out, declare, that in 
 and to the Princely Perfon of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, and the Heirs of her Body lawfully 
 to be begotten, the Royal Eft ate, Crown, and 
 Dignity of this Realm, with all Jurifdi- 
 Bions, 6cc. are, and foall be, mo ft fully and 
 rightfully invefted and annexed, a>s right- 
 fully and lawfully to all Intents, Con fin i- 
 tiions, and Pitrpofes, as they were in her 
 Father the late King Henry the VIII. * or 
 her Brother King Edward the VI. or her 
 
 Here the Remarker Ire iks off. 
 
 b 3 Sifter
 
 Sifter Queen Mary, 'at any time fince ike 
 Aft of Parliament made in the ^th Tear 
 of King Henry the VIII. intituled, an AEl 
 concerning the Eftablifiment of the King's 
 Majeftfs Succejjion in the Imperial Crown 
 
 of this Realm. And that it may be ena- 
 
 Eled by the Authority aforefaid, that as well 
 this Declaration, as alfo the Limitation and 
 SucceJJion of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 
 contained in the faid AB, made in the f aid 
 35th Tear of her mo ft noble Father, flail 
 remain and be the Law of this Realm 
 for ever. 
 
 Could there be greater 'Notice taken of 
 an Ad of Parliament, than there was of 
 this Aft of Parliament, of which the Re- 
 marker faith, no Notice was taken? 
 
 But why was the other Part of that 
 A$ of Succ ejfion in the ^^tb of Henry the 
 VIII. which impower\l that King to dif- 
 pofe of the Crown by his laft Will, ineffe- 
 ftital to the Houfe of Suffolk -, and why 
 did the Houfe of Scotland fucceed to the 
 Crown of England ? Not by reafon of any 
 Kullity of that Act of Succeffion, as the 
 Author of Jovian imagines, but becaufe 
 King Henry the VIII. never executed the 
 Power, which that Aft gave him. He did 
 not by his laft Will, ftgned with his ow$ 
 Hand, exclude the Houfe of Scotland, and 
 
 bring
 
 t7] 
 
 bring the Houfe of Suffolk into the Suc- 
 ceilion. There was indeed a Will drawn 
 for that purpofe, but it was never figned by 
 the King, as the Aft of Parliament expre- 
 fly required., : and fuch an extraordinary 
 Power, as that was, muft have been exe- 
 cuted according to the precife Form of the 
 Statute, that gave that Power -, otherwife 
 it was not valid. There was indeed a Stamp 
 put to this Will by a mean Perfon, named 
 Clerk, which would, not for the Reafon 
 aforefaid, have been a legal Ratification of 
 the Will, according to the Statute, had it 
 been done by the King's Order, much lefs 
 when it was done without his Order, or 
 Knowledge. For tho' by this A& the King 
 might, yet Clerk could not difpofe of the 
 Crown. 'Of all which there are undeniable 
 Proofs in the Scotch Secretary Jjethington* s 
 * Letter to Sir William Cecil the Engliffi 
 Secretary, and in Sir Thomas Craig's Right 
 f of the Succeflion. The former calls this 
 a forged Will, and the latter, a Forgery, 
 and both of them by undoubted Evidence 
 Drove it to be fo. 
 
 * Appendix to the r vol. of the Hiftory of the Refor- 
 mation N. 30. 
 
 t P. 545i 344 345- 
 
 B 4 Thus
 
 en 
 
 Thus the Remarked no Notice, and the 
 Author of Jovian's Nullity of King Henry 
 the VHIths. Ads of Succerfion, and the 
 Houfe of Suffolk's Exclufion, and King 
 James'j Admiffion to the Throne, contra- 
 ry to the Authority of many AEls ofParlia- 
 ment, appear to be, what I faid they were, 
 Miftakes both in Law and Hiftory. 
 
 How candid a Cenfure then was this 
 of the Remarker, that I concealed what I 
 knew to be true? which yet no Man could 
 know to be true, becaufe it was falfe, and 
 which I knew to be falfe. What a han- 
 dle has he given me, (were I difpofed to 
 lay hold on it) by breaking off in the Re- 
 cognition Ad of Queen Elizabeth, with an 
 &c. * in the midft of a Sentence, which 
 Sentence, (as the Reader might have feen" 
 had he printed it entire) doth take moft 
 remarkable Notice of this Ad, of which 
 the Remarker faith, no Notice was taken. 
 It is not impofiible, but it might be an over- 
 fight ^ and I fhall be glad if it was fa. 
 
 It is. evident, as I have faid, that either 
 Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, was Il- 
 legitimate, and therefore could have no 
 other but a Parliamentary Title to the 
 
 Remaikers Appendix Num. XIV. 
 
 Crown ;
 
 Crown.: And yet it is certain, that Queen 
 Mary was brought to the Throne chiefly 
 by the Afiiftance of her Proteftant Subjects, 
 who yet generally did not believe her of 
 Legitimate Birth , and Queen Elizabeth 
 was proclaimed by the Authority of a Popifh 
 Parliament, who as generally believed her 
 Illegitimate. Which {hews that both Pro- 
 teftants and Papifts agreed in maintaining 
 the Aft of Succeflion, that was made 
 in the 35th of King Henry the VIII. and 
 confequently Both, believed the Defcent of 
 the Crown of England was limitable by 
 Ad of Parliament. 
 
 And as thefe Ads were held to be of 
 force in fucceeding Reigns : So none doub- 
 ted of their Validity in the Reign of King 
 Henry the VIII. when they were made ^ but 
 all fwore to the Succeflion as it was efta- 
 blifhed by Act of Parliament \ even Bifhop 
 Fifier, and Sir Thomas More that had 
 been Lord Chancellor, who chofe to lay 
 down their Lives rather than take the Oath 
 of Supremacy , and abfolutely refufed to 
 fweir to the Preamble of the Ad of Suc- 
 ceflion, which affirmed the Nullity of the 
 King's Marriage with Queen Catherine, the 
 LawfuLnefs of his Divorce, and the Vali- 
 dity of his Marriage with Queen Anne : Yet 
 both thefe Great Men voluntarily offer M 
 
 to
 
 ffe-h 
 
 to fwear to the Succ$fl]on, as it was efta- 
 biiflied by the 2th of Henry the VIII. 
 which limited the Defcent of the Crown 
 to the King's Iffbe by Queen Ann, which 
 according to their Opinions of the King's 
 Marriage and Divorce they mull believe 
 Illegitimate, and excluded the Lady Mary 
 whom they believed his Legitimate I flue. 
 Bilhop Fijber in a Letter to Secretary 
 Cromwell, gave the reafon of his Condud 
 in this Matter : / mufl befeech you, good 
 Mr. Secretary^ to call to your Remembrance^ 
 that at my la ft Being before you and the 
 other Commiffioners, forsaking of the Oath 
 concerning the Kings mofl noble Succejfion ^ 
 I was content to be fworn unto that Part 
 concerning the Succeffion. And there I 
 did rehearfe this Reafon which ] faid mo- 
 ved me. I doubted not but that the Prince 
 of any Realm, with the Affent of hi- Cobles 
 and Commons^ might appoint for his Suc- 
 cejjion Royal fitch ah Order a-s was feen 
 unto his Wifdom mofl according. And for 
 this reafon I faid I was content to be fivorn , 
 unto that Part of the Oath a-s concerning 
 the Succeffion. This is a very Truth of 
 God help my Soul-^ albeit I re fit fed to fwear 
 to fom? other Parcels, becanfe that my Con- 
 fcience would notfervemefo to do. 
 
 As
 
 1" ] 
 
 As Sir Thomaf More made thfc fame Of- 
 fer with Bifliop Fifber, fo we cannot doubt 
 but he made it on the fame Principle ^ or 
 if any one doth doubt this, his doubt will 
 foon be fatisfied, when he reads the Con- 
 ference betwixt Sir Tboma* More and 
 Rich the King's Solicitor, as it is related 
 by my Lord Herbert. * 
 
 I need not defcend to the Laws made in 
 Queen Elizabeth** Reign, which declare 
 the Defcent of the Crown to be under 
 the direction of the Legiflative Power, 
 or go to prove from Reafon that the Su- 
 preme Power can limit the Defcent of the 
 Crown , tho' this one Reafon I think is 
 fufficient, becaufe it cannot limit it felf. 
 Indeed nothing can limit the Supreme, 
 but a fuperior Power, nothing but a Law 
 of God : and let any one produce a Di- 
 vine Law for Hereditary Succefllon in 
 Kingdoms, and I'll grant it unalterable by 
 any Humane Power, but fince no fuch 
 Divine Law can be produced, we muft 
 own the Defcent of the Crown to be under 
 the Diredion of the Legiflative Power. 
 
 This is more than was neceilary for my 
 own Vindication, againft the Remarked 
 
 Hiftory of King Hemy the VIII. p. 183. 
 
 Cenfure ^
 
 C "3 
 
 Cenfure^ but I have at the fame time vin- 
 dicated alfo that part of our Oath to main- 
 tain the Succeflion, as it Hands limited to 
 the next Proteftant Heirs of the Houfe of 
 Hannover. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The Title of my firft Chapter wnsthis. 
 The Supreme Authority of the Englijb Govern- 
 ment refls in the King for the Time being t 
 and the Allegiance of the SubjeB ts due 
 to him by the Common Law of this Realm. 
 
 AS in the View of the Englifo Confti- 
 tut'ton, I laid down certain Propo- 
 fitions, which I made the Titles of fo many 
 Chapters, fo I wifh thefe Gentlemen had 
 anfwer'd me in the fame Method, that the 
 Reader might have feen what were the 
 Points in Debate betwixt us, and thereby 
 have more eafily judged, how far my Argu- 
 ments, or their Anfwers,amounted to a Proof 
 or a Difproof thereof. However, I (hall 
 keep to my own Method, and begin with 
 the Defence of the fir ft Chapter: Wherein I 
 proved the common Ciiflom and Ufiige of 
 the Realm was fo evidently on the lide of 
 the Regnant King, that the People of 
 England always fubmitted, and took Oaths 
 ' of 
 
 -
 
 r. 13 1 
 
 of Fidelity to the Thirteen Kings, who 
 irom the Concmeft to- Henry theVlI. came 
 to the Throne without Hereditary Titles, 
 as well as to the Six Hereditary Kings, 
 who reign'd in that Period.. 
 
 The 'Remark er in Anfwer to this is very 
 unfortunate in histirft Argument, where 
 he fays, that Allegiance is not due to a King 
 de facto by Common Law j for ivbat Common 
 Law had the frft King de faElo to plead? 
 Could he plead Citftom before there was 
 anyfnch thing .<? This woitU be abfurd in the 
 frft King de faclo^ whatever it were in 
 others. Now I never faid or imagined, that 
 Allegiance was due, to the firft Non-here- 
 ditary King, by Common Law, but that it 
 is JN 7 0n>, and for many Ages has been due 
 to the King for the 'time being. * The 
 fird Non-hereditary King could not chal- 
 lenge Allegiance by common Ufage -, no 
 more could the firft King in the Heredita- 
 ry Line, no nor by Inheritance neither, 
 and yet the Remarker will not fay Alle- 
 giance is not due to Hereditary Kings by 
 common Law or Uftge., Indeed, accor- 
 ding to this way of arguing, Common Law 
 or Ufage could never be pleaded for any 
 
 Remarks p. 5. 
 
 thing,
 
 C '4] 
 
 thing, beeaufe it could not be pleaded fof 
 the firft thing of that kind :, and the lon^ 
 geft Series of Precedents could (ignify no- 
 thing^ becaufe the firft Precedent had no 
 Precedent. Thus his Argument by pro- 
 ving too much proves nothing, and would 
 however have been ill employed againft 
 me in this Place, where I had exprefly 
 aflerted (as the Remarker himfelf takes 
 notice) that common Cuftotn and Ufage doth 
 not obtain the Force of a Law till after 
 a long TMC! of time. 
 
 The Remarker goes on. We will gram 
 all this (i. e* the common Cuftom and Ufage 
 of taking Oaths of Fidelity to all thefe 13 
 'N&n-befsdita.ry Kings ,) and yet the People 
 of England might take Oaths of Fidelity 
 to them, of coming to the Throne with an 
 Hereditary Title for all that : For moft if 
 not all thofe c\c. claimed as Heirs or Con- 
 quer or s, or both :, as William the Conque- 
 ror -, a-nd . always declared they held the 
 Crown by Title of Blood^ and as fitch their 
 Parliaments recognized them, and the Peo- 
 ple fwore to them. In ftort^ they ivere Kings 
 <le f&tt$> W*4 Ufarfers, but Allegiance was 
 paid tbeni.\ as pretended Heirs of the Crown. 
 f- They claimed and reigned fub ration e 
 
 | Remarks p< 4- 
 
 juris
 
 C is 3 
 
 juris, -and there for e^Oaths were 
 Them as Kings de jure, and not de fado. 
 * William the Conqueror and all his Sztc- 
 ceffors reigned by an Hereditary Title, w 
 a pretext to it. William the Conqueror de- 
 clared hiinfilf \King by Hereditary Title as 
 well as Conqueft. William Rufus clai- 
 med as Tefamentary Heir to his Father, 
 &c. p. 24. 
 
 f The Remarktr has here jumbled to- 
 gether three things, that are of a diftinci 
 Nature, and require a diftinft Confidera- 
 tion, viz. The Clai-,t> of thefe Princes, 
 the Recognitions of Parliament, and the 
 Submiffion of the People. 
 
 i ft, As to the Claims of thefe Princes, 
 he faith, that they all claimed fub ratione ju- 
 ris ', that they all claimed and reigned by an 
 Hereditary Title, or a pretext to it. That 
 they all claimed/?//? ratione juris, under the 
 Notion of fome Right or other I readily 
 grant : But that they all. claimed by an He- 
 
 * Ibid. p. 1 4. J Ibid p. zi. 
 
 [ The Natural Born Subject falls in with the fame fy. 
 pothrfu o. 58. & fay< there wid be Iff' but three, that is 
 Henry I, Kfng Stephen, and King John ; upon whom it can 
 be lteaged that they caws to the Crown, without Pretence of an 
 Hereditary Rrght, and in the %yb and 40 Page he Attempt} tt 
 prove that thefe three alft came to,, the Throne vith the fame Pre- 
 
 juris
 
 feditary Right, or a Pretence to it, I deny* 
 I further grant, that moil of them claimed by 
 Hereditary Right or a Pretext to it , but then 
 the Remarker knows,or ought to know, that 
 feveral of thefe who claimed by Hereditary 
 Right , did not mean what he does through- 
 out his Book, when he fpeaks of Hereditary 
 Right, as the only Right to the Crown, 
 viz. a Right as next Heir by Proximity of 
 Blood. To in (lance in William I. with 
 whom the Remarker begins, and who, as he 
 fays, declared be held the Crown by Heredi- 
 tary Right as redl as Conqueft, for which 
 he refers us to a Charter of that King men- 
 tioned by Dr- Hicks. * Was William the 
 Conqueror, or doth the Remarker believe 
 that he was, or that he by thefe Words 
 meant that he was, next Heir by Blood, to 
 any of his Predeceflbrsin the Englifh Throne 
 either Saxons or Danes -, Who, as all the 
 World knew, was not Heir to any one of 
 them by Proximity of Blood, and as a 
 Baftard _was Heir to no body > What then 
 doth that King mean by his Hereditary 
 Right to the Crown ? If we will give 
 him leave to explain himfelf, he tells us 
 in another Charter, That he was conjiitu- 
 
 * Literat t Srfftntrim, Differ!. fy//?f/, f. 72. 
 
 ted
 
 ['73 
 
 ted ty King ^Edward the Gonfeffor 
 tive Heir of his Kihgd&m^ which agrees 
 with the account that Qrdericus- Vitalis 
 f gives of this Matter:, fa that there was not 
 fo much as a Pretence to what is commonly 
 meant by Hereditary Right, but only to a 
 Donation of the Crown' from 'Fdwar-d the 
 ConfefTor a King; dc fa 80, which was a Claim 
 againft the Hereditary Right of Edgar Ath-e- 
 ling. ' 
 
 William Rtifits, faith the Rewarker, was 
 Heir to his Father by Will and can he fay 
 this was a Glum by Hereditary Rigttt, or 
 any Pretext to it, which was no other 
 than a Claim by Will, againft the Hereditary 
 Right of his eldeft Brother Robert .<? 
 
 But I need not particularly confider the fe- 
 veral Claims, or Pretexts of the reft of thefe 
 Thirteen Non-hereditary Kings, (incethe R^- 
 marker acknowledges, that fever al of them 
 claimed by Conine ft ^ w by Will, fometimes 
 by a Nuncupative Will , and that atte- 
 fted but by one Witnefs, as in the cafe of 
 Stephens Succedion, which amounts to no 
 more than this, which I never denyed, that 
 
 * A Charter in the Tower C. C. 
 
 / Rigfnitn [n*m adeptiTjunt keredem inflitueratt 
 
 t Qrdcricus Vitalis 49 2 
 
 C all
 
 C 1 8,3 
 
 all thefe Kings defaflo, or their Friends for 
 them, fet up the Pretences to Hereditary 
 Right, or madefome other Claims, in order to 
 gain the Confent of the States, and the 
 Pofleflion of the Throne , and I do freely 
 own this to be true of William the Conque- 
 ror^ and all his SitcceJJors de faclo, as the 
 Rertiarker fays, and if He pleafes, of all his 
 de faElo PredeceiTbrs too. 
 
 But Secondly, will the Remarker fay 
 that thefe Claims , or Pretences were 
 the Grounds upon which the States , 
 or Parliaments of the Kingdom, pla- 
 ced thefe Princes in the Throne , or re- 
 cognized them in it, which he ought to 
 have proved? 
 
 As for in (la nee, fuppofe it was as certain 
 (which is much to be doubted) that Hugh 
 Bigod did make Oath, that Henry the L 
 gave the Crown from his Daughter Maud 
 to Stephen, as it is certain that his Oath, 
 (if he did fwear it) was falfe, which, I think 
 no body doubts. If the Archbilhop of 
 Canterbury was induced by this Oath to 
 crown Stephen, can the Remarker prove, 
 that the Great Men of the Realm were 
 induced by the fame Motive to recog- 
 nize him ? He may find in Mr. Col- 
 liers Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, * that they 
 
 * p. szd. 
 
 pro-
 
 C 19] 
 
 proceeded upon other Motives, as did 
 the Pope afterwards in his Bull of Confir- 
 mation ofhisTitle.TheBifhop o{ Winche fter 
 who was Stephen's Brother, and had been the 
 great Inftrument of his Advancement,declar'd 
 * in the Council of Winchefler, that becav.fe it 
 feemed too long to wait for Maud, who delayed 
 her coming from Normandy into England, 
 they provided for the Peace of the King- 
 dom by permitting his Brother to Reign. Nay 
 Stephen himfelf in his Oath (which William 
 of Malmjbury hath inferted in his Hiftory) 
 enumerating his Titles, pretends to None, 
 prior to a National Confent -, and will the 
 Re marker fay ^ this was an Hereditary Right, 
 or any Pretext to it / No, the Natural 
 Born " SitbjeEl is againft the Remarker 
 here, faying, when all other Pretences 
 fail d, they [Tome of thefe Thirteen 
 Kings of whom he was fpeaking] plead- 
 ed the Choice of the People, f The Remar^ 
 ker will poilibly fay, that as the Na- 
 tural Born SitbjeEl departs from him here, 
 fo doth he at the fame time contradid him- 
 
 * Itacje yiia /* i>fW.ifr Domin.tm expetfare, qua wioras 
 ndnm in jtiugl'ani ncffibat (in Narmttrinui quippc fiftde* 
 tat ) provifutn eft fact fxtn<e c^* re^narc fertnijjus (ft freiter rneut. 
 William of Ma'tnsbuiy. Hift. Novell* /. 2. f. I & who faith, 
 be was prefcnt and heard this Speech* 
 
 f A Letter, p. 40. 
 
 C a felt.
 
 [SO] 
 
 who had. affo affirmed, and been en- 
 deavouring to prove in the preceding Pages, 
 tli at all thefe Thirteen Non-hereditary Kings, 
 j to ibe Crown with Hereditary Rjgbt^r a 
 to it. And the Remarker has reafon 
 to charge him with this Contradiction ^ for 
 the Con icnt of the People is neither Here- 
 ditary Right, nor any Pretence to it. But 
 I (hall leave thefe two Friends to reconcile 
 this matter betwixt themfelves. 
 
 Of all thefe Kings none made fo direct 
 a Claim by Proximity of Blood, as Hen. IV. 
 aud yet that Parliament, which was fo 
 well inclined to fee the Crown upon his 
 Head, made no exprefe Recognition of this 
 Hereditary Right, which he pretended to, 
 and they knew he had not. He had too 
 much- power to be told, he had it not:, but 
 oil the other hand they pafs'd no Ad to 
 Recognize ir, but contented themfelves to 
 dcx-hre i il terms, That the Duke 
 
 fhouU reign r;iv,T them. And accordingly 
 "in the Ad of Parliament the 7. Hen. IV. 
 c. 2, made to Entail the Crown to that 
 King and his Four Sons by Name, there 
 is not one word, that implies that Hen. IV. 
 held it by Hereditary Right. 
 
 3dly. it doth not appear, that the People 
 
 : eir Submillion had any regard to thefe 
 
 Claims. The Remarker fays indeed , the 
 
 Fed-
 
 People fubmitted to 'em as of Right, but 
 has not proved that they iubmitted to thefe 
 Kings upon the fcore of Hereditary Right, 
 or of any Right at ail antecedent to their 
 Pofieflion -, which of all things he ought to 
 h LVC done, if he would have anfwered the 
 View, which concerns itfelf only with the 
 Subject's Duty. He acknowledges thefe Kings 
 de faBo, knew there ivers better Titles than 
 their own. And did not the People , 
 who liv'd at the fame time, know this as 
 well as thofe Princes, or as the Remarker 
 doth at this diftance ? If they fubmitted to 
 the Regnant Princes only on the account 
 of the Claims they made, why did they 
 fubmit to the Prince, who had the worfe 
 Claim -, and not refer ve their Allegiance 
 for the Prince, who they knew had the 
 better Title ? Why did they always fubmit 
 to that Prince, who poflefs'd the Throne 
 with i.-ie Genfent of the States, or the Re- 
 cognition of the Parliament, whntfeever his 
 Claim was :, and not to the Unpoilefs'd, 
 Unrecogniz'd_ Prince > 
 
 So L!-. =- ; !L this ftir which he has made 
 about Clulming Jub rations juris, has only 
 rai.cciDuit about theCiueitions which are be- 
 twixc us on this Head:, whether thefe Thirteen 
 were reailv" .Non-hereditary Kings, or not ? 
 and whether, notwithftandmg,this the Po- 
 G 3 Pie
 
 [ 22 ] 
 
 p!e cf England fubmitted to them or no ? That 
 the Pecple fubmitted to thefe Kings, he 
 owns, where he fo often aflerts, that they 
 fubmitted to them, becaufe they claimed fub 
 ratione Juris $ tho' that they fubmitted 
 for this Reafon,hehas no where proved. And 
 own he tnuft alfo, on his own Principles, 
 that they were Non-hereditary Kings: 
 For will the Remarker fay, a Teftamentary 
 Heir is the right Heir > That William 
 the Conqueror was King by Hereditary 
 Right, hecaufe he declared, he was fo, in 
 another fenfe than the Remarker under- 
 ftands it ? That Henry I. was next in Blood, 
 becaufe chofen as next by a Faftion ? That 
 Stephen was Heir to Henry I. becaufe one 
 falfly fwore, he made him Heir by a Nun- 
 cupative. Will ? If he will not fay this, then 
 thefe will ftill be de fafto Kings, and the 
 after tian of the View will ftill hold 
 good, that, by the common Ufage of the 
 Realm, Allegiance is due to Kings de 
 fa&o. * q. e. d. 
 
 * 1 need not go on to prove, that, upon the RernarkerV Princi- 
 ples, the reft ofihifs Thirteen were Nox- hereditary Kingt^-tce he in ef~ 
 feftfwn' it of :bcm all by $*me>txseft J/Henry II und Henry flf. 
 But dot a htvot know, tkt Henry II caviete tkg Throne without 
 n Hereditary Title, hii Mother, Ma^d the Empre ft, being alive ; 
 ud thai Hrn^y 111. did the fame, h.s elder Brother't Daughttr 
 i being alive ? bcjh which I (ball prove in another Place. 
 
 The
 
 C 33.1 
 
 TheQueftion, as I ever underftood it, was 
 Whatthefe Princes really were : Not, What 
 they pretended to be. What Claims they 
 truly had, or at lead the People believed 
 they had : Not, what Claims they made, or 
 what Pretences were made for them ? But 
 fince the Remarker has thought fit to change 
 the ftate of the Queftion, Til joyn Iffiie 
 with him upon it, as he has ftated it. Let 
 us fuppofe then for once, that they all 
 claimed fub rations Jitrit. Was this alone 
 a fufficient Reafon for the Subjects to fwear 
 Allegiance to them ? Yes-, he pofitively af- 
 firms it. Thefe are his Words, fo that 'tis 
 plain , that all thofe Kings de fodo claimed as 
 de jure, which w, if there were no other, 
 a good Reafon for the Subjects not refnfmg 
 to fwear Allegiance to them. p. 23. If the 
 Remarker will abide by his Aifertion, there's 
 an end of the Controverfy, and no Sub- 
 ject now ought to refute to fwear Allegiance 
 to the Queen, who claims as tie jure : And 
 there is a better Reafon ftill to take Oaths 
 to Her Majefty, becaufe (he doth riot only 
 Claim dejure,but is de. Jure too. Tho* bare- 
 ly to Claim asfuch, is with the Remarker, 
 and all the fub rations Juris Men, a fuffi- 
 cient Reafon to take Oaths of Alle- 
 giance now, and which they cannot refufe 
 without renouncing this Principle. I do 
 G not
 
 . c 24 3 
 
 .not fee,., boat the/r. Caufe is.LQ$ ; . ekjier way. 
 
 p their Hypothecs, they'll flick tx> 
 
 " fitb. .ra-.ione Juris, they are 
 
 .q of :i obiig'd to take the Oaths 
 
 ,i if to ^vaidthe confequence, they'll 
 let go this Principle which is the main Sal- 
 vo of their Hy.potheQs, their Hypothecs 
 will fall with it, and they will, it is to be 
 honed, come into the Doctrine of the View, 
 : that.it is the Culium and Ufage, which is the 
 Coaimon Law of.theHealm, to fubrait, and 
 t , ike Oaths of Fidelity to the Regnant Prince, 
 
 STrli ot H ** *-*tr 1 fMl - r\v* i*ri *-T^ii^vi i f- 9T\ fr-T^f/ari i f-*n rr ^ 
 
 - y in which the Pope with his PofiiJJj 
 Clergy I .:d a ve.ry 'great ftroke in pulling 
 down ami fating up. Kings, and bad, or at 
 leafy ' . pr;eiefldejd t& have, a Power of Ab- 
 fofojng Subje'cls'fmu their Oaths of Alle- 
 giance-: and no wonder, if Subje3s mis- 
 led by the Pope . and bis Clergy , paid 
 their Allegiance where they 'direfted them, 
 p. 14. * 
 
 * Th: Natural Born Sobjtft hat tke fame Anfwer. Another 
 Confideration , faith he t in iFa/onr ofvoOf Aflceftors in thofe 
 Times, m<y be the Great Power of ^be Popes in thole 
 Days, who took upon th;m to ch'fpofe of all Cowns, p^r- 
 ticularly that of England, ; which they had once put in bub- 
 jtfticn tQ ihm ^' King ?/? teeter p. 70. . 
 
 That
 
 f. 25] 
 
 That Popes have both taught nnd prafti- 
 fed the depoiing Doctrine, and have pre- 
 tended to abfolve Subjects from their Oaths 
 of Allegiance, is beyond Difpute : But this 
 lias been generally 'done by thcm,when Princes 
 have been Hereticks, or Kautors of Hereticks, 
 or have made fome Attempts on the Regalia 
 of St. Peter, but they have rarely employed 
 their Thunder, or their Graces in the 
 Contefts of Princes betwixt one anotlier 
 , about their Titles. 
 
 And therefore the Re?tiarker mould have 
 /'proved, that the feveral Popes, in thefe 
 Times, did put in practice their pretended 
 Power of absolving Subjcds from their Al- 
 legiance, not barely that Pop-es pretended 
 to fuch a Power of Abfolution. 
 
 Nay 2iy. He 'mould have proved farther, 
 that our Anceftors in Pofli/b Times had 
 i-ecourfe to the Popes for fuch Abfolutions ^ 
 or that it was in coniequctiee of fuch A'b- 
 folutions granted by P(^s y tint they took 
 Oaths of Allegiance to Non- hereditary 
 Kings. But this he hath not proved, nor 
 attempted to prove. 
 
 Our Anceftors, 'tis true, too eafily fub- 
 niitted to the Pope's Supremacy, which 
 was a Ufurpation upon the Prerogatives of 
 Kings, as well as upon the Rights of all 
 Chnftian Bifbops, who were has Collegues.
 
 However, they never permitted that Ab- 
 folute Jurifdiftion, which Popes claimed, 
 to take place in England , but refolutely 
 withftood many Papal Encroachments both 
 In Church and State, and raifed Digues and 
 Banks againft the Inundation of the Pleni- 
 tude of their Power. I muft always ex- 
 cept the fcandalous Submifiions, that were 
 made in the time of King John, to the 
 more fcandalous Ufurpations and Impofi- 
 tions of the Pope and his Legate Pandulphus, 
 to which a Gap was open'd by the unhappy 
 Circumftances of that Reign. 
 
 The Pope, as Supreme Paftor, pretends 
 that all Chriftians, as being his Sheep, are 
 under an Obligation to hear his Voice. He 
 fpeaks to them by his Legats a latere, in 
 his Canons, or Laws, and in his Bulls. 
 
 As for his Legats a latere, it appears by 
 the f Tear Books, as well as our Hiftories, 
 that they were not permitted to come in- 
 to England without the King's leave, and 
 were obliged to take an Oath, that they 
 would attempt nothing that was derogatory 
 to the King, and his Crown. 
 
 As for the Popes Canons or Laws, they 
 were never held Obligatory in England, 
 
 f ii, Hen, VII, fol. 10, 
 
 unleis
 
 1*71 
 
 unlefs they were received. When the Par- 
 liament was moved to admit the Papal Canon, 
 which Legitimates Children born before Mar- 
 riage, provided the Perfons were married 
 afterwards : All the Earls and Barons an- 
 fwer'd with one Voice, that they would not 
 change the Laws of England that have been 
 hitherto ufed and approved, f 
 
 The Pope, as Head of the Church, pre- 
 tends to be the * Ordinary of Ordinaries, 
 and the Collator of Collators. Notwith- 
 ftanding which by the Statutes of Provifors, 
 all Perfons were prohibited to procure or 
 accept of any Ecclefiaftical Dignities, or 
 Benefices from the Pope, by Collations, 
 Provifions, or Refervations, under the pain of 
 being imprifoned, till they had made Fine 
 and Ranfom at the King's Pleafure, &c. 
 i<$th Edw. III. and of being banimed, and 
 their Goods and Cattels confifcated, i%tb 
 Rich. II. *ch. 2. Nay, all Licences from 
 the King to execute fuch Provifions, are 
 declared void by the jth Hen. IV. ch. 8, 
 and the Difturbers by fuch Provifions, not- 
 withftanding the King's Licences, incurred 
 a Pr&nmmre 
 
 f 20tb Htrt. III. f. 9. 
 
 * 'See P. Simon'* #//?. / EC clejtaftiatl Revenues p, 86. 
 
 As
 
 . Ar> for the Bulls of Popes, they have been 
 as little regarded. Their Bulls to exempt 
 Religion sPerfons from Obedience, by the ^d. 
 Hen. IV. c. 3, and .their Bulls to difcharge 
 the Ci fter dans or other Pejrfons,. from the 
 payment of Tythes by the ^d. Hen. IV. 
 c. 8. the jtb. Hen. IV. c. 6. were declared 
 void-, And thofe that purchafed, or put in 
 Execution the (aid Bulls, incurred a Pr<c- 
 inunire. Even thofe Bulls, wherein the 
 Popes enforced their LegUlative by their 
 Coercive Power, their Bulls of Excom- 
 munication, were declared to be of no force 
 in England by all the Judges, as appears 
 in the Tear Books Btb. Hen. VI. fol. 3. 
 I 2 ffr. Edw. IV. fol. 1 6. and' i/?. Hen. VII, 
 fol. ii. And any Perfons that purchafed, or 
 executed the Popes Bulls of : Excommunica- 
 tion ag-unft the Bilhops of England, for exe- 
 cuting Sentences .given in the King's Courts, 
 incurr'd a Prxmnnire by the ifctb. Rich. II, 
 ch. 5. And tfiofe that brought Summons, 
 or Excommunications into die Realm in 
 Derogation of the Statutes of \Provifors, 
 Forfeited all their 'Lands and Tenements, 
 Goods and Chattels for eyer,. and incur- 
 red the pain of Life and Member by the 
 r%tb. Rich. II. ch. 5. And therefore in the 
 Oath, which the Pope's Collettor in En- 
 g/^Wwas obliged to take, amongfl other 
 
 things,
 
 C -9] 
 
 things, there were Two Claufes that be 
 would not execute, nor ftiffer to be executed 
 any Papal Bulls, or Mandates that were 
 prejudicial to the King, or his Regality , 
 his Laws, or the Kingdom. 
 
 And that he would immediately deliver to 
 the Kind's Council all the Letters he jhoidd 
 receive from the Pope, or any at her Perfon, be- 
 fore he publijhed them, f or delivered them to 
 any Perfon living. 
 
 Before any Bifhop's Temporalties were 
 reftored, he was obliged to Renounce 
 upon ' Oath all the Words, contained 
 in the PopSs Bull, that were prejudicial 
 to the King and Us Crown : As 
 well as to lake the Oath of Homage 
 to the Kin T~~Afcer which the Writ was 
 
 f Nullam executionem literamm vel mandatorum Do- 
 mini Pap i pel me, vel aiium iaciam, nee fieri pennittam, 
 quae poteiit elle pr , judicially Regi* Majeilati dicti Do- 
 mini noilri Regis, aut Regali^. ,legi'oub', vel juribus'fuis, 
 vel eidem Regno. 
 
 INiullasLiteias Papales nee alias recipiam,nifi eas citius, 
 quo potero, deliberavero Concilio dicti Domini noitri 
 Regis antequam pxiblicentur, teu deliberentur ahcui 
 perlon viventi. Focdera,Conventiones, &c.Tom. 8. p. 86. 
 
 * The Form ol tlic O^th vf Rcnunci*:iOa. I /t/.o</,t\ 
 Word*, cemprized in the Pcpei Bull, made unto me of the B/]b<p- uk 
 of E+thcsobuh Ire contrary and prejudicial to the King, our S"Vt:rcign 
 Z.ov/ and t'i his Crown. 7b* Xfak of'Qtths p. r 57. 
 
 t Eo quod idem Epifcopus omnibus & fingulis verbis, 
 in didis literis Eullatis comentis, nobis & Corona 
 
 iffued
 
 iftued out for the Reftitution of his Tem> 
 poralties. 
 
 When Pope Boniface VIII. fent a Moni- 
 tory Bull to King <:/#. L to defift from 
 his War againft Scotland, pretending the 
 Sovereignty of that Kingdom was held of 
 the Apoftolick See - 5 The Lords, afTembled 
 in Parliament, declare in a Letter to the 
 Pope, That their Sovereign Lord the King 
 is, by no means obliged to acknowledge the 
 Papers Jurifdiflion^ or fubmit to his Sen- 
 tence with refpett to the Sovereignty of 
 Scotland, cr indeed in any other temporal 
 Matter whatsoever, f And in one of the 
 Statutes of Premunire, for bringing, or pur- 
 fuing any Papal Inftruments of Procefs, 
 or Sentences of Excommunication for Exe- 
 cuting the King's Commands, &c. It is 
 declared, that the Crown 0/England, which 
 hath been fo free at all times^ that it loath 
 been in no Earthly SubjeElion^ but immedi- 
 ately fubjeft to God in all Things, touching 
 
 prjjudicialibus, palam & expreffe renunciavit Anno Reg- 
 ni Rich, fecundi zi. Fcedera Conventiones, &c. Fol. 8. 
 p. zo. 
 
 f Quod prarfatus Dominus nofter Rex fuper juribus 
 Regni iui Scoti >-, aut aliis iuis Temporal ibus nullatenus 
 judicialiter relpondeat coram vobis, nee judiciuin lubeat 
 quoquo modo, &c Foedera, Conventiones &c.Tom. i. p. 
 oT$*fignedl>y aeout tin Hundred Erls t & b*int. 
 
 tht
 
 C 31 ] 
 
 the Regality of the fame Crown ^ and to n 
 other , ought not to be fubmitted to the Pope, 
 And the Lords Spiritual as well as the 
 Lords Temporal, and the Commons en- 
 gage, that they will and ought to be with 
 the King in thofe Cafes, in lawfully main- 
 taining of his Crown, and in all other Cafes 
 touching his Crown and his Regality, as 
 they be bound by their Ligeance. i6th. 
 Rich. II. ch. I could, were it neceffary, 
 produce from our Hiftories, and Laws, a 
 great many more Inftances of the fame 
 kind. But thefe are fufficient to convince the 
 Remarker, that our Popifh Anceftors had not 
 that Deference he imagines they had, to the 
 Authority of the Popes>in all their Encroach- 
 ments : That they had no Deference at all to 
 their Authority in Temporal Matters : And 
 that it was not upon Papal Abfolutions, as he 
 fuppofes, that they took Oaths of Allegiance 
 to Kings de fatfo. 
 
 Laftly, The Government was generally 
 fettled, and the People had fubmitted, be- 
 fore there was any time for the Pope's In- 
 tervention. 
 
 What time had the Pope tointerpofe,when 
 W. Rufus was kill'd the fecond of Auguft 
 in Newf ore/I, buried the third at Winchefter, 
 
 where
 
 where ^H^wjl.was chofen the fourth day, 
 and Crowned the fifth f at London^ and 
 the whole Nation itn mediately fubmitted 
 to him ? What Room was there here for 
 the Pope's Interpofition, or Difpenfation .<? 
 
 All England is faid, by Henry of Hnn~ 
 tin^ton^ to have fubmitted to Stephen in the 
 twinkling f of an Eye, who was Crowned, 
 faith William of Malmjbnry, the Twenty 
 fecond Day after the Death of Henry I. All 
 Was over without the Pope's Interpofition, 
 who in his Bull afterwards took notice of 
 his Election by the Nobility and Common?. 
 
 But the Re marker faith, 'that Henry VII. 
 got bis Title tnnce confirmed by the Pope 
 p. 22. which is true : But it is as true, 
 
 * Occifo vero Rege "Willielmo, poft jufta funeri regio 
 perfoluta in Regem Ele/ius, (Henricus fcil. primus) 
 aliquafttis tanien ante controveriiis inter proceres agitatis 
 atque ibpitis.W. Malmsb. Hift. 1. 5. fol.88. 
 
 ^ Quapropter certatim plaufu plebeio concrepante in 
 Regem coionatus eft Londoniae: Nonis Auguili 410 poft 
 obitum fratris die. Ibid. 
 
 Vid. Hen.Huntindon 1. 7. fol. z6. b. Hoved in Henrico I. 
 f. z68. b. plenario tontenfu & confilio totius communita- 
 tis Regni iplum fc. Robertum refutaverunt & Henricuin 
 f rat re in in Regem erexerunt. H. de Knyghron col. 22,74. 
 
 * Repente omms Anglia fine inora, line kibore quaii 
 iftu oculi ei (Stephano lc.) fubjecta eft, Hen. Huntind. 1. 8. 
 fol. zzi.b. 
 
 Coronatus eft ergo in regem AngHae Stephanus undeci- 
 mo Kalendas Januani Dominica riceiima tecunda die poft, 
 cxceffum avunculi. \V. Malmf. Hift. Novell, l.i.r'.ioi. 
 
 that
 
 ..-. 
 
 that he did riot procure even the firft Bull 
 in Confirmation of his Title, till the fecond 
 Year of his Reign, long before which time 
 the whole Nation had fubinitted to him, 
 and the Parliament entailed the Crown on 
 him, and the Iflue of his Body, which was 
 done in the firft Parliament, and firft Year 
 of his Reign. So that the Remarked own 
 Inftance is againft him, and proves, as well 
 as thofe which I have given, that in fubmit- 
 ting to thofe Kings, they a&ed as Englifo 
 Men, not as Papifts. 
 
 But whilft the Remarker is giving Rea- 
 fons, why the People might, and ought 
 to, have fubmitted, he is endeavouring to 
 prove, that fome did not fubmit, or that the 
 Submiflion was not fo univerfal, as I have 
 reprefented it, and as he, at other times him- 
 felf feems to grant it was, and ought to have 
 been. I had faid, that in all thefe Thirteen 
 Reigns of Non-hereditary Kings, I did not 
 know there were any Non-jurors to be found. 
 Before thefe Anfwers to my Book were 
 publifh'd, I was told by fome of my old 
 Friends, that IJhould find there were Non- 
 jurors heretofore , and I believe, fome ex- 
 peeled a long Lift of Lords Spiritual, Lords 
 Temporal, and Commons, who had re- 
 fufed Oaths of Fidelity in every one of thofe 
 
 t S the Ltrd Bacon* ttft. of ffc 7 Vll. 
 
 D Reigns :
 
 E343 
 
 Reigns : But they may now fee, after the Re- 
 marker's Inquiries thro'out all thofe Thirteen 
 Reigns,he has been fcarce able to name Thir- 
 teen Non-jurors*, and when I have examined 
 thofe he has named, they may find that Moft, if 
 not All were certainly no Nonjurors, and that 
 he has not been able clearly to prove One of 
 them was fo. 
 
 I began with William I. and * proved Oaths 
 of Fidelity were univerfally taken to him.The 
 Remarker f thinks the Tejlimony 0f Ingulph 
 which lalledged doth not prove this. It proves 
 what I alledged it for J hat the Conqueror iffu- 
 ed out an Order for every Inhabitant of Eng- 
 land tofwear Fealty t-o bim,as well a& all their 
 Lands to be meafured and value d.l added,that 
 we bear not of one Refufer 5 nor has the Re- 
 marker been able to produce one.He would in- 
 deed have the Abbot of St. Albans to be a Non- 
 juror. What did he refufe to take an Oath of 
 Fealty to ^.William I > No,but he offered oppo- 
 fition to Duke William.He may as well reckon 
 Harold's Army for Non-jurors, who oppofed 
 Duke William when he Invaded England-^ and 
 yet as well as others that oppofed him, fub- 
 mitted to him, after he was King of England. 
 So that I may ftill fay, we do not yet hear of 
 one Refufer amongft all hisSubjefts.But what 
 can be more exprefs, than Hovederfs Tefti- 
 
 * View f. 2. t Remarks f . I $. * Remarks f.m. 
 
 mony,
 
 C 35 J 
 
 inony, which I produced at the fame time, 
 * Tte &^ rr^v/f Men and Tenants by Kniihfs 
 
 o </ o 
 
 Service fwore Fealty to him at Saliibury.<? But 
 of this the Remarker has taken no notice : To 
 thefe I will only add oneTeftimonyof William 
 of Malmjbury, who faith, f that William 7. 
 withoitt any oppofition bound all the Freehol- 
 der sjwhatfoever their Tenure was, by an Oath 
 of Fidelity to him : and another of Ranufyb 
 Higden, who, f peaking of fome of the greateft 
 Men of the Nation, faith, all || thefe, with 
 the reft of the Nobility having given Hofta- 
 ges, and fworn Fealty, fubmittea to the Con- 
 queror. 
 
 I could by the like pofitive Teflimonies of 
 the moil Authentick Hiftorians prove, that the 
 People of England Submitted, and took Oaths 
 to fuch of his Succeflbrs, who came to the 
 Throne as he did,without an Hereditary Ti- 
 tle. As to his immediate SuccefTor, William 
 Rufus, He, as Brotnfton f relates it, was ad- 
 vanced to the Throne in a great Council of 
 the Kingdom. After which the ivhole Nation 
 chearfully fubmitted to his Government, a?id 
 took Oaths of Fealty to him, as William of 
 
 * View jp. z. 
 
 ^ Ut line ulla contradidione omnes liberos homines 
 cuiufcunque effent, fuse fidelitati facramento adigeret. de 
 Wdlielmo I. f. 59. b. 
 
 || Hi omnes cum caeteris nobilibus, datis obfidibus, cum 
 fidelitate ei jurata,manus ei dederunt.Polychron. 1.6. in fine. 
 
 t Convocatis Terrae Magnatibus Col. 98?. 
 
 D 2 Malmftury,
 
 * Malm/bury, and the Annals of f Waverley 
 afTure us. 
 
 But I am unwilling to tire the Reader 
 with what is riot neceflary, for thofe who 
 are well flailed in the Englifh Hiftory 
 know this to be true , and thofe who are 
 not, will be convinced of it, when they 
 (hall fee, that thofe few, whom the Re- 
 marker has gleaned for Non-jurors thro' all 
 thefe Reigns, are after all no Non-jurors. 
 
 I faid || there had been Revolters in fome 
 of thofe Reigns, and the Remarker's Non- 
 jurors will I believe prove to be no better, 
 and fome of them, thofe very Perfons whom 
 I named, or had in my Eye, when I faid fo. 
 Odo Bifhop of Baieux^ who was the chief 
 Author of the Revolt from William Rufus^ 
 had aflifted at his Coronation, as Earl of 
 Kent, and Judiciary of England -^ and muft, 
 as well the great Men whom he drew in- 
 to his Party, have fworn Allegiance to 
 William Rufus ^ otherwife their Revolt 
 could not, as I faid, 4. have been charged 
 
 * Moxque volentibus animis Provincialium exceptm 
 eft,& claves Thefaurorum naftus eft, quibus fretus totam 
 Angliam aninio fubjecit fuo. De ITjllislmo n. 1. 4. p. 67. 
 
 t Omnis gens Angliae ei fubdita eft, & fidelitatem ju- 
 ravit. Ad An, 1087. 
 
 with
 
 [ 5.7 1 
 
 with Perjury, as it is by the Archdeacon 
 of Huntington. 
 
 But the Remarker will not have this Re- 
 volt charged with Perjury, but calPd * R^- 
 pentance. However this Teftimony proves, 
 they had taken Oaths of Fidelity (which 
 was what I alledged it for)otherwife there had 
 been no colour for the Charge of Perjury. And 
 whilft the Remarker ftiles it Repentance, 
 he feems to have overlook'd my Citation 
 f from William of Malms bury :, which thews, 
 that Ambition, Picque, and Difcontent, 
 were the Springs of this Rebellion. But 
 let not thefe Perfons Hand, or fall by 
 the Remarker's judgment, or mine :, let us 
 rather hear, what judgment our Ancient 
 Englifh Hiftorians have parted upon Them, 
 and their Enterprife. 
 
 William of || Malmsbmy calls It a Revolt , 
 and Perfidioufnefs^ and Them Renegade?*, 
 and perfidious Perfons. The Archdeacon of 
 
 * Remtrktp. 21. 
 
 \ View?. 3. . 
 
 || Ita totis defeflionis viribus in eum cui nee piudentia 
 necfortuna deerat, fruftra i'acviebatur. De Willidmo fe- 
 eundo. 1. 4. fol. 68. 
 
 Qiijentiam \Villielmus Dunelmenfis Epifcopus, quern 
 Rex afecretis habuerat, in eorum ferji4iam conceiierat. 
 ibid. fol. 67. b. 
 
 Defertores, ferfidos ibid. b. p. 68. 
 
 D 3
 
 [38] 
 
 * Huntington brands It with the Note of 
 Wickednefs, Perjury, and Rebellion, and gives 
 Them the CharaEler of Tractors zndfoitblefs 
 Perfons. Roger de Hoveden f calls it an 
 execrable FaEl, the Treafon of the Normans. 
 And having defcribed their Confpiracy, he 
 fays, Odo Btfiop of Baienx, Geoffry Bifoop 
 of ConjlanSy and Roger Earl of Shrewsbury, 
 &c. were the chief Authors of this accurfed 
 Enter 'pri&e. 
 
 The Annals cfWaverley || compare Odo's 
 Treachery againft the King, to thai, tf/'Judas 
 Ifcariot againft our Bleffed Saviour. And 
 almoft every one of thefe Hiftorians have 
 obferved, that the famous * Wulflan Bifhop 
 of Worcefler^ who was efleem'd the Ho- 
 lieft Perfon of his time, efpoufed the King's 
 Caufe with the greateft Fidelity and Zeal. 
 
 * Non fmeferjurio bellum moventes. 1. 7 .fol. 2ij. 
 
 Rogenis in caftello Nordaic fceleris exercitium non 
 fegnius inchoavif ib. Gilebertxis ei rebellabat ib. Rex ve 
 ro terras infidelium fidelibus fuis diftribuit ib. Epifcopus 
 vero multique proditontm propulfi funt in Exiliuin ib. 
 
 f Execralile faclum, Traditionem Normannorum. Roger 
 de Hoveden in Wiltidmo jvniore. fol. 268. b. 
 
 Hujus*crtmfe rei principesextiterunt.OdoBaiocencis 
 Epifcopus, Gaufridus &c. ib. 
 
 || Iple verb volebat Regi quemadmodum Judas Ifcariot 
 fecit Servatori noftio. Annal. Waver, ad An. 1088. 
 
 * Wulftanus in fanftitate noitro faeculo noininatiffi- 
 mus. W. Mdlmjb.de Efifcopis W^gcvnienfilus. 
 
 By
 
 C 39 1 
 
 By this time the Remarker may beconvirr 
 ced, that Odo and his Party were not Nofi- 
 jurors, and were fo far from being efteemed 
 Penitents by our Hiftorians of greateft 
 Antiquity and Note, that they are fet forth 
 by them in the blackeft Colours, and ftigma- 
 tized for Revolters :> and confequently, that 
 the Notions of Government in the Ages where- 
 in they wrote,were very different from the Re- 
 marker's : f That Subjects then believed Alle- 
 legiance, and Oaths of Allegiance, were due to 
 the Regnant Prince, and that it was a very 
 heinous Crime to revolt from him, and their 
 Oaths, tho' it were in favour of a lineal 
 Heir. It may be obferved, that thefe Hifto- 
 rians (except the Compiler of that part of the 
 Annals of Waverley) did not write under 
 William fef/wj, but the Two firft of them in 
 the Reign of Henry II. and the Hid. in that of 
 Henry III. 
 
 The Remarker doth not deny, that Robert 
 Earl of Glocefter took an Oath to King 
 Stephen, and doth not pretend to find any 
 more Non-jurors, till he conies to Hen.lVtb's. 
 Reign. 
 
 As for Thomas Merk, Bifhop off Carlifle, who 
 as I faid, accepted, and pleaded K.Hen. \Vths. 
 Pardon, which is extant in Rymer's f Fa- 
 dera, I urged it to the QbjeBor as an Argu- 
 
 t Epifcopi Karlioleniis de omnimodis Proditionibus 
 Pardonatio. &c. Fcedera ConventionesT. VIII. p. 165. 
 
 D 4 ment
 
 [40 ] 
 
 rnent ad Hominem, who faid, he could nek 
 believe fo great a Man had made fuch an 
 acknowledgment of Henry the IFtb^sAuthon- 
 r^.But certainly his obeying that King's Sum- 
 mons to Parliament, and doing all that was 
 required of the Lords, at that time,in order 
 to their Admiffion, and Sefiion in Parlia- 
 ment :, and his fitting in that Parliament, 
 where fo many Ads of Richard II. and the 
 whole Parliament of the a I ft of his Reign 
 was repealed, was much more : And whether 
 he could be a Member of H. IVth's Par- 
 liament, and not a Subject of his Govern- 
 ment, I leave to the ObjeEior, and the 
 Reader to determine. 
 
 The Remarker goes on. The fame may be 
 faid for Richard Scroop Archbijbof) tf/'York, 
 (here the Remarker cites his Declaration 
 again ft K. H. IV. and faith upon it) would 
 the Archbijbop have thits lain before the Peo- 
 ple the heinoufnefs of Perjury ,and violation of 
 Oaths, if he hadfworn to K. Henry <? If 
 be had done fo, he had been felf condemned. 
 * That I cannot help , the Remarktr muft 
 look to that, but I doubt not, notwithfland- 
 ing all he has faid, to prove againft him, that 
 Archbifhop Scroop acknowledged H. IVth's 
 Authority, and was as zealous in his Service, 
 as any of the reft of his Subjects. 
 
 17. 
 
 rle
 
 "i * He was one ofthofe who went to the 
 Tower to King Richard, to put him in 
 mind of his Promife to quit the Govern- 
 ment, and was conflituted one of the King's 
 Proxies to declare his Renunciation, f He 
 affifted at the Coronation of K. H. IV. at 
 which time, he tmtft take the Oath of Ho- 
 mage to him. He a {lifted at the great 
 Council || which K. H. IV. fummoned in 
 the firft Year of his Reign, to demand Aids. 
 of the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal againft 
 his Adverfaries,the Kings of France,zndScot- 
 land, who were making Preparations of War 
 againft him.In which Council this Archbifhop 
 of Torky * as well as the Archbifhop of Can- 
 terbury, and other Bifhops, granted the 
 King a Tenth to fuppoit him in this War, 
 which was undertaken by Charles IX. of 
 France, in order to reftore his Father in 
 Law, R/Vtov/IL who was then alive ||. In 
 the fifth Year of this King's Reign, the 
 Archbifhop's Name (lands firfl in the Lift 
 
 * Collier Ecclef. Hift. p. 606. 
 t Ibid. p. 609. 
 
 || Rymen Foedera &c. Tom. VIII. p. 115, iz6. 
 Memoranda de magno Concilio &c. 
 
 * Les Ercevefques de Canterbiri & 
 fland foremoft in- toe Lift of ^d? Everwick 
 
 tbePerfons, who at tins great Council granted tie King Ati for 
 this War. 
 
 \ Collier's Ecclef. Hift. p. 6ij. 
 
 Of
 
 C 42 3 
 
 of the Privy * Counfellors, who were com- 
 miffioued to treat on the King's Part, with 
 the Earl of Northumberland, about the Ex- 
 change of Caftles, Lands, <Stc. The Re- 
 marker, it feerns, knew nothing of all this, 
 and therefore proceeds. 
 
 And as be in all probability was a Non- 
 juror, fo dottbtlefs were mofl of his Party, 
 for it -would have argued great rveaknefs in 
 him, to impart his great Dejig?i of refloring 
 K.R/V&. again ft Henry thelVth.in pof/effionjin- 
 lefs his Partisans had been Men of the fame 
 principles with himfelf, that is, either Non- 
 jttrors,or true Penitents, f The Remarker 
 here goes no higher than probability. Is not 
 this at beft, to give us Conjectures inftead 
 of Hiftory? He might e'en as well have taken 
 the 'Natural Born Snbjetts fhort Hiftorical 
 way,who a.ysjhatwe muft fitppofe the Oppo- 
 Jrj,whom,in the nextfentence,he calls P&n- 
 complyers, were likewtfe Non-jurors, at leaft^ 
 fame of them , || but Suppofals and Hilto- 
 ry are very different Things. 
 
 But what does the Remarker mean, when 
 he talks of Archbijbop Scroop'j- great De- 
 
 * Fcedera Conventiones, &c. Tom, 8. p. 364. 
 
 t Rewarkerp. 18. 
 '] LeJffr jf>. 40, 41.
 
 [ 43 ] 
 
 fign of reftoring K. RickarJ, who was 
 murther'd five Years before this Defign > For 
 Richard's Death was in the firft Year of K. 
 H. IV. and the Archbiftiop's Conspiracy was 
 not till thefixth Year of that Kinp;. 
 
 But let us now come to the ArMifiop*$ 
 Party, who, as the Remarker faith, were 
 doubtlefs mofl of them 'Non-jurors too-^ and 
 they were indeed much fuch Non-jurors, 
 as the Archbifhop himfelf. The Earl of 
 Northumberland-^ his Son, the Lord Piercy , 
 commonly called Henry Hotfpur , his Bro- 
 ther the Earl of Worcefler , the Bifhop of 
 Bangor ^ and the Lord Bardolpb were, with 
 the Archbifhop,the Heads of the Party. The 
 Earl of Northumberland, and his Son Henry 
 Hotfpur joyn'd H. IV. when he * was Duke 
 of Lancafter, immediately upon his land- 
 ing ztRavenfpur in Torkftire^ and march'd 
 with him againft K. Ricoafd -, went with 
 Archbifhop Scroop to that King, to put him 
 in mind of his Promife to refign: Had 
 f the Ifle of Man given to him, and his 
 Heirs, by K. Henry IV. to hold by the 
 Service of carrying the Lancafter Sword at 
 the Coronation of the King, and his Heirs $ 
 
 * Collier Ecclef. Hift. <5or. 
 
 t Rjmeri Foedera Tom. p. 89, 90, 91. Ibid. 116. 
 
 and
 
 [44 ] 
 
 and was made Conftable of England for his 
 great Services : || And at the great Council 
 aforefaid, engaged to aflift the King with 
 ninety Men, and Twenty Archers. As for 
 his Brother, the Earl of Worcefter :, it appears 
 by a Paflage in the fame great Council, that 
 he was K. H. IVth's Ainbaflador to the 
 King of France : And by the Subfcriptions, 
 in the Council fo often mention'd, we find, 
 that the Bifhop of Bangor granted the King 
 a Tenth, and the Lord Eardolfh engaged 
 to ferve the King in Perfon, without Pay, in, 
 his War againft France. 
 
 He adds, 'tis to be hoped, Mr. H. will 
 not deny thofe Four to be Nonjurors, * who 9 
 as mentioned by Stow, p. 32. oppofed Henry 
 the IVths. being made King^ which they 
 might very well do, and yet fubrait to him 
 after he was fo. Their Oppofition to him 
 before he was made King, is no manner of 
 proof of their Non-fubmiflion afterwards. 
 
 Was not, f faith the Remarker, Owen 
 Glendour, the famous Welfi Captain, who 
 maintain da War agoing H. IV. in behalf of 
 his lawful King, a Non-juror .<? 
 
 The Remarker feems here to be in Uto- 
 pia. Whom doth he mean, by this lawful 
 
 Rymer's Faedera, &c 
 r. 19.
 
 C45 3 
 
 King, on whofe behalf Glendow maintain* da 
 War again/I K. H. IV? Doth he mean 
 K. Richard II ? He was dead before 
 Glendoitr took Arras : Nay, before K. H. IV. 
 went into Scotland, when GKndour, as 
 Mr. Collier * faith, took advantage of that 
 King's Abfence, and raifed a Rebellion > 
 Doth he mean then, Edward Mortimer Earl 
 of March ? He took the Field for Henry IV. 
 againft Owen Glsndour^ who made him 
 Prifoner, as the fame Hiftorian obferves. 
 And, as both Sir John f Hay-ward* and 
 Stow || tell us, put him in Irons ^ and cajl 
 him into a deep and vile Dungeon. 
 
 Owen Glendoitr's War, which the Re- 
 marker feems to juftify, began with a Riot, 
 and ended in Rebellion, which is the Name 
 Mr. Collier gives it. And Stow, and Sir 
 John Hay ward give us botli the occafiory- 
 and defign of his Rebellion : The former 
 takes notice, that * he had a Controverfy 
 with Reginald Lord Grey of Ruthine, and 
 becaufe he was not favoured in bis Caufe, 
 he began frjl tofyoilthat Lord's Lands, <3cc. 
 
 * Collier Ecclef. 614. 
 Ib. 678. 
 
 t Lift of K. H. IV. i 4? . 
 )| Stowf. 327. 
 
 * Stow p. 3Z5. 
 
 And
 
 [4*1 
 
 And the latter * gives him the Charader of 
 an ill Man, and faith, he and thofe Welfj 
 that ]oynd him , defigrfd to recover 
 their Freedom and throw off the Englift 
 Government. And fo much for the Re- 
 marker *s famous Welft Captain. 
 
 As for Frisby the Monk's Anfwer, it is 
 not fufiicient to prove he had never fub- 
 mitted, no more than Archbimop Scroop's 
 Declaration proves he was a Non-juror. 
 Befides, this was in irfe ^d. Year of H. IVth's. 
 Reign, two Years after the Death of Rich. II. 
 when there was no Claim fet up a^ainft 
 H. IV. 
 
 Well ! But if they were not ~Non-jurors, he 
 will have them to be Penitents, as repenting 
 of their raft and unadvifed Oaths, and re- 
 turning to their Allegiance -, as a Teft of their 
 Repentance, f I anfwer ift. The Remarker 
 himfelf will not efteem thofe Penitents, 
 that aded upon fuch Motives, as the Earl 
 of Northumberland, and his Son Lord 
 Piercy, and his Brother, the Earl viWorcejler 
 did, who, as Holingfiead relates, in the Be~ 
 ginning of his Reign, were faithful Friends, 
 and earneji Aiders of K. H. (and I have 
 
 Life o\ Henry IV. p. 140. 
 Remarks p. 1$. 
 
 proved^
 
 C47] 
 
 proved, they were fo from Authentiek Me- 
 moirs,) but began now to envy bis Wealth 
 and Felicity - 5 and especially they were grieved^ 
 because the King demanded ofthe Earl andbis 
 Son,fuch Scotch Prifoners^ as were taken at 
 Homeldon and Weftmoreland , which they 
 claimed as their Prize -, * (being the Kings 
 Generals in thofe Actions.) 1 I will not fay, 
 that all revolted upon the fame Motives j 
 but whatever were their Motives, that their 
 Revolt was unjuflifiable, I dare appeal to 
 Mr. Colliery nav, to the Rewarker him- 
 felf. 
 
 Mr. Collier, after he had taken notice of 
 the Earl of March's unfortunate Expedi- 
 tion again ft Glendour, in Defence ofK. H. IV. 
 adds, and tho* this Earl upon a Difgufl 
 for not being ranfomed, engaged afterwards 
 with that Weljb Gentleman^ againfl the 
 King : Yet it does not appear, that hefet 
 up any Claim to the Crown. And in the 
 next Reign, when Richard Earl ^/Cambridge, 
 who married the Daughter (it f fhould 
 be Sifter) of this Earl of March, form d a 
 Defign to difpoj/efs King Henry, and fet 
 
 Holing(head]>. $21. 
 
 Annne Wife to Richard E*rl /Cambti(?ge, . the Siftr, 
 Mortimcf Tbrl j MarcS, 
 
 we
 
 [48: 
 
 the Crown upon Jots Father in Law's * Head. 
 The Earl 0/'March wasfo far from ajfferting 
 his Right, and abetting the Enterprise, 
 that he immediately went to King Henry V. 
 and made a Difeovery. Now the Branches 
 of March and York, letting their Claim 
 fleep all this while ^ the SubjeBs had no 
 reafon to begin a War, or quarrel the Go- 
 vernment in the Honfe 0/Lancafter. f What 
 then becomes of Bifliop Merk, of Archbifhop 
 Scroop, with the Earl of Northumberland, 
 and the reft of that Party, of Frijfy, and all 
 the Revohers of this Reign? It is certainly 
 no final 1 Crime for Subjects to begin a War 
 with their Prince, and throw a Nation into 
 Blood and Confufion, when they had no 
 reafon for it, and this was what they did, 
 and what they had no reafon to do, as 
 Mr. Collier has ftated the Cafe of this, and 
 the next Reign, and he might have added 
 of H. Vlth's. Reign too. But all thefe Re- 
 vohers the Remarks has produced, are con- 
 demned by his own Principle too, vix. That 
 
 * Itjbmld be, Brother in Lav's Head. Ecclef. Hift. p. 678. 
 
 We hwealjo this account of the *r/ of March V difuvery of 
 tkit Confyiracy to King Henry V. in Stow, p. 346. But I often 
 fhuje to cite Mr. ColherV Efde/taftieal Mflory, when I could cite 
 other Hiftorianty becauft the Rcmarker will not fufpett, that 
 Mr. C hat tgl&td thttftdt of tfa guejlitn t whishbe mtintain,. 
 
 Kings
 
 [49] 
 
 Kings de fado claiming as de jure, ("as he 
 fays, all our Kings de fadlo did) /j, if there 
 were no other ^ a good Reafon for the Sub- 
 jecls not refufing tofwear Allegiance to them. 
 And will he fay, thofe Subjeds had good rea- 
 fon to repent of Oaths of Allegiance, which 
 they had good reafon to take, and there- 
 fore good reafon to keep ? Or that they 
 are true Penitents by revolting from fuch 
 Oaths, and the Princes to whom they took 
 them ? Let him mew how they can be at the 
 fame timeinexcufableRevolters, and true Pe- 
 nitents. And could he have produced Non-ju- 
 rors,he had produced them only to condemn 
 them, for refufing to take Oaths of Alle- 
 giance, which in another place, he fays, 
 they had good reafon not to refufe. 
 
 The Remarker however, is fo well pleas'd 
 
 with his Argument on this Head, that at 
 
 the end of his Book, he refumes it, and 
 
 goes over again with thefe Non-jurors, in a 
 
 Lift of Queries. He fays in his Preface, 
 
 / have at we end of the Remarks added 
 
 fome Queries, which may be ofUfe, and give 
 
 light to fome Pajjages in the Book , but I am 
 
 aware jt will be faid by fome captious Reader s y 
 
 that I forget my f elf ^ bee ait Je I prcpofe fome 
 
 things by way of Queries, that were urg'd 
 
 m the Remarks as Arguments to prove^ that 
 
 there were anciently fuch People, as we now 
 
 E call
 
 fall Non-jurors, 6tc. but I can affure them, 
 there is no fitch matter. I did not forget 
 my felf\ byt did it defignedly^ and for re a- 
 fons be/I knor&n to my felf 9 which I am refolv'd^ 
 I 'will not give,. Trie Remarker faith,he will 
 not give us his Reafons for adding thefe 
 .Queries, after he had told us a little before, 
 that he added them, that they may give light 
 tofome Pajfages in the Book. Thefe Paf- 
 fages do not want light, we underftand 
 them well enough, but ftrength , and that 
 the Queries do not afford 'em. But what- 
 foever the Remarked Reafons were for pro- 
 ppfing thefe Queries, which he is refolved 
 not to tell us, if the Testimonies I have 
 given him, are not taken from Utopian, but 
 Englifli Hiftory, he had very good reafon 
 to have fparedboth his Remarks^ and his Que- 
 ries about Noti-jurors of firmer Reigns. How- 
 ever, tho' he has, I ihall not repeat the fame 
 things, for the Reply J have made to his Re- 
 marks, will be an Anfwer to all that is 
 pertinent in his Queries. 
 
 I faid that the Partizans of the Houfe of 
 York * took Oaths of Allegiance to the three 
 Henries^ that the Heir of that Fatnily, 
 Richard Duke of York, had feveral times 
 
 Jworn
 
 fworn Allegiance to King H. the VI. parti- 
 cularly , in the iytb Tear of his Reign^ and 
 this I added, because no Body T fuppofcd, 
 would fufpeft that any would fcruple to 
 take Oaths to King Henry. VI. upon the 
 fcore of a Perfon, who had himfelf fworn 
 Allegiance to him. The Remarker doth not 
 pretend to produce any one that refufed 
 the Oaths in this Reign nor does he deny, 
 that the Duke of Tork himfelf did fwear 
 Allegiance to King Henry VI. He only dif- 
 putes the confeqiience, that I drew from 
 his long Sub million, and repeated Oaths of 
 Fidelity, and faith, he did not by fwearing 
 give up his Right,which fhall be confider'd in 
 its proper place, the Queftion here, being 
 only this, Whether he, and all the Partizans 
 of that Houfe, had lived in Subjection, and 
 taken Oaths of Fidelity to King H. VI. 
 which the Remarker grants. So that I have, 
 I think, fufficiently made good what I af- 
 ferted in the View, that it has been the 
 cuftom and itfage of the Sub] e Els of this 
 Realm to fubmitj and take Oaths to Non-He- 
 reditary ^ as well as to Hereditary Kings ^ 
 and the Remarked* fruitlefs Enquiries after 
 Non-jurors in thefe Reigns, have orly ferved 
 for a further confirmation of this Aflertion. 
 
 Having proved this univerfd Subraiflion , 
 
 I added, that if the Subjects had thereby 
 
 E 2 acknow-
 
 [53] 
 
 acknowledged an Authority which the Laws 
 condemned, we fhould then have found 
 this Authority difowned in the fucceeding 
 Reigns of Kings de jure. But inflead of 
 this, we find Kings de jure In their Courts 
 of Judicature, and their Afts of Parliament 
 acknowledging this Authority, to which 
 tlie Subjects before had fworn, and paid 
 their Allegiance -, for the truth of which, I 
 appealed to the common Law, and ftatute 
 Law of the Realm j to the Tear Books for 
 the one , and the Statute Book for the other : 
 Which reduced this Controverfy to matter 
 of Fad. 
 
 From the Common Law, I produced fe- 
 veral Cafes, ( I could have produced many 
 more) out of the Tear Books of the Reigns 
 of Kings de jure, wherein their Judges de- 
 clared, that all Pleas, Adions,d^. that were de- 
 pending in the Courts of their immediate Pre- 
 deceflbrs, Kings defaElo, were difcontinued by 
 their Deaths -, in the fame manner,as the Judges 
 of Kings dejure, declared the Actions, &c. de- 
 pending in the Courts of their immediate Pre- 
 deceftbrs, Kings de jure, were difcontinued 
 by their Deaths , and confequently hereby 
 acknowledged, the Laws were as legally 
 adminiftred by the Authority of Kings de 
 fafto, as they were by Kings de jure. The 
 f marker's Anfwer to this is, that tbefe 
 
 L.tws
 
 C 53 ] 
 
 Laws bad their Authority from tie frefumed 
 Confent of the King de jure. p. 32, 35. 
 
 Claiming fub rat'wne Juris , and the pre- 
 fumptive Confent of the King de jz/r<?, are 
 the two Machines that have been invented 
 to Salve this Hypothefis of Government, The 
 former, as we havefhewn, is of no ufe, 
 becaufe they have no ground to fix it on , 
 and the latter is a meer Chimera. For is 
 there in all thefe proceedings, the leaft In- 
 timation of this fuppofed Authority, or 
 prefumptive Confent? Is every thing done 
 by it, and yet nothing everfaid of it? Are not 
 thefe Proceedings at Common Law, a plain 
 Confutation of it ? The Laws certainly are 
 adminiftred, and legally adminiflred by the 
 Authority of that King, by whofe Demife 
 all Pleas &c. depending in his Reign, are 
 legally difcontinued. And did not the Com- 
 mon Law, as it was held, for Inftance, 
 in the Courts of Edward IV. declare, that 
 all the Adions, depending in Henrj Vlth's 
 Reign, were difcontinued by his DifpofTeffion 
 and declared it for this reafon, becaufe k 
 was a De?mfe of the King* Whereas, bad 
 the Laws been adminiflred in Hear? Vhh*s 
 Reign, by the Authority of the frefitmftive 
 Confent of Edward IV. before he was in 
 Pofleffion, why were not all Adiorrs conti- 
 nued by the fame Authority., after he was 
 3 ia
 
 C 54] 
 
 in PofTefTion ? Why difcontinued by the De- 
 mife of Him, by whofe Authority they 
 were not adminiftred ? It would have laved 
 the Subjects much time, trouble, and ex- 
 pence to have had their Suits continued, and 
 not to begin all anew upon Edward IVth's 
 coming to the Throne. But how much 
 foever this would have tended to the publick 
 Good, (which is the cafe where they fet 
 up this Authority of a prefumptive Con- 
 fent) the Judges of Edward IVth's Courts 
 knew nothing of this Authority:, and there- 
 fore declared, according to the Common Law 
 of this Realm, that all the Proceedings at 
 Law were difcontinued by the Difpofleflion 
 of H. VI. becaufe it was a Dem'jfe of the 
 Crown. For from the feveral Cafes which I 
 alledged,Iobferv'dthat the Law makes no dif- 
 ference betwixt the Death, or difpoflefiion 
 of a King , but holds the latter, as well as 
 the former, to be a Demife of the King, and 
 that, whether he was a King de jure, or de 
 faBo. 
 
 Againftthe Authority of Bagofs Cafe, he 
 urges from the Author of the Cafe of Al- 
 legiance to a King in Poflefiion. That Bagot's 
 Cpunfel in their Plea do not urge the va- 
 lidity of a King de fa do's grants without a 
 Limitation^ that it be no Injury to the Legal 
 Right of the Crown, and thence fuppofes, 
 
 they
 
 C 55 ] 
 
 tliey are not valid againft a King de j 
 In Anfwer to which,! muft take notice, that 
 the words here are not truly tranflated by 
 that Author, for the Limitation is to fnch 
 Grants of a King de fafto, que ne fuer en 
 menyfoement de fon Cor one, which wereiiotti 
 theminifhmentof His Crown,callingit at the 
 fame time, the King de faBo\ Crown, 
 adly. This Limitation of Grants doth not 
 refped the Rights of any Perfon ^ but the 
 Rights, Lands, Honours, and Dignities of 
 the Crown it felf. Which Limitation held 
 as well in Grants made by Kings de 
 jure, as in thofe made by Kings de faBo. As 
 far as thofe Legal Rights of the Crown were 
 prejudiced by them, fo fir they were in- 
 valid. And therefore in the ancient Oath, 
 taken by the Kings of England at their Co- 
 ronation, the King fwears, that be foall 
 keep nil the Lands, Honours, and Dignities, 
 righteous and free of the Crown ^/'England 
 in all manner holy without any manner of 
 Miniftments, ft he word ufed in Boot's 
 Cafe,J) and the Eights of the Crown hurt, 
 decay or lofs to his Powsr,jhall call a^ain 
 into the ancient Eft ate 6cc. This CLiufe 
 of the Oath, "^ fully explains the limitation 
 of Grants in Bagofs Cafe, and may at the fame 
 
 * // w tbefirfi ail) in tie Book of Oaths. 
 
 li, 4 time
 
 time ferve for an Anfwer to what is urged 
 by the Remarker, in the next Page from 
 the Cafe of Allegiance, and by the Natural 
 Born Sitbjeft, * concerning Henry lid's Revo- 
 cation of King Stephen's Grants f of Crown- 
 Lands. 
 
 I obferv'd, it was urg'd as Law by Bagot's 
 Council, that if he that is now King 
 (meaning Edward IV. and implying he was 
 not King then) had in King Henry the 
 Vlth's Reign granted a Charter of Pardon, 
 it would be void Now, for every one that 
 grant? a Charter of Pardon, muft be King 
 in faft :, and that the Author of 'the Cafe 
 of Allegiance, leaving out, probably by 
 sn OverfHit , the Particle Now in his 
 Tranflation of thofe Words, would have 
 them fignifie no more, than that a Pardon 
 granted by Edward the IV. -when out of Pof- 
 fejjionjoiild not have its EffeQ,and be pleaded 
 and received in Court, -whilfl out ofPoffej]ion, 
 fir want of Power to enforce it. In Anfwer 
 to which, I obferv'd, that Bagot's Council did 
 not fay, if EdwardlV. had granted fuch.a Par- 
 don, before he was in PofTeffion, it would have 
 been void in Henry Vlth's Reign, whilft he was 
 
 Remarks p. 54. 
 
 Tout
 
 [571 
 
 outofPofrefTion,(that might indeed be for want 
 of Power,) but it would be void "Ko-rv in 
 the 9th Year of Edward the IVth's Reign,when 
 he is in Pofleffion, and the whole Power 
 of the Kingdom in his Hands-, and was there- 
 fore void in Law, not void for want of 
 Power to enforce it. What fays the R?- 
 marker to this ? Why, he repeats the Ob- 
 jection without taking any notice of my 
 Anfwer to it, and roundly affirms, it was 
 void for want of Power, and for no other 
 reafon. * i. e. he underftands the Law 
 better than it was underftood in Edward the 
 IVth's Court. He may think fo. In the 
 mean time however he muft grant, that his 
 Author was miftaken in the Translation, 
 and in the point of Law that was raain- 
 tain'd in that Court. But what Authority 
 doth the Re?narker oppofe to it ? None at 
 ail : Nor any thing, but an inconclufive 
 Argument of his own. That a Prince who had 
 
 f Canted a Pardon to a Sub j eft 9 when out of 
 ojjejfion ^ would riot after he came to the 
 Throne yield^ that he foould be tryed, con- 
 denrned, and executed ^ becaufe he was out 
 of Po/feJJion, when he granted it. -\~ It is 
 very "likely that he would not. But doth 
 
 * Remarks p. 3 j. 
 ^ Remarks, f. 36 
 
 : : > it
 
 [ 58] 
 
 it therefore follow, that the Subjeft is Re Hits 
 jn Cttria, and pardon 'd in Law ? It cer- 
 tainly doth not :, for tho* the Prince will not 
 fuffer him to be executed :, and tho' the Par- 
 don which was granted before he was in 
 PofTefilon was void} yet this Disjunctive 
 admits a medium, which is, that he may, 
 and probably would, grant a new Pardon 
 now he is in PofTeiTion, to fecure him. 
 
 I obferv'd, that as the oppofite Council 
 did not deny any one of thofe Points to 
 he Law, which were maintain'd in the Plea 
 for Bagot : So Billing, who was Lord Chief 
 Juftice of the King's Bench , deliver'd his 
 Opinion agreeably to it, and after he with 
 the reft of the Judges of that Bench had 
 confulted with the Judges of the Common 
 Pleas, who agreed with them, the Court 
 gave judgment for the validity of Bigot's 
 Patent, i. e. for the Royal Jurifdiclion of the 
 King defafto. There are, as I faid, a mul- 
 titude of Cafes where the fame Authority 
 is acknowledged. It was never difputed but 
 in Bagot's Cafe, and there, as we fee, judg- 
 ment given for it. None of thefe things are 
 denyed by the Rewarker, and he is fenfible 
 they are againft him, and therefore calls 
 them Pretended Authorities out of my Tear 
 * Boaks. Why Pretended Authorities, are 
 "~~* Remarks f. jz. 
 
 they
 
 [ 59 ] 
 
 they not in the Year Books of the Reigns of 
 Kings de juret But thefe too it feems, are 
 Pretended Authorities when they do not 
 fuit with the Remarkeis Hypothefis. 
 
 * He fays, he owns and knows no one 
 that denies, that the Crown takes away nil 
 manner of DefeEls and Stops in Bloo.d, to be 
 a Maxim of the Law:, but then he would 
 reftrain it to Hereditary Kings without any 
 Authority, nay, againft the Authority of 
 all the Judges of England, who, as I ob- 
 ferved in two famous Cafes, have applyed 
 this Maxim to Non-Hereditary King?, to 
 which having nothing to anfwer, he takes 
 fancluary f in his Maxim fub rations juris. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Being a Defence of the fecond Chapter of 
 the View. That the Sovereign Authority, 
 particularly, the Legiflative Authority of 
 Kings for the Time being, and their Two 
 Houfes of Parliament, is acknowledged by 
 the Statute Law of this Realm. 
 
 H 
 
 Aving towards the End of the firft 
 Chapter of the View, proved by the 
 
 * Remarks f. 37^ 
 \ Remarks f. 38, 
 
 Common
 
 Common Law of this Realm.That theLegifla- 
 tive Power is lodged in the King's for thetime 
 being, and their Two Houfes of Parliament. 
 In the fecond Chapter, I proceeded to prove 
 the fame, by the Statute Law of this Realm. 
 
 For the' Legislative Authority being ef- 
 fential to the Supreme Authority and in- 
 feparable from it, (fince no Power that is 
 lefs than the Sovereign Power can give Laws 
 to a Community,) if I could make it ap- 
 pear, that Kings de frBo^ with their Two 
 Houfes of Parliament, had the Legiflative 
 Power of the Realm, this of it felf would 
 be a decifive Argument in this Controverfy, 
 and the Remarker himfelf at the latter end 
 of the Book, where he refumes this Queftion, 
 owns, that the whole Caitfe depends upon ibc 
 * 'Legislature. 
 
 The Argument, which I urg'd in main- 
 tainance of the Legiflative Authority of thefe 
 Kings, was this, That Hereditary Kings 
 and their Parliaments, have cited the Laws 
 made by Non-Hereditary Kings and their Par- 
 liaments, in fuch a manner, as acknowledges 
 them to be Legislators equally with them- 
 felves, or any of their Progenitors. 
 
 The Remarker acknowledges, the A8* 
 
 ioo k 
 
 ) wade
 
 [6. ] 
 
 made under Kings de fado to be Statutes, 
 and Laws of the Land, but not by the Au- 
 thority of Kings de facto, but by the Attmv- 
 ance y and prefumptive Confent of the King 
 de jure. * At the latter end of his Remarks, 
 where he refmnes this Subjecl, he doth 
 not deny thofe Laws are in force ^ but denies, 
 that they derive their Force from the Au- 
 thority of thofe that made them. This he 
 repeats over and over again, as often as he 
 has occafion, to fpeak of the Laws of Kings 
 de fatto. So that the (ingle Queftion be- 
 twixt us is, whence thefe Laws derive their 
 Force, whether from the Authority of the 
 Kings and Parliaments that enacted them, 
 or from the presumptive Confent, as he fays, 
 of Kings dejure. 
 
 And ift. It is to be obferved, that altho* 
 the R&fiarker owns them to be Laws, yet 
 he knows not what to call thefe Laws. Sta- 
 tute Laws, he durit not call them :> for he 
 faith, they were not Laws #/' England, be- 
 
 * Tie Natural Born Subject agrees v/itl tie Rernarker. 
 There was a neceflity, faith fo, not to vacate the judicial 
 Proceedings in the Reigns of H. IV". V. VI. and this could 
 not be done without allowing the Ails of Pailiament up- 
 on which the judicial Proceedings did depend, and thole 
 Ads being good in themfelve?, Ib far as they related to 
 the Subject, the lawful Kings when they came in, were 
 willivg they jbouldle continued. Letter f. 43. 
 p. 40, P. 101. 
 
 cartfe
 
 caufe made by Kings de &fto, te becaufe 
 the King de jure, -without the formality of a 
 Confirmation, fuffer'J them like our Common 
 Laws y by ufage to become Laws of the 
 Land, being for the benefit of his SubjeEls, 
 and again, they may obtain the force of 
 Statute-Laws made by Kings de jure, by 
 ufe as Cannon Laws * do. Are they then 
 Common-Law ? No, he durft not affirm 
 that neither, nay, he yields to the Truth 
 of what 1 aftirm'd, that tho* Cuftoms are 
 fometimes by Act of Parliament turn'd into 
 Statute-Law -, yet Statutes are not turned 
 into Common Law or Cuflom^ and adds, the 
 ObjeEtor doth not fay^ that thefe Statute* 
 of Kings de fad:o, receive their Authority 
 from immemorial Cuflom : and yet he him- 
 felf faith, that Kings and Parliaments^ by 
 'reciting them in their Statutes, andfuf- 
 fering them to be pleaded in Weftminfter- 
 Hall, have given them the Jlrength of Im- 
 memorial Cuftom^ i. e. have made them as 
 good Laws as others^ even our Common 
 Laws^ which are fo by immemorial -f* Cuflom. 
 
 So that here*s a ^d. fort of Laws not 
 known in Weftminfter-Hall. They are 
 not Statute-Laws^ but have the force of 
 
 * Remarks f. 38, 39. 
 I Remarks f. 40. 
 
 Statute-
 
 Statute-Law : They do not receive their 
 Authority from immemorial Ciiflom^ but have 
 the flrengih of immemorial Cuflom, and are 
 not Common, but as good as our Common Laws. 
 To repeat this Hypothecs, is to confute it. 
 It is a fort of a Riddle, at lead, it puts me 
 in mind of the famous JLnigma of jElia 
 Laha Crifyis^ nee mat nee fewtna, fed om- 
 nia. Thefe Laws, which he at the fame 
 time owns to be in Force, are neither Sta- 
 tute Law, nor Common Law, and yet they 
 are both : They partake of the ftrength of 
 both, and are neither. They are no Laws 
 as they are made, and yet for ufe, are all 
 Laws, i. e. they 2xs,prefumptive 9 they are 
 Hypothecs -Law. 
 
 But 2_dly. The Reniarker is not only at 
 a lofs to know under what Clafs to reduce 
 thefe Laws, at the fame time that he owns 
 them to be in Force , but leaves us at as 
 great an uncertainty to know which of 
 them are in Force. When he affirms, 
 that thefe Statutes do not derive their Au- 
 thority from the Kings and Parliaments that 
 enadled them, but from the Authority of 
 Kings de jure, could he have produced an 
 Ad of a King dej : itre y and his Parliament 
 in confirmation of thefe Statues, (which 
 alone could have given them Authority, had 
 they had none originally)\ve mould then have 
 
 known
 
 known which of thefe Laws were in 
 Force , becaufe we mould have known , 
 which had been con firmed. Or, could he have 
 produced fome exprefs publick Confent, given 
 foine other way by Kings de jure out of 
 Parliament , tho* this would not have 
 made them Laws of the Realm, if they had 
 not ben fo before^ yet we might have 
 known, at leaft, according to this Hyporhe- 
 fis, which of thefe Statutes had been in 
 Force -, becaufe we mould have known to 
 which fuch an exprefs Confent had been 
 given. But when the Remarker derives 
 the force of thefe Statutes, not from any 
 exprefs and publick, but from a fecret Con- 
 fent, that we are to prefume on, or guefs 
 at , He has left us no way to know which 
 of thefe Laws are valid, and which are 
 null. 
 
 The reftriclion , that the f Remarker 
 adds to the validity of thefe Laws, that 
 tbej be not in diminution of the Crown, and 
 for || the benefit of the Subjett, is fo 
 far from afcertaining their Obligation , 
 that it leaves it ftill more doubtful $ for 
 as every Man before was left to guefs at the 
 Prince's Confent, fo here Men are made Judges 
 
 Remarks f. 41. || Remarks f. 41, 
 
 of
 
 of what Laws are to the diminution of the 
 Crown,or againft the publick Good -, of which 
 different Men,as well as different Parties,hav- 
 ing entertain'd different Notions, thofe Laws 
 which are obligatory with fome, would be 
 efteemed Nullities with others. The fafety 
 of the Prince, the Peace of the Community, 
 the Lives, Liberties, and Fortunes of 
 the Subjects depending on the Laws, no- 
 thing ought to be more certain, and better 
 known than their Obligation (to which 
 therefore Promulgation has ever been held 
 to be elTential) whereas nothing is more ob- 
 fcure, uncertain, and precarious, than is 
 the obligation of Laws by this Hypothefis, 
 which leaves it in the dark, and makes it 
 all over Guefs, and Prefumption. 
 
 Some, who have not throughly confider'd 
 this matter, may wonder, how thefe Per- 
 fons ever came to take up with fo precarious 
 an Hypothefis. But the truth is, they did 
 it not on Choice, but were driven upon it 
 by necefiify. For not being able to deny 
 the validity of the Statutes of Non-Heredita- 
 ry Kings, and yet not knowing at the fame 
 time, how to acknowledge their Legiflative 
 Authority, without deftroying their Caufe, 
 they were forced to look out for fome 
 Authority of Kings de Jure , for thefe 
 ' Laws : But not finding any Confirmation, or 
 F publick
 
 [66 3 
 
 publick exprefs Confent given to thefe Laws 
 by fuch Kings, either in Parliament, or 
 out of Parliament:, there was no other way 
 left, but to prefume on their fecret Confent 
 to give Authority to them. 
 
 But this Notion of a prefumptive Con- 
 fent giving Authority to Laws, is as great 
 a Secret, as the fecret Confent it felf. The 
 Remarker agrees with me, that Kings and 
 Parliaments ^Judges, and 'Lawyers have owned 
 thefe Laws to be in Force 5 but he has not 
 been able to produce one Ad of any King, 
 or Parliament, or the Opinion of any Judge, 
 or Lawyer, that afcribes their force to this 
 Prefumptive Confent. No, he flies to the 
 Cafe of one Earbaricus^ a fubordinate Offi- 
 cer in the Roman State, which is no ways 
 parallel to the Cafe before us, either in the 
 Reafon, or the Circnmflances of it ^ and 
 which proves nothing, but that the Englifh 
 Law-Books afford him not the femblance 
 of any Authority. And what can be more 
 abfurd, than to derive the validity of fo great 
 a part of our Satutes from a prefumptive 
 Authority, which neither the Statute Book, 
 nor any Law-Book doth acknowledge, - nor 
 take the leafl notice of ? 
 
 4thly. This Legislation of the prefum- 
 ptive Confent, is not only utterly unknown . 
 to our Laws, but utterly inconfiftent with 
 
 rhem.
 
 [671 
 
 them : For it refolves the Legiflature, which 
 by our Conftitution is lodg'd in the King, 
 or Queen, and the Two Houfes of Parlia- 
 ment, into the fole Will of the Prince , and 
 that (which makes it as ridiculous, as it is 
 illegal) into his fecret Will. 
 
 5thly. AH the Lawyers, Judges, Kings, 
 and Parliaments, who have owned the vali- 
 dity of thefe Statutes, have at the fame time 
 acknowledged the Authority of the Kings, 
 and Parliaments that made them. They 
 have not pleaded them, nor recited them 
 in Acls of Parliament as Statutes in general, 
 nor as Laws that obtain'd their force by Cu- 
 ftom, or prefumptive Confent: But they 
 pleaded, and recited them as Statutes of the 
 Realm, enacled by fuch Kings in their Par- 
 liaments holden at Weftminfter, or elfewhere, 
 in fuch a Year of their Reigns. Of fuch Reci- 
 tals, 1 have given feveral Inftances in the 
 1 1. Chapter of the View, which the Re- 
 marker faith, might have all beenfpared^ and 
 fo it wa-s indeed neceffary they mould have 
 been fpared, that his Hypothefis might be 
 fpared, thefe Recitals being fo maiw De- 
 monftrations again ft it. For by thefe reci- 
 tals it appears, that at the fame time thofe 
 Kings and Parliaments acknowledge the va- 
 lidity of the Laws, they acknowledge the 
 Authority of their refpe&ive Legiflators : 
 F 2 ' Nay
 
 C 68 3 
 
 nay they acknowledge no other validity in 
 thofe Laws, than what is derived from the 
 Legislative Authority of thofe Kings and 
 Parliaments that enafted them. And this 
 they do as fully acknowledge (for they ac- 
 knowledge it in the very fame Terms) as 
 thev do the validity of the Statutes, and 
 the" Legislative Authority of any of their de 
 jure Progenitors. 
 
 I referr'd to Laws made by Kings de faElo 
 in favour of the Subjed, which had been 
 afterwards intrenched on by the Prerogative 
 of ' Kings de jure. Now if the Laws of 
 Kings de fa&o were null in themfelves, 
 and had no Authority, but what they re- 
 ceived from the confent of fucceeding Kings 
 de jure ^then the Awards,and Proceedings of a 
 King de jure, in oppofition to the Laws of a 
 King defaEto, would be legal. But fuch Awards, 
 and Proceedings have been declared by a 
 King de jure, and his Parliament, to be il- 
 legal. Whence it follows,that the Laws of Kings 
 de faBo^ are fo far from receiving their Au- 
 thority from the prefumptive Confent of 
 Kings de jure, that they are valid even 
 againft a King de jttre's exprefs DifTent to 
 them. See the I. Rich. 111. ch. 2. and the 
 Petition of Right 3. Car. I. But thefelnftan- 
 ces, as well as all the Recitals, the Re- 
 marker, and the Natural Born Sub j eft wife- 
 ly, pafs over. 
 
 When
 
 [691 
 
 When the Remarker has not been able 
 to give the ieaft fhadow of a proof from our 
 Laws, or Law Books, for this Chimera of 
 a prefumptive Confent } I may be allowed to 
 pafs over his inconclusive Reafon?, why the 
 Statutes of Kings de fado fiould remain tit 
 Force, and yet the Authority of thofe Kings 
 not be acknowledged. Only one of b:s Rea- 
 fon, I (hall take notice of, becaufe he re- 
 peats it, and lays great ftrefs upon it, vix. 
 That Kings de jure fnffer the Laws of 
 Kings de fado to be in Force, becauje 'tis 
 not fafe to unravel things too far, to un- 
 hinge the Government, and to deveft them 
 of Laws they have been itfed to, and chnfe 
 themfelves. * But fuppofing, as the Re. 
 marker doth, that fuch Laws had originally 
 no Authority, to give them Authority by 
 Ad of Parliament, would be fo far from 
 unravelling things, and devefling the People 
 of their Laws, that it would have been 
 the only way to fix every thing, and fecure 
 their Laws to them. And one Ad of P f ;r- 
 Hament in the beginning of Edward the 
 IVth's Reign, for in fiance, which a Com- 
 mittee would have drawn up at two or 
 three Sittings, would have confirmed all 
 the Laws made hv the Three Kings of the 
 
 * Remarks p. 40, 104. 
 
 F Houfe
 
 Houfe of Lancafler. And there can be no 
 reafon why this Confirmation was not given, 
 but becaufe Edward IV. his Parliament, 
 and Judges, knew they were valid with- 
 out it. For when there has been reafon 
 to doubt of the validity of Ads of Parlia- 
 ment, it has been always thought fit to con- 
 firm tji em. As the Ads made 12. dr. II. 
 becaufe that Parliament was not calPd by the 
 King's Writs, were all enumerated,and confir- 
 med in an Adpafs'd 13. Car. II. ch. 7. En- 
 titled, An AB to confirm publick Afls. 
 The Natural Born Subjetf, with great Affu- 
 rance, afks me, can you give one Jingle In- 
 fiance out of all our Records of any AB of 
 Parliament made by a Rightful * King that 
 ever was confirmed for want offitfficient Au- 
 thority ? Here's one Inftance for him, and 
 a famous one ^ and he may find another 
 13. Car. II. ch. 13. But neither He, nor 
 the Rewarker, have been able to produce 
 one publick Ad, of all the numerous Ads 
 that were made by the Three Kings of the 
 Houfe of Lancafter in 60. Years, that was 
 confirm'd by Edward IV. or efteemed to 
 want hisConfirmation,(thofefew private Ads 
 which were con firm'd, were confirmed for pri- 
 vate Reafon?)for without it, they were held to 
 
 * Letter f. 49. 
 
 be
 
 be of as good Authority, as his Own Ads. 
 But the Natural Born Subjett will have it, 
 that they are fill liable to be qiieftioifd. What ! 
 liable to be queftion'd by Law ? By his, 
 and the * Remarker's Hypothefis-Law, they 
 may be liable to be queftion'd: Not by 
 the Law of the Realm: No, not as it was 
 held even in the Courts, and by the Judges 
 of Edward the IV. for when it was 
 urged, that Bagot's Patent of Natura- 
 lization granted by Hen. Vlth was not 
 good-, becaufe Patents of Naturalization 
 were not confirmed in the Ad: of the i. Ed. IV. 
 ch. i. which was made to confirm the judi- 
 cial Proceedings of the Three Henries-^ This 
 Plea was rejeded, and judgment given for the 
 validity of Bagot's Patent of Naturalization, 
 which flood folely upon Henry the Vlth's 
 Authority. As this judgment of Edward 
 the IVth's Judges may convince the Natural 
 Born Snbjefty that the Dodrine he lays 
 down with fo much Aflurance, that fuch 
 Afls? unlefs confirm d^ were fiill liable to be 
 queftiorfd for want of fufficient Authority ^ is 
 not Law : So is it a full Determination againft 
 His, and the Remarker's prefumptive Con 
 fent-Authority - 5 for here was no Room left 
 to prefume on Edward the IVth's Confent 
 
 Letter p. 4%. 
 
 * FA to
 
 to this Patent, fince he had left Patents 
 of Naturalization out of that Ad, wherein 
 he gave his exprefs Confent to fuch Ads of 
 the Three Henries, that he would have 
 {land: And yet this Ad by Henry theVIth's 
 Authority, which had not Edward thz IVth's 
 Confent, was held valid without it, as va- 
 lid as thofe that had it, or as anv of his own 
 Ads. 
 
 The QbjeBor according to this Notion 
 of the prefiiroptive Confent-Legiflation, fiid 
 Richard III. AEls of Parliaments pafs d for 
 Laws, becaufe H. VII. was willing they jbould 
 pafs for Laws. To convince him ofhisMi- 
 ftake, I inftanced in two Ads of Parliament 
 made by Richard, One. which baftardized Ed- 
 ward the IVth's Children, Another that at- 
 tainted He nry the Vllth's Friends,which (the 
 laftefpecially) Henry the Vllth was certainly 
 not willing mould pafs for Laws : Nay he 
 was unwilling, as my Lord Bacon obferves, 
 fo much regard mould be paid to Richard'^ 
 Attainders, as to have .them formally re- 
 pealed. And yet when the Judges were con- 
 fulted , they unanimously declared, that the 
 Pcrfons attainted could not take their Pla- 
 ces in -Parliament, until their Attainders, 
 tho' patted' by a Kingdefaflo, were reverfed 
 by Ad of Parliament. 
 
 The Author of the Cafe of Allegiance 
 having faid, that thefe Attainders were re- 
 verfed,
 
 731 
 
 verfed, not becaufe they were valid, but 
 out of Caution. I obferved, that the reafon 
 the Judges gave for the Reverfal, that they 
 were not legal Perfons, till their . ABs of 
 Attainder were reverfed, fhews, that it was 
 not Caution,but the Conflitution that required 
 it. Upon which the Remarker fays, what 
 Mr. H. drives at, I know is this, that 
 the Attainder of a de faclo, muft be rever- 
 fed, otherwife the Perfon attainted, is not 
 a Legal Perfon. * Mr. H. only cited the 
 unanimous Refolution of all the Judges, who 
 declared, that the Perfons who were at- 
 tainted by Richard III. King in FaEl, and 
 not of Right, were not Legal Perfons till 
 their Attainders -were reverfed. Which, faith 
 the Remarker, is a grofs Miflake, and they 
 were reverfed only out of abundant Caution. 
 What, notwithftatiding the King and Parlia- 
 ament proceeded agreeably to the Opinion 
 of the Judges? Yes, notwithftanding this, 
 He fays, it is a grofs Miftake,i\izt is, the King 
 and Parliament, and all the Judges of the 
 Realm, were of One Opinion , and the Re- 
 marker is of Another. By which Authority 
 are we to be concluded ? 
 
 But the Remarker has another Anfw^r, 
 
 * Remarks p. 46. Ibid. P. 48. 
 
 that
 
 [ 74] 
 
 that the Judges knew H. VII. had no Right* 
 If one mould afk him, how he knows that 
 the Judges knew this, he would be hard put 
 to it to prove it. However, let us for once 
 grant that they might believe fo, and then 
 he will be diftrefled by the Judges Refo- 
 lutionof the fecond Queftion, touching the 
 King's Attainder, that the King Henry VIL 
 whom the kemarket fays, they believed, 
 had no Right"] was a Perfon able and dif- 
 charged of all Attainders, and Disabilities 
 ipfo fafto, that he was invefted with the 
 Regal Dignity, and 'was King, and thus all 
 the Objections againft his Perfon, or his 
 Title, from Attainders, or other (tops, and de- 
 feds of Blood,were entirely removed : So thai 
 let the Remarker take which fide of the 
 Queftion he pleafes, that H. VII. had a 
 Right antecedent to his Pofleflion, or that 
 he had not - ? one of the two Refolutions of 
 the Judges, isdireftly againft him, and neither 
 of them for him. If he fays, H. VII. hqd a 
 Right antecedent to his Pofreflion :, their firft 
 Resolution concludes againft him. But if he 
 fays, he had no antecedent Right-, their latter 
 Refolution is decifive againft the Remarker, 
 and for the Sovereign Authority of the King 
 for the time being. 
 
 Towards the lattter end of theBook,where 
 the Remarker re&mes this Argument, he 
 
 makes
 
 1 711 
 
 makes an objection to the Legiflative Power 
 of the Three He?iries,from the i. Edward IV. 
 ch. i. where he calls them fretenfed Kings, 
 and other Statutes where he calls them 
 Kings indeed, and not of Right :, but this 
 Objection was obviated by what was faid in 
 the view, as the Remarker might have ob- 
 ferved, but fince he did not, I mud repeat 
 part of it. 
 
 i ft. Whenever Edward IN. cites the Laws 
 of theHoufeofLtf<7rf/?d?r,he always gives them 
 the Title, of late Kings of this Realm in Deed, 
 and not of Right -, whereby he owns them to 
 have been Kings of this Realm, but withal, 
 that they ought not to have been fo. Nay, 
 he doth not even now pretend, that his great 
 Uncle, Edmund Earl of March, or his Father 
 .Rid?. Duke of 2V,accordingto the Remarked 
 Hypothefis, were Kings of Right during the 
 time, that the Three Henries were Kings in 
 Deed.Neither He 5 nor his Parliament,nor Judg^ 
 es, ever imagined, fas the Rewarker and Natu- 
 ral Born SubjeEls do,)that the unpofTefled,un- 
 recognized Heirs were Kings de jure, fub- 
 fifling at the fame time, that others were 
 Kings in FnEl. But notwithflanding this 
 abatement of Title, whenever Edward IV. 
 cites their Laws, he acknowledges their 
 Legiflative Authority to be equal to that of 
 any of his PredecefTors, and challenges no 
 
 other
 
 C 76 ] 
 
 other Authority for his own Laws, than be 
 owns theirs had, and ought to have * had. 
 
 adly. As we never meet with this diflin- 
 ftion of Kings in Deed, and not of Right, 
 throughout all the Revolutions of Govern- 
 ment, till in this Statute of Edward IV. 
 So it is to be obferved, that it is in the Sta- 
 tutes only of the immediate Rivals and Suc- 
 cefTors that we meet with it, but never af- 
 terwards. It is only in the Statutes of 
 Edward IV. that the Three Henries -, and 
 in thofe only of Henry VI I. that Richard III. 
 is ftiled King in Deed, and not of Right. 
 In the Statutes of all the fucceeding Kings 
 and Queens , the Three Henries, and 
 Richard III. are filled Kings of England, 
 without the leafl diminution of Title. 
 
 gdly. At common Law, in the Courts 
 even of their Rivals, the Regal Title is con- 
 flantly given them without any Abatement. 
 Whenever H. VI. is mention'd in the Courts 
 of Edward IV. the fame Title is given 
 to him, that is given to Edward IV. when 
 He is mention 'd in the Courts of EdwardV. 
 When Henry VI. is mention'd in the Courts 
 of Edward lV. He is fly I'd l'auter Roy, as 
 Edward IV. himfelf is filled Roy qid ore ell. 
 All the difference betwixt them is, One, is 
 
 See 14. Edward IV- cl. z. jrinted at the end of tins' Book. 
 
 the
 
 [77] 
 
 the late King -, and the Other, thefrefent 
 King The fame ftile is obferved in the 
 Courts of Hen. VII. when Richard HI. is 
 named. 
 
 Another Objection has been drawn by 
 confequence from the Attainders, and the 
 Language of them , which, as I had faid, was 
 no confutation of thofe full and direcl Proofs, 
 which I had made of the Legiflative Au- 
 thority of the Kings for the time being. 
 Nor could the Objeftor, with whom I was 
 then engaged, fay they were : Who acknow- 
 ledged both H. VI. and Edward. I V. to be 
 in their Turns, Kings and Legislators, not- 
 with ftanding their mutual Attainders of 
 each other. Nay, the Remarker himfelf 
 p. 44. fays, as for Attainders tbere is 
 no great ftrefs to be laid upon them , 
 bee ait fe they are ufed on both fides. 
 However, towards the end of his Remarks, 
 not knowing well what elfe to lay a ftrefs 
 upon, he is for laying a very great ftrefs 
 upon the Attainders. But before he had 
 done this, he ought to have confider'd. 
 
 i ft. That the very fame Parliament, that 
 attainted Richard III. did however, as 
 I have obferved already, fo fully acknow- 
 ledge his Legilhtive Authority, that they 
 had, as we have feen, no other way to re- 
 lieve the Perfons who lay under the Penalty of 
 
 his
 
 E78] 
 
 his Adls of Attainder, but by repealing 
 them. They did not fay, with the Remarker, 
 and "Natural Born Subjeft, that they were 
 not Kings, nor Legifbtors :, that their Afts 
 were Nullities, or had no legal Effecls . No, 
 they exprefly acknowledged they had fuch 
 kgal effefts, as could not be vacated, but 
 by an Act of Parliament : Which plainly 
 fhe ws, that whatever other Confequences may 
 be drawn from the Attainders of thefe Kings, 
 there can be no confequence drawn from 
 them, that will affeft their Legiflative 
 Power. 
 
 adly. That, as an antecedent Attainder 
 cannot touch a Prince in his fubfequent Ex- 
 ercife of the Regal Power : So for the fame 
 reafon, a fubfequent Attainder cannot affed 
 a Prince in the Exercife of his Regal Power 
 antecedent to the Attainder. And for both 
 thefe, I have produced undeniable Autho- 
 rities, to which the Remarker has given no 
 other, but the thred-bare Anfwer of/w ra- 
 tione juris. 
 
 gdly. The Remarker has affirmed, but 
 not proved, that thefe Kings were attainted 
 for their Exercife of the Regal Power. Henry 
 VI. was not, as he fuppofes, p. 70. attainted 
 by Edward IV. for that reafon, but for the 
 Death of Ricbard Duke of Tork, at the Bat- 
 tle QiWakefeld. And as the Remarker may 
 
 fee
 
 C 79 ] 
 
 fee,by what hath been faid,what unjuft Confe- 
 quences he draws from the Language of the 
 Attainders : So there needs nothing more 
 to convince him of the Injuftice of this At- 
 tainder, than the Hiftory of it as it is re- 
 lated by the Author of the Ecclefia/iical Hifto- 
 ry, which I have fo often cited. After this 
 Author had given fotne account of the Agree- 
 ment made in Parliament between King/f. VI. 
 and Richard Duke of Tork, he adds, the 
 Duke of York'j next Point was to fecure 
 the Queen. This Lady, he had reafon to 
 imagine^ would not Jit down tamely, and 
 fee her Hit/bands Royalty Eelipfed, and her 
 Son difmherited without fome Attempt for their 
 Recovery. To prevent being embaraffd from 
 this Quarter : The Duke prevailed with 
 the King to fend for the Queen, and her Son 
 to London. The Queen inflead of obeying 
 the Order, levied an Army in the North, 
 under the Command of the Dukes of Exeter, 
 and Sommerfet. The ProteBor (for fo the 
 Duke of Tork had got himfelf made in Par- 
 liament) receiving Intelligence of this Pre- 
 paration, leaving the King under the Guard 
 of his * Friends, the Duke <?/Norfolk, and 
 the Earl of War wick, march* d down with a 
 fmall Force to Wake field, where fighting raft- 
 ly at a great Disadvantage of Numbers, he 
 
 * i. * Tie Duke 
 
 loft
 
 [8o] 
 
 loft his Life and the Battle. * Now it wai 
 for the lofs of the D. of Tork's Life, that 
 H. VI. was attainted in the iirft Parliament 
 of JLward IV. And therefore our Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Hiftorian goes on, in this Parliament 
 Margaret the late Queen^ Edward call'd 
 Prince of Wales, and fever al others, were 
 attainted for the Death of Richard D. of 
 York. And which is more remarkable, the 
 Att of Attainder pafs^d upon the late King 
 Henry the VI. f So that H. VI. you fee, 
 was attainted, not for his paft Exercife of 
 the Regal Power, but for the Death of the 
 D. of Tork. Wonderful Juftice! attainted 
 for the Duke's Death, who was llain at 
 Wakefield, when H. VI. was a Prifoner at 
 London ^ and flain by an Army, that was 
 raifed not only without, but againft his ex- 
 prefs Order -, for H. VI. even by this Ac- 
 count, was fo far from giving any Encourage, 
 menttohis Queen's Attempt, that he com- 
 manded her to come to London with her Son, 
 and acquiefce. 
 
 It will not be improper here to anfwer 
 an Argument of Prinn, and the Remar- 
 ker, That Richard Duke of York was King 
 de jure, th&* never in Pojjtjjion, becaitfe Per- 
 
 CoUier's Ecclefiajlical Htfory f. 677. 
 
 Jons
 
 Jbns were attainted of High Treafon for 
 his Death ^ but thefe Attainders are no 
 proof, that he was King de jure; for 
 the Attainders were founded on the Ad 
 of Parliament 39. H. VI. by which Richard 
 was declared Heir apparent of the Crown, 
 and it was made High Treafon to compafs 
 his Death : and therefore : the Lord Chief 
 Juftice Coke fays, if the Heir apparent to 
 the Crown be a collateral Heir apparent, Hf 
 is not within the Satute of the 2 yb Edw. III. 
 untill he be declared by Parliament, as it 
 das in the Duke of York'/ Cafe, f 
 
 Laftly, This Attainder, as well as another 
 pofthuraous Attainder (A Henry VI. were 
 reverfed I. Henry VII. wherein it is declared, 
 * that the King, our Sovereign, remembring 
 bow againft all Rigbteoufnefs, Honour, Na- 
 ture, and Duty, an inordinate feditious and 
 glanderous Acl was made againft the moft 
 famous Prince of Eleffed Memory, King 
 Henry his Uncle, at the Parliament holden 
 at Weftminfter tbe fourth day of Novem- 
 ber in the ijl. Tear of the Reign of Edw. IV. 
 late King of England, whereby his faid 
 Uncle contrary to the due Allegiance, and 
 
 t Coke's Inft. Part. 4. c i. . 7. 
 
 * In tie unfrinted Rolls i Hen. VII. N. i<5. JReJlitutio 
 HenriciSexti.
 
 all due Order was attainted of High Treason, 
 Wherefore our Sovereign Lord, by tke Ad- 
 vice and Confent of the Lords, 3tc. ordainetb 
 that the fame AB, and all Atts of Attain- 
 ders, Forfeiture, or Disablement ', be void, 
 annulled and repealed, and of no Force, nor 
 Effett. This was the laft Ad of Parliament, 
 relating to this Attainder of Henry VI. 
 which gives us an Idea of it, very dif- 
 ferent from what the Remarker has given, 
 and leaves thefe Attainders without any force 
 to bear the great weight he lays upon them. 
 I obferv'd, that when Princes proceeded 
 againft any Perfons for adhering to the 
 King for the time being, their conftant 
 way of proceeding was by Adi s of Attainder 
 in Parliament ex pojl fafto, and not by 
 Indictments in the ordinary Courfe of Pro- 
 ceedings , which fhews,thatto ferve the King 
 in Poifedion, was not a Fault, nor could be 
 puniih'd as fuch, by the Laws that were then 
 in Force. The Remarker doth not deny the 
 the Fad, but faith, the true reafon why 
 they were attainted, and not tryed as- other 
 Malefaffiors, ivas because they ivere Juch 
 notorious Rebells, that they ought to be made 
 "Examples of, by an extraordinary way of pro- 
 ceeding to deter others from the like j * but 
 
 * Remarks f, 47, 
 
 not
 
 not for want of Laws in Force againft them. 
 He has not yet proved, that to ferve the 
 King for the Time being makes Men no- 
 torious Rebels, or Rebels at all , nor by 
 what Law they can be convided of High 
 Treafon for doing that Service. But to pafs 
 by that and come to his Argument : Were 
 there ever more notorious Tray tors, and Re- 
 bells in this Nation, than the Gun-powder 
 Confpirators, and the Regicides of 48 > 
 And yet both the former, and the latter were 
 convidted, in the ordinary courfe of Proceed- 
 ings, by Indictments on the 2$. EdwardlM. 
 
 The Natural Born Subjeft denies the Fad, 
 faying, Ms was not the conjlant way of pro- 
 ceeding ^ for many were fut to Death with- 
 out Attainders : The Duke 0/Sommerfet, and 
 fever al other Lords , and * Gentlemen were 
 fut to Death without Attainders, by Edw. W. 
 for fighting for Henry VL 
 
 There were Executions indeed, as I took 
 notice, in the Heat of the Viftors Rage, 
 without any Colour of Procefs -, and I faid, 
 that fome of the Attainders were no more 
 to be drawn into confequence, than thofe 
 Executions : And if this be what the natu- 
 ral born Subjett means, when he fays there 
 
 * Letter .9 5. 
 
 G 2 where
 
 were Ptrfons- -put to Death without At* 
 tawder^ he faysitrue, but trifles at the fame 
 tuyu j,;fur this is {till a more violent Courfe 
 than Attainders therafelves. But if he means, 
 the Duke oiSotnmerfet and the reft were 
 put to Death upon a Sentence after a Convi- 
 ction by a Jury, in the ordinary Courfe of 
 Proceedings by Indictment, why'did he produce 
 no Teflimonies from Hiftory in Proof of it ? 
 If this Author expects to be believed without 
 Ay2iorities, yet it is too much to believe 
 him againft Authorities. Now Stow relates 
 the Matter thus. After the Battel ofTewk- 
 fBury, King Edward entering a Church in 
 Tewkfbury with his Sword dravon^ a Prieft 
 brought the Sacrqwevb again fl him ^ and would 
 not let him enter until be bad granted his Par- 
 don to tbefe that follow -, Edmund Duke of 
 Somnjerfet, S.trother Lord St. John'j (whom 
 the'natural born SnbjeB fplits into feveral 
 othej Lords,) Sir Humphrey Audiey, and 
 twelve more. All the fa where they might have 
 efcafed^ tarried-int.be Church ', tirvfting in the 
 'Kings Pardon, from Saturday till Monday y 
 viben. they were taken out and beheaded. * 
 Sir William ~Dugdale^ in his Account of this 
 Duke of Sommerfet, faith, that notwithftan- 
 
 * Stow in Edward IV. f. 44. 
 t Coke'j Injl. fart 4. c. i.p. 7, 
 
 ding
 
 ding be fled from the Eattel of Tewksfyiry, 
 be was overtaken and there loft his Hsad* 
 Some fay that he got into the Church for San- 
 Buary and there was killed, Leland^ Ttiris- 
 rary Vol. 6. 93. And will the natural fwrn 
 SubjeEl call this putting Men to Death in the 
 ordinary way of Proceedings,? HoUin^hed fi- 
 deed makes mention of a Trial of the Duke-of 
 Sommerfet, <3cc. And fuppofe we fhould take 
 his Account of this Matter, rather than that 
 xvhich is given by the other Hiftorians (which 
 is not reafonable) yet even -this I think 
 will do the natural born Subject no Service -, 
 for HolHngJhed tells us, what Perfons fat. as 
 High Con/table y and Earl Marfbal-^ which 
 plainly friows, that if there was anv Trial, 
 it was before a Court Martial flagrante 
 Betto^ where abfolute Power, and not the 
 Laws of the Land take place, and which is 
 as far from the ordinary Caurfe of Procee- 
 dings, as that of Attainder?. 
 
 Dngdak's Baronage Tom. z.$. izy. 
 
 G* CHAP,
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 A "Defence of ike third Chapter wherein 
 fome other Objections to the Legiflative 
 Authority ofthefe Kings are anfwer'J. 
 
 THE Objedion from Edward IVth's 
 Confirmation of a few private Ads I 
 have anfwered in the foregoing Chapter, and 
 turned it upon the Reraarker, in- that there 
 was not one of the numerous publick Ads that 
 were made in the Reigns of the three Hen- 
 ries ever confirmed, and yet flood, and, ex- 
 cept fuch of them as have been repealed, do 
 ftand in Force to this Day. But the Remar- 
 ker fays, that King Edward IVttfs Non-repea- 
 ling their ABs^ was fnfficient to give them the 
 force of 'Laws , being beneficial to the Subject. 
 This is but his Crambe of prefumptive Con- 
 fent in other Words, and as he has exprefs'd 
 it, he might with as much reafon have faid, 
 that a Falfliood, by not being contradided, be- 
 comes a Truth ; or that the many Errors 
 of the Remarks and the Letter would, if they 
 had not been confuted, have commenced fo 
 many Truths, as that the Non repealing of 
 an Atty which was originally null, gives \\ 
 the Force of a Law, 
 
 * Rem, p. 51, 
 
 i A*
 
 As for their Laws being beneficial to the 
 SiibjeB, and for the publick Good^ to which 
 he partly afcribes their Obligation (for he 
 knows not well where to place it) this he 
 often repeats, without taking the leaft notice 
 of what I had faid in Confutation of that 
 Notion, or giving any Account how thofe 
 Laws which were not for the publick Good, 
 but prejudicial to it, came to be in Force, 
 and to continue in Force in the Reigns of 
 their Rivals (and they continued in Force 
 till they were repealed) as well as their 
 inoft beneficial Statutes. 
 
 Inftead of confidering the Anfwers I gave 
 to the Objection that is drawn from the Re- 
 vocation made 2 1 Richard II. of the Confir- 
 mation of the Judgment againft the two 
 Spencers i Edward III. he has referred me 
 to a learned Author, who had not himfelf 
 confider'd thofe Arguments I offer'd. 
 
 And as before I gave the Lord Chief Ju- 
 fticej Cokes's Opinion for the Validity both of 
 the Judgment againft the two Spencers i Ed- 
 ward III. and of the Repeal of I Henry IV. 
 of the Revocation of that Judgment 1 1 Ri- 
 chard II. So let the Remarker try where he 
 can name any Lawyer of note that has been 
 of a different Opinion 5 nay, let him look 
 into ^the Statute Book, and fee whether all 
 
 * Km. p. 41, 
 
 G 4 the
 
 [88] 
 
 the Statutes made i Ed. III. whilft his Father 
 was alive, are nor this day in Force, (as one 
 of them is cited for a Law of this Realm 
 16 Car. i. c. 15.) 'and whether all the reft 
 of the A els made 2 1 Rich. II. as well as that 
 of the Revocation of the Judgment againft 
 the two Spencers, have not ever fince ftood 
 Repealed, and do ftand repealed at this day 
 by the Authority of Henry IV. and his firft 
 Parliament. As for inftance, an Aft of the 
 21 Richard II. had multiplied the Kinds of 
 Treafon, which Aft was Repealed i Henry.IV. 
 c. ic. and Treafon reduced to the old Stan- 
 dard of the 25. Edward III. * And can the 
 Rewarker, or natural born Subject mow that 
 any Man was ever tryed for Treafons upon 
 the Statute of Richard II. after that Statute 
 was Repealed by H. IV ? Or will they fay 
 that liotwithftanding that Repeal of Hen- 
 rj IV. any Man may be now, or might at 
 any time fince have been tryed for Treafon 
 by the 21. Rich. II. and not by the 25. 
 Edward III > 
 
 After this, I need not fay that this Repea- 
 led Parliament of the ii.Ricb.ll. on which 
 thefe two Authors lay fo great a Strefs, Was 
 
 Council. Hift. of his Trial p. 
 
 not
 
 1*91 
 
 not duly eleded,and fummoned, the Knights 
 being not chofen by the Cora in on s, front 
 Mos exigit, fed per Regiam Voluntatem. 
 And as for the Lords, fummoneri fecit Rex 
 omnes Deminos Jilri adherentes. And as it 
 was not regularly call'd : fo neither did it ad 
 with Freedom, but was held viris armatis 
 & Sagittariis immenjis , as is declared in 
 the Parliament Roll i Henry IV. n. 21, 22. 
 Another Objection, which I confidered,was 
 the Declaration of Parliament 39. Henry VI. 
 That the Duke of York'j Title could not be 
 defeated. This I faidwas a partial Declara- 
 tion of an awed Parliament, when the King's 
 Army was defeated, and the King himfelf 
 the Duke's Prifoner : Other wife they might 
 have declared, that his Title was defeated 
 by Ads of his own, as well as by Ads of 
 Parliament. They might, I faid, have decla- 
 red this, upon the Principles of thofe with 
 whom we are difputing -, who when they are 
 prefs'd with the Commands of Holy Scri- 
 pture to render unto C<efar the things that 
 are C#far\ 6cc. think it a fufficient Anfwer 
 to fay, that Tiberius Cstfar was a rightful 
 Governor by the Submillion and Oaths of 
 the Roman Senate and People to him, as 
 the Romans had before acquired a Right to the 
 Government of Jud&a by the Submiflion of 
 fhe Jews, Since therefore the Title of the 
 
 Regal
 
 C903 
 
 Regal Family of the Jews was defeated by 
 their fubmifiion to the Romans , and the 
 Title of the Roman Senate and People de- 
 feated by their Submifiion and Oaths to 
 Tiberius: Upon the fame Principle, the 
 Duke of Tork*s Title was defeated by his 
 long Submiflion, obeying Summons to Par- 
 liament, accepting and executing Commif- 
 fions under H. VI. and repeated Oaths of 
 Allegiance to him, particularly that in the 
 30th Year of H. Vlth's Reign, 
 
 In Anfwer to which, the Remarker firft 
 reprefents the Duke of Tor k in Durefs, when 
 he did all this, and therefore would have 
 it to be void. What our Kings (calling the 
 Duke of Tork King, who never calPd him- 
 felf fo, no, not when he had H. VI. Pri- 
 foner) are forced to do in Durefs againft 
 themselves and their own Right, is ofn&. 
 Force, f. 2 6. Again, all this might be, and 
 and y el the Houfe of York might not give 
 up their Right, and quit their. Claim ^ but 
 -waited only for a more favourable Opportu- 
 nity when they foduld get out of Durefs. </. 53. 
 Who would not imagine by this Account, that 
 the Heirs of the Houfe of Tork, (at leaft Jfco&. 
 Duke of Xork~) had pafs'd their time 
 in Prifon/ I have fhew'd already, that 
 Edmund Earl of March put himfelf at the 
 Head of an Army, for H. IV. againft 
 and difcovered to H. V. the 
 
 Con-
 
 C 91 ] 
 
 Confpiracy of the Earl of Cambridge^ his 
 Brother in Law againft that King : I might 
 (hew further from Sir William * T>ugdale y 
 J"hat he ferved King Henry Vth in his Wars 
 in France-, from Rymer f that he was in 
 thq fifth Year of Henry Vth. made Ad- 
 miral at Sea. That in the fixth Year of that 
 King, He was conftituted Lieutenant of Nor- 
 mandy^ and Warden of the Marches. And 
 that in the firft Year of H. VI. He was 
 made Lieutenant of Ireland by that Kin a:, 
 as appears both from * Ditgdale and f Ey- 
 mer. And to mew you how good a Subject 
 lie was, and what an entire Confidence thefe 
 two Kings had in him , I'll give you 
 || Part of a Commiffion from each of thefe 
 Kings to Edmund Earl of March who dyed 
 in Ireland. Jan. 19. in the * third Year of 
 Henry VI. after he had lived in this en- 
 
 * Baronage Torn. i. under the Title of March. 
 { Rymrfs Fcedera, Tom IX. p. 472. 
 
 * Baronage ut fupra. 
 
 U A. D. 1418. An. 6. H. 5. Rex omnibus ad quos &c 
 faluteiri. fciatis quod nos de fidelitate, probirate, & cir- 
 cuinfpeftione cariiliini confanguinei noftri Edwundi Coniitis 
 Marcbia plenius confidentes, ordinavimus &conftituimus 
 ipfum Comiterh Locum tenentein & Cuftodem geneiuln: 
 omnium Terrarura & Marchiarum totius Ducatus nuftri 
 Kormanniz, &c. habendum occupaiidum vegendum & exer- 
 cendumotricium praediclum quamdiu nobis phcuerit, &c. 
 ' Fced,Tcm. IX. p. spz. 
 
 tire
 
 C 92 ] 
 
 tire Sub'je&ion to the Three Kings of the 
 Houfe of Lane after. 
 
 I might obferve alfo from f Rymer, that 
 Richard Earl of Cambridge , who married the 
 Sifter and Heir of the Earl of Marcb^ and 
 who was Father to Richard Duke of 2V&, 
 affifted K. H. V. in his Wars in France. 
 But I come to Richard Duke of Tork, who 
 one would almofl think, by the Remarker's 
 way of fpeakingofhisD//r^/}, that he was 
 fcarce ever out of Prifon. But the Remarker 
 may find in Sir William Du^dale, that in 
 the eighth Year of K. H. VI." He was Gon- 
 ftable of England. In the loth of that 
 King, he was fent with a Commiilion to 
 fecure the Sea Coafts of Normandy. In the 
 1 2th. He was fent General, with the Duke 
 of Sowwerfet, to fupprefs an Infurredion in 
 Normandy. In the i^th was joyned with 
 
 * A. D. 1413. An. i . H. 6. Rex omnibus ad quos&c. fa- 
 lutem, fciatis quod nos,'de>fidelitate & circumfpedione ca- 
 riffimi confanguinei noftri Ednnindi Comitis Mcfrclria. Qf Ui~ 
 tones, pleniusconfidentes, de Avifamento& Aflenfu magnr 
 Concilii noftri, ordinavimus & conftituimus ipfum Comi- 
 tem Locum tenentem Terrs noftrsyHiberniae, habendum&c. 
 a prime die quo idem comes, vel deputatus fuus in terra 
 noftra przdiaa applicabit ufque ad finem novem annorum. 
 proximo fequentium & plenarie Coinpletorum. Rymefs Fx 
 dera Tom. TO. p.iSa. 
 
 J- Dugdale Baronage under t?x Title of March. 
 
 | Faedera &c. Tom. 9. p. zjo. 
 
 him
 
 C93] 
 
 him in Commiflion to govern France. In the 
 1 8th of K. H. VL was conftituted Lieu- 
 tenant and Captain General for all France 
 and Norrnandj. In the '2 3d of that King was 
 made Regent of France and "Normandy. In 
 the 29th of H. VI. was conftituted Lord 
 Lieutenant of Ireland. In the 32 of H. VI. 
 was made Protedor of the Realm, and in 
 the 35th H.VL made Lord Lieutenant of 
 Ireland. * 
 
 And let me now aflc the Rewarker, whether 
 thefe were not Inftances of an entire Subjection 
 in the Heirs of theHoufe of Tork ? Could they 
 have given greater proofs of a voluntary 
 Subjection, than by undertaking and exe- 
 cuting thefe great Charges ? And will the 
 l&etnarker ftill fay, they were in Durefs > 
 In Durefs, when they were Admirals at Sea, 
 Generals of great Armies in remote Countries, 
 Regents, and Lieutenants of Great Kingdoms? 
 . Not to enquire how many times the Duke 
 of Tork repeated his Oath of Fidelity to 
 K. H. VI. when he was admitted to thefe 
 great Offices, or how often he took Oaths 
 to him upon other Occafions, as that Oath 
 which the Duke of York, and Buck'mghajn, 
 the Two Archbifhops, Eleven Bifhops, Six 
 
 * Sir William DugdaleV Baronage, Tcin. 2. .? i SP- 1 Co. 
 t<5i, &c. under the Title of York, 
 
 Earl?,
 
 [94] 
 
 Earls, Two Vifcounts, Eighteen Abbots, 
 Two Priors , and Seventeen Barons 
 took in Parliament unto Henry VI. in 
 the 33d. Year of his Reign, Jsovemb. 25. 
 for their Allegiance unto the King. * Not 
 to make this Enquiry, fmce that Oath || which 
 the Duke of Tork took in the goth Year of 
 H. Vlth's Reign at St. Paul's Crofs, being 
 a Renunciation of his Own, and a Recog- 
 nition of H. VI. Right, was, as well his 
 accepting, and executing thofe great Com- 
 nriflions, abundantly fufficient to defeat his 
 Title. The Remarker, to avoid this confe- 
 quence, will have the Duke of Tork to be 
 in f Ditrefs when he took this Oath but 
 let him look into Stow * and he will find, 
 that he was at full Liberty at that time j 
 nay, that in the 3 1 ft. Year of that Reign, 
 he took this Oath again at Weflrmnfler^ and 
 at Coventry at fundry Times. -\ Since then 
 he was not in Durefs, but at full Liberty, 
 when He took and repeated this Oath, the 
 Confequence fure is unavoidable. No faith 
 the Remarker, Grant this too that he was 
 at Liberty, what then? Why then you'll 
 
 *See tU Book of Oaths $.14$. 
 |j See Stow/'. 395. 
 fSee Remarks f. 16, $J. 
 "* Stow ibid. 
 t Stowf. 3 o<5. 
 
 fy
 
 C95 3 
 
 fay he bad quitted bis Claim. I beg Mr. H's. 
 pardon y no Jucb matter I can ajjure you, 
 but tbe quite contrary -, for the very fwearing 
 of Allegiance upon an Agreement, was fofar 
 from weakning bis Title y that it rather 
 ftrengtbened it. * That Oath which Mr. H. 
 calls a Recognition of Henry VL Right , was 
 indeed or de fadlo Henry VL Recognition 
 of Richard Duke of YorkV Right, for faith 
 he, Richard Duke of Tork took this 
 Oath upon an Agreement, f He goes on, if 
 all be trite which Ihavefaid, as it is y the 
 Gentlemen may ft ill fay y that tbe Right of 
 the Jews and Roman Senate was defeated, 
 and that the Roman Emperours were rightful 
 Governours y becaufe the Jews and Roman 
 Senate had fubmitted and fworn Allegiance 
 to them ^ and yet nevertbelefs the Honfe of 
 York, tbo* they bad fworn Allegiance to the 
 PoffeJJor, bad fiill a good Title , and fitch as 
 the Ufurper by tbe Agreement owned. Tbe 
 Gentlemen he [peaks of may abide by their 
 Anfwer, and yc, not own that the Duke's 
 Title was defeated, and may buUly <ij]^.rt y 
 that his Title was not aEtualy defeated fy 
 the 'Legislative Por er oj t'jt Realm. l\ei r 
 need they acknowledge ', tbat t^ts Declaration 
 
 * Remarks p. ztf, 17, 
 
 \
 
 of 'Parliament proves too much, for it proves. 
 what it was brought to prove, and no 
 more. \ 
 
 But now if all this be falfe, which the 
 Remarker fays is true, that Richard Duke 
 of Tork took this Oath upon an Agreement 
 -which acknowledged his Right : And if the 
 contrary to it be true, that this Oath 
 mention'd in the View, was not taken up- 
 on the Agreement, but taken .and repeated 
 feveral Years before the Agreement , then 
 it follows, upon the Remarker's, and thefe 
 Gentlemens own Principles, and way of 
 Reafoning,That as the Right of the Jews and 
 Roman Senate was defeated by their fub- 
 miflion to the Roman Emperors : So was the 
 Duke of Tork's Title defeated by his long 
 and abfolute SubmifTion and repeated Oaths 
 of Allegiance to K. H. VJ. That as the 
 Duke's Title was thus defeated by the afore- 
 faid Oath, fince the Oath was taken before the 
 Agreement, Defeated 1 fay, upon their own 
 Principles by the Duke's own Act and Deed, 
 notwithstanding this Declaration of Parlia- 
 ment : So, notwithstanding the fame, it 
 might be defeated, as it actually was, by the 
 Legislative Power of the Realm, and there- 
 
 * Remarks f. 60. 
 
 fore
 
 I 971 
 
 fore this Declaration of Parliament prov- 
 ing too much, proves nothing at all. 
 
 ' .Thefe Confequences are unavoidable, and 
 this Declaration, That the Title of the Duke 
 of York conU not be defeated^ mttft 'be 
 given up on their own Principles, if that be 
 falfe, which the Remarker afHrrns to be 
 true, that Ms Oath was not taken uniill 
 the Agreement : And falfe it certainly 
 is ^ for the Agreement in Parliament 
 between K. H. VI. and Richard Duke 
 of Tork was made in the 39th Year of K. 
 H. Vlth's Reign , but this Oath was taken, 
 a great many Years before it-, the firft time 
 at St. Paul's Crofs in the goth Year of 
 H. VI. which was 9 Years before the 
 Agreement, and again at Weftmmfler, and 
 Coventry at fundry times * in the 3 1 Year 
 of H. VI. which was 8 Years before it. 
 
 Tis true,thatthe Duke of Tork took an Oath 
 upon the Agreement , but as this was taken 
 feveral Years after the Oath, which I cited 
 and indited on in the View : So was it a dif- 
 ferent Oath, and of a different Nature 
 from that, as is known to all who are well 
 acquainted with the Hiftory of that Age, 
 and as the Rernarker might have known by 
 
 * See Stow as cite 
 
 H thofe
 
 thofe Words of the Oath which I cited, or 
 might have feen-in Story p. 3^5. (whether 
 tr-referr'd the Reader,) and may fee in 
 the Appendix * tothis,$ppk,where heil find 
 both thefe Oaths.And whatever the Re??iarker 
 thinks, I was not fo very abfurd,as to go about 
 toprove,that the D.of2V had defeated his Ti- 
 tle 9 Years before the Declaration of Parlia- 
 ment by an Oath, which he did not take till 
 after that Declaration. 
 
 . I cannot hut wonder, that the Remarker 
 and. fome others do fo boldly adventure to 
 pronounce upon our Behaviour in this Age, 
 from the, Proceedings of that .Age, which 
 they appear to be fo little Acquainted .with. 
 4'ljie Renuirker puts the Duke pf Tork in 
 Durefs, when he took this Oath of Recog- 
 nition to H. VI. fo often . ruention'd, tho' 
 'Stow exprefly takes notice, he was then at 
 full Liberty. He makes him not to take this 
 Oath till after the Agreement j when it is 
 evident from Stow ? that he had taken 
 .it the third .time eight Years before it: 
 And by a complication of! "thefe Miitakes, 
 (to pafs by the reft that he -has made in this 
 Matter) He makes the D. of Tork to be in 
 -Durefs, when he took this Oath to H.VL 
 inthe39tli' Year of his Reign ^ when every 
 .one, who knows- any thing of this Hiftory, 
 cannot but know the Re.yerfe of this to be 
 
 true,
 
 t 99] 
 
 true, and that when the Agreement was 
 made and this Oath taken, the Duke of 
 Tork was at full Liberty, and in full Power-, 
 and H. VI. not in the Remarked imaginary 
 Durefs, but the Duke 'ofTork's real Prifongr. 
 The Remarker's Hypothefis indeed requi- 
 red, that the Duke (hould never have taken 
 any Oath of Fidelity to H. VJ. till after 
 the Agreement, or that he mould be in Du- 
 refs when he took it ^ otherwife his Title 
 would on the Rff marker's Principles be de- 
 feated by his Oath. Far be it from me to 
 fay the Remarker knew this to be falfe, I 
 rather charitably believe he did not know it to 
 be fo j but that he was fo potfefs'd with his 
 Hypothefis, that he thought he knew that to 
 be' true, which any Hiftory of that Time 
 could have told him was falfe -, and did not 
 fee thofe Facts, which almoft every Body 
 elfe does fee. 
 
 Every Body, I mean, who is not to the 
 fame Degree pofTefs'd with his Hypothefis, 
 For here*s very lately come to my Hands a 
 3d. Anfwer, under the Title of The English 
 Conjlitutton fully jlated, with fome Animad- 
 verfions on Mr. Higden'j MJftakes about it, 
 in which the Author falls into the Rertiar- 
 ker's Miftakes, that the Duke of Tork did 
 not take the Oath to H. VI. cited in the 
 View till after the Agreement, faying, when 
 H 2 Richard
 
 [ ICO ] 
 
 Richard Duke of York took that Oath (which 
 Mr. Higden lays fo much ftrefs on) the Par- 
 liament was fitting, to whom he made his 
 Claim. * Enough has been already faid in 
 confutation of this Miftake. I fhall only 
 obferve from the Repetition of it by the /M// 
 Stater, that when Men write from an Hy- 
 pothefis, they almofl as naturally fall into 
 the fame Track of Efrour,as thofe that write 
 from certain jjMemoh$ agree in a true re- 
 lation of Fads. For the full Stater did not, 
 it feems, take up his Miftakes in this matter 
 from the Remarks-^ (ince he tells us f that 
 Book came not to him, till he was got to the 
 69th. Page of his own Book -, nor could he, 
 anymore than the Remarker himfelf could, 
 take them from any Hiftorian : Nay, which 
 is more furprfeing, he tells us, that by my 
 directing them to Stow, I had helped him to fee 
 at large that whole Agreement between the King 
 and the Duke. \\ Now it is not plainer in Nume- 
 ration, that 31 goes before 32, and that 39 
 is after both thofe Numbers , than it is 
 in Stow, that the Duke's Oath, on which 
 I laid fo great a ftrefs, was taken by him in 
 the 3cth. Year, repeated twice in the 3 1 
 
 * Englljh Ccnjlitnticn fully fitted f. 2?, 
 t Englijb Covftitutjo* fully Jtated *. fy. 
 
 Year
 
 Year of H. VI. and that the Agreement was 
 not made till the 39th. Year of that King.- 
 And yet while the/?/// Stater is animad- 
 verting on my Miftakes, as if he had read 
 Stow backwards, he makes the Agreement 
 to be before that Oath, i. c. he makes what 
 pafs'd in the 39th Year, to be done before that 
 which pafs'd in the ^oth and 3 1 Years of that 
 Reign, and upon this Miftake he forms his 
 Argument to prove me miftaken. 
 
 I have more chanty for him too than to 
 believe he faid this, becaufe his Argument 
 required it :, but I may fay if he did not read 
 Stow backwards, he read him under the 
 moft violent Impreffions of his Hypothecs. 
 
 Under thefe Impreflions,hegoeson, faying,?*;* 
 jiicb a Cafe a* this^tis no wonder jf they who 
 efpoufedthe Title of Richard Duke of York 
 fubmitted, * and took Oaths to Henry VL 
 while there could be no Injury thereby done 
 to the right Heir, he himfelf consenting and 
 doing the fame. Here he ventures further 
 than his Friend the Remarker, who has not 
 pretended to produce any Non-jurors in 
 HenryWIth's Reign : Whereas the full Stater 
 here fuppofes, that all, who efpoufed the 
 Duke of York's Title in the 39th Year of 
 Henry VL had never fubmitted, or taken 
 
 * Tlit Englifi Conjfitution fully Jlated f. 74. 
 
 H 3 Oaths
 
 [ 102 -] 
 
 Oaths before that time : altho' at the famfr 
 time he is not able to produce one Non- 
 juror in that Reign, or a (ingle Authority to 
 fupport his Aflertion, for which he has no 
 better Foundation than his own Miftake, 
 that the Duke himfelf never fubmitted, or 
 took an Oath to H. VI. before that time. 
 Then, faith he, they fubmitted and took 
 Oaths, the Duke consenting and doing the 
 fame, as if he had not done the fame long 
 before. He knew nothing it feems of the 
 entire Submifiion in which the Duke had 
 lived -, nothing of the many important Com- 
 miflions that he had accepted -^nothing of thofe 
 great Offices that he had executed under 
 Henry VI. (of all which I have given fome 
 account above) no more than of the Oaths 
 that he had taken to him before this time : 
 by which the Reader may judge how well 
 fkilled he is in the Englifh Hi (lory, and 
 well qualified to give the full State of 
 the Englifti Conftitution. Before I read this 
 Book, I thought I muft have excufed my 
 felf to the Author, for not having taken no- 
 tice of it fooncr ( Several Sheets of this De- 
 fence having patted the Prefs before I faw it) 
 but after this, the Reader, may poflibly 
 think I (hall want his Excufe, if I (hould 
 take any farther notice of it. When the/i/// 
 Stater lent his Book in MS. to his Friend, 
 - of
 
 1 103 -] 
 
 of whom it feems he had borrowed the Sta- 
 tute Book, and fome other Books in order to 
 make his Animadverfions on the View, he 
 fays to him, excufe me I pray, for keeping 
 them fo long; a Eufmefs one^s unaccitftomed 
 to, was like but to go on flowly, and to be but 
 aukwardly done at loft, p. I. and as he faid 
 this of his Book, after he had writ it ^ fo 
 in this I perfectly agree with him, after I 
 have read it,and mail therefore take my leave of 
 him, leaving the reft of his Miftakes to be cor- 
 rected by what is faid to the Watchmen on 
 higher ground, as he calls the Remarker, and 
 N. B. Subjeft. 
 
 Having proved in the View, that Kin<*s 
 for the Time being with their Two Houfes 
 of Parliament had the Legiilative Power, 
 they muft have alfo the Supream Power, the 
 former bein gal ways eiTential to, and infepara- 
 ble from the latter. To which the Remar- 
 ker anfwers, therefore Cromwell having 
 the Legijlative Power, was fupream and 
 King for the time being. * And to his Anfvver 
 I reply, therefore Cromwell was,i not Su- 
 preme and King for the Time being, and 
 for this Reafon among others, becaufe he 
 had not, nor ever was acknowledged by our 
 Kings and Parliaments to have had the Le- 
 
 H 4 giflativs
 
 giflative Power. The Ads of Parliament of 
 all our Kings de faclo have flood, as I have 
 fhewn, by their original Force and Virtue 
 without a Confirmation ; but the Remarker 
 cannot but know that Oliver?, Ads funk of 
 themfelves without a Repeal:, or if he doth 
 not know it, he may be convinced of it by 
 the Statute Book, and Scobel's Colledions. 
 
 If Mr. H. fays^ that Cromwell'j Acts were 
 not fully owned by the Hereditary King^ that 
 will not anfwer the Difficulty. * 
 
 What does the Remarker mean ? Does 
 Mr. H. fay, Cromwell's Ads were not fully 
 own'd? Mr. H. fays, they were notown'd at 
 all by any of our Hereditary Kings. The 
 Re marker goes on. 
 
 . For if he had trie Authority, and was the 
 Legiflator, the Heir ought according to 
 Mr. H'J Hypothefis to have oivrfd his as 
 well as any other King de facto'.; Atls, f /. e> 
 if Cromwell had had, what he had not, he 
 would have been, what he was not. But ac- 
 cording to Mr. J/'s. Hypothefis , Cromwell 
 had not the Legislative Power, nor was King 
 for the Time being, and therefore the He- 
 reditary King was not oblig'd to acknowledge 
 his Ads, as he. never did, 
 
 Qvgbt
 
 C 105] 
 
 Ought not this then, (to life Mr. HV. 
 Words) to conclude all private Subjects .<? 
 Can Mr. H. then difown this Authority, with- 
 (fitt cppojing his private Sentiments to tha? 
 which himf elf acknowledges to be the Supreme 
 Authority and judgment of the Kingdom ? 
 Yes, Mr. H. can difown Cromwell's Autho- 
 rity, without oppofing his Sentiments to that 
 which himfelf acknowledges to be the Su- 
 preme Authority and Judgment of the King- 
 dom : And may yet very well affirm, what 
 he has proved, that the Remarker cannot 
 difown the Legiflative Authority of Kings 
 for the Time being, which is own'd by He- 
 reditary Kings and their Parliaments, with- 
 out oppofing his private Sentiments to that 
 which himfelf acknowledges to be the Su- 
 preme Authority and Judgment of the King- 
 dom. 
 
 Laftly, I obferv'd,that fince Kings for the 
 Time being have by the Statute and Com- 
 mon Law, the Legiflative Power of this 
 Realm, the Obedience of their Subjecls is due 
 to their Laws, and their Allegiance to their 
 Perfons. And then, fay /, anfwers the Re- 
 marker, the Obedience of the Subjects, was 
 due to Cromwell He mould have proved it, 
 as well as have faid it :, but that he never 
 can do from my Principles, or our Confti- 
 tution, by which Cromwell had not the Le- 
 giflative
 
 C 106 3 
 
 giflative Power, and therefore the Obedience 
 of the Subjects was not due to his Laws. 
 This as well as the reft of his Confequen- 
 es, do not follow from my Principles, but 
 from his own Miftakes about 'em. 
 
 The Reader may obferve, that when the 
 Remarker , and Natural Born Subjett are 
 diftrefTed for an Anfwer, and cannot relieve 
 themfelves \yyfub rations juris y or the pre- 
 fumptive Confent, they frequently call in 
 Oliver to their Afiiftance. This is what is 
 calPd arguing ab abfurdo. But when they 
 fir ft miftake or mifreprefent my Opinion, 
 and then draw abfurd Confequences from it, 
 the Abfurdities, as well as the Miftakes, are 
 their Own. 
 
 But once for all to difparch Oliver^ who 
 is fo often introduced by thefe Writers. Firft, 
 as I have obferved, that as by our Conftitu- 
 tion he had not the Legislative Authority 
 of the Kingdom, nor was ever acknowledged 
 by our Kings to have had it, and therefore 
 could not have the Sovereign Authority of 
 the Kingdom: Soadly.It is as true e con- 
 verfo^ that he who had not the Regal Title 
 and Office, could not have the Legiflative 
 Authority in this Monarchy, in which by 
 our Conftitution, a Law cannot be made 
 without a King or Queen , and therefore all 
 the Ordinances of the Two Houfes of Par- 
 liament,
 
 C 
 
 liamenr, all the ABs of the Rump, and all 
 Oliver'?, Afts funk of themfelves as Nullities 
 ab origine. Such a Protedor as Oliver was, 
 is a Monfter not known to our Conftiturion 
 or Laws ^ but King and Queen are not meer 
 Titles, but carry with them the Regal Of- 
 fice and the Sovereign Authority and Ju- 
 rifdicHon of the Realm, which is known 
 to our Laws, and is the Soul of them. 
 
 gdly. Thofe only have been acknowledged 
 for Kings, for the Time being, who have 
 been placed in the Throne by the States of 
 the Realm, and recognized by Parliament. 
 Whereas Oliver had not the Confentof the 
 3 Eftates of the Realm, even for his Pro- 
 teftorfhip : Two of the 3 Eftates, the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, had been long be- 
 fore laid afide, and it was no better, than. 
 a Mock-reprefentation of the gd. Eftate, the 
 bafe and ignominious Tools of his Ambi- 
 tion, with the help of his Fanatick Army, 
 that made him Protedor. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 C 108] 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 A Defence of the fourth Chapter, in which 
 the Allegiance of the Subjeft was proved 
 lo be due to the King for the Time being > 
 by the Statute Law of this Realm, with 
 an Anfwer to the mojl considerable Qbje- 
 Biom. 
 
 Lthough the Allegiance of the Sub- 
 jecT: to Kings for the Time being 
 
 >th follow as a neceflary Confequence from 
 their being inverted with the Legifla- 
 tive Authority, yet I took notice, that we 
 had alfo exprefs Statutes for it. 
 
 As firft, the Statute of Treafons made 
 35. Edw.lll. which declares what Offen- 
 ces are Treafon againft our Sovereign Lord 
 the King. And that by our Sovereign Lord 
 the King in this Statute, is underflobd only 
 the King in PoJJeffwn of the Crown and King- 
 dom, tho* he be Rex de' fado, and not de 
 jure, we had the Opinions of two great 
 Lawyers, the Lord Chief Juftice Coke and 
 Hale ^ and no great Lawyer's Opinion, as 
 far as I knew, to the contrary. Could the 
 Remarker have produced any great Lawyer 
 that has contradicted either of thefe chief 
 Juftices, he would not have produced Prin,
 
 3 
 
 at lead he would not have produced him 
 alone, who never had any great reputation 
 either for Skill or Integrity. But becaufe 
 Prin makes both Pages in the Remarks, let 
 the Remarker read Mr. Collier's Preface 
 to his * Ecclefiaftical Hiflory, where he exa- 
 mines Pf/tt's 2d. Vol. of Records, and thinks 
 he finds him light upon the Scale, and that 
 there lye flrong preemptions again/I his Skill 
 or Integrity, or both, which may ferve, faith. 
 he, as a Caution of that Author in other 
 Matters. 
 
 The Remarker } cites however Moor's Re- 
 ports where it is faid, that Allegiance fal- 
 lows the Natural Perfon, (and that mtift,(mh 
 the Remarker, be under flood of the King ds 
 jure, as if a King de faflo had not a Natu- 
 jal Perfon,) for if the King is by Force driven 
 out of his Kingdom y and another vfurps - 5 not- 
 with ft an ding this, the Allegiance of the Sub- 
 jeEl does not ceafe, tbo* the Law does. I 
 could in this very Cafe cite a Paragraph, 
 which I am fure the Remarker will not fub- 
 fcribeto: But to go no farther than his Ci- 
 ation, in which by another that ufurps un- 
 der whom the Law does ceafe, he would 
 underftand a King de faBo, but this cannot 
 
 * Preface f. 4. f Remarks ?. 6 1, 66. 
 
 be,
 
 be, becaafe the Law is fo far from cea- 
 iing under a King de fatfo, that it is admi- 
 niftred not only actually, but legally admi- 
 niftred by him, and difcontinued only by 
 his Demjfe, as I have (hewn not only from 
 Bagot's but feveral other Cafes. And there- 
 fore by another that ufurps, muft he under- 
 ftood a Simon Monfort^i'L'idy Jane Gr/f^or an 
 Oliver under whom the Laws did ceafe,and no 
 judicial Proceedings were valid farther than 
 they were afterwards confirmed. 
 
 He cites Coke's Report of Calvin's cafe, 
 where it is faid, true and faithful Legiance 9 
 and Obedience is an Incident infep arable to 
 every Sub] eft as fo on as be is born. And he 
 calls it Natural Allegiance , faith the Remar- 
 ker, which can -never be due to a King de 
 fafto, in oppofition to a King de jure. * Thefe 
 Jaft Words are the Remarker's Glofs, but 
 .the Words of the Report amount to no more 
 than this, that every Perfon is born in fub- 
 jedion to Government, and to whomfoever 
 the Laws of that Government under which 
 he is born, direct him to pay his Allegiance, 
 to him he ought to pay it : And why that 
 may not be to the King for the Time being, 
 if the Laws require it, I fee no reafon -, for 
 certainly the Laws of Nature do neither tell 
 us who is our Prince, nor what meafures 
 of Obedience are due to him. If they did, 
 
 as
 
 as the Laws of Nature are every where the 
 fane, Perfons would be entitled to Sove- 
 reignty by the fame way, and the meafures 
 of Obedience would be the fame in all Coun- 
 tries, in England ', in France, and in Poland, 
 which no Man fure will fay : And therefore 
 Natural Allegiance is the fame with Legal 
 Allegiance, and go both together, as the Re- 
 marker has obferv'd from Sir EJiv.Coke.^Si. 
 But iince he has cited, Calvbfs Cafe, let me 
 put him in mind of a Maxim laid down 
 there (than which there is not a clearer in 
 the whole Cafe) Prote&io trabit fubjettia- 
 nem,& fubjettio trabit prote8ionem:VJhich be- 
 ing, underftood, as it ought to be by the whole 
 .tenor of the Cafe, of the Protection of a King, 
 .is of it felf fufRcient to determin the Senfe of 
 the 2 5 Edw. III. againft the Revtarker,and to 
 .put an end to the whole Controverfy. 
 
 Judge HaleV Opinion, as 'tis represented m 
 fas Pleas of the Crown, is of no value in tbe 
 World, faith the Remarker, becaufe it was 
 a Pojlhwnous Work written in bis younger 
 Tears about tbe End of K. Charles 7". p. 65. 
 The Work indeed was Pofth umous, but ge- 
 nuine -, and he in his younger Years, tho* 
 not fo very young towards the latter End of 
 K. Cb. I. but as young as he was, he was at 
 that time one of the brighteft Men of his 
 Prpfeffion , ptherwife }je would not .have 
 
 'been
 
 C 
 
 been chofen of Council to the E. of Straff ord, 
 and Archbifhop Land, and defign'd for the 
 BlefTed Martyr himfelf, had he thought it fit 
 to have pleaded in that villainous Courr.Tho' 
 he was probably the youngeft of Archbifhop 
 Laud^s Council, yet Archbifhop Sancroft 
 has put this Note in the Margin of the Hi- 
 flory of that great Prelate's Tryal. That the 
 Lord Chancellor Finch told him, that the 
 Argument which was delivered by Mr. Hern. 
 at A. B. L. Tryal was not his (tbo* he pro- 
 nounced it) but Mr- Hale'j, afterwards Lord 
 Chief * Juflice. But becaufe the Rewarker, 
 fpeaking with the laft contempt of this Book, 
 fays, no one that is a Lawyer would make, 
 life ofjuch a Work, tbo 9 Mr. H. f does, he 
 may find it cited as a good Authority by the 
 late Lord Chief Juftice Holt in a printed 
 Tryal - 5 and I am told by thofe that frequent 
 the Courts, that it is frequently cited with 
 Authority both from the Bench and Bar. 
 
 As the Remarker has attacked the Repu- 
 tation of the Book, the N. B. Subject attacks 
 the reputation of the Author. Then for 
 Hales, faith he, He was a Judge under Oliver, 
 as you may fee in his Life by Dr. Burner. 
 And therefore there lay not the leaft Tern- 
 
 Tie Troubles and Try ah. 
 
 * Hi/lory of A, B. Laud's f. 42 z f Remarks f. 6 j. 
 
 ftation
 
 C "3 3 
 
 ptation (he means, there lay a great Tem- 
 ptation inhis way,)r0 palliate and 'fmooth over 
 a Caufe, wherein he had been fa far con- 
 cerned. * But he fhould have told us how 
 little Sir Matthew Hale had been concerned ^ 
 he Ihould have told us,that before he took this 
 Commiflion, hfe was much urged to accept it 
 ly fome eminent Men of hi sown Profeffionjwho 
 were of the Kings Party, as Sir Orlando 
 Bridgeman, and Sir Geoffery Palmer j and 
 was alfo fatisfed concerning' the lawfitlnefs 
 of it by fome famous Divine 's, in particular^ 
 Dr. Sheldon and Dr. Henchman, who were 
 afterwards promoted to the Sees 0/ Canter- 
 bury and London.Ttef/V he did accept this 
 Commiffion from Oliver^ he would make no 
 Declaration acknowledging his Authority, nor 
 try any State Prisoners f -, and he was conftant 
 to his Refolution, and never did either of 
 them. Had the 'Natural Born SubjeB told us 
 this, as he might have done from the Book 
 that he cites, he had done Juftice to this 
 great Man's Memory, and would have let 
 the Reader fee, that the Chief Juftice did, as 
 our Laws do, make a manifefl Difference 
 betwixt a King de faclo, and an Oliver j and 
 that the former is within the purview of 
 
 * Letter p. 76. 
 
 J- See tlx Bijbojt o/Sarum'sIi/i? of Sir M. 
 
 i the
 
 the 2 5th -Edw. III. and the latter is not. In 
 the mean time, how fcrnpulous is the 2\ 7 . B. 
 Subjeft in his Chronology, who makes the 
 
 - Judge tempted to deliver this Opinion in his 
 Pleas of the Crown, to fmooth over a Cotn- 
 rniflion that he did not accept till many Years 
 after that Book was written ? for the Com- 
 
 r million was not taken till 1653, and the 
 Book was written in K. Charles the firft's 
 -Reign,- as he -may fee in the Remarks. 
 
 The Natural Born Subjett mentions a MS. 
 of the Chief Ju (lice's, which yet I don't per- 
 ceive he has ever feen. ; for he doth not 
 tell ns where it is to be found, nor cites 
 any thing from it, and therefore I need fay 
 nothing to it. 
 
 adly. This, appeared,! faid, to be the 
 fenfe of t-be Stature, not only from the Opi- 
 
 - nions of the greatefi Lawyers, but alfo from 
 the nature and defign of the Law, which 
 was only declarative:, not to make newS^- 
 c its's of Treafon, but; only to declare thofe 
 
 - Offences to be Treafon 'by this Statute, 
 which were fo before , by common Law and 
 Ufage. And therefore.as thofe Offences only 
 are Treafon by this Statute, which were fo be- 
 
 . fore by the Common Law and Ufage of the 
 Realm : So by the King in this Statute,againft 
 whom-thofe offences are Treafon,He only muft 
 beunderftood,who was King by the fame com- 
 mon Law and Ufage,which I have prov'd to be 
 the Regnant King. Upon which the Remarkfi 
 
 fays,
 
 C 
 
 J. is a bold Man to a (fen this, for llc~ 
 lievejoe has not one 'Lawyer (farce the Conqneft, 
 (provided he can fnd one Regnant King with- 
 out an Hereditary Title or a Pretence to it) 
 that willjland by him in this Affertwn^ * and 
 yet he himfelf has juft before been 
 oppofing the Authority of two Chief Juftices, 
 Coke, arid Hale^ for averting the fame } 
 and who aiTerted it, without his Provifo, or 
 any thing like it , and has not been able in the 
 mean time to produce one Lawyer,unlefs it be 
 Pr/w, a very indifferent one, that has contra- 
 dicted either of them. 
 
 But, I faid, we fhould eafily be determined 
 to this fenfe of the Statute, when we con- 
 fider that as before this Statute, and a long 
 time after it, the diflinction of King dejure 
 and fafatfo was not known : So the Reg- 
 nant King only could be King in this Sta- 
 tute, (ince there was no other King but He : 
 Others indeed fometimes pretended a better 
 Right to the Throne, than the Prince that 
 poifefs'd it , but they never ailum'd the Re- 
 gal Title, nor did their Adherents ever 
 give it them, nor the Hiftorians who wrote 
 in thofe Times or of them,and of this I have 
 given feveral Inftances. 
 
 Htmarkt fify 
 
 The
 
 Remarker talks of the Right 
 not afjuming the Regal Title, becanfe in 
 Durefs p. 52. and (ays, there are Cafes when 
 a Man dare not foy, his Soul is his own, 
 p. 69. What does the Remarker mean > Was 
 this the Cafe of Robert Duke of Normandy, 
 when he claimed either againft his Brother 
 King William Ritfus, or Henry I > Of Maud 
 when me claimed againft King Stephen, and 
 had him for fome time in real Durefs? Of 
 Arthur, againft King John ? Which were 
 the very Inftances I gave. Were not thefe 
 Sovereign Princes in Poffeflion of large Ter- 
 ritories, and Maud the Wife of a Sove- 
 reign ? And were not every one of them, in, 
 their times, at the Head of powerful Armies, 
 when they fet up their Claims ? But in 
 Utopia, it feems, this is to be in Durefs. 
 But to bring the Remarker thence into 
 England, what hinder'd thefe Claimants from 
 taking the Regal Title, when they invaded 
 the Kingdom with ftrong Armies? Was it 
 not becaufe they knew, that the Realm 
 knew but one King, who was the Regnant 
 King ? and who therefore, as I faid, muft be 
 the King in this Statute, fince there was no 
 other King but He. 
 
 The learned and ingenious Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorian, whom I have fo often cited, when 
 he comes to the Reign of King Stephen, 
 
 makes
 
 [ 
 
 makes it the Reign of Maud, and dates all 
 the occurrences of that Time by the Year's 
 of her Reign, until the Compromife betwixt 
 Stephen and her Son H. J. But in this he 
 {lands alone without any Authority either 
 ancient or modern, nay, againft the Au- 
 thority of all the ancient Hiftorians from, 
 whom he collects the Hiftory of this Rei^n, 
 who conftantly call it the Reign of King 
 Stephen. A ftrong Preemption , that this 
 Author's notion of Government was no 
 more known to the Writers of that Time, 
 than M.aud\ Reign was. Why did he not 
 alfo make it the Reign of King Edgar Atheling, 
 and not of King William I .<? Of King Robert, 
 and not of King Williamll. or King f-Iemy J. 
 before^ the Compromife made with his two 
 Brothers fucceffively > Why not the Reign 
 of King Arthur , and not of King John .<? 
 Of Queen Eleanor^ and not of King John, 
 or King Henry Ill.until Eleanor's Death) dx 
 He had as much Authority and Reafon for 
 this Change in all thofe Reigns, as in that 
 one in which he has made it. 
 
 But to return to the Reinarker, who pro- 
 duces fome Inftances to prove, that Trea- 
 ion iiny be committed againft a King out of 
 PoiTeilion. As it was by the Murderers of 
 King Charles I. and ethers that were exe- 
 cuted, and pardoned for Treafon againft 
 I 3 King
 
 ( n8) 
 
 King Claries II. tho' out of Pofleffion. *But 
 1 do not fee how thefe Instances are to his 
 purpofe :> for it is certain King Charles I. 
 was both King de jure and de faElo too : 
 And therefore the Lord Chief Baron 
 Bridgeman faith to Cook the Regicide, 
 King Charles was owned by thefe Men and 
 you as King) you charged him as King, and 
 you fentenced him as King, you proceeded 
 again ft him as King, and as yet King. * 
 
 As fbr the Cafe of King Charles II. tho' 
 he was not in Pofleflion, yet there was no King 
 in Pofleflion againfthim^ and therefore he 
 did , what "Edward IV. durft not , afla- 
 me the Regal Title before he wasin Pof- 
 fefiion, and dated the beginning of his Reign 
 from his Fathers Death, and calPd the 
 Year of his Reftoration, the I2th. Year of 
 his Reign. Whereas Edward IV. did not 
 afliime the Regal Title till the 4th. Day of 
 March, on which he took Poffeffion of the 
 Throne with the confer) t of the States , 
 from which Day, and not from the Day of 
 his Fathers Death, he began the Date of 
 his Reign. Nay, Henry VI. himfelf who 
 had before been almoft 3 9. Years in PofleG- 
 (ion, doth not,upon his Readeptionjeckon the 
 jo intermediate Years of Edward the IVth's 
 
 * J/je Trial tftbe Regicides, . 146, 
 
 ;**,.*,,<>,
 
 PofTeffion, as part of his own Reign - and 
 therefore in the Year Books, the Date runs 
 thus ^ Anno ab inchoatione Regni Henrici VI 
 quadragejjimo nono y & Readeptionis Regia. 
 foteftatis primo^ and not Anno Regni Henrici 
 fexti quadragejjimo nono. 
 
 As to the cafe of the Murderers ofEdw. II. 
 who were put to Death for Treafon, tho* 
 he was out of Pofleflion, Sir Edw. Coke 
 fays, it appearetb by Briton to compass the 
 >eath of the Father of the King is Treafon, 
 and fo was the Law holden after that , for 
 after Edward //. had difmiffed himfelf 
 of his Kingly Office and Duty^ and his 
 Son by the Same 0/'Edward ILwas crowned^ 
 and King Regnant , thofe cur fed Caitifi^ 
 Thomas Gourney and William Ocle, and 
 ethers were attainted of high Treafon for mur- 
 thering the Kings Fathei\v>ho had been King 
 by the Name of Edward //, and had judgment 
 to be drawn, hanged and quartered-^ the 
 like judgment was given againjl Sir John Mi- 
 trevers Knight, and others as being guilty 
 of the Death, of the King's Uncle Edmund 
 Earl of Kent, which at that time {being fo 
 near of the Blood} was by fowe alfo holden 
 
 he 
 
 Treafon: But now this AB of the 
 Edward ///. hath reftrained High Treafon 
 in cafs of Death la notre Seignior le Roy la- 
 J 4
 
 [120 ] 
 
 compagnie, & al eigne fitz & heire le Roy. 
 Inftir. Pt. 4. c. i. p. 7. 
 
 The Remarker proceeds to the famous 
 Statute of the XL of Henry VII. chap. I. 
 and {%ysj might fend Mr. H. and his Friends 
 to a Book entitled , Animadverfwns upon 
 the Modern Explanation of the II. of 
 Henry VII. chap. I. or &c. and to the Cafe of 
 Allegiance to a King in ojjejjion y * 6cc. The 
 firft of thefe Books is little more than an 
 Abridgment of the fecond, and I do not 
 know any thing considerable in either, but 
 what was, or might be anfwer'd from the 
 View. Some of the moft conliderable Ar- 
 guments in both were anfwer*d there, with- 
 out mentioning the Books in which they 
 were urged, which I thought the civileft 
 way, and to give a true Account of the 
 Englifli Conftitution fupported by Law and 
 Hiftory, I took to be the fhorteir way of 
 anfwering the reft. 
 
 That, the King who is in Potfeffion of the 
 Throne, and the full Administration of the 
 Government and Laws, with the confent 
 of the Mates and a Recognition of Parlia- 
 ment, is the King for the time being, to 
 whom this Statute declares Allegiance is due, 
 
 and
 
 and fecures the Subjed: in the Difcharge of 
 it, was the Ancient Explanation of this Sta- 
 tute , and if the Arguments of this Author's 
 Book had not been otherwife anfwer'd, the 
 f itle alone which calls this a Modern Ex- 
 planation (whilft his own is in truth the 
 Modern} was fufficient to mew how much 
 he was miftaken in the Controverfy. If this 
 Explanation of the Statute obtained flnce the 
 Revolution only, why did he not give us 
 the Opinions of elder Lawyers for that 
 which he would have pafs for the Ancient 
 Explanation of it? Which had been the 
 only way to have made good the Title of 
 his Book. But indeed, it was not poffible 
 for him to give us the Opinions of 
 Lawyers, which they themfelves had never 
 given. 
 
 And to fhew this was not poffible for 
 him, I'll briefly reprefent the Traditionary 
 fenfe of the Lawyers upon this Queftion. 
 And we need go no higher than the Reign 
 in which this Statute was made, when the 
 Judges, as I have obferved, upon Henry the 
 Vllth's coming to the Throne, unanimoufly 
 delivered it as a Maxim of the Law of En- 
 gland^ that the Crown takes away all T)e- 
 feEls and Stops in Blood, which Maxim 
 being at common Law, as it were, the Coun- 
 ter-part to this Statute , ihews, that this 
 
 Statute
 
 Statute and the Explanation of it which he 
 calls Modern, was the Law of England be- 
 fore this Statute was made. 
 
 In Henry VIII, Reign the Conference 
 aboveraention'd, betwixt Sir Thomas Moor^ 
 who had been Lord Chancellor , and 
 Rich, who was then Sollicitor General, is a 
 fufticient Evidence, thatthofe great Lawyers, 
 howfoever they differ'd in another Point, 
 yet agreed in this,that the Regnant King with 
 a Parliamentary Authority, was entitled to 
 the Allegiance of the Subject. 
 
 In Queen May's Reign we have the Opi- 
 nion of the Lord Chief Juflice Brook, who 
 recommends his Abridgment otBagot's Cafe 
 with a Nota (that contains much the fame 
 Doftrine at common Law, which is de- 
 clared and enafted in this Statute,) and no 
 Lawyer in that, or any other Reign (ince, 
 has fo fo much as put a Query upon it. 
 
 In Queen Elizabeth's Reign, we have 
 Sir Nicholas Bacon, her Lord Keeper, after- 
 ting in Parliament the aforefaid Maxim, 
 which, as I have faid, was at common Law 
 the Counterpart to this Statute , and the 
 Queen and Parliament proceeding agreeably 
 to his judgment. 
 
 In the Reign of King Ja?nes 9 we have that 
 Lord Keeper's Son, the Lord Chancellor 
 Bacon t who at the fame time that he gives 
 
 this
 
 C 
 
 this Explanation, gives the higheft Character 
 of the Statute it (elf. 
 
 In King Charles I. Reign, we have the 
 Lord Chief Juftice Coke. 
 
 And in King Charles. II. Reign, the Lord 
 Keeper Bridgeman, and Lord Chief Juftice 
 Hale^2\\ bearing Teftimony to the Authority 
 of the Law, and to this Explanation of it- 
 which hadthe Animadverter conlider'd, he 
 certainly would never have call'd it the Mo- 
 dern Explanation in the Title of his Pamph- 
 let , and poflibly never have publifhed 
 his Pamphlet at all. 
 
 As to the Objection againft the Title of 
 Henry VII. the Legiilator, which is infifted 
 on by the Remarker, and the Animadverter 
 on the Modern Explanation, if there needs 
 any further Anfwer than what has been 
 already given in the View, Mr. Collier will 
 give it, and I hope, conclude the Animadver- 
 ter at leaft by what he fays: * As to Hen- 
 ry Tilths Birth, it maj be obferved, that 
 be was descended from a younger Branch^ 
 and that the Houfe of York flood foremoft 
 in the Succe/Jion : But if bis Title ap- 
 fears n queftionable upon this Score, the 
 Quee by her Acquiescence feems to have 
 
 (Ecckfiajlical Htfory in ff. FlLf. 705, 
 
 tfroft
 
 dropt her Claim, and transferred ber Right 
 to him, faith Mr. CWfcfr.Nay,we find that after 
 her Death, Henry VII. quietly enjoyed the 
 Crown according to the Acl: of Settlement 
 made in the firft Year of his Reign. 
 
 The Remarker here, as well as in other 
 Places, fometimes repeats their Objections 
 without adding any new Force to them, or 
 difarming my Anfwers of their Force, and 
 fometimes without fo much as taking any 
 notice of my Anfwers , particularly that 
 which has been efteemed the mod confide- 
 rable Objection againft this Statute, the 
 Duke of Northumberland's Cafe, which was 
 fairly and fully anfwered in the View, p. 67, 
 68, 69, he has, without taking notice of 
 any of my Anfwers, urged anew, * as if 
 there had been nothing faid to it. 
 
 And therefore, in/lead of reinforcing my 
 former Anfwers to the Objections againft 
 this Statute or this Explanation of it, I (hall 
 only defire the Reader to give himfelf the 
 Trouble to read them in the \\Tiew, and with 
 them the Statute it felf, which I mail print 
 at the end of this Defence, t becaufe I have 
 met with fome, who have taken upon them 
 
 * Remark: f. 78. |] View p. 6$, 66. &V, 
 
 fr Appendix Numb, IV. 
 
 to
 
 L 125] 
 
 to judge of this Queftion, without ever feeing 
 that Statute. 
 
 The Remarker gives this Law hard 
 Names, faying, it is a very ridiculous AEl> if 
 dejigrfd to be perpetual, p. 79. and that the 
 Conflitution, if Mr. Hs. Motion be allowed to 
 be good, is not only the tno/i ridiculous, but 
 rnoft unrighteous- and pernicious Conftitution 
 in the World, p. j. Not to obferve here, 
 what the Reader may obferve in feveral 
 other places of this Writer, that he, as well 
 as fome others, takes both Mr. Hs. Notion 
 and the Law by halves , but in Anfwer to 
 the hard Names that he gives this Law; 
 I need only ihew, that the Lord Chancellor 
 Bacon, who was one of the greater!. Men 
 of his Age, and who lived under a Prince of 
 .an undoubted Title, had a very different 
 notion both of the Juftice and Wifdom of 
 this Aft of Parliament. He fays, it WM. 
 agreeable to reafon of State , and to 
 good Conscience too, That the Spirit of this 
 Law was pious and noble, juft and magna- 
 nimous. But how great a Man foever my Lord 
 Bacon was,he may not be of fo great Autho- 
 rity with the Remarkerjs a Writer of his own 
 fide : And fince he has recommended one of 
 that Anthors's Trads to my Perufal, I mall 
 recommend to him a later, and, I think, a 
 better Piece that came from the fame Hand, 
 
 where
 
 where the ILemarker will find a Character 
 of this Statute, very different from that 
 which himfelf has given of it. After this 
 Author had taken -notice of the Severities of 
 forae former Revolutions, which yet he fays, 
 had been only againft Men who had 
 been in Arms s and not the thoufandth part 
 of them neither, much lefs of any others, 
 and that by way of Attainders -, he adds, 
 and even tbefe Severities were tbmtgbt by 
 Henry VII. and bis Parliament fob arfo and 
 cruel^ fo contrary to Reafon and Humanity, 
 againft all Lrfw, Reafon and good Confcience^ 
 as tbe AEiexprefs'd it, that ~tbey did alltbat 
 Men and Law could do to put a final End to 
 it y tbatfucb Proce'edings and Praftices migbt 
 never more be feen in tbe Englifi Ration* 
 Tbi& istbat famous Statute^ (n. Henry VII. 
 c. I.) Tpbicb exprejty provides, tbatfrombence- 
 fortbno manner of PerfonorPerfons tbat attend 
 tbe King for tbe Time being in bis Wars^ or 
 aB by Commijpon from bim y be in no wife 
 atniiB, 6cc. This is certainty tbe utmojl Pro- 
 vijion. .of Law 9 and^tis imfojfible, that any 
 Jtronger can be made by Men. And wbatfo- 
 ever otber Conjlruciions may be made of this 
 Statute, 9 tis evident tbat thereby all violent 
 Excfjffes of Revolutions are not only rejlrain- 
 ed^ but perfe&ly uk in away^ tbat however 
 it may bajtfen in tbe Eiel.l, and in tbe Heat
 
 "I 
 
 , yet that no after Ravages fiould be 
 committed^ and Men JJjouU. not be de- 
 Jlroyed by Law who had efcaped the Sword. 
 I need not reflect, how fuitable this Law 
 is to the mutable Eflate of Mankind^ and the 
 Viciffitudcs that conftantly accompany all hit- 
 wane Affairs. * This Author wrote this 
 Book with a Temper, which I could wiQi 
 for their own fakes the Retnarker and Natural 
 Bom Subject had imitated. 
 
 C H A P. V. | 
 
 A Defence of the Fifth Chapter of the 
 View, wherein the Objection from the Ad 
 of Recognition , I. Jac. /. is anfwer'd. 
 
 IN the fifth Chapter of the View I an- 
 fwer'd the Objection of the Virtual Re- 
 peal of the n. Henry VII. Chap, i.by the 
 I. Jac. Ch. i. And yet \htRemarker ^ who 
 thinks this Statute i Henry VII. ch. i. was 
 virtually if not actually repealed by the 
 T. Jac. /. p. 79. fays, it. was null and void ii* 
 itjelfl p. 87. But certainly if it was repealed, 
 it was in Force before it was repealed , and 
 therefore not null and void in it feif : Or 
 if it was null ia -iticlffrom the time it was 
 
 * The prefent State af, Jacobitifm. dfecond fjrt in Jn~ 
 fiver to tbefirjl. f. n, 13, 
 
 enacled
 
 enabled by King Henry VII. it could not be 
 repealed above 10 Years after by his great 
 Grandfon K. James I. But the pretended 
 Nullity, and imaginary Repeal of this Law, 
 as well as the real Contradiction betwixt 
 thefe two, are all the Remarker's own. 
 
 And yet the Retnarker is ready to yield 
 all that is inferr'd from the 1 1 of Henry VII. 
 if we bad, faith he, a Law wherein itiitas de- 
 clared and ena tied, that fuch a one (he is 
 fpeaking of a King that is not the next Heir) 
 was to be King to all Intents and Purpofes.*ls 
 not the nth of Henry VII. fuch a Law > And 
 why then is this Law null in itfelf, any more 
 than that Law would be ? And why will not 
 this juftify the Subjeds,as he grants that would, 
 when it is to all Intents and Purpofes fuch 
 a Law, as that which theRemarker fuppofes 
 would not be null, but would juftify the 
 Subjects in recognizing fuch a King. 
 
 The reft of his Remarks on this Chapter 
 of the View are fo confufed perplexed 
 and inconfiftent, that they want no other 
 Confutation. But becaufe he lays a great ftrefs 
 upon one of them , it (hall be parti- 
 cularly confider'd. To flew faith he, that 
 
 * Remarks]?- 
 
 (
 
 King James 7. was Rightful Heir, the AB of 
 Recognition does not fay, that he was Right- 
 fully defended of Henry TIL but #/' Margaret 
 (mark that) who was rightfully defcended 
 from Elizabeth Daughter of Eel ward IV. * 
 The Remarker here ufes too great a Liberty 
 in deducing King James's Defcent, leaving 
 out fome Words, and putting in others, 
 which are not in the Aft : For the Ad doth 
 exprefly derive his Defcent from K. Hen. VII. 
 his Grandfather (tho* he fays it doth not) 
 as well as from Queen Elizabeth his Grand- 
 mother - 5 and doth not affirm, ("as he fays 
 it doth) that the Lady Margaret was any 
 more rightfully defcended from Queen Eli- 
 zabeth, thanfrom King Henry VII. This Ad 
 of. Recognition takes notice of the Happinefs 
 of this Kingdom firft in the Union of the 
 Two Houfes of Tork, and Lancafter, and then 
 in the Union of the Two Kingdoms oi England, 
 and Scotland, in the Kings Perfon, f who, as it 
 follows in the Ad, is lineally, 
 
 and lawfully defcended, of the Body of tl 
 moft Excellent Lady Margaret Eldefl Daughter 
 of the moft renowned King Henry Vll. (let 
 th'e Remarker mark this) and the High and 
 
 * Rem. f, 8z, f Ses tjie <& f Recognition i Jac, c. r. 
 
 K Ko&le
 
 Nolle Princefs Queen Elizabeth his Wife, 
 -Eldeft Daughter of King Edward JT. the faid 
 'Lady Margaret being Eldeft Sifter of King 
 Henry VIII. Father of the High and Mighty 
 frincefs of famous Memory, Elizabeth late 
 Queen 0/ England. Indeed, according to the 
 Remarked Hypothecs, King James I. De- 
 fcent fhou'd have been derived by the Lady 
 Margaret, only from Queen Elizabeth El- 
 deft Daughter of King Edward IV. by her 
 Hufband Henry ^Earl of Richmond , and the 
 Acl fhould not have faid, that King James 
 was Rightfully defcended of the Lady Mar- 
 
 firet Eldeft Daughter of the moft renowned 
 ing Henry VII. &c. And therefore the Re- 
 marker agreeably to his Hypothefis, ventures 
 to affirm that the Ad: doth not fay fo, where- 
 as we fee the Act doth as much fay that he 
 was Rightfully defcended from K. Henry VII. 
 as from Qiieen Elizabeth that King's Wife, 
 lince it exprefly affirms that he was Rightfully 
 defcended of the Body of the moft Excellent 
 Lady Margaret, Eldeft Daughte^ of the moft 
 renowned ^King Henry TIL and the High 
 and Noble Princefs Queen Elizabeth his Wife. 
 And the 'Remarker may find in Lethington 
 the Scotch Secretary's Letter to Sir William 
 Cecil, that the Houfe of Scotland infifted on 
 their Chum to the Crown of England, as 
 
 being
 
 C *1* 1 
 
 being the Eldeft remaining I/Tue of King 
 Henry VII. * 
 
 I faid,in Conclufion, againft this imaginary 
 Repeal of the n. of Henry VII. by the i of 
 James I. C. i. that the greateft Lawyers in 
 the Kingdom have declared fince that^# of 
 Recognition, that Allegiance is due to the 
 King in Poffeffion, and have fupported their 
 Opinions by the 1 1. of Henry VII. and there- 
 fore did not believe it RepeaPd by the i. of 
 James I. And have not as good Lawyers de- 
 clared the contrary .<? faith the Remarker. f 
 If they have, it would have been of Service 
 to his Caufe to have named fome of them, 
 as I have named Lawyers in the next Chap- 
 ter, who have not believed this Statute of 
 King Henry VII. Repeal'd by the Ad of Re- 
 cognition of King James I. But the Remarker 
 had a good reafon why he did not Name his 
 feveral good Lawyers, and I Challenge him 
 to Name one good Lawyer, who has main- 
 tain'dthis Chimerical Repeal, which brings 
 me to the Sixth Chapter. 
 
 * Appendix to the i Volume oftbe Hiftoryoftbe Reformation. 
 t ftem. p. 90. 
 
 K 2 CHAP.
 
 CHAP. VL 
 
 A D6 'fence of the Sixth Chapter, wherein thh 
 Account of our Conftitution and Laws was 
 fitpported by the Opinions and Authorities 
 
 * of fome of the greateft Modern Lawyers^ 
 -who Liv*d in the Reigns of Hereditary 
 Kings, and, the Cafe of the Oaths refolved 
 from this Account of our Legal Conjlitution. 
 
 TTAving, as occafion ferv'd, given the 
 JLJL Opinions of great Lawyers and Judges 
 of Elder Reigns, I proceeded in this Chapter 
 to the Opinion of great Lawyers of later 
 Reigns, whereby it appeared that the greateft 
 Modern Lawyers Entertain'd the fame Notion 
 of our Conftitution with the Antient-, and 
 have perfectly agreed with them in this great 
 Point j of La vv, concerning the Authority of 
 the King for the time being, and the Alle- 
 giance of the Subjed, which is due to him. 
 And here I produced the Opinions of fuch 
 only as Flourifh'd fince the AEl of Recogni- 
 ' tion of King James I. to mew alfo, by the 
 way, that they who Liv'd fince that Ad, 
 have had the fame Notion of our Conftitution 
 in this matter, with thofe that Liv'd before 
 it. And even amongft thele, I produced the 
 Opinions of fuch only as Liv'd under Here- 
 ditary
 
 C 1*1 1 
 
 ditary Kings, as of the Lord Chancellor 
 Bacon, and Lord Chief Juftice Coke, in the 
 Reign of King James I. of the Lord keeper 
 Eridgeman, and Lord Chief Juftice Hale, in 
 the Reign of King Charles II. where there 
 was no Temptation to Byafs them on that 
 Side of the Queftion, and as thefe great 
 Lawyers delivered this for the Law of En- 
 gland, fo, I faid, no Lawyer of Note has ever 
 contradicted them in thofe Reigns, where 
 they might have done it with Safety and 
 Advantage. 
 
 What faith the Re?narker to this ? Does he 
 deny thefe were great Lawyers ? That he 
 does not. Does he deny thefe were their 
 Words which I cited ? Not that neither. 
 Has he produc'd any Lawyers of Note that 
 have contradicted them ? Not one, except his 
 Friend Mr. Prm t who need not be excepted 
 out of that Number. What then doth the 
 Remarker fay. Why, he fays, he doth not 
 think, whatever Mr. H. may do, Lawyers to 
 be the be ft Cafiiifts, and knows but too well, 
 that what is Law in one "Judges Time, is not 
 fo in another. * If that were true in fome 
 Points, yet I hope He'll allow, That to be 
 Law, which has been held for fuch in all 
 
 * Rem. f. 92. 
 
 K 3 Judges
 
 C 
 
 Judges Times, and which he cannot (hew 
 has been contradicted by any Judges at any 
 Time, which is the Cafe of this Point of 
 Law before us. I never faid, Lawyers were 
 Univerfally the beft Cafuijls, I think Divines 
 much better, ouly where the Cafe of Con- 
 fcience depends, as it doth here, on the Cafe 
 in Law, he that is the belt Lawyer, is cer- 
 tainly the bed Cafuift, 
 
 One would wonder what this Writer has 
 been doing, in making a Book of Remarks, 
 chiefly upon the Opinion of Lawyers, and 
 the Scnfe of our Laws, whilft he has fo 
 mean an Opinion of both. Whenever he is 
 prefs'd Home, he crys out both againft the 
 Lawyers and the Laws. If I cite the com- 
 mon "Laws ^of the Realm ^ they are my 01 J 
 Cuftoms, Uufty Tear Books, p. 8. and the 
 fret ended Authorities of the Tear Books, p. 3 2. 
 If I cite the Refolutions and Opinions of the 
 greateft Judges and Lawyers : Then Lawyers 
 are not the left Cafuifts, p. 92. Laivyers are 
 but private Men and fallible, and their Opi- 
 nions are but private Opinions, and fo of no 
 Authority on either Side, p. 90. If I cite 
 Ads of Parliament -, they are Null and Void 
 in tfamfelves, when they are againft him, 
 fo 87. It is no News, I fuppofe,to the Reader, 
 that the Natural Born SubjeEl has as little 
 regard for the Laws. If it is, he may take this 
 
 PaiTage
 
 [ 135 1 
 
 Paffage for a Specimen of his regard to them, 
 where this Writer arguing, in his way,on the 
 Statute of Henry VII. faith. There were always 
 fach Fools as thought an Aft of Parliament a> 
 great matter on their Side. * 
 
 Thefe PaiTages would give an impartial 
 Reader a Sufpicion, that, when Men are fo 
 much againft the Lawyers and the Laws, 
 they are a little Gonfcious to themfelves, 
 that the Lawyers and the Laws are againft 
 them ^ and that, whilft they are putting in 
 their Exceptions to the Antient Cuftoms of 
 the Realm, to the Year Books, to the 
 Opinions of Lawyers , to the Refolu- 
 tions of Judges, and to Aclsof Parliament, 
 they would leave us no other way to 
 Learn what is Law, but from their Hy- 
 pothefis. 
 
 I need add nothing, to what is faid in the 
 View, concerning the Oaths :, for (ince the 
 Oaths are appointed by Law, and muft there- 
 fore be interpreted according to Law, the 
 Points in Law being once EftabliuYd, the 
 Lawfulnefs of taking the Oaths follows as a 
 Conclufion from it's Premifle& 
 
 Letter f. 90. 
 
 K 4 CHAP.
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 A Defence of the Seventh Chapter of the 
 View, that our Laws, in this Point, are 
 not contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and 
 the Detinue of our Church, but rather 
 agreeable to both 
 
 THE Law-point, being thus Eftablifhed, 
 was, I faid, a fufficient Direction for 
 Conference in matters of Civil Obedience, 
 fo long as there was nothing in it contrary 
 to the Law of God. Here then the Remarker, 
 and Natural Born SubjeEl mo x uld h^ve tried 
 their Strength, and fhewn that our Laws, 
 in this Point, are contrary to God's Laws. 
 This was the Place to have proved, what one 
 of them does plainly, and I think both of them 
 do fuppofe,that there is a certain Form of Civil 
 Government and of Succefliontoit, of Divine 
 Inflitution,and if they had done this, they had, 
 I confefs, effectually anfwered the View -, fince 
 no Human Laws can Prefcribeagainfta Divine 
 Inftitution. . In the meantime* whilft they 
 only beg the Queftion, which they have not 
 fo much as attempted to prove here, arid by 
 what has been attempted elfewhere, I am 
 fatisfied, they never can prove, the Poiition 
 of the View does ftand, and is like to ftand 
 
 good 9
 
 good, that the Conftitution, and our Obedi- 
 ence according to it, is fufticiently vindica- 
 ted, if there is nothing in it contrary"to the Law 
 of God: for then the Laws of the Kingdom 
 (which the Divine Law Commands us to 
 Obey,) do, as I faid, bind our Confciences as 
 Subjects -, and we are not only warranted, 
 but obliged to pay our Obedience^ as the 
 Law direfts. 
 
 This was fufficient for my purpofe, that 
 our Conftitution, as I reprefented it, was not 
 contrary to God's Law. However, I ventu- 
 red a ftep farther, that our Laws, by re- 
 quiring Obedience to the King in Pofleffion, 
 are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, accor- 
 ding to our Saviours Refolution of the Law- 
 fuinefs of Subjection to the Roman Em- 
 peror Tiber iits , becaufe he was in Pofieffion 
 of the Government. This'thefe Authors 
 grant was our SavioursRefolution,but they are 
 in the mean time, for giving other Reafons 
 for the Subjection of the Jews to the Romans, 
 i. e. they are for giving Reafons, which our 
 Saviour did not give, and which therefore I 
 need not confider -, fince our Lord did not here 
 determine the ' Lawfulnefs of Subjection to 
 the Roman Emperor, for any of thofe Rea- 
 fons which they fuppoie, but for this one 
 Reafon which he gave, (as they themfelves 
 
 can-
 
 C 1383 
 
 cannot deny,) namely, that he was in Pof- 
 feflion of the Government. 
 
 I cannot but, by the way, take notice,that 
 this Command of our Bleffed Saviour to the 
 Jews, to be Subjeft to the Roman Monarchy, 
 which was Eledive, is an Invincible Argu- 
 ment againft thofe, who maintain, that which 
 Iscall'd, the Patriarchal Scheme of Govern- 
 ment,to be of Divine Inftitution,and obligatory 
 to all Mankind : For had it been fo, our Sa- 
 viour without doubt, when die Queftion was 
 put to him about the Roman Government, 
 and the Lawfulnefs of Submiflion to it, 
 would have recalPd his Hearers to the Divine 
 Original Inftitution, and told them, that 
 from ibe beginning it was notfo^ that the Go- 
 vernment under which they lived, was a De- 
 viation from the Divine Inftitution : As when 
 the Cafe of Divorce was put to him, notwith- 
 ftanding the general Praftice both of Jews and 
 Gentiles, He reduced Mankind from the Devi- 
 ation, to the Divine Original Inftitution of 
 Marriage. But fo far was our BlefTed Saviour 
 from delivering any fuch DocTrine, that He 
 Commands Subjection to the Roman Empe- 
 ror, and acknowledges his Authority was 
 from God, St. John 19. II. 
 
 I faid, our Church had not given her Judg- 
 ment by way of an Exprefs decilionof the 
 Queftion, but that the Paflage I cited from 
 
 our
 
 C 139 ] 
 
 our Homilies, favour'd our Side of the 
 Queftion, and if the Remarker, and Na- 
 tural Born Subject are not Confcious it does 
 fo, why doth the former throw in, not over 
 decently, fo many Abatements to the Au- 
 thority of the * Homilies , and the latter fay 
 the Compilers of the Homilies might think 
 Eleanor -was Dead .<? f As if thofe Learned 
 Perfons, were not as well acquainted with 
 the Hiftory of that Age, as we, who are 
 above a Century and half farther diftantfroni 
 it, than they were. But they had the Pope y 
 and the Dauphine of France in their View. 
 They might have them, and yet have King 
 John and his Niece Eleanor in their View too. 
 Let me ask the Natural Born SubjeEl^ whether, 
 if he had Liv'd at that Time, he would 
 have acknowledged himfelf a Natural Subjeft 
 of King John, as the Homilies call the En- 
 -glifh Men his Natural Subjeffst Let me ask 
 both thefe Writers, whether they would 
 have call'd King John their Natural Lord^ 
 the King of England.*? Whether they would 
 have call'd the Oath, which the Englifh 
 Men took to him, their Oath of Fidelity to 
 their Natural Lord? And whether they 
 would, without any limitation or reftraint 
 
 * Remarks f. 96, 97, t ^^er f. tox. 
 
 have 
 
 2
 
 C 
 
 have condemned the Breach of it, as the 
 Homilies do? If not. they do as good as 
 confefs, that theCe Paffages do favour our 
 fide of the Queltion. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 A Defence of the Eighth Chapter of the 
 View, that our Laws^ in . this Point , are 
 agreeable to the great End and De/ign of 
 Government. 
 
 Government was inftituted for 
 the publick good of the Community, 
 and the fecurity and welfare of all the Mem- 
 bers of it, is what the Remarker grants p. 97. 
 and what he adds, yet Care iyas always taken 
 primarily of the Prince, is what I have af- 
 fertedtooin this Chapter, and * elfewhere, 
 and doth not in the leaft weaken the Con- 
 fequence which I have drawn from this 
 Principle -, for if Government was inftituted 
 for the fake of all the Members of the Com- 
 munity, it will Hill follow, that after they 
 have done their utmoft to maintain their 
 Prince in the Throne, and he happens to be 
 
 Ste Vvtw at tbe foot of ^ 98, &c. andf. ii. 
 
 dif-
 
 difpoflefs'd, and cannot afford them any of 
 the Benefits of Government, can neither 
 defend Himfelf, Them, nor his Right to go- 
 vern them, it is not reafonable, that they 
 for whom Government was inftituted, mould 
 lofe all the Benefits of it, for the fake of 
 him, for whom it was not, at leaft, not pri- 
 marily inftituted. 
 
 However this Principle, which the Re- 
 marker faith, no Body queftions, the Natural 
 Born SubjeB calls the Thred-bare Cant of 
 the Common Wealths-men. * The Remarker 
 grants the Principle, but denies the necefTary 
 Confequence of it, which, it feems was 
 eafier for him to do, than to deny a 
 Principle, which all, who have writ rea- 
 fonably of Government, have ever allowed. 
 But the Natural BornSubjeB, to avoid the 
 Confequence, is hardy enough to deny the 
 Principle, as he does in efrecl, when he 
 calls it, the Thred-bare Cant of the Common 
 Wealths-men^ without any regard to the 
 great Authorities, of the Church in her 
 Homilies, of Bifhop Sanderfon , Tbomqs 
 Aquinas^ and Lord Chancellor Fortefiue^ 
 which were produced for it. f And I de- 
 fire him to take the Reverfe of this Prin- 
 
 * Letter f. 103. , f View f. 97. $>& 
 
 ciple,
 
 ciple, and try what Profelytes 'he can make 
 to it. 
 
 I took notice, that feme had made an ill 
 ufe of this Argument, to juftify the Refi- 
 ftance of the Supreme Magiftrate, when he 
 does not, as they think, purfue the publick 
 Good of the Community. But this is to 
 abufe the Principle, and draw a falfe Confe- 
 qyence from it -, and mufl there^re 'the Na- 
 tural Born SubjeEl draw another falfe Con- 
 fequence, and deny the Principle it felf to be 
 True ? Efpecially when he owns at the fame 
 Time, that, / have guarded again ft^ this falfe 
 Confequence, * he mould have faid, I have 
 fhewn f that the Laws, which require Sub- 
 miflion, have guarded againft it, by forbid- 
 ding Refiftance , and that the very Reafon of 
 Government has guarded againft it:, for if 
 there is not a Laft Refort, from which there 
 is no Appeal,, and againft which\ there muft 
 be no Refiftance, it is not Government, but 
 Anarchy. 
 
 * Letter f. 103. t ^ jf 99 I ^- 
 
 CHAP.
 
 < '43) 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 A Defence of the Tenth Chapter dfthe View, 
 that our Laws in this Point are agreeable 
 to the Practice of all Mankind, particularly 
 ofG&ds own People , the Jews, and the 
 Cbriftlans, of the earlieft Ages. 
 
 I Gave an Account of the behavior of the 
 Jews, in their Subje&ion to the Midia- 
 nites, Moabites, the Kings of Egypt, and 
 after that fucceffively to the Babylonijh^ 
 Perfian, Grecian, and Roman Empires. To 
 which the Remarker fays, the.MidianitiJb^ 
 and Moabitifo Princes, Ruled over them as 
 Conquerors, not as Ufurpers. * The Natural 
 Born Subject fays, your loft Chapter beginning 
 at Page 100. tells us to Page 105. That the 
 Jews fubmitted when they were Conquered, -p 
 (after I had proved it again Lawful for the 
 Jews to fubmit to Princes, whom it was 
 not Lawful for them to fet up) he fays, but 
 what was this Cafe, it was only that of Con- 
 queft, when Strangers got the Rule over the 
 Jews. || So that,after all that has been faid on 
 that Side, againft the Title of Conqueft, thefe 
 
 to, ^. 99, t tetter $ 106. U tetter f< 97- 
 
 Two
 
 C 144 P 
 
 Two Authors fall in with it, and juflify 
 Submiffion on that Score. 
 
 But what does the Natural Born SubjeEl 
 mean, by faying, though the Jews conftantly 
 jitbtnitted, they as conftantly Revolted, when- 
 ever they could get the opportunity, ' as you 
 may fee in the Hiftory of the Judges, and of 
 the Maccabees. * Had he truly reprefented 
 their Cafe, he would gain little by it ^ for 
 if their Submiffion was juftifyable, their Re- 
 volt was Hill inexcufable* But their Cafe is 
 very falfely reprefented -, for the Jews did 
 not Revolt under their greateft OpprefTions, 
 from thofe Strangers who got the Rule over 
 them, ,but Liv'd Subject to them, till upon 
 their Cry unto God, he particularly rais'd 
 up and appointed them Deliverers, to whom 
 he gave Authority to Refcue them, as is evi- 
 dent from the Hiftory of the Judges, to 
 which he appeals. Thus Ehud f was par- 
 ticularly Authorised by God, to deliver them 
 from the Moabites -, and Gideon || from the 
 Midiamtes, which were the Two Inftances 
 I gave from the Book of Judges. In Bifhop 
 Overall's Convocation Book, it is faid, the 
 Ifraelites had been Eighteen Tears in Sub- 
 jeftion t to the Moabites, as they had been a 
 
 * Letter p. 97. j- Judges 3, 15. 
 
 || Judges <5. ii, iz, 13,14, &c.
 
 , 
 
 little before Eight Tears to the Aramites. 
 'They knew that it was not Larvfttlfor them 
 of themfelves, and by their own Authority, 
 to take Arms againft the Kings, whofe Sub- 
 'Jeffs they were, though indeed they were 
 Tyrants: And therefore they cried unto the 
 Lord for Succor. Who,in Companion of their 
 Servitude and Miferifs, appointed Othoniei 
 to deliver them from the Aramites -, and af- 
 terwards Ahud from the Moabites. In the. 
 Choice of which Two Judges it is to be ob~ 
 ferv'd, that the Scriptures do tell us that 
 God raifed them up, (and therefore it is mofi 
 certain he did fo,} arid alfo that in fuch rai- 
 fmg of them to their Places, he made theni 
 Saviours to his People, (as the Scriptures 
 fpeak) giving them thereby Authority to Save 
 and Redeem the Israelites, from the Tyrants 
 that opprejfed them ^ without both which Pre- 
 rogatives, it had been altogether Unlawful 
 for them to have done as they did. * This 
 was evident enough from thofe Places in the 
 judges, which I referr'd to, but the Natural 
 Born Subject having, as I have good reafon 
 to believe, a high Efteem for the Convoca- 
 tion-Book: I thought a Citation from i might 
 more Effed:dally convince him, of the Senfc 
 
 51. $z, , 
 
 L of
 
 L 146 3 
 
 of thofe Places, and of his Error In Point of 
 Fad, that thej^mr conflantly Revolted from 
 the Strangers that got the Rule over them, 
 when they could get an Opportunity -, and in 
 Point of Right, that they might Lawfully 
 do fo , for if hie did not think fo, he had 
 no reafon to mention their .Revolt at all. 
 
 What he referrs to in the Maccabees, is, 
 I fuppofe, the Revolt from Antiochus the 
 Great, but if he looks into the afprefaid Con- 
 vocation-Book^ * he'll find a very different 
 Account of that matter, from what is com- 
 monly given of it -, and fuch an Account, 
 as will do him no Service , but if he'll not 
 be concluded by That,the Common Account, 
 he knows, is as little to his Purpofe. 
 
 In Anftver to my Argument, that it was 
 Lawful for the Jews to Submit to a Stranger, 
 though it was not Lawful for them to fet a 
 Stranger to Rule over them, as appeared from 
 the Law, Deut. 17. 15. The Remarker fays, 
 /Jilt if Mr. VI. had Read on, he would have 
 found, that they .were to fet over them him, 
 whom the Lord their God fhould Choofe* 
 They had nothing to do to fet up^ or pull 
 down Kings, f Nor did I fay they had, and 
 what he fays, Jbonld have been added, is fo 
 
 far
 
 C 147 ] 
 
 far from taking off the force of my Argument, 
 that it adds to the force of it. For if they 
 might not in any Wife fet a Stranger, i. e. a 
 Heathen King over them, but one from among 
 their Brethren, and that One whom the Lord 
 their God fbould choofe , and yet notwith- 
 ftanding this, they might live in fubjection, 
 to Str anger s, to Heathen Princes, who were 
 not their Brethren, and whom the Lord 
 their God did not choofe , this undenyably 
 proves, what is afferted, that it. was lawful 
 to fubmit to Princes, whom it was not law- 
 ful to fet up. 
 
 The Remarker goes on, hit if Gad for 
 their Wickedness fet a Stranger over them y 
 they were bound to fubmit to him, becaufe 
 it was his doing, as it was in fitting the 
 Babylonians, Grecians, Romans to rule~ over 
 them, to chaftife them for their Idolatry and 
 Rebellion againfl him. * But how did God 
 fet the Romans, Grecians, &c* to rule over 
 the Jews > Not by an exprefs Nomination 
 as he did Saul, David, &c. but by his Pro- 
 vidence governing the Events of War. So 
 indeed, and no otherwife, it was G id's do- 
 ing. And was. this a fufficient reafon for 
 the Submiflion of the Jews ? Yes, the Re- 
 
 * Ibid, 
 
 L 2 marker
 
 C 148 3 
 
 marker &ys, they were bound to Submit to 
 them, becaufe it was God*s doing. And what 
 is this more or lefs, than to refolve the Rea- 
 fon of Submiffion into Providence, and to fet 
 up a Providential Title > ,But this was when 
 God fet Princes over the Jews for their 
 Wickednefs, toChaftife them for their Idola- 
 try, and their Rebellion againfl him. And 
 had God thus by his Providence, fet Princes 
 over the Jews^ to Refcue them from Idola- 
 try, or to fecure them from the danger of 
 falling into it, would it not have been equally 
 God's doing > And is not this the fame 
 Reafon in G.eneral,which the Remarker gives, 
 for their Submiffion t And as good a Rea- 
 fon in particular, whdn it is for their Safety, 
 as when it is for their Chaftifement ? Both 
 thefe Writers have particularly enumerated 
 the feveral Anfwers that were made to 
 )r< Sherlock's Cafe of Allegiance , arid have 
 loudly cali'd upon me for a Reply to them, 
 though for what Reafon I know not, unlefs 
 it be,becaufe I never medled with the Argu- 
 ment of Providence. How far, and in what 
 manner the Divine Providence is concerned 
 in Revolutions of Government, or how fair 
 it will,, or will not juftify Subjedion, after 
 the Revolution is paifed, and the New Go- 
 vernment Eftablifhed, which was the great 
 debate betwixt the Dodor, and his Anfwe- 
 
 fers.
 
 C 
 
 rers, and which, as my Defign did not oblige 
 me, I never entered upon, but fet the Con- 
 troverfy entirely upon a New Foot, as I took 
 Notice in the View. * If they ftill think a 
 Keply is necefTary to thofe Anfwers, which 
 were made to the Cafe of Allegiance to So- 
 veraign Powers, the Remarker, who has 
 here taken up that Hypothefis, is the only 
 Perfon, that I know, who is obliged to give 
 it. 
 
 I proceeded to fhew, that the Behavior of 
 the Primitive Chriftians, was agreeable to 
 that of the Jews. To all which the Re- 
 marker only fays, that Mr. H. may Confnlt 
 Bifiop Uiher's Power of the Prince, Dr. Hick's 
 Jovian, Dr. Sherlock's Cafe of Reft fiance, 
 Dr. Digg's Unlarpfulnefs of SnbjeBs taking 
 Arms, f And when the Remarker Con fu Its 
 them again, I believe he'll only find, that 
 they have given numerous Exemples of 
 -the Non-refiftance of the Primitive Chri- 
 ftians to the Emperors, and Kings, under 
 which they Lived, but nqt one Example of 
 Kon-fubjection to them, on any pretence of 
 a defect in their Titles. 
 
 The Natural Born SiibjeB, feems to think 
 it fome Advantage to his Caufe, that I fay 
 
 I, 3 in
 
 C 150 1 
 
 in the Three firfl Centuries, there is no 
 other In fiances of DifpoiTefs'd Emperors clai- 
 ming; againft Rivals, but that of the Two 
 Maximtm. 
 
 Bur fince, in this Inflance, I have proved 
 a general Submiflion to the Emperors in Pof- 
 fefiion, and he has not pretended to prove 
 theChriflians were not comprehended in that 
 general Submiilion. Nay iince Julius Ca- 
 fitolinus, who Writes the Hiflory of the 
 Two MaxMni; excepts only Capelianus a 
 Governor in Afr'tck, and a few * Cities, as 
 adhering to thefe difboflefTed Emperors, 
 can we believe, if the Chriflians had done 
 the . fame, he would .not much rather have 
 excepted them, who at that Time, and be- 
 fore that Tim,e, made a great part of the Em- 
 pire, fill-d their Cities, their Senate, their 
 Armies, and all Places, as Tertullian fays, 
 f- but their Temples > And therefore this,tho s 
 the only Inflance in this Period, is a very 
 confiderable one. 
 
 It is Qbfervable that the Author of Jovian, 
 is entirely on the Side of the Emperors in 
 PofTeffion. After he hath related hot? the 
 Army in Africk, ufpn hearing || of the barba- 
 
 Paucse civitates fidem hofti publico fervaverunt. 
 
 itolini Maximini Duo. r 
 f Apologet. c. 37, , j| Scf Jovian f. 34. 3 fr 
 
 rous 
 
 A CIV* VIA 
 
 Julii Capi 
 t Apolo
 
 C.'si ] 
 
 rous Pride and Cruelty of the Emperor Max- 
 iminus, brought the Purple to the Proconfitl 
 Gordianus and made him Emperor, and how 
 the Senate at Rome out of hatred to Maxi- 
 minus, Confirm' d the, Choice of the African 
 Souldiers, and declared Gordianus, and his 
 Son Augufli, and denounced Maximinus, and 
 his Son, Enemies to the Empire, he adds, at 
 the fame time CapeJianus in Africk, Rebels 
 againft Gordian, that is, he Rebelled when 
 he took up Arms againft the Emperor in 
 Pofleffion, on behalf of the DifpoflefsM 
 Emperor Maximinus, under whomCapeli- 
 anus had been made Governor of the 
 Mauritania's. For this is what Capelianus 
 did, as is evident from * Capitolim#, and 
 what the Author of Jovian here calls Rebel- 
 lion. 
 
 In the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Centu- 
 ries, I faid, we had feveral Inftances of Em- 
 perors DlfpolFefs'd, and of the Chriftians 
 becoming Subjects to New'Emperors, whilft 
 the Difpofl'efs'd Emperors were Alive , as in 
 
 * Sed Gordianus in Africa primum a Capitolino quodam 
 agitari caepit, cui Mauros icgenti fucceflbrem dederat. 
 Tune Capelianus Viftor pro Maximijto, omnes Gordiatii 
 partium, motu partium in ^/rifi7,interemir, firV. Julii Cct- 
 Maximinj duo, 
 
 
 
 L 4 'the
 
 ' . C 
 
 the Cafe of Zjcinius, and Conflantine in the 
 Fourth ' of i??ft0,and Bafilifius in the Fifth -, 
 and of Jujlinian, and Vitiges in the Sixth 
 Century. 
 
 What doth the "Natural Born Subjeft mean, 
 t>y faving, that thefe Difpofoffd Emperors^ 
 who bad no Right but Pdfiejjion, loft their 
 Right with their Pojfejfion, * when they had 
 the fame Right that any of their Pre- 
 deceflbrs had, or SucceiTors either > Or, by 
 fayin? that thefe Cafes are Forreign to 
 an Hereditary Monarchy, f when we are 
 not fpeaking of the Heirs or Sons of Empe- 
 rors, but of DifpofTefs'd Emperors themfelves > 
 And whefl lie cannot fay, if the Empire had 
 been Hereditary, that their Heirs would have 
 had better Pretenfions after their Fathers 
 Death.s, than thefe DifpoiTefs'd Emperors, 
 thbygli Elective only, had during their 
 Lives. 
 
 The Remarker alfo may Obferve, as a fur- 
 ther Anfwer to what he has' advanced p. 87. 
 that here are In (lances of Emperors that did 
 not fubmit, but claimed and made War after 
 their "DifpolTeffion, which he might have 
 obferved alfo in feveral other Inftances that 
 I gave, where the Jews notwithftanding 
 
 * Letter $,106, 
 
 be-
 
 E '53 ] 
 
 became Subjefts to the Princes in Pof- 
 feffion. 
 
 I faid this had been the Praftice of all 
 Mankind, as well as of the Jews and Chn- 
 ftians, upon Revolutions to fubmit to New 
 Governments after they were Eftablim'd. 
 
 The'Remarker faith, tf be jhould follow me 
 in Revolutions that no way Concern' 'us , he 
 is Confident he flwuld find them much more 
 favourable to his Point, than mine, * But 
 he mud firft follow me in thofe Revolutions, 
 before he can have any Grounds for this 
 Confidence, and when he fhall d"o fo, and 
 take a furvey of the Behaviour of all the Na- 
 tions of the World, upon Revolutions both in 
 former and later Ages, he'll fee Reafon to 
 abate of his Confidence, and confefs his Mi- 
 ftake. He'll find that upon thefe Events, 
 the great Queftion has been, not, whether 
 they fhall Submit or no > But whether they 
 mail obtain good Terms upon their Sub- 
 miflion, and preferve their Antient Immuni- 
 ties and Privileges, under their New Matters? 
 Let Subjeds preferve an Inviolatible Fidelity 
 to their Prince, and do their utmoft to pre- 
 ferve him in his Throne, and then, if after 
 they haye run the greateft hazards for him, 
 
 # Remarker f. 88. 
 
 he
 
 L '54 J 
 
 he happens to be Difpoffefs'd, neither their 
 Prince, the World, nor their own Confci^ 
 ences can Reproach them, if they Endeavor 
 to preferve the Community and themfelves. 
 And if fome will be Singujar in their Behavior, 
 and inftead of calmly considering the Nature 
 and Ends of Government, and the Viciffi- 
 tudes, to which it ever hath, and from the 
 Lufts and Paflions of Mcn,ever will be expo- 
 fed,will frame Schemes of Government with- 
 out Authority, either from Scripture, or the 
 Laws of their Country, that are fo far from 
 promoting the great Ends of Government, 
 that they would render That, which was De- 
 iign'd for the Eafe, Security, and Welfare of 
 Mankind, to be a Snare, a Rack, and often- 
 times Ruine to them, under thofe Vicifli- 
 tudes which fo frequently happen. If Men 
 I fay, will frame fuch Schemes, they may 
 I think be modeftly contented to Practice 
 upon them themfelves, and not rafhly to 
 Cenfure (as thefe Two Authors do) all who 
 differ from them, which is almoft all Man- 
 kind, 
 
 C H A P,
 
 [ us 1 
 
 C H A P. X. 
 
 Reflections on fome of the Errors of the Nn- 
 tural Born Subject, and on bis Oppojition 
 to the Remarkerz/? fome Points. 
 
 AS thefe" Two Authors Arguments and 
 Errors are generally the fame: So 
 what has been faid to the one, is commonly 
 a Reply to the other, as well as to what is 
 Material in the Exiraft ofPrins Plea : Yet 
 becaufe I have taken more Notice of 'the Re- 
 warkerjhxn of the N. B. SubjettJ. ihall beftow 
 fome Considerations upon him in Particular. 
 To complain of his Mifreprefentations, 
 or to take Notice of all his Miftakes in 
 Hiftory, would be almoft endlefs : I fhail 
 therefore only Animadvert on fome of his 
 Miftakes, about the Thirteen Kings, from 
 the Conqueft to Henry VIII. who I faid came 
 to the Throne without Hereditary Titles. 
 And to make me miftaken in the Number, 
 he takes it Exclufrvely- of William I. and 
 Henry VII. the fir ft and laft King in that 
 Period. Whereas it is plain, I included them, 
 in this Number, otherwife there could not 
 be Thirteen, who came to the Throne with- 
 out, and Six, with Hereditary Titles, as I 
 affirmed there did in that Period : A lefs 
 hafty Writer would have given himfelf the 
 Leiiure to have counted Nineteen, rather 
 
 than
 
 than have made a Miftake, by Endeavouring 
 to Charge his Adverfary with one. He 
 therefore begins with William II. and fays. 
 But Robert the EUeft Son of the Conque- 
 ror'jontended vyith his Brother William Z/./0r 
 England, and at la/I came to a Compromise 
 with hitrt, to have it after his Death. * And 
 . is it ever the lefs True, that William II. 
 came to the Throne without an Hereditary 
 Title, becaufe there was a Compromife after- 
 wards -, which Com prom ife this Author en- 
 tirely Miftakes, when he fays that by it, 
 Robert was to have the Crown after William^ 
 Death : For by the Com prom ife William** 
 own Son's, were to have it after his Death ^ 
 only in Cafe he mould leave no Son, Robert 
 was to fucceed him in the Kingdom of "En- 
 gland ^ as William was to Succeed Robert in 
 'the Dukedom otNormatufy, in.Cafe lie mould 
 Dye without a Son. Which is Evident from 
 the Terms of the Coinpromife, as it is tranf- 
 mitted to us by the Arch-deacon of Hunting- 
 ton> f Roger de Hoveden, || and Hemingford. * 
 
 * Letter Page 36. 
 
 t Rex fecit concordiam cum fratrefuo. Statuerunt, fiquis 
 eonim moreretur prior alrero fine Filid, quod alter fieret 
 hasres illius, Hen. Huntindon Hift. L. VIl.p. zi;. 
 
 It Inter fe conftituerunt ut fi Comes (Sc. Rolertiti) abfque 
 Filio legali matrimonio genito moreretur, hseres ejus fieret 
 Rex (Sc. JFillielmus junior) firailique modo fi Regi conti- 
 Juiffet mori, haeres illius fieret Comes. Rogeri de Hove'd^n 
 Annal, Pars.Lf. 265. * Hemingford ad Aiu 1090. 
 
 The
 
 C'57 ) 
 
 The Natural Born SubjeEl goes on, be 
 Made the like Compromife "with his Brother 
 Henry /. who Marrfd the Heirefs of the 
 Saxon Time, Edgar Atheling having before 
 fubmitted. * Not the like Compromife, as 
 he has raifreprefented it, . btit the like Com- 
 promife as I have, related it, from our An* 
 cient Hiftorians : For by the Terms of it, 
 Robert was not to Succeed Henry, as the 
 Natural Born SubjeQ Imagines, but his own 
 Sons : But if he mould Dye without a Son^ 
 then Robert was to Succeed' him in England^ 
 as he, in the like Cafe, was to Succeed 
 Robert in Normandy :, as the Compromife is 
 given us in the Annals of Wavcrley - f and 
 by Henry of Huntingdon. \\ 
 
 In thefe Three Lines he commits another 
 great Miflake, when he fays Henry I. Mar- 
 ried the Heirefs of the Saxon Line. He 
 Married indeed Maud the Daughter of Mar- 
 garet Queen of Scotland , Sifter to Edgar 
 Atheling. But for Maud's being the Heirefs 
 
 * Letter Ibid. 
 
 f Quod Conful unoquoque Anno tria mille, marcas 
 argenti ab A-nglia haberet, & qui diutius viveret force 
 Jiares alterius, ft alter fine refto hserede morererur. Aii- 
 nal Traver. tool. 
 
 (t Quod Robertas unoquoque Anno tria mille, marcaruia 
 argenti habere. ab Ang\\a, 8c qui diutius viveret, hsres 
 alterius effet fi' alter abfque FiHo naoreretur, 
 
 af
 
 bf the Saxon Line, I believe he has no better 
 than Almanack Authority r , for in the Chrono- 
 logical Tables of our Kings in fome Almanacks , 
 I have feen this Remark upon Henry I. Mar- 
 riage, The Saxon Line rejlored. But had the 
 Natural Born SubjeB known, as he eafily 
 might, that Maud * had Four Brothers, Ed- 
 gar, Alexander, David, and Edward, (of 
 f- whom Edgar, Alexander^ and David were 
 fuccefiively Kings of Scotland, and that the 
 Race of the Scotifh J&ngs were defcended 
 from f David,) he would never have made 
 Maud an Heirefs. For thq* he Strains his Hy- 
 pothefis, I think,to make a Daughter an Heir 
 to a Crown, yet he will I doubt not Confefs 
 his Miftake, in making Maud the Heirefs of 
 the Saxon Line, now he knows me had Four 
 Brothers* Here I might ask this Author 
 (fince he fometimes doth not allow Gefilon, 
 to transfer the Right to a Crown,) when the 
 Right to the Englim Crown, was Extingui- 
 Ihed in the Heirs of the Saxon Line, of the 
 Houfe of Scotland* And when our Kings of 
 
 * Henricus majores natu JngliACcngregzvitLondonitx, & 
 Regis 'Scotorum Malcolmi & Margaret e Reginse, Filiam 
 Matildem Nomine, fororem etiam Regum, Edgan, Aiex- 
 andri. & David in cooiugem accepit. Roger de Hotedex. 
 Page 168. *. z?o. a. &?. 
 
 f Smon of Durham Names Six Brothers of Maud. Inter 
 Decem Seriptores, $< 102, 
 
 England
 
 C 159 ) 
 
 bngland upon his Principles commenced 
 Rightful ? Or whether ever before King 
 James VI. came to the Crown of England > 
 He proceeds. 
 
 An d Stephen the tlfurper made the like 
 
 Compromife v>itb Maud the Emprefs, Heirefs 
 
 of Henry L and with her Son Henry 77. 
 
 who accordingly did Succeed him. * Now 
 
 this which he calls a Like, was a different 
 
 Compromife from the Two former : For by 
 
 the Terms of k, Henry I[ was immediately 
 
 to Succeed upon the Death of Stephen. It is 
 
 another Miftake to fay that Stephen made a 
 
 Compromife with Maud : For he made the 
 
 Compromife only with her Son Henry, and 
 
 we cannot find that his Mother had any mare 
 
 in it. The Compromife it felf is preferved 
 
 in the Tower, and is Printed by Mr. Rymer. 
 
 f In which there is no mention of any Refig- 
 
 nation or Ceffion of Maud, nor is there any 
 
 Plenipotentiary or Agent for her,or her Hut 
 
 band, the Duke 'of Anjoit^ amongft the Names 
 
 of thofe that Sign'd that Agreement. Hoxv 
 
 much foever Dr. Brady, in his Anfwer to the 
 
 late ve*y Learned Bifhop of Wore eft er, was 
 
 concerned to prove Maud's Ceffion, being 
 
 not able to produce any Teftimony of it, 
 
 * Lettsr Ibid. f Cgnventignes Faedera, Vol. i./. i?. 
 
 from
 
 from any of our Hiftorians,. he is contented 
 only to fuppofe it as probable. * And there- 
 fore t Mmid having never Refign'd that we 
 "know of, either before, or after the Com- 
 proraife, and being Alive, when her Son 
 Henr^ came* to, the Throne, (and living to 
 the Fourteenth Year of his Reign,) f he 
 could not be faid to Afcend it as the next 
 Heir. I might laftly take Notice, that this 
 Author as. well as the Remarker, areMiftaken 
 in the Terms of the Agrepment betwixt 
 Stephen, and Henry II. as they ,may them- 
 felves be convinced by the aforefaid Char- 
 ter- of || Agreement, and {he Account that 
 is given of it by Henry of Huntington, * and 
 Roger de Hove den. f 
 
 * An Inquiry into the Remarkable Inflames of Hijlory and 
 Parliament Records, p. 2,7. z8. 
 
 { Anrto 1 4 Henrici Regis bbiit, Matildis Imperatrix 
 IVlater Ljxis. Annal. JSTater, 1167.. 
 
 || Sciatis quod Jigo Rex StefhanWi Hcnricwn ducem Nor- 
 mania poft me Succefforein Regni Angliae, & Haredem 
 eum jure HoEieditario conftitui, & lie ei &'Haeredibus fuis, 
 Angha, donavi & Confinnavi , Conventiones, 
 
 . .. 
 
 * Ipfum (ffenricum Sc?) fiquidem Rex in Fittlitn fufce- 
 pit adopiivum, & haereriem regni Conftituit. Hen. Hun- 
 tmdc?i, f. ^58. 
 
 } Pax Angk& reddita eft, pacificatis ad iirvicem Rege 
 Stephana, Sc Hennco duce mormannie, (|Uem Rex Stefbanus 
 adoptavit libi in t ilium & Conitituit haeredem & Suc- 
 celioreni Regni. Hoveden, f. z8i. 
 
 Anhuf
 
 C i ] 
 
 Arthur Duke of Britanny, faith the Natu- 
 ral Born Sub je Ely did Homage to his Uncle 
 King John, and foon after Dyed. But did 
 not Eleanor Survive her Brother, and King 
 John too, and Live a clofe Prifoner to the 
 Day of her Death) Which was in the Twenty 
 Fifth Year of King Henry III. as we are af- 
 fured by Matthew Paris , * a Witnefs beyond 
 exception : fo that Henry III. as well as Hen- 
 ry II. (of whom only there could be any 
 doubt of all thefe Thirteen Kings,) notwith- 
 ftanding what this Author Imagines, did 
 not come to the Throne as the next Heirs. 
 
 Some may fufpecl: that I have ranfackt the 
 Natural Born Subjeffs Book, for .thefe Mi- 
 ftakes, to prefent them here at one View ^ 
 but if they Pleafe to turn to the latter End 
 of the Thirty Sixth, and the beginning of 
 the Thirty Seventh Page, they'll find them 
 altogether, in the Order I have cited them, 
 within the Compafs of Twenty Two Lines : 
 and I cannot but Obferve, that whilft he is 
 fo much in the Dark, that he Stumbles al- 
 jnoft at every Step he takes, he is yet trium- 
 phing over my imaginary Miftakes about 
 
 * Et Circa idem tempus Obiit Alk-nora, Filia Galftidi 
 Comitis Britanni*, in Claufura diuturni carceris fub arcta 
 Cuftgdia retervata, Anno 1^1. Matthew Parit, f. $74. 
 
 M thefe
 
 thefe Thirteen Kings, and with a more than 
 ordinary Air of Allurance fays, wok the * 
 Thirteen then that Mr. Higden Speaks of] a 
 Mi flake of the Printer for Three , that it ftould 
 have been ? And I -will take even thefe Three 
 from him in the next Page, and leave bis 
 Sitmm Total a N/wgbt. 
 
 But to purfue him no farther in his Errors 
 on this Head, and to Corred them at once, 
 I'll fet before the Reader a Table of thefe 
 Thirteen Kings, in one Column, and of the 
 Lineal Heirs, in another. 
 
 * Letter f. 58. 
 
 The 

 
 A TABLE Shewing, 
 i/?. 
 
 The Time ily. 
 
 when thefe The Lineal Heirs that were 
 
 1 3 Kings Alive at that Time, and when 
 
 came to the they Dyed. 
 
 Throne, 
 
 William I. 
 Anno 1066. 
 Brompton 
 
 William II. 
 
 Anno 1088. 
 Brompton 
 
 Atheling Heir of the 
 Line , furvived both 
 William I, and JFi//w II. and, 
 as is Evident from the Annals of 
 Waverley, was Alive in the 6 
 Year of H. I. His Sifter Afcwg*- 
 *f, who Married the King of 
 Scotland, befides her Daughter 
 Maud Married to K. H. I. had 
 4 Sons, of which 3 were Succef- 
 fively Kings of Scotland, Edgar, 
 Alexander, and David, from 
 whom defcended the Race of 
 the Kings of the Scot s. 
 
 Hove den. ., . T _. 
 
 MakolmlV, 
 
 Robert Duke of 
 "Normandy the El- 
 deft Son of Wm. I. 
 who after a Com- 
 promifewithJT.il. 
 M 2 
 
 William 
 Alexan. II. 
 
 . III. 
 
 and
 
 Henry I. 
 Anno noc. 
 Brompton 
 
 [ 1*4 1 
 
 and another with 
 Hen. I. was upon 
 a New Breach, and 
 War, brought a 
 Prifoner into En- 
 gland, where he 
 Dyed, 1134. being 
 the 34?^. Year of 
 his Brother H. I. 
 Reign. An n.JKaver. 
 Prior Hagufttald. 
 
 John Baliol 
 Rob. Bruce 
 Dav. Bruce 
 
 Ro. Stuart, 
 
 Sir George 
 Mackenfey. 
 
 Stephen 
 4nno 1135. 
 W. Malmfb. 
 Henry II. 
 Anno 1155. 
 Brompton 
 
 John 
 
 Atfnb 1199. 
 Mat. Paris 
 Henry III, 
 Anno 1216. 
 Mat. Paris 
 
 Maud the Emprefs,Daughter 
 of H. 1. who was not only before 
 Stephen, but alfo before her own 
 Son Hen. II. in the Line, Dyed 
 in the Year 1167. which was 
 the 1 qtb. Year of Hen. II. Reign. 
 Annals of Waverley. 
 
 Arthur the Son of Geoffery. 
 Joh. Elder Brother Dyed, 1 203. 
 the ^th. Year of John's Reign, 
 Mat. Paris. But his Sifter Elea- 
 nor Dyed not till the Year 1 241. 
 'which was the 2 5. Year of H. III. 
 Matthew Paris. 
 
 Edward II. his Father was 
 Jan. 1326. Murdered the September fol- 
 Henry de lowing, Circa, feflum beati 
 Jynvghton Math si. Knyghton 
 
 "\ Richard
 
 3 
 
 Richard II. Dyed the Febru- 
 ary following. ' Stow 
 
 Edmund Mortimer Earl of 
 March, defcended from Lionel 
 Duke of Clarence, the %d. Son 
 of Hen. III. Dyed in 142 5. being 
 the ^d. Year, of Henry VI. 
 
 Dugdale's Baronage 
 
 Richard D. of Tbr&, the Son 
 of ^ww<?,Sifter to the E. of Marc h y 
 and of Rich. E. of Gzm. Slain 
 in the Battle of WakefieU 1460, 
 being the 3 $tb. Year of Hen. VI. 
 
 Henry IV. 
 Septem. 29. 
 
 1399. 
 
 Stow 
 
 Henry V. 
 ^wwt? 1412. 
 Stow 
 Henry VI. 
 
 1422. 
 Stow 
 
 Richard III. Edward V. arid his Brother 
 
 ;4;w0 1483. the Sons of Edward IV. Mur- 
 
 Sr. Thomas dered the firft Year oftichard\\L 
 
 More. Reign. Sir Thomas More 
 
 Henry VII. 
 ^fl?w 1485. 
 Ld. Bacon, 
 
 . Daughter of-Sto. IV, 
 whom Hen. VII. Married in the 
 firft Year of his Reign. His Mo- 
 ther the Countefs of Richmond, 
 who was then Alive, was before 
 him, in the Line of Lancajler. 
 Lord Bacon 
 
 M 3 
 
 Eut
 
 C 
 
 But of the Natural Born Subje&s Errors 
 of all kinds, (which from his unmoved Pri- 
 mum Mobile, to his Modeft Exhortation in 
 the End of his Book, are not a few) I fhall 
 take Notice only of one more. 
 
 When I was Speaking of the Submiffion of 
 the Jews to the Romans > I added that the 
 generality of the Nation were in Expectation, 
 that a Prince of the Tribe otjudah, would 
 fhortly break the Roman Yoak, and Reftore 
 the Kingdom to Ifrael. Upon which the 2* 
 jB. SubjeB fays. And that Prince did come, 
 and wa* then among them. And he gave it 
 tip too, and commanded them to Submit to 
 Tiberius, though he call'd himfelf the Son of 
 David. * 
 
 After our Blefled Saviour had fo exprefly 
 Difclaimed a Temporal Kingdom,and f fo fully 
 declared the Nature of his Kingdom, I won- 
 der how this Author could fall into this Err 
 ror, that Chrift had a Temporal Kingdom^ 
 which he gave up, and Commanded the Jews 
 to Submit to Tiberius. Chrift,as God, is King 
 of Kings, and Lord of all Creatures, but I 
 am fure the Natural Born Sub\eEi will not 
 fay, that he gave up this Eternal Kingdom. 
 Chrift,as Man, has a Spiritual Kingdom, but 
 
 * Letter f. 98* t Mat ^o**** &c. Jo. 18. 36. 
 
 1 neither
 
 neither will this Author fay that he gave up 
 this Kingdom, which he doth, and will re- 
 tain, till the End cometh, when he flail have 
 delivered it up to God even the Father. I Cor. 1 5. 
 
 But Chrift,asMan,had no Temporal King- 
 dom, and utterly Difclaimed any j fo that 
 the Temporal Kingdom, which the Natural 
 Born Subjeft fays he gave up, he never had. 
 And therefore at that Time, when he Com- 
 manded them to Submit to Tiberius, or at 
 any other Time, He could not give up a 
 Kingdom, which he never had. 
 
 This Error is feverely cenfured in Bifhop 
 Overalls Convocation Book. 'Tis many ways 
 very plain and evident that the Jews did ex- 
 pound all tho/e Places of the Prophets, 
 which do notably fet forth the Spiritual King- 
 dom of our Saviour Chrift, to be meant cfa 
 Temporal Kingdom, which he fhould erecl up- 
 on Earth. -There are fame fo much addiEled 
 in thefe Days unto the faid erroneous Opinion 
 of the Jews, as for the Advancement of the 
 Glory of the Bifyop of Rome , they will needs 
 have Chrift to have been here upon Earth a 
 Temporal Monarch. Infbmiich as fome of them 
 fay in effeEl that neither Augnftus Casfar nor 
 Tiberius his SucceJJor were lawful Emperors 
 from the time of Chrifts Birth, for above the 
 Space of Thirty Tears, until our Saviour had 
 required the Jews to pay Tribute to Cxfar. 
 
 M 4 But
 
 But thofe are Men not to be feared, for to 
 fay the Truth of them, they are all in effeEl 
 either grofs and unlearned Canonifts or elfe 
 lut new up fart Nerians, and with great 
 Affinity with the Canonifts ^ who meaning as 
 it feemeth to oittftrip the Jefuits, do labour 
 as much to make the Pope a Temporal Mo- 
 narch^ as the Jefuits have done for his pre- 
 tended fpiritual Monarchy. * I do not in 
 the leaft fufped this Author of any Defign 
 of advancing thefe Papal Pretenfions, nor is 
 his Notion with refpecl: to the Temporal 
 Kingdom, which he faith Chrijl gave uj/, al- 
 together the fame with theirs, and yet, as 
 far as he efpoufes the Notion of a Temporal 
 Monarchy that our Saviour had, fo far is he 
 cenfured by this Convocation-Book. An un- 
 fortunate Writer ! Who thinks a particular 
 Scheme of Government is laid down in the 
 Scriptures as a Law to Mankind j and yet 
 in interpreting fome PafTages of Scripture 
 with Relation to Government, has, we fee, 
 more than once fall'n into Errors, that ftand 
 Condemned in that very Book, for which, 
 this is good reafon to believe, he has the 
 greateft deference. 
 
 Pfige 110, 112, IIJ, 114.
 
 C 
 
 Tho' thefe two Authors in many things 
 agree fo well, as if they wrote in Concert, 
 yet we h-ive feen,that they fometimes differ 
 from one another, as well as contradift them- 
 felves : I mall take notice of a few more df 
 their mutual Differences, arid their felf- 
 Contradiclions, and fo take my Leave of them 
 for this time. 
 
 They differ about the Reputation of the 
 Book which they anfwen The Remarker tells 
 us, he made his Remarks on the View, be- 
 caufe he heard wherever he came^ that it 
 ivas applauded by Men of deep Reach, and 
 profound Judgment^ and fuck as made a Fi- 
 gure in their feveral Profejflons, * tho' by 
 the way it feems all thefe Perfons, of whom 
 he gives fo great a Character, were not able 
 to diftinguifii Utopia from England. Or, if 
 they were able, he is not : According to the 
 Title of his Book, he, or they muft be 
 Vifionaries. 
 
 But the Natural Born SubjeEl differs from 
 the Retnarker, and fays neither Whigjior To- 
 ry is pleas'd with the View* f If fo I am at a 
 lofs to know for what Reafon he mould give 
 himfelf the Trouble to anfwer a Book that 
 
 Preface to the Remarks. f Ltttfr f. 4. 
 
 na
 
 L 170 ] 
 
 no body was pleas'd with, unlefs it were to 
 {hew his great Skill in Englifti Hiftory. 
 
 There were fometimes Difputes about Ti- 
 tles of wbicb, the Remarker fays, the Popu- 
 lace were not competent Judges and in jiich 
 Cafes the Pofleffbr was fworn to as right- 
 //, and it was but reasonable, if the Right 
 Heir could not be difcover d^ or his Title 
 cleared to the SatisfaElion of the SubjeBs^ 
 who were to fwear to him j for in this melior 
 eft Conditio Poflidentis. * Again fpeaking 
 of the Duke of TorVs Title, what would 
 Mr. H. have more .<? Here the Great Men 
 ("who were, then the proper Judges) declare 
 bis Right and Title, f If the Populace were 
 never competent Judges about difputed Ti- 
 tles, how come they to be fo at this time > 
 And if the Great Men were the Judges 
 heretofore, why are they not fo now, and 
 what would the Remarker have more ? 
 Why is he not concluded by their Judgment 
 now ? Both thefe Authors fometimes, but 
 the Remarker very often to get rid of an 
 Argument gives up his own Caufe. But the 
 Natural Born SubjeB denys the great Men 
 are Judges, and fays, in a Competition for 
 the Crown, there is nothing elfe to be done 
 
 * Remarks 2' *5- t Ibidf. 26. 
 
 but
 
 hit every Man to fatisfie bis own Confidence 
 the beji Joe can, as to the Right of the Com- 
 fetitors. But as to any judicial Determina- 
 tion, there can be none upon Earth -^ * H6 is 
 here diametrically oppoiite to the Remar- 
 ker. But the great Error of this Author is, 
 that he doth not confider Men as Members 
 of Civil Society, who in civil Matters in 
 order to the publick Peace of it, muft be 
 concluded by a Publick Judgment , but looks 
 upon them as fo many Independent Indivi- 
 duals, I may rather lay, as fo many Inde- 
 pendent Governors, whilft he cenfures not 
 only the Judgment of other Men, but the 
 Publick Judgment too, when it differs from his 
 own : But I am not here to difpute, but only 
 to fhew how he differs from the Remarker. 
 There is nothing perplexes thefe two Au- 
 thors more, than Oaths, Ceflions,and Submi- 
 flions, about which they fometimes differ 
 from one another, and fometimes contradict 
 themfelves-, tho' in the main they agree in 
 their Management , making Submiffions, 
 Ceflions, and Oaths, to give up, or not to 
 give up a Right or Claim, as it ferves their 
 prefent Argument. Thus the Submifiion of 
 the Jews, and the Submifiion and Oaths of 
 
 *Lettirf t 74. 75, 
 
 the
 
 the Seriate, and People of Row*?, (hall give 
 up their Right , but the long Submiffion 
 Oaths, &c.* of the Houfe of Tork fhall not 
 abate their Right, nor Prejudice their Claim 
 as the Remarker fays, p. 26. And the Natu- 
 ral Born SubjeB fays, That Age will be a 
 Precedent of the mofl inflexible Loyalty^ which 
 The Ufurpation for fixty Tears Continuance 
 together, nor Succefs, nor Prefcription, nor 
 ABs of Parliament , no nor the Submiffion or 
 Rejig?iation ofthofe ivho had the Right could 
 abate, they f aw thefe were not free and vo- 
 luntary and therefore would lay no Strefs up- 
 on them -, p. 70, 71. And yet at another time 
 to get rid of the Argument from the Homi- 
 lies, and to favour King John's Title, he 
 fays, Arthur was dead and his Sifter Elea- 
 nor a Prifoner in King John's Hand, and 
 her Life at his Mercy every Hour ^ fo that 
 there was no Claim made by her, or for her 
 p. 1 02. The Heirs of the Houfe of Terk 
 could never quit their Claim by fixty Years 
 Subjection, accepting Commiffions, or repea- 
 ted Oaths, tho' at perfect Liberty -, (For by 
 this time the Natural Born SubjeB may be 
 fenfible, that he had no more reafon to put 
 them under Conftraint, than the Remarker 
 had to put them in Durefs.) And yet here 
 the bare Non-claim of Eleanor , who was a 
 Prifoner,(hall ferve the turn. At another time 
 Edgar Atheling, who, I fuppofe, even he will 
 
 noi
 
 ( 173) 
 
 not fay, was more free than the Heirs of 
 the Houfe of Tork, (hall by Submiffion and 
 an Oath of Fidelity transfer his Right to 
 William the Conqueror. William the Con^ 
 queror, fays the Natural Born Subjett, ob- 
 tain* d a Ri^bt, becaufe Edgar Atheling the 
 true Heir fubmitted andfwore Fidelity to him y 
 p. 38, 59. Is not this $ts\vuw -ry \3xnfyau. to 
 have a greater regard to an Hypothecs, than 
 Truth. And here, by the way,I might ob~ 
 ferve,how he paiTes by Edgar Athelings Sifter, 
 Margaret Queen of Scotland^ who was then 
 truly the Heirefs of the Saxon Line, tho' at 
 another time, we fee,hecaii make herDaughter 
 I/Laud to be the Heirefs of the Saxon Line, 
 who was no Heirefs at all, having Four 
 Brothers alive. 
 
 Whether the Hereditary Defcent of the 
 Crown is Limitable by Ad: of Parliament, is 
 a Queftion, upon which the Writers of 
 that fide are as much divided : But to 
 confine my felf chiefly to thofe with 
 whom I have been engaged in this Con- 
 troverfy. The Objeftor holds the De- 
 fcent of the Crown is limitable by Ad 
 of Parliament. The Natural Born SubjeEi, 
 and Remarker both deny it. The Natural 
 Born Subjefi denies it -, becaufe he believes 
 the Right of Succeffion by Primogeniture, 
 is of Divine Inftitution, and a Law of 
 the whole Earth. If the Remarker isr of 
 
 the
 
 (174) 
 
 the fame Opinion, (which he doth not 
 plainly declare) he differs very much from 
 the Learned Author, whofe Book * he hath 
 fo often recommended to me, who in his 
 Preface goes no higher than human Autho- 
 rity, or a fundamental Law of the Monar- 
 chy, which he fuppofes has fix'd the Suc- 
 ceflion. He (aw there were no grounds in 
 the Holy Scriptures to fix the SuccefTion 
 on divine Inftitution or Law. On the 
 other hand, the Natural Born SubjeB is, 
 I believe, convinced, that it cannot be un- 
 alterably fix'd by human Law, fince he ap- 
 pears to be of my Lord Bacon's Opinion, 
 || which I think is very true, that the Su- 
 preme Power may difTolve, but cannot bind 
 it felf, fo that I have thus far both thefe 
 Authors with me againft each other: The 
 Author of Jovian agreeing with me againft 
 the Natural Born SubjeEl y that the Suc- 
 ceflion to the Crown is not eftablifh'd by 
 a Divine Law - ? and the 'Natural Born Sub- 
 je8 agreeing with me againft that Author, 
 that the Succeflion cannot be unalterably 
 fixM by human Law. 
 
 But to f;itisfiethe Natural Born Sitb]el2.n& 
 the Remarker, that I have not miftaken that 
 Author's Senfe in his Preface, they may 
 
 Jovian It Letter p. 18. 
 
 find
 
 ( 175 ) 
 
 find in the Book it felf (which I defire the 
 Natural Born Subjeft efpecially to obferve) 
 that he is fo far from making Succeffion to 
 a Crown by Primogeniture to be of Di- 
 vine Right, that he denies Monarchy it felf 
 to be of divine Right,exclu(ive of other forms 
 of Government. For after he has run thro* 
 other Forms of Government, whether An- 
 ftocracys, or Democracy V, as the Govern- 
 ment of Sparta, of Venice, and of the Can- 
 tons of Switzerland, and obferved wherein 
 the Sovereignty was, and is refpedively lod- 
 ged in each of them, he fays, / was the 
 more 'willing to wake this Observation, that 
 when I fpeak of Sovereign Princes, I may 
 not be malicioufly traduced, as if I fpoke of 
 them exclufively of other Sovereigns, as if 
 Monarchy were of fole Divine Right. For 
 want of this Dijlinftion, other Authors have 
 had this invidious Imputation laid upon 
 them. * 
 
 But if the Remarker (hall fay, he Agrees 
 with the Author of Jovian, he muft then 
 at the fame Time Confefs, that he is direftly 
 Oppofite to his Partner in this Controverfy, 
 the Natural Born SubjeEl. 
 
 * Jovian 240, 241.
 
 ( 17* ) 
 
 Tis True, that amidft all thefe Differen- 
 ces, they at this Time happen to agree (tho* 
 fome of them not very confidently with them* 
 felves) in one Conclufion, deduced from Pre- 
 mifes, as different as their Principles \ but 
 had they lived in fome of the Reigns, we have 
 before difcourfed of,and purfued their different 
 Principles, they would have form'd (for they 
 would not have found any) different Par- 
 ties, and been fome of them Jurors, and 
 others Non-Jurors then. 
 
 As I have hitherto taken no notice of 
 the hard Words, Angry Invectives, and 
 ram and uncharitable Genfures, which make 
 fo many Pages of both thefe Anfwers 
 fo I fhal always neglect them being perfect- 
 ly fatisfied, that there was nothing provo^ 
 king in the View, which, whatever it wanted, 
 did not want Temper ^ and I hope I have 
 made no Retaliation in .this Defence : For 
 to forgive the Authors, aud not to imitate 
 them, is the beft ufe that can be made of 
 that way of Writing. 
 
 F I N I
 
 [ 177] 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Number. I. 
 Anno XIV. Edwardi Qitarti. 
 
 I Tern, Our faid Soveraigne Lord the King 
 remembring that it was Ordained, Eria- 
 fted, and Eftabliflied, by Aurhoritie of the 
 Parliament holden at Weflmmfler, the Second 
 Day of May, in the Ninth Yeereof the Reigne 
 of the Noble King Henry V. Inte in Deed and 
 not of Right, King of this. Noble Realme of 
 England, as heereafter followeth. * Item 9 
 whereas the taking of Affifes generally, hath 
 long ceafed throughout this Real me of En- 
 gland, becaufe of a Statute and Ordinance 
 made by our faid Soveraigne Lord the King, 
 at his Second PalTage towards the Partes of 
 Normandie, and by his Counfell : Our faid 
 Soveraigne Lord confidering the great Difea- 
 fes and Damages, which divers of his Liege 
 People have had and fuftdiped by the fame 
 ceafing, hath ftraightly Commanded^ and 
 Commandeth, that hisjuilicesirnil hold the 
 Aflifes through the Realme of England, in 
 
 t 
 J Hers logins the Recital o/H^ary tin VtTff $M:ttt, 
 
 N the
 
 the manner ufed and accuftomed. And to 
 Efchew the difherifons of the fame Perfons, 
 which now be pafTed and (hall palTe in this 
 Voiaga Royall of the King, (which God 
 Speed,) and alfo of the Perfons which be 
 abiding in the Service of our Soveraigne Lord 
 the King, in the Partes of Normandie and of 
 France, it is ordained and provided, that in 
 every Protection with the Claufe of Tolumus 
 "to be made for every of the fame Perfons, 
 there (hall be in the Claufe of the Exception 
 of the fame contained Omiflion of thefe 
 Words, affife nove diffcifme* And that all 
 Protections be allowable for them, and every 
 of them,in all the Counties of our Saver 
 Lord the King, in any Place where fuch 
 Protection is caft forth for any fuch Perfon, 
 in all the Pleas of Aflifes as well of No. difs. as 
 of -FreJJj Force i without any difficulty. Pr0- 
 vided always, that the Judgements to bee given 
 from henceforth in fuch Aflifes Arraigned or 
 to be Arraigned, (hall not be prejudicial to 
 any of the faid Perfons fo abiding in the King's 
 Noble Service beyond the Sea, as is aforefaid, 
 which hath any thing in Reverfion or Re- 
 mainder in fuch Lands oi^Tenemenrs, whereof 
 fuch Aflifes -be or (hall be Arraigned, if they 
 that have in Reverfion or Remainder of fuch 
 Laads or Tenements be not Named in the 
 fame Aflifes, but that they bee againft them 
 
 Voyde.
 
 C 
 
 Voyde. And this Ordinance fhall endure 
 till the Parliament, which fhall be next hoi- 
 den after the next coming againe of our So- 
 veraigne Lord the King into this Realrae of 
 England. And if this Ordinance touching 
 the faid Perfons, abiding in the King's Service 
 beyond the Sea, and alfo touching the faid 
 Perfons, which have patted and fhall pafle in 
 the faid Voyage, be not fufficient for the 
 Eafe and Surety of them, it is accorded and 
 aflented, that the Lords of the King's Cotm- 
 cell for the time berhg, fhall have full Power 
 by Authority of this prefent: Parliament, to 
 fet, ordaine and provide fufficient Remedy for 
 the Eafe and Suretie 7 of all the faid Perfons 
 and every of them, as to the faid Lords mail 
 feeme Availeable and : Expedient in the cafe, 
 after their good Advife and Difcretion. * 
 Our Sovereigne Lord the King will and hath 
 Ordained, Enacted, and Eftablimed, by the 
 Advife and AfTent of the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal, and the Commons in this prefent 
 Parliament AtTembled;, and by Authority of 
 the fame, that the fame Order and the fame 
 La we, comprifed in the faid Statute, and Or- 
 dinance, fhall be now obferved and kept, and 
 fhall be as Availeable for all manner of Per- 
 
 
 * KM ends th Rriul of Henry th rtt Statute* 
 
 N 2 fons,
 
 [ i8o] 
 
 fons, which now mall pafle over the Sea 
 with our Soveraigne Lord the Kins; in this 
 Voyage Royall, and there fhall abicle in his 
 faid Noble Service as they were, for fuch 
 Perfons which did pafle over the Sea with 
 the faid late King, and there did abide in his 
 Noble Service. And that all fuch Persons, 
 which now fhall pafle over the Sea with our 
 faid Soveraigne Lord the King, fhall haveand 
 Enjoy in every pointe all manner of Advan- 
 tages, as the faid Perfons fo patting over the 
 Sea with the faid late King, had, fhould 
 have, and might have had by reafon of the 
 faid Statute. This A& and Ordinance to 
 endure till the next Parliament, which fhall 
 be firft holden after the next coming of our 
 Soveraigne Lord the King into England. 
 Raft all's Collettions Vol. i.f. 316. 
 
 Number II. 
 
 We Oath tvhich Richard Duke of York took, 
 to be True, Faithful,- and Obedient SubjeB, 
 to King Henry the Sixth, atSt.PaulsCrofs, 
 in the Prefence of the King and moft of his 
 'Nobility, in 1452. being- the %otb. Taar 
 0/Henry the Sixths Reign. 
 
 I 
 
 Richard Duke of Tork, Confefs and 
 Beknow, that I am, and ought to be, 
 
 humble
 
 C'8' 3 
 
 humble Subjeft, and Liege-Man, to you my 
 Soveraign Lord King Henry VI. and owe 
 therefore to bear you^ Faith and Truth, as 
 to my Soveraign Liege Lord, and ftmll do all 
 Days unto my Lives End, and (hall not at 
 any Time Will or Alfent, that any thing be 
 Attempted or done againft your moft Noble 
 Perfon, but wherefoever I fhali have Know- 
 ledge of any fuch thing imagined or propofed, 
 I fhall with all Speed and Diligence poflible 
 to me, make that your Highnefs mall have 
 Knowledge thereof, and over that, do all 
 that mail be poflible to me, to the withftand- 
 ing and let thereof, to the uttermoft of my 
 Life. I fhall not any thing take upon me 
 againft your Royal Eftate j or Obeyfance 
 that is due thereto, nor fuffer any other Man 
 to do, as far forth as (hall be in my Power to 
 let it : And alfo fhall come at your Com- 
 mandement whenfoever I fhall be call'd by 
 the fame, in Humble and Obeyfant Wife, 
 but if I be letted by any Sicknefs, or Impo- 
 tence of my Perfon, or by fuch other Caufe 
 as mail be thought by you my Soveraigne 
 Lord Reafonable, I fhall never hereafter take 
 upon me to gather any Rowt, or to make any 
 AfTembly of your People, withoutyourCom- 
 mandment or Licenfe, or in my Lawful De- 
 fence, I mail report me at all Times to your 
 Hielnefs, and if the Cafe require, to my 
 N 3 Peers,
 
 ., 
 Peers, nor any thing Attempt againft any 
 
 of your Svbjefts, of what Eftate, Degree or 
 Condition that they be. But whenfoever 1 
 find my felf Wronged and Agrieved, I (hall 
 fue Humbly for Remedy to your Highnefs, 
 and proceede after the Courfe of your Lawes 
 and in none otherwife, faving in my own 
 Lawful! Defence in manner abovefaid, and 
 otherwife -have to your Highnefs, as an 
 Humble and True Subjed ought to have to 
 his Soveraigne Lord. All thefe things above- 
 faid, I Promife you truly to Obferve and 
 Keep, by the Holy Evange^ifts contained in 
 the Book that I lay my Hand here upon, 
 and by the Holy Crofs I here Touch, and by 
 the BleiTed Sacrament of the Lords Body, 
 that I fhall now with his Mercy Receive. 
 And over, I agree me, and will, that if I any 
 Time hereafter, as by the Grace of our Lord 
 God I never fhall, any thing Attempt by 
 way of Feate,or otherwife againft your Royall 
 Majeftie, 6t the Obey fance that I owe thereto, 
 or any thing take upon me otherwife than is 
 above exprefted, I from that Time forth be 
 unabled held, and taken as an untrue and 
 openly forefworn Man, and unable to all 
 manner of Worfhip, Eftate and Degree, be 
 it fuch as I now occupy, or any other that 
 might in any Wife grow unto me hereafter. 
 And this I have heere promifed and Sworn, 
 
 pro-
 
 proceeded of mine own defire and free Volume, 
 and by no conftraining or Coa&ion. In Wit- 
 nefs of all thefe things above Written, I 
 Richard Duke of Tork above Writ, Subfoibe 
 with my own Hand and Seal. 
 
 This Oatb be alfo tosk at Weftminfter, 
 and at Coven trie at fundry Times in tbe 3 ift 
 Tear ofK. Henry VI. Stow. Page 396. 
 
 Number III. 
 
 The Oatb wbicb Richard Duke <?/Yor|t 
 upon the Agreement m 1460. in the 
 Tear of King Henry the Sixtb* 
 
 IN the Name of God Amcn y I RicborJ 
 Duke of Tork y Promife and Swear by 
 the Faith and Truth, that I owe to Almighty 
 God, that ^ ihall never Confent, Procure or 
 Stir, diredly or indiredly, in Privy or apart, 
 neither fas much as in me is) (hall fufFer 
 to be done, confented, procured or flirred 
 any thing, that may found to the Abridge- 
 ment of the Natural Life of King Henry VJ. 
 or to the hurt or diminiming of his Reign, 
 or Dignity Royal by Violence, or any other- 
 wife againft his Freedom or Liberty, but if 
 any Perfon or Perfons, would do or pre- 
 fume any thing to the contrary, I (hall with 
 N 4 all
 
 1 184 1 
 
 all my Might and Power witbftand it, and 
 make it to be withftood, as far -as my Por/er 
 will ftretch thereunto. So help me God 
 and his Holy Evangeiifts. 
 
 Stow P. 410. 
 
 Number IV, 
 
 Anno Undecimo Henrici Septimi. 
 G H A P. I, 
 
 TH E King our Soveraign Lord calling 
 to his Remembrance the Duty of Al- 
 legiance of his Subjects of this Realm, and 
 that they by Reafon of the fame, are bound 
 to ferve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for 
 the Time being, in his Wars, for the De- 
 fence of him and the Land, againft: every 
 Rebellion, Power, and Might, reared againft 
 him, and with him to enter and abide in 
 Service of Battel if Cafe fo ^require and 
 that for the fame Service, what Fortune ever 
 fall by Chance in the fame Battel, againft 
 the Mind and Will of the Prince, ("as in this 
 Land fometime pafTed hath been feen) that 
 it is not Reafonable, but againft all Laws, 
 Reafon, and good Confcience, that the faid 
 Subjeds going with their Sovereign Lord in 
 
 Wars,
 
 C 185 } 
 
 s, attending upon him in his Perfon, or 
 in other Places by his Commandement 
 tiis Land, or without, any thing 
 ould lofe or forfeit for doing their True 
 Duty and Service of Allegiance. It be there- 
 fore Ordained, Enaded, and Eftabliihed by 
 the King our Soveraign Lord, and by the 
 Advice and Alfent of the Lords Spiritual 
 and Temporal, and the Commons in this 
 prefent Parliament AfFembled, and by Au- 
 thority of the fanie, < that from henceforth 
 no manner of Perfon or Perfons, whatfoever 
 he or they he, that attend upon the King 
 and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the 
 Tune being, in his Perfon, and do him 
 True and Faithful Service of Allegiance in 
 the fame, or be in other Places by his Com- 
 mandement in his Wars, within this Land 
 or without : That for the faid Deed and 
 True Duty of Allegiance, he or they be in 
 no wife Convid or Attaint of High Treafon, 
 nor of other Offences for that Caufe, by A6fc 
 of Parliament or otherwife by any Procefs 
 of Law, whereby he or any of them, fhall 
 Lofe or Forfeit Life, Lands, Tenements, 
 Rents, Poffeffions, Hereditaments, Goods, 
 Chattels or any other things, but to be for 
 that Deed and Service utterly difcharged of 
 any Trouble Vexation or Lofs. And if any 
 Ad or Ads or other Procefs of the Law, 
 
 here-
 
 C 
 
 hereafter thereupon for the fame happen ta 
 be made contrary to this Ordinance, that 
 Ad or Ads or other Procefs of the Law 
 whatfoever they fhall be, ft and and be utter- 
 ly void* Provided alway, that no Perfon 
 or Perfons fhall take any Benefit or Advan- 
 tage by this Ad, which' (hall hereafter de- 
 cline "from his or their faid Allegiance. 
 
 Number V. 
 Anno Decimo tert'w Regin* Elizabeth & c. I. 
 
 An AB ivherely certain Offences be made 
 Treafon. 
 
 AND be it further enaded that if any 
 Perfon fhall any ways hold and affirm 
 or maintain that the Common Laws of this 
 Realm, not altered by Parliament, ought 
 not to dired the Right of the Crown of 
 England -^ or that our faid Sovereign Lady 
 Elizabeth the Queen's Majefty that now is, 
 with and by the Authority of the Parlia- 
 ment of England, is not able to make Laws 
 and Statutes of fufficient Force and Validity 
 to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm, 
 and the Defcent, Limitation, Inheritance, 
 and Government thereof. Every fuck Per-
 
 C 
 
 fon fo holding, affirming or maintaining du-' 
 ring the Life of the Queen's Majefty (hall 
 be judged a high Traitor, and fuft'er or for- 
 feit as in Cafes of High Treafon is accufto- 
 med ^ and every Per fon fo holding, affir- 
 ming or maintaining after the Deceafe of 
 our faid Sovereign Lady, (hall forfeit all 
 his Goods and Chattels. 
 
 Number VI. 
 
 A Citation out of a Letter of Lethington 
 the Secretary tf/ 7 Scotland to Sir William. 
 Cecil the Queen of England's Secretary. 
 
 NOW let us examine the Matter and 
 Circumftances how King Henry VIII. 
 was by Statute enabled to difpofe the Crown. 
 There is a Form in two forts prefcribed him 
 which he may not tranfgrefs, that is to fay, 
 either by his Letters Patents fealed with his 
 Great Seal, or by his laft Will (igned with 
 his own Hand : For in this extraordinary 
 Cafe he was held to an ordinary and pre- 
 cife Form -, which being not obferved, the 
 Letters Patents, or\ Will cannot work the 
 Intent or EfFed fuppofed. And to difprove 
 that the Will was figned with his own 
 Hand i you know that long before his 
 
 Death
 
 L 
 
 Death he never ufed his own Signing with 
 his own Hand ^ and in the time of his 
 Sicknefs, being divers times prelTed to put 
 his Hand to the Will written, he refufed 
 to do it. And it feemed God would not 
 fuffer him to proceed in an A& fo injurious 
 and prejudicial to the Right Heir of the 
 Crown, being his Neice. Then his Death 
 approaching, fome as well known tc you as 
 to me, caufed William Clark , fometimes 
 Servant to Thomas Heneage, to fign the fup- 
 pofed Will with a Stamp ( for otherwife 
 iigned it was never) and yet notwithftan- 
 ding fome refpefting more the Satisfaction 
 of their Ambition, and others their private 
 than juft and upright Dealing, procured di- 
 vers honeft Gentlemen, attending in feveral 
 Rooms about the King's Perfon, to teftify 
 with their Hand-writings the Contents of 
 the faid pretended Will, furmifedto be fign- 
 ed with the King's own Hand. To prove 
 this diiTembled and forged figned Tefta- 
 ment, I do refer to fuch Trials as be yet left. 
 Firft j the Atteftation of the late Lord Pa- 
 gel, publilhed in the Parliament in Queen 
 Mar^s Time for the Reftitution of the Duke 
 of Norfolk. Next, I pray you on my Sove- 
 reigns behalf, that the" Depofitions may be 
 taken in this Matter of the Marquefs of 
 Winchefter, Lord Treafurer of England, the 
 
 Mar-
 
 C 189] 
 
 Marquefs of Northampton, the Earl of Pem- 
 broke, Sir William Petre, then one of King 
 Henrfs Secretaries, Sir Henry Nevell, Sir 
 Mauri-ce Earkky, Dodor But s, Edmond Har- 
 inan Baker, John Qsbnrn Groom of the 
 Chamber, Sir Anthony Dennis, if he be li- 
 ving, Terns the Chirurgion, and fuch as 
 have heard David Vincent and others fpeak 
 in this Cafe :, and that their Atteftations 
 may be enrolled in the Chancery, and the 
 Arches, inferfetuam ret wemoriam. 
 
 Colletlion of Records at the End of the 
 I Vol. of the Hiflory of the Reformation. 
 
 Page 269. 
 
 Number VII. 
 
 A Citation out of Sir Thomas Craig's Book of 
 the Succeflion in Anfwer to Doleman 
 alias Parfons the Jefuit, who endeavoured 
 tofetitp King Henry Vlllttfs Will. p. 334, 
 345- 
 
 THis good Man (meaning Doleman) like 
 himfelf always adds that the Seal or 
 Stamp was enough in this Affair , fo 
 that with him it is fufticient to anfwer the 
 Intention of the Parliament, fays he, that 
 
 his
 
 E 190 ] 
 
 his laft Will had his Seal (his Stamp*) 
 put to it, tho' at the fame time there is no 
 mention in the faid Statutes of the Seal 
 (Stamp} to his Teftament, but of his Sub- 
 fcription, and in an Affair of that Impor- 
 tance as that laft Will was, that it fhould 
 be fubfcribed by the King's Hand was the 
 leaft that might be, feeing the Seal (Stamp) 
 could be put to it by his Amanuenfis even af- 
 ter his Death. Yet I fhall fay nothing of 
 thofe two Afts or Statutes, tho' they exceed 
 the Condition and Power of Mortals, nor 
 how fuch Power could be given to any Man, 
 whatever his Dignity be, in an Hereditary 
 Kingdom , feeing at that time many things 
 may happen which may difturb his Judg- 
 ment , yet tho this might be difpenced with 
 in fo great a Prince^who could ever endure than 
 an Affair of the greateft confequence fhould 
 be entrufled to \i\s.j4Mamtenfts, and to his 
 report that he was commanded by the King 
 to fet the Seal (Stamp') to it, or that fuch 
 Power could be given to him as that by his 
 fetting the Seal (Stamp) to it, the true and 
 lawful Succcffion of the Kiogdom fliould be 
 taken away : Who will bdieve it ? Certain- 
 
 * I have taken the Liberty after the Word (Seal) 
 add (Stamf) for fo it gught to have been expreffed.
 
 C *9* f l 
 
 ly the Houfe of Suffolk at this rate, fiiould they 
 get the Kingdom, could not owe it to the Right 
 of Succeffion, but to \Clark, one of the low- 
 eft fort of the People, Who acknowledged open- 
 ly before Queen Mary and her Tnvy Council, and 
 alfo before the "Parliament, that he put the Seal 
 (Stamp} to it, after King Henry had loft the Ufe 
 of his Reafon, or was paft Senfe and Memory, 
 and who alfo was forgiven, for that Crime, and 
 obtain'd the Queen's Pardon upon his Confef- 
 fion. For who can be better believed in Crimi- 
 m falfi, that is, in Forgery, than the Author 
 and Forget himfelf ? 
 
 But Dclemari fays, that the two A#s of Parlia- 
 ment cannot in reafon be eluded or overthrown 
 by the Teftimony of that Clark, or of others, 
 concerning himielf or his own Fad:, wherein 
 they fay that the King's Memory was gone when 
 the Stamp was put to the Teitamenc. But the 
 Forgery in putting the Seal (Stamp) to that Pa- 
 per may be evidently enough made appear even, 
 from thofe two Ads of Parliament themfelves 
 remaining in their Force. And it is quite ano- 
 ther thing, the King could have done fuch a 
 thing, and the King did it/ The King alfo 
 could by virtue of thofe two Ads have nomina- 
 ted his Succeffors : But who will fay v that he 
 ever did name his SucceiTors ? Moreover had 
 that Seal (Stamp) been put to the Paper by his 
 Command, yet v even that did not come up to 
 the Intention and Purport of thofe Two Sta- 
 tutes. For as the l^iftiop of Rofs obferves and all 
 the Lawyers * if the Form appointed be omit- 
 
 * Si forma a legs tr adit a fit omijja, ed totus aftw vitiatur. 
 
 ted,
 
 [ 19= 1 
 
 ted, the whole Proceeding is nulled by that 
 Omiffion. * Efpeciatly [when thut Form that is 
 prefcribed for any real'ort oughc to be obLrved, f 
 even afcer the reafon ceafes, for wMch it was 
 introduced. Wherefore unlefs the King had ob- 
 ierved and kept himfelf, to that Form in making 
 his laft Will, which was appointed in t'.oie two 
 laft Ads, the transferring of the Kingdom from 
 the true Heir could never have been eftabli/hed 
 or confirm'd by fuch his Will. But feeing this 
 reafon hath been fully explained both by the 
 Bifliop of 0/},and by my felf,l forbear to fay any 
 more of it here. 
 
 But our Author fays, that this laft Will of 
 King Henry, which was not only authorized by 
 Two Ads of Parliament, but enrolled in the 
 Chancery, ought not to be overthrown by one 
 or two Witneffes* But it's evidently falfe that 
 that Will was Authorized by two Parliaments, 
 tho' the Power of making fuch a Will was gran- 
 ted to that King by thofe Parliaments, yet that 
 Will was never Ratified. For what was done a 
 long time before, cannot ratify what is done 
 after, efpecially if it be done in a different Form. 
 This Man is an ill Lawyer, a worfe Hiftorian, 
 but the worft of- all Divines > who thus perverts 
 Law, Hiftory, and the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 * Bald, in L.fion dubivm C. de Legist . 
 t L. Si fundus de rebus eonim, ynipl> tutela &cvrafunt, 
 non alienandis. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 1) 
 
 i) 
 
 8