TO perswade a People arm'd with a violent Sword, to cut out to themselves their own Government, to embrace Monar­chy (lying under ma­ny disloyall reproaches, which it hath received from Pen and Pulpit,) as the best Form of Government, to make them happy; may seem rather the work of an Angel, than of a man. But yet it will be no hard matter to perswade English [Page 2] men to embrace Monarchy, under the name and notion of the Crown of Eng­land, when it shall be made apparent to them, that in the peace thereof consisteth their peace, and by the splen­dor and majesty of the Crown, they re­ceive Ease and Justice, the two darling delights of the People.

If men did but consider the glory and beauty of the Crown of England, as it is in it self, and as it stands in rela­tion to the people, in those two lovely properties of Justice and Mercy, it would draw all hearts to love it, all hands to defend it, all pens to write for it, and all tongues to plead for it. For what is it else, but that Supream Sove­raigne power, Description. given by God the founder of it, to the King, and so acknowledg­ed by the people; annexed by Law to the natural body of the King; and un­to it united and incorporated, for the Go­vernment of all his Subjects in peace and safety, according to the Laws of the Land? This is briefly the descri­ption of it, which I will now forti­fie with some Reasons and Autho­rities.

And for a more succinct proving of all the parts of this description, I shall make good these six conclusions ac­cording to Law.

1. That the Soveraigne Power belonging to the Crown of England, is, according to the Law of the Land, gi­ven to the King by God, not by the People.

2. That it is so assented to by the People of England; and this their assent openly de­clared by divers Acts of Par­liament.

3. That this Soveraigne Power, is by Law inseparably [Page 4] and undividedly united to the naturall Body of the King, and maketh in him but one Royal Person.

4. That this Soveraigne Power is over all the Sub­jects of England, as well in a Collective Body, or Re­presentative, as over every singular Subject.

5. That this Power is given to the King, as well for the preservation of Him­self, as for the Governement of all his People in peace and safety.

[Page 5]6. That this Governe­ment is to be according to the Laws of the Land, not by an Arbitrary Illegall Power.

For the more sincere handling of all these, I shall indeavour to avoid these two Rocks:

First, Flattery of the King, a vice which King James calls,Basi. l Doron. lib. 2. the pest of all Princes, and wrack of Republicks.

Secondly, Injury of the People, (the unruly ringleader of all Sedition and Rebellion:) and truly to state the Praerogative of the King, as it relates to the liberty of the people, in joyning them together in marriage (as the Law hath joyned them) with an indissoluble knot.

Concerning the first Conclusion; Conclus. 1

Though the Law of Reason be theD^r & Stu. lib. 1. cap. 5. first Ground of the Law of England, and from thence I might insist upon [Page 6] that Argument mentioned by those two Patriarks of Philosophy and Poli­cy, Plato and Aristotle Plato lib. 3^o de Leg. Aristo. 1^o lib. Pol. cap. 30. (the Master and the Scholler) That the chiefest person in every houshold is in nature of a King; and when numbers of Families joyned themselves in civil societies, Kings were the first kind of Governours; and from thence inforce this Conclusi­on:

That as the Fathers of Families have (by the consent of all Opposites to Monarchy at this day) their Govern­ment immediately from God, so have the Fathers of their Countries. But be­cause nothing hath been more tortured upon the rack than the Law of Rea­son, I will only hold my self for the proof of this point, to the positive Laws of this Kingdome, from the first Chri­stian King of it, to this very day.

I will begin with King Lucius, who after he had received the Christian faith almost fifteen hundred years agone, by the meanes of Eleutherius then Bishop of Rome, (the most pious Father of the the Church then living) he writes to that Bishop to send to him the Romane [Page 7] Laws (then famous over the world) whereby he might the better Governe the People of England. The good Bishop writes to him an Epistle back a­gain,Lamb. inter. Leg. Edw. Anno. Dom. 169 (as I find it printed amongst the Laws of the Saxon Kings, put forth by M^r Lambert) and stiles him in that Epistle, Vicarius Dei in Regno suo; Gods Vicegerent in his own Kingdome: and adviseth him to reject the Laws of Caesar, and to choose a Law ex utraque pagina, from the Old and New Testament, and by that to Governe his People. Now the Laws of England are more agreeable to the Laws of God, than the Laws of any Commonwealth, Grecian, Roman, or o­ther, &c. though without much diffi­culty it might be proved; yet being not to the Point I have in hand, I will passe it by, and only prove this; That according to that stile of Eleutherius, The Kings of England have by the Laws thereof, and by the constitution of this Kingdome from that day to this, been accounted Gods immediate Lievete­nants, and to have the Supreame So­veraigne Power from God in their [Page 8] Kingdomes, and not from the Peo­ple.

The Laws of England from the daies of this Lucius, and the succeeding Kings, till the dayes of Edward the Confessor, were cut in pieces by the sharp Sword of Civil Warre, which continued here in England for divers hundred of years, (that of the Danes alone continuing two hundred and thir­ty,) and divided into the Laws of the Mercians, called Marchen-leg, into the Laws of the Danes, Leg. Edw. c. 1. called Dane-leg, and into the Laws of the West-Saxons, called Westsaxon-leg. This good King Edward, (for so the Recordors of that time call him) out of the bro­ken pieces of these Laws, chose twelve of the most learned men of the Law within the Realme, to compile one entire compleate Body of the Law, and Customes of the Kingdome; charging them upon an Oath, that they should performe it justly and truely, not turning to the right hand or to the left; Nihil praetermittentes, nihil addentes, nihil mutantes, as the words of that Law are: which they did according­ly; [Page 9] and that King Enacted it to be used commonly throughout the whole Kingdome, from whence it had the appellation of the Common Law; and not upon that ground given by a Mem­ber of the Commons-house, in the beginning of this Parliament;Hen. Martin. That Common Law was nothing, but Com­mon Reason; and therefore he saw no cause why a Gentleman in a short Cloake, might not declare what was the Law of the Realme, as well as a Gentle­man of the long Robe.

The words of my Author are these, Ex immensa legum congerie, quas Brit­tani, Romani, Angli, Daci condiderunt, optima quaeque selegit, ac in unam co­egit, quam vocari voluit Communem Legem. These Laws and Customes are set down in severall Chapters vul­garly called, St. Edwards Laws, which are in substance the same with our Mag­na Charta, and which the Kings of this Realme heretofore at their Corona­tion swore chiefly to observe,Vet. N. bre. fol. 164. Juramentum Regis. Leg. Edw. c. 17. in these words; Praesertim Leges, consuetudines, & libertates à glorioso Rege Edwardo, clero populoque concessas, as it is at [Page 10] large expressed in the Oath of the King at his Coronation in the M. Charta, Printed Anno. Dom. 1656. in the 17. Chapter of that Law, under the Title, de Officio Regis. The King of England is stiled, as in the dayes of Lucius, Vica­rius summi Regis, the Lievtenant of the highest King. The words of the Law run thus; Rex autem quia Vica­rius summi Regis est, ad hoc est consti­tutus, ut regnum terrenum & populum Domini & super omnia sanctam Ec­clesiam ejus regat, & ab injuriosis de­fendat & maleficos ab ea quellet & destruat & penitus disperdat. These Laws are much refined by King H. 1. the Conquerours Son surnamed Beau­clerke; but much more by H. 2. his grandchild, who wrote a book intitu­led, pro Republica, Leges: of which there remaines not any fragment at this day: only the book of Glanvile Lord Chief Justice of England, and a Book called Regia Majestas, both written in King H. 2. dayes, of the Customes of Eng­land, do both of them make the Sove­raigne Power of the King of England to be immediately from God.

King H. 2. compiled also an other Book, called Statuta Regalia, which to the punishment of this Kingdome was unhappily lost. For by want of set­ting down the particular Rights of the Crowne, chiefly in the Laws of the Forrest, most grievous to the Subject, and over liberall to the Crown, by rea­son of those great afforestations made by himself and his two Sonnes, Rich. 1. and King John, grew those long blou­dy and rebellious Warres (for so do Historians call them) of the Barons, lasting about sixty years in the dayes of King John and H. 3.Ch. de For. cap. 1. & 3. for the setling and confirming the great Charter of Liber­ties, and the Charter of the Forrest, agreed unto by King John, in the 17. year of his Raign, and Enacted by Parliament in the 9. year of H. 3. while he was in his minority; and solemnly afterward confirmed in Parliament, when he was of full age. And yet notwithstanding these Civil Warres, Bracton a learned Writer of the Law in those troublesome dayes of H. 3.Stat. de Marle. cap. 5. and a Judge of the Realme, and one that professeth of himself, that he did with [Page 12] exceeding labour and paines search out diligently antiqua Justorum judicia, (for so he stileth the Lawes of England, the ancient judgements of the just) doth stile H. 3. in the time of the Warres against him by his Barons, accor­ding to the stile given before to Edw. the Confessor, Vicarius Dei; His words are these, Rex autem cùm sit Dei Vicarius in terra, separare de­bet jus ab injuria, aequum ab iniquo, ut omnes sibi subjecti honestè vivant & nullus alium laedat; Potentia omni­bus sibi subjectis debet praecellere, &c. Which words are in themselves a nota­ble Confutation of those two seditious distinctions, lately sprung up against the Crown of England, by some Divines and worse Lawyers; That the King is the Supreame Person, but not the Su­preame Power. That he is, singulis major, but universis minor: whenas the words of Bracton are full, That he hath a Soveraigne Power over all his Subjects universally; and if so, then over them all, as they are united in one Body, as over every singular person. But these two disloyall distinctions I [Page 13] shall have occasion more particularly to refute, when I come to prove my fourth Conclusion; and then I shall make them as irrationall as they are il­legall.

Britton, Brit. fol. 1. another ancient Writer of the Laws of England, saith thus of the King; That he is ordained of God, that the Peace be kept,Co. 11. Rep. 72. Plow. f. 115. and therefore he is called by latter Authorities, Gods Lievetenant, the Fountain of Justice and of common Right, the most ex­cellent Person in the Realme, and to have the most excellent things that are in the Earth and in the Sea.

By reason of this Ordination from God,F. N. br. 21. Plow. 234. Plow. 238. Plow. 242, & 243. stat. 27. H. 8. c. 1. H. 7. 4. Plow. Dame Hales Case. Plow. 177. 1. H. 7. 10. he is said in Law to have divers divine resemblances; as ubiquity, to be present in all his Courts, and in all places of his Kingdome; a kind of Omnipotency in the Attributes of Ju­stice and Mercy, distributing them to all his People, whereupon he is coun­ted in Law the Fountain of Justice and Mercy. Nay he is reported by Plow­den to be the chief Head of the Law, fol. 242, 243, & 502. Immortality, in that he never dies, hath no infancy, no [Page 14] folly, no corruption of blood, &c. The King saith Plowden, a learned and fa­mous Author of Law, is a name of con­tinuance, which shall alwayes endure, as Head and Governour of the Common­wealth. Many more Authorities may be cited in this nature, which for bre­vities sake I omit. I will only adde one Authority more, and conclude with it, because it fully proves my first Conclusion. Bracton in his first Book, handling on purpose the Soveraigne Power of the King, hath these words, Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub ho­mine, Bract. lib. 1. cap. 8. sed sub Deo, A King (saith he) ought not to be under man, but God; and he gives a notable reason for it: For if the King should be dependant upon men, those men must have an e­quall Power with the King, or a Su­periour Power; if an equall, then the King should have no Power, for (saith he) Par in parem potestatem non habet, one equall hath not jurisdiction over his Companion; if a Superiour Pow­er, then should he be no King, but a Subject, and so without Soveraignty. And therefore as a man expert in the [Page 15] Laws and Customes of the Realme, he sets down the Constitution of the Crowne of England that all are subject to him, but he to none but only to God; Omnis sub eo, & ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo.

But it is here objected by the Peo­ple:Ob. It may be true that you say, that this is the Law of England concerning the Soveraigne Power of Kings; but how doth it appear that this Law was not imposed, or enforced upon the peo­ple? If you can prove it, say they (and so I have heard some speak) that the people of England have assented to this Law, God forbid that any should be so wicked as to oppose it, and so execra­ble as to resist it, contrary to their own consent, but to trust God with the Is­sue and event of things in whose pow­er it is alone to loose the bond of Kings, and gird their loynes with a girdle (as Job speaketh) and who will punish their faults the more severely, Ser. D^r Jo. Burgess 19. Junii at Hamp­ton Court. An. D. 1604. because none can do it but he: as a learned and pious Preacher spake before King James in the behalf of all the Non­conforming Ministers then in the King­dome, [Page 16] the very next year after the conference at Hampton-Court.

Answ. To which Objection I answer, by maintaining my second Conclusion, which is this▪

Conclus. 2 That this Law concerning the So­veraignty of Kings, is thus assented to by the People of England, and this their assent openly expressed and declared by divers Acts of Parlia­ment.

For the proof whereof I shall make good these two things.

1. That the People of England have assented to this Law by a tacite and im­plyed assent.

2. By an open and manifest assent in sundry Acts of Parliament.

As concerning the first, it is to be known that the People of this Realme are Governed by three kinds of Law.

• 1. Common Law.
• 2. Customes.
• 3. Statute Law, or Acts of Par­liament.

Common Law, which standeth upon divers ancient Maximes, and Princi­ples [Page 17] of Law admitted and consented to by the people.

Customes, which are either gene­rally allowed throughout the King­dom, as Gavelkind, Borough-Eng­lish, Copy-hold, &c. or by prescrip­tion in certain Counties, and Towns, which are likewise incorporated into the Body of the Common Law upon this Maxim, Consuetudo ex rationabi­li causa facit Jus. Now these two Laws do much exceed that which we call Statute Law, as being more con­stant and fixed, lesse mutable, and more incorrupt; as might aboundant­ly be proved, were it incident to the point in Question. It is by this Com­mon Law, before any Statute was made, that the Crown of England is not dependent on any other than God alone (this kind of Independan­cy the Law doth alow, but not some other:) I say, by the Com­mon Law, which hath this Priviledge above all humane Laws, (the Laws of the Grecians and Romanes not ex­cepted) That no man could ever stand up, and say, that he was the first [Page 18] Lawgiver to this Nation, (like Ly­curgus and Solon amongst the Greeks, Papirius and Sempronius amongst the Romanes:) For neither did the King make his own Prerogative, nor the Judges the Rules and Grounds of Law; nor did the people prescribe un­to themselves their own Rights and Liberties; but what Liberties and Customes had been by long tract of time assented unto, approved and en­joyed by Prince and People, not dis­agreeing to the Laws of God, that ever was, and is still, the Common Law: Amongst which Liberties and Customes, this of the Sovereignty of Kings from God over the peo­ple, is by Glanvile, Bracton, and the Mirrour of Justices, (a Book treating of the Customes of England before the Conquest) made to be one.

2. I will now come to the second thing, and prove this Sovereign Pow­er of the Crown immediately from God, to be expresly and openly assent­ed to by the people in sundry Acts of Parliament.

I will first begin with the Act of Parliament of 16. Rich. 2. c. 5.16. Rich. 2. c. 5. be­cause it took its rise from the humble desires of the Commons of England, as appears by the Preamble of that Statute, wherein they all make an acknowledgment in these very words, That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immedi­ately subject to God in all things touch­in the Regality of the said Crown, and to no other. And so was it accor­dingly enacted by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.25. Hen. 8. c. 31. All the Commons of Eng­land (at whose humble suite that Law was made) do there declare it for a Maxim and Ground of Law, That the Realm of England recognizeth no Superiour under God but only the King. Which authority also the whole Clergy of England recogni­zed in their Synods and Convocations, as appears by that Statute.

But in the Parliament of 28. Hen. 8.28. Hen. 8. c. 10. there is a more full expression, where it is declared by the whole Par­liament, That the Kings Majesty is [Page 20] the only Supream Head of the Realm of England, and that this Right, Ho­nour and Preheminence is due unto him by the Law of God. And in this man­ner did the Crown of England sit upon the Head of Kings Hen. 8. and King Edw. his Sonne,1. & 2. P. & M. c. 3. till Queen Ma­ry, loving the Popes Crown better than her own, repealed some of this power, and placed it in the Pope, which Queen Elizabeth in the first year of her Reign took away,1. Eliz. c. 1. and re­stored it in the same plight as it was in the daies of her Father King Hen. 8. only changing but a word, Supream Governour for Supream Head; the same in substance, though a fitter ex­pression in regard of the Honour she bare to her Saviour, to whom she thought the tytle of Supream Head, in respect of the Church, more pro­perly to belong; Whereupon she al­tered the two Oathes that were made in Parliament An. 26,26. Hen. 8. c. 1. and 28. of the Reign of her Father, to the Oath that now is taken throughout the Kingdom, and which every Parlia­ment is to take,28. Hen. 8. 10. by the Statute of [Page 21] 5 Eliz. 5. Eliz. c. 1. ere he can sit in the House of Commons, or have a vote there. As namely, That our Sovereign Lord King Charles, is the only Supream Governour of this his Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, 1. Eliz. c. 1. as well in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things or causes as Tempo­ral, &c. Which general words touch­ing the Kings Supreamacy, are now to be expounded by those Statutes of Hen. 8. which I mentioned before, and do contain within them these three Properties;

1. That the Kings Supream Pow­er is immediately from God.

2. That the Realm of England hath no Superiour under God (whe­ther they be any or many persons, for the word Superiour includeth both) but only the King.

3. That this Honour and Prehe­minence of the King, is due unto him by the Law of God.

And that this is no exposition of mine, but the true genuine exposi­tion of Law, It is provided by the Statute of 5 Eliz. 5. Eliz. c. 1. that the Oath of [Page 22] Supreamacy made in the first year of Queen Eliz. shall be taken and ex­pounded in such form as is set forth in An Admonition annexed to the Queen Maries Injunctions published in the first year of her Majesties Reign: That is to say, to confesse and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heires and Suc­cessours, none other Authority than was challenged and lately used by the Noble King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. And that Authority, together with all Dignities, Regalities, and Preheminences belonging to the Crown of England, are by the Sta­tute of Recognition of 1 Eliz. c. 3.1. Eliz. c. 3. declared to be as rightfully and en­tirely Vested in her, as they were in the late King Hen. 8. and King Edw. 6. as by that Statute may at large appear: Some of which Regalities were, that the Crown is dependent on God alone, and subject to no Su­periour under him; And this to be due to him by the Law of God.

I might add more Statutes to prove this point: I will only conclude with one Statute more, enacted within my [Page 23] own remembrance, and the best in that kind that ever was made in my daies, and the most emphatically pen­ned. It is the Statute of Recognition made in the first year of King James by the whole Parliament,1. Jac. cap. 1. which I will write more largely, because there are many memorable things in it.

First, They acknowledge the bles­sing of God upon this Kingdom, in the Unions of the Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, especially of the two Kingdomes England and Scotland, under King James, and thereby free from bloody civil warres.

Next, They testifie their unspeak­able joy for his Majesties most happy Inauguration and Coronation.

Then they agnize upon the knees of their hearts (it is their own expres­sion) their most constant faith, obe­dience and loyalty to his Majesty, and his Royal Progeny (of which our now Sovereign Lord King Charles, was then an Infant about three years old.)

Afterwards, in most lowly and hum­ble manner, they beseech his most [Page 24] excellent Majesty, That (as a memo­rial to all Posterity amongst the Re­cords of his High Court of Parlia­ment for ever to endure, of their loy­alty, obedience, and hearty and hum­ble affection,) it might be publickly declared and enacted in the High Court of Parliament; That they (be­ing bounden thereunto by the Laws of God and man) did with unspeak­able joy, recognize and acknowledge, that immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth, the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England, and the Rights belonging to the same, (of which this point of the Sovereignty of the Crown from God was a prin­cipal one,) did by inherent Birth­right and lawfull succession, discend and come to his most excellent Maje­sty, as next and sole Heir of the Blood-Royal of this Realm. And to this Recognition we do (say they) must humbly and faithfully submit and obleige our selves and Posterities for ever, untill the last drop of our blood be spent. And we do beseech your Ma­jesty to accept the same, as the first [Page 25] fruits in this High Court of Parlia­ment, of our Loyalty and faith to your Majesty, and to your Royall Progeny and Posterity for ever. And in the con­clusion of the Act, they have these words; Which if your Majesty shall be pleased (as an argument of your gracious acceptation) to adorne with your Majesties Royall assent (without which it can neither be compleat nor perfect; nor remain to all Posterity, according to our most humble desires, as a memoriall of your Princely and tender affection towards us) we shall adde this also to the rest of your Ma­jesties unspeakable and unestimable be­nefits.

In which Statute these things are observable:

1. That this Act of Parliament doth not give any manner of Title to the King or his Posterity, to the Crown of England, but this Right and Title to the Crown, is expresly said to be by the Laws of God and man, by in­herent birthright, and lawfull sug­cession: And therefore they humbly desire, this their Recognition may be [Page 26] accepted of him, as a testimony of their constant faith and Loyalty to him and his Posterity for ever.

2. They do not subject the Crown of England to any forefeiture to the people, or to any conditionall Limi­tation in Governement, by way of preservation of Religion, Laws, Li­berties, &c. but leave it pure and free according to the Laws I cited before, without any condition, which the wise­dome of the Law doth not admit of; as I shall more fully shew in the proof of my fourth Conclusion.

3. As they put no conditions upon the Crown, so they put no conditions upon their own Obedience and Loyal­ty, but freely and absolutely oblige themselves and their posterities for e­ver, to this their Recognition to King James, and King Charles his Sonne, and to their Posterity, to the spending of the last drop of their blouds.

4. Though the two Houses of Lords and Commons, with one una­nimous consent (nullo contradicente) agreed upon this Act of Parliament, [Page 27] and though it was for the publick peace and tranquillity of King and People, yet they acknowledged that it was not compleate or perfect, or could remain as a Law to Posterity, unless the King did give his Royall assent to it. The new light and new Law of making Laws in Parliament, binding to the people, without the Royall As­sent, were not known to this Parlia­ment, though as wise and as learned men were of it, as ever were either before or since.

5. That though it was an Act of publick concernement, yet they do not desire the King should pass it out of duty, which he could neither will nor choose (as the late Language hath been) but that he would pass it as an Act of his grace and ten der affection to them; And what is of grace is not of duty and right.

They lastly desire, it may remaine amongst the Records of Parliament, as a memoriall to all posterity for ever to endure, of the Loyalty and Obedi­ence of them and their Posterity, to that King and his Progeny for ever; [Page 28] And how this Recognition, according to this Obligation, hath been obser­ved by them and their Children; to that King and his Posterity, I had much rather weep, than speak in it: The Lord of Heaven adde it not to that measure of iniquity in this King­dome, pressed down and running over with blood.

And as this is the Law of the King­dome of England, concerning this So­veraigne Power in the Crown; So it is the Divinity of the Kingdome, as may appeare by the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the 37. Article of Religion, in these words; The Queens Majesty hath the chief Pow­er in this Realme of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Governement of all Estates of this Realme, whether they be Ecclesi­asticall or Civill, in all Causes doth appertain. By which the King of England is made to have the chief Power, against that seditious and new-found distinction infused into the head of the People, by some as ignorant of Religion as of Law: That the King [Page 29] of England is the Supreame Person or Governour, but not the Supreame Power.

I will shut up all I have more to say upon this Point,King James Remonstrance against Card. Peron. with the only Au­thority of King James in his most learned Defence for the Right of Kings, against Cardinall Peron; where­in he unanswerably handles this Point against Bellarmine, Mariana, and o­ther Jesuites; and against some Pro­testants (whetting their Swords a­gainst Kings at the forge of those Philistims:) Of which exquisite Piece I may say with Solomon upon another Subject, What can the man do, Eccles. 2.12. that cometh after the King.

My third Conclusion is this; That Conclus. 3 this Kingly Power, is by Law insepa­rably and individedly united to the na­turall body of the King, and make in him but one entire Royall Person.

The Person of the King is by Law made up of two bodies, A naturall body, subject to Infancy, infirmity, sickness and death, And a politick body, perfect, powerfull, and perpe­tuall: These two bodies are insepara­bly [Page 30] and individedly united together, and consolidate in each other.Plow. Duchy of Lanchasters Case. 2 13. Cor­pus corporatum (saith the Law) in Corpore naturali, & Corpus naturale in Corpore corporato; So that you may distinguish them, but not divide them. This union is like that be­tween the Soul and the Body; The Soul it animates, it quickens, it beau­tifies the body; so this politick body dignifies, or (rather to speak in a Law-phrase) it magnifies the naturall body of the King,Plow. 213. by greatning it with a threefold greatness.

• 1. Of Perfection.
• 2. Of Power.
• 3. Of Majesty.

1. Of Perfection, By freeing the person of the King from infancy, fol­ly, infirmity, impotency, &c.

2. Of Power, By giving him a command over all his Subjects, and by Ruling and Governing them, and and not they him.

3. Of Majesty, By making him the Fountaine of all Honour, of all Justice, and of all Mercy within the Realme.

Three the most orient and flagrant flowers of the Crown, and which no Subject can challenge; for all Sub­jects put together, are but as the Trunk of the body in man to the Head, which without the Head, can no more Rule and Governe the Mem­bers of the body in Order and Honour, than the least finger or toe; And therefore if they should all presume to joyne without the King, to conferre Honour, Justice, or Mercy upon any of their fellow-Subjects, that Honour is accounted in Law but a Tumour, the Justice they should distribute is but Tyranny, and the Mercy they bestow is but a specious Injury. A notable Case in proof of this, is that of King Hen. 7. who when he was Earle of Richmond, was with many Lords and Commons that took his part against Rich. the 3^d (a King in fact, but a Ty­rant in Title, saith a learned Histori­an) attainted of High-treason in the dayes of that King. At the battle of Redmore-downe, Bal. Hist. Hen. 7. fol. 1. near Bosworth in Leicester-shire, on the 22. day of Aug. 1485. the Earle got the Victory, slew [Page 32] Rich. 3. in the field, and on the same day took the Crown upon him, and assumed the stile of a King; and in September following (and before his Coronation) summoned a Parliament to begin the 7. day of November fol­lowing.

On the first day of this Parliament, the Judges were all met together in the Exchecker Chamber, to resolve a very rare and perplexed Case, and such as had not happened since the Conquest,1. Hen. 7. fol. 4, 6. viz. What should be done about the reversall of the At­tainders of the King, and of divers Lords, and many Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses that were to sit in Par­liament that day. This Question (the Kingdome at that time being in such exigence) had been of no difficulty, if those learned Judges had been Conu­sant of any such Law, That an Ordi­nance of the two Houses without the Kings actuall assent, had been as effe­ctuall as an Act of Parliament. But neither they nor their Fathers ever heard or read of such Law, and there­fore they fell upon this Resolution; [Page 33] That as concerning the Lords and Commons that were attainted, they advised not to sit in Parliament, till an Act of Parliament was passed by the other Lords and Commons not attainted, and assented to by the King for the reversall of those Attainders, and after the reversall, then all of them to sit in the Houses; For that it was not convenient, that any should sit as Judges in those Houses that were attainted. And as concerning the King they thus Resolved (saith my Authour) That the Crown takes away all defects and stops in bloud, Bac. Hist. H. 7. p. 13. and that from the time the King did assume the Crown, the Fountain was cleared, and all attainders and corrup­tion of bloud discharged. But yet for honours sake it was Ordered by Parlia­ment; That all Records wherein there was any memory or mention of the Kings Attainder, should be defaced, cancelled, and taken off the File. But King Hen. 7. thought it not conveni­ent any Act of reversall should in any wise pass concerning him, as knowing that the Title to the Crown of England [Page 34] had its dependance on God and the Law, and not on the people; And therefore the grace of pardoning such Offenders as took up armes against him, being an Act of Mercy belong­ing to the Crown, he would not pass by Parliament, that thereby he might the better impropriate the thanks to himself: And published his Royall Proclamation to that purpose in that Parliament; likewise he did of himself and of his own grace conferre the Ho­nours of the Lord Brook to Sr. Rob. Willoughby, of Lord Dawbeny, to Sr. Giles Dawbeny, and of the Earl of Bath, to the Lord Chandos, without the assent of Parliament.

Thus have I by this one single Case, without need of adding any more, fully proved, that by the ac­cession of the Crown to the naturall body of the King, his Royall Person partakes of many, high pre-eminen­ces of Perfection, Power and Ma­jesty, in the Acts of Justice, Mercy, and Honour (without any dependance or contribution from his people,) by calling of Parliaments, by pardoning [Page 35] Offenders, and advancements in Nobi­lity, all of them Acts of Majesty and Soveraigne Power.

This Conjunction of the Office of the King with his naturall body, doth draw to the Person of the King, the O­bedience and Ligeance of all his Sub­jects.7. Rep. Calvins Case. Now Ligeance is nothing else in Law but the true and faithfull obe­dience of a Liege-man, and Subject to his Liege-Lord and Soveraigne. Not that Ligeance is only tied to the King­ly Office, without relation to the na­turall Person of the King, which was the traiterous and seditious distinction of Hugh Spencer the yonger; for which and other his Treasons he was condemned by two severall Acts of Parliament;Vide Stat. in Vet. M. Ch. 1556. the one called Exilium Hugonis de Spencer, the other 1. Edw. 3. cap. 1. For by this damnable Do­ctrine (for so the Law cals it in Calvins Case) if the King should not be thought by his Subjects to Governe according to his Kingly Office,1. E. 3. c. 1. the Subject is no longer tyed to obedi­ence, but may rise up in arms against him, which cuts in sunder all the bonds [Page 36] of Governement, as well in Families as in the Commonwealth. And so Children may rise up against their Pa­rents, Servants against their Masters, Wives against their Husbands, and plead for themselves the ill governe­ment of their Superiors; and so parties shall become Judges, and Subjects Soveraignes, and the world by this meanes turned into a worse estate than the first Chaos.

But the Law of England, which is a Law of order and decency, and not of confusion and deformity, is quite otherwise: for the Ligeance of the Subject is tyed principally and proper­ly to the naturall body of the King, susteyning and supporting the Royall Majesty, and in which it doth insepa­rably inhere, as in its proper Subject. For Ligeance being a corporeall Ser­vice, is to be done to a visible, corpo­reall, and locall Person; not to a thing invisible, incorporeall, and not circumscribed to any place (as is the Royall Dignity.) This appears plain­ly by the old Oath of Allegeance, ta­ken by all the Kings Subjects, above [Page 37] the age of twelve years, in the dayes of King Edw. 1. and long before, and is at this day given in Court-Leets, which being by Britton set down in Law-French, Brit. fol. 74. I will truely set down in English, You A. B. shall swear that you shall be faithfull and Loyall to our Lord King Edward, (at this day King Charles) and his Heirs, and faith and Loyalty you shall to him hear of life and member, and of earthly Honour, and you shall not know of any hurt or dammage to be done to him, which you shall not resist to your Power; So help you God. By which Oath it appears plainly, that Ligeance is a corporeall service, whereby the Body, Life, and Honour of the Liege Subject, is engaged to his Soveraigne, named by his proper name King Charles, a name given to his naturall body, capable of Baptisme onely (and to his Heirs) words pro­per to his naturall body, as the word (Successor) to his body politick (and for the preservation of his Person from all hurt and dammage) things inci­dent only to his naturall body, for his [Page 38] politick capacity, viz. his Kingly Of­fice is incapable of beating, wounding, killing, or any other hurt, being a thing invisible, incorporeall, impassi­ble. Hence it is that the Ligeance of an English Subject is called naturall Ligeance, and the King is called his naturall Liege Lord, insomuch as to compasse the death of the King, or to levy Warre against him, which are acts of violence against his naturall Person, are in all Inditements of High-Treason,Cal. Case. 7. Rep. said to be done, contra li­geantiae suae debitum, against the duty and bond of Allegiance. This old Oath of Allegiance, is by the Stew­ard of Leets to be tendred to all men of the age of twelve years and up­wards, upon a Fine to be laid on his head,43. E. 3. fol. 27. that shall refuse it; and Pledg­es to be found for him, that he be of the good behaviour; Which Law was so strictly observed in the dayes of King Edw. 3.1. E. 3. fol. 26. that a Master for re­teyning a man in his service, not be­ing sworne to the King, was presen­sented for it in the Leet, and Amerced. By this excellent Law in Court-Leets, [Page 39] this Realme was kept in such tranqui­lity and peace by King Alfred, (for so ancient are these Courts) that this King caused chains of Gold to be hang'd up in the high wayes, and none durst take them away. The words of my Authour are these,Guliel. lib. 1. de Reg. Ang Armillas aureas juberet suspendi quae viantium aviditatem irritarent, dum non essent qui eas abriperent. Which is the more to be credited, in that it doth appear, that stealing and theeving were so rare in this Kingdome in those times, That the punishment of theft was not made capitall till above 200 years after, to wit, in the third year of the Raigne of King Edw. 1.West. 1. c. 15. Which Court Leets had they been to this day duely kept by men learned in the Laws of the Realme, as they ought to have been, (for so are the words of Fleta, Fleta. lib. 2. cap. 6. Co. 9. rep. 48. b. 6. rep. Bulleus Case. fol. 77. Pro­videat sibi dominus de senescallo fi­deli, &c. qui in legibus & sub con­suetudinibus provinciae, & jura domi­ni sui in omnibus tueri affectet, qui­que Ballivos Domini in suis erroribus & ambiguis sciat instruere, &c.) And not turned over to Sollicitors, Pro­ctors, [Page 40] Serving-men, &c. as at this day (by which meanes scarce a shadow of the ancient Jurisdiction of this Court doth remaine) this Kingdome had not so often and inwardly bled, by many bloudy civil Wars, to the endanger­ing of the Commonwealth: Like as it is to the naturall body of man, when the bloud fals into the body extra vasa, and keeps not in the proper veynes, as Physicians observe.

This faith and Ligeance to the Roy­all Person of the King, so adorned with Honour and Majesty by the Common-Law, doth leave as na­turall an impression of duty and Loyalty in a true born Subject to his Prince, as it doth in the heart of a Child to his Father, or of a Servant to his Master. For the Commande­ment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother, &c. doth belong unto Kings, and was ever so expounded, or else it is no where to be found in the Deca­logue. Now the subjection of Chil­dren and Servants, is to Parents and Masters, whether good or bad; and so the Apostle Peter declares the Law, [Page 41] not only (saith he) to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: 1. Pet. 2.17. for this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience sake towards God, 1 Pet. 2.18. endure grief, suffering wrongfully. And the like subjection is to Kings, whether good or bad, in the judgement of the best Expositors that ever wrote upon the 13. Chapter to the Romans. This made Hubert De Sanctâ Clârâ, re­ceive the Arrow shot against King Hen. 2. into his own bosome, to save the life of his Liege Lord: and this made Tho. Howard Earl of Surrey, son to John Duke of Norfolk, to fight stoutly for King Rich. the 3. (as hor­rid a Tyrant as ever trode on English mould) against King Hen. 7. and be­ing asked the reason by the King, he answered, (That Rich. 3. was then his Crowned King, and did he see the Crown set upon the stump of a Thorne, (a fit resemblance for the King he fought for) he would fight for that stump, and so he would fight for King Hen. 7. now he was his King, which he valiantly performed to his Sonne King Henry the 8, at [Page 42] the battle of Flodden-field.

And although amongst the multi­plicity of new Sects that are sprung up at this day, the traiterous opinion of the said Hugh Spencer be revived (if Treason may be called a Sect,) That the Allegiance of the Subject, is onely tyed to the Office of the King, not to his Person; yet there was none that ever I could hear or read of, pleaded this Plea at their arreign­ment for Treason. But the ordina­ry and common excuse hath been, of the persons Indicted, that they never intended hurt to the Kings Per­son, but only to remove evil Coun­sellors from him, or the like, which were the pleas of the two Earles of E. and S. in the latter daies of Queen Eliz. and yet adjudged to be High Treason.Hill. 43. Eliz. Co. 3. Insti. p. 12. But the reason is not re­ported by S^r Edw. Cooke, who citeth the case in the 3d part of his Institutes. But by a private report which I have seen, was thus delivered by S^r John Popham Chief Justice, That the Law construeth Treasons by Acts, and by those Acts judgeth of In­tents, [Page 43] and the levying of Warre by them without the Kings assent,Glan. lib. 1. cap. 2. Bract. lib. 3. fol. 1. Co 3. Insti. p. 9. be­ing a sortious Act at the first, (for that no Subject can levy Warre with­in the Realm without authority from the King;) That the levying a War to remove a Counsellor of State, is to levy Warre against the King, and so High Treason. For what did let but that the same violence which prevailed to remove the Coun­sellor, might have prevailed, if not only to have removed, but to have imprisoned, deposed, and destroyed the Queen, being all of them Acts of High Treason.

I will conclude all with a story of old Father Latimer, told by him touching the Lord Darcy, the Lord Hussey, and S^r Robert Constable, Lat. Sermon at Stanford. fol 56. Edit. 1635. pre­sently after the Rebellion in the North, temp. H. 8. I will barely re­late it in the words of that godly Bi­shop and renowned Martyr, and leave the application of it to o­thers.

I will go further with you, I have travelled in the Tower my self by the [Page 44] Kings Commandement, and the Coun­sell, and their was S^r Robert Con­stable, the Lord Hussey, and the Lord Darcy; and the Lord Darcy was tel­ling me of the faithfull service he had done the Kings Majesty, that dead is. If I had seen my Sovereign Lord in the field, (saith he) and seeing his Grace coming against us, I would have lighted from my horse, and taken my sword by the point, and yeeld­ed it into his Graces hands. Mary (quoth I) in the mean time, you playd not the part of a faithfull Sub­ject, in holding with the people in a commotion and disturbance. It hath been the craft of all Traitours to pre­tend nothing against the Kings Per­son; they never pretend the matter to the King, but to others. But Sub­jects ought not to resist any Magi­strates, nor ought to do any thing con­trary to the Kings Laws.

Conclus. 4 My fourth Conclusion is this, That this Sovereign Power is over all the Subjects of England, as well in a Col­lective Body as Representative, as it is over every particular Subject.

I have before shewed the Nature and Constitution of a King of Eng­land; I shall now shew the Univer­sality of his Power. And because in this last and worst age of the world, there is some opposition against this by the common people, who de­light in change, by parting with truth for errour, and receiving errour for truth, from a New-Light, proceed­ing from the old Prince of Dark­nesse: I will therefore in the first place Explain this Conclusion. Se­condly, I will shew what the Law of the Land, and the Constitution of the Kingdom is in it. Thirdly, I will shew the Reasons of the Law in the same. Fourthly, I will Answer all Objections against it.

For the first, It is not questioned by any, but that the King hath a Sovereign Power over every parti­cular Subject, and therefore I will passe over that. But question is made, whether the King hath a So­vereign Power over all the people in a collective Body, congregated together in one place from each cor­ner [Page 46] of the Land, from Dan to Beer­shebah, Judges 20.1. as the Israelites were in Mis­peh; which I say he hath; and that they all put together, are but this Politick Body, of which he is Head, and therefore hath the Sovereign Power over it, as the Head hath over the Natural Body, and not that a Power over the Head: for then should the Head be the only Subject in the Kingdom, and the People So­vereigns. The like I say for the Re­presentative Body of the People, which is nothing else in Law, but a calling by the Kings Writ, of all the Nobility and People of the Land re­presented in Parliament, by certain Heads of the People, chosen by them upon their own free Elections; (other­wise it is no Representative Body, as appears by the Statute of 1 Jac. c. 1.1 Jac. c. 1. and is there so explained.) Over this Representative Body, distin­guished into two Houses of Lords and Commons,Co. 3. Insti. fol. 3. D. & Stud. fol. 43.6. the King hath like­wise a Sovereign Power, being cal­led in Law Caput Parliamenti.

Which Conclusion thus Explain­ed, [Page 47] I shall in the next place prove by the Law and constitution of this Kingdom, That the King hath a Sovereign Power over the whole Bo­dy of the People, as well collective, as representative.

Two Greek words for the Name King, do aptly expresse the Nature of it in our Law; Βασιλευς,Co. 4. rep. in praef. so was our King Edgar called Anglorum Basileus, quasi Βασις τοῦ λαῦ, the foundation or support of the people. And Homer calls the King, ποιμην λαων, the Shep­heard of the people. He is not Head of a particular man, but of a whole people; He is not Shepheard of a single sheep, but of a whole Flock. And therefore he is called in our Law, not the Head of one man, but of the whole Commonwealth.1 H. 7.10 [...] And so much doth the King intimate, deri­ved from the Dutch Koennen, signifi­ing Power, because his Power extends over all his People. Bracton declares it more fully and exactly, by hand­ling it on purpose in the 8th Chapter of his first Book, where having shew­ed the Reason of the Kings Supe­riority [Page 48] over his Subjects, he then positively declares the Constitution of the Kingdom in these words; Sunt sub Rege (saith he) liberi homi­nes, &c. reckoning up there the De­grees of all the Subjects, both Lords and Commons; and then addeth these words; Et omnis sub eo, & ip­se sub nullo, tantum sub Deo. There are (saith he) under the King Free­men of all sorts,Bract. l. 1. c. 8. both Lords and Commons, and all under him, and he under none, but only under God. Omnis & Nullus, are in Schools cal­led, signa universalitatis, compre­hending the whole Species of men collectively, as well as every singular Individuum: and so is it there ne­cessarily so understood. For having reckoned up before the heads of the mixt people, he concludes, Omnis sub eo, ipse sub nullo; which is to say, That all of these are under the King, and he not under them: And then presently raiseth an Objection, which is made at this day. If the King be over all his people, and he in no case under them, in case then that the King [Page 49] deny to do this people justice, he pre­sently makes this answer, Locus erit supplicatoni quod facta sua cor­rigat & emendet; quod si non fe­cerit, satis sufficit ei ad paenam, quod dominum expectet ultorem: That is, you must Petition the King to amend his faults, which if he shall not do, it is a sufficient punishment to him, that God will be revenged on him. The like he speaketh in another place: Rex omnes potentia praecellit, &c.Bract. lib. 2. cap. 9. The King exceeds all people in Power; But yet (saith he) his heart is in the hand of God, least that power should prove Tyrannicall. So by the Oath of Supremacy, the King is said to be the only Supreame Governour with­in his Dominions, in all Causes,1 Eliz. cap. 1. &c. without exception, which particle Onely, excludes all co-ordinate pow­er with him by his Subjects, much more a Superiour Power. And Ex­clusio firmat regulam in non exceptis, as they say in Schooles, The 37^th Ar­ticle of Religion is more fully con­firmed for Law, by the Statute in the 13. year of Eliz. which saith; The [Page 50] King hath the chiefest Power in this Realme of England,Art. 37.13. Eliz. cap. 12. unto whom the chief Governement of all Estates of this Realme doth appertain, &c. which is as much to say, as that he hath the chief Government of all the people of the Realme, whether in a collective or representative body, compri­sed under the Estates of Nobili­ty, Gentry, and Commons. This made Sr. John Markham, Lord Chief Justice of England tell King.1 Hen. 7.4. Edw. the 4. that he could not Arrest any man for suspicion of Treason or Felony, as any of his Subjects might, because that if he did any of his Subjects wrong, they could have no Action against him, in that all originall writts are in the Kings name and he cannot sue him­selfe. But a fuller proof for the Law, and constitution of the Kingdome in this point, is the Statute of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 2.24. Hen. 8. c. 12 where the Realme of England is acknowledged to be an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreame Head and King, having the dignity and Roy­all estate of the Imperiall Crowne of [Page 51] the same, unto whom a body poli­tick, compact of all sorts of people, divided in termes by names of spi­ritually and temporalty, been bounden over to bear next to God a naturall and humble obedience; where it is shewed.

1. that England is an Empire, and so was King Edgar stiled, Totius An­gliae imperator: And Empire and Emperors hold their Tenure next un­der God; Colimus imperatorem tan­quam à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem, saith Tertullian. Co. 4. rep in Praefat. ex Chart. Edgard. Tertul. ad Scap.

2. That the King of England is head, not of single people, but of a body Politick, Collective of all sorts of people; Representative, of degrees of people, the terms of spiritualty and temporalty.

3. That this Collective and Re­presentative body, do owe to the King as a debt, a duty, not a courtesie, all naturall and humble obedience without putting conditions on it.

Hence it is that the two Houses of Parliament, being the Representative body of the Kingdome, do in their [Page 52] Bills of Parliament tendred to the King,1. Eliz. cap. 4. 1. Jac. c. 1. 2. Jac. c. 2. stile themselves sometimes, your most humble, faithfull, and obe­dient Subjects; sometimes, your most humble and loyall Subjects; and sometimes, your most loyall, faithfull, and true-hearted Subjects. And it is impossible, most humble, faithfull, o­bedient, loyall, and true-hearted Sub­jects, should have a coercive, coactive, and punitive power, over their Liege-Lord. With this Law the prayers of the Church of England do agree, esta­blished by three severall Acts of Par­liament, and used in the times of four Princes, King Edw. 6. Queen Eliz. King James, and King Charles; by which the Ministers of England, in be­half of all the people do acknowledg, that God is the King of Kings, and the only Ruler of Princes; that King Charles is their gracious Lord and So­veraigne; And that having Gods au­thority, they prayed that they may faithfully serve, honour, and humbly obey him; that God would endue him plenteously with heavenly gifts; that he would grant him in health [Page 53] and wealth long to live, strengthen him to vanquish and overcome all his enemies, and after this life attain e­verlasting joy and felicity. And I am peaswaded, That if these Pray­ers for the King, and that of the House of Commons by their Speaker (that God would so unite the hearts of King and People, that they might never be divided,) had been still used, we had not seen such mi­serable dayes. But the fullest of all and unto which I will add no more authorities, is the positive Doctrine of the whole Church of England, confirmed by Act of Parliament, in these words,3 Hom. of obedience. Artic. of Rel. 35. Stat. 13. Eliz. cap. 12. This is Gods Ordinance, Gods Comman­dement, and Gods holy will; That the whole body of every Realme, and all the parts and members of the same, shall be subject to their Head, their King.

And though this Law so univer­sally consented to, and not disa­greeing with Right and Justice, is a sufficient ground to cause every good man to believe and obey it, [Page 54] according to that of the Poet,

Yet I will in the next place give some Reasons for it.

Reas. 1 The first Reason is taken from the nature of this Governement, being Monarchy, The Governement by which God Governs all the world, the government by which the Sun rules the day; the governement which God instituted in Paradice, when he cre­ated Adam, making him a Man and a King at once, giving him the Com­mand over all creatures, especially his own family, in which the Kingship continued in him, and the Primoge­niture of his Family for above 2000 years; So that Kingly Government, and that of Families, having their ori­ginall together, differ not in nature but in extent (Kingship being nothing else but an orderly rule over multiply­ed families, under one governour in chief) Now the Law of England be­ing34. Hen. 6.40. 12 Hen. 8. 2. [...]ol. 7. Hen. 8. Ket. rep. D. & St. cap. 6. founded on the Law of God, re­sembles [Page 55] the Soveraigne Power over Subjects like that of families; and therefore the King of England is called in our Books of Law,11 Rep. f. 20. Parens patriae & paterfamilias totius regni; the fa­ther of all his Subjects, and the whole Kingdome to be but the family, of which he is the Head. And therefore what the blessed Apostle observes of his Israel, I may observe the same of our England, We have had (saith he) the Fathers of our flesh correcting us, Heb. 12.9. and (instead of resisting) we gave them reverence; But who ever saw children beating their parents, but with horrour and amazement: the like may be said of Subjects fighting, beating, and deposing their Kings; And how­soever by the judgement of God, and as a plague upon this Kingdome, such abominable Acts have been done by Parliaments, witness those tragick examples of the two second Kings of their name, Edward and Richard, co­loured under a mishapen form of Law, by two traiterous and perjur'd Judges of the Realme, Trussell and Thirning, (the worst of their name, and the inde­lible [Page 56] steine of their profession) yet what became of the prime Actors in that bloudy scene, and how God re­venged the bloud of those Kings upon the whole Kingdome, I referre my Reader to the learned Pen of the most famous Historian of our time, [...] W. Raul. Praf. for a large and exact relation of so sad and bad a story.

Reas. 2 My second Reason is taken from the regard the Law hath to the per­son of the Supreame Governour,11 Rep. f 20. Hen. 7. e­steeming him the Head of the Law, and the Fountain of Justice, and cal­ling him Capitalis Justiciarius toti­us Angliae; Now both Law and Ju­stice, should ill provide for the King, if they should leave him to the corre­ction and punishment of his own Sub­jects; For then it would be impossible for him to be safe, whether good or bad; Nay good Princes would here­by be in the worst condition. For this being true, that farre the greater part of the people are wicked, and wicked people do naturally hate good Princes, even for their goodness, (as David, a King and a good King speaks of him­self, [Page 57] Psal. 38.20. They also that ren­der evill for good are my adversaries, because I follow the thing that good is,) it will consequently follow, that good Princes are in the worst conditi­on, if it should be in the Power of the people to punish them. For it hath been found true in all ages, that the best of Princes have had the most re­bellions against them: Infinite exam­ples might be produced, I shall name but two or three. David we know was a King after Gods own heart, and yet as good as he was, he was not free from many treasons and rebellions against him; Whereas of Manasses a most wicked and Idolatrous King, and who Raigned much longer, we read not so much as of on treason or rebellion against him all his long Raigne of five and fifty years, My next instance shall be nearer home; Those two matchless Princes for piety and vir­tue, children of one Father, King Ed­ward, and Queen Elizabeth, scarce a year in either of their Raignes passed over their heads without some trea­son, rebellion, or insurrection, plot­ted [Page 58] or acted against them by their own Subjects. And for this cause it is that the Law hath left the King to the judg­ment of the highest judge. For if the Subject should judge him, it must be by some process of Law, which is al­together in the Kings name, and it is absurd to think, that the King can ei­ther sue or judge himself. And there­fore in the Writ of Assize of Darreyn Praesentment, Fitz. nat. brev. 31. F. which in the case of the Subject runnes thus; Rex Vicecom'. &c. salutem, si A. fecerit te securum, &c. tunc sumon'. per bonos Cummo­nitis, &c. But in the Kings case, the words si, &c. fecerit te securum, are left out, in that the King, for the dig­nity of his person, cannot find pledg­es, for then he might be amerced or punished for want of them, which is against the nature of royall Majesty: Besides how is it possible the King should be tri'd, he having no Peers, when all Tryall in Law is per paeres, Bracton. Monarchy and Peers being as in­compatible and inconsistent as order and confusion.

Reas. 3 My third Reason is taken from the [Page 59] nature of the people, impatient of the yoake, and apt to quarrel with governement, be it never so good,Plutarch. Omni enim populo inest malignum quiddam & querulum in imperantes: And therefore it is that the Law of England hath exalted the Thrones of Kings above the reach of the people, and submitted them to God: And it is for the benefit and safety of the people it should be so,Co. Instit. 1. part f. 64. Imperii maje­stas est tutelae salus (saith the Law) the dignity of the Prince is the peoples security; And so it hath fallen out in all ages, that so long as the people upheld the Majesty of the King, so long they have been happy; But as soon as they forsooke it, they them­selves have been crusht to pieces un­der the fall. So it fell out at Athens, one of the most flourishing Common­wealths in the world: The people weary of the Governement of their hereditary Kings, first expelled them, & then set up Decennimicall Governors in their roomes; After that their Oly­garchy of four hundred Commoners, And after them their thirty Tyrants, [Page 60] who brought their Commonwealth to utter ruine; And thus it was with poore England in the dayes of King John and King Hen. 3. his sonne, when the Lords and Commons waged warre against these Princes, assumed the Go­vernement of England to themselves, and deputed it into the hands of twen­ty four Commissioners; took King Hen. 3. and Edward his sonne, and kept them Prisoners in Killingworth Castle for almost two years. But what was the issue of this glorious misrule, which lasted first and last al­most threescore years? what good had the people by it? I will tell you in the language of Tacitus, Auferre tru­cidare, rapere pro imperio habent, atque ubi solitudinem fecerint, hoc pa­cem appellant; to rob them, to spoile them, to kill them, was all the justice they had; And when they were stript of all, and their possessions laid waste and desolate, that was accounted there Peace. And what these Lords of mis­rule gained by it, the Statute called Dictum de Killingworth tells us.V. M. Chast. Anno. 1556. 51. Hen. 3. They were all glad to compound with that [Page 61] mercifull King for their fines and ran­some, at that very Castle where they kept him Prisoner. Hence it came to pass, that the poore Commoners of England (so made, by the low and de­jected state of the Crown, in the dayes of King Rich. 2.) joyned with the Lords by Petition in Parliament to the King:Rot. Par. 14. R. 2. n. 15. That the Majesty and Prero­gative of his Crown might be main­tained and kept, And that all things done to the contrary might be redres­sed, knowing that mens private estates are not safe, when the Crown is not secure: And therefore the spirit of truth commands us in the first place to pray for Kings, That under them we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty; 1 Tim. 2.2. Inti­mating, that when the Crown is di­sturbed, no quietness, no peace, no godliness, no honesty is to be found in that Kingdome. I will shut up this in the observation of Comines, a great and wise States-man, That he never knew a man in all his life, that sought to put in fear, or hold his Prince in sub­jection, that ever came to good end.

[Page 62]4. These amongst divers more are the Reasons of Law in this point, touching the Supremacy of Kings. I come now to the Objections, all of them consisting upon distinctions, which often argue a galled conscience, as if conscience told them this to be true, but were willing to be cheated into errour by a distinction, and then it falls out to be true, what was spo­ken by a judicious Divine,Hooker Eccl. Pol. That obe­dience accompanied with unwilling­ness to obey, is no better than disobe­dience.

Object. 1 First they object, This obedience to Kings is not absolute, but upon condition, so that they governe accord­ing to Law?

Answ. The Law of England makes no such distinction, as I have said and proved before, Et ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. Neither could I ever read, that any Monar­chy in the world was so founded. For as for that of the Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians, and the Demarchy, a­mongst the Athenians, which are com­monly objected, for the power they had [Page 63] of the coersion of Kings: It is well known, that they were both of them usurpations, and contrary to the first foundation and constitution of the Go­vernement of those famous Cities, A­thens and Sparta.

But they say, though the Law have Object. 2 no such express condition, yet it is implyed in this manner; Kings are or­dained for the good of the People, and therefore if they rule to their hurt, the people may right themselves.

Answ. This is an absurd consequence, that shakes the foundation of all Governe­ment, for Pastors, Husbands, Fa­thers, Masters, are ordained for the good of their flock, their wives, their children and servants, if they discharge not their severall duties to all these, they by this reason may be no longer obeyed by them, And so by this means Inferiours shall Lord it over Superiours, contrary to the order of Nature, Reason, and Law; No, but the Argument holds thus; Pastors, Husbands, Parents, Masters, &c. being ordained by God, to governe their flock, their wives, their children, [Page 64] and servants, in godliness and honesty, shall severely answer to God for breach of this trust committed to them by him if they governe amiss.

Object. 3 But Kings are not the Ordinance of God but of men, for it's said 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your self to every or­dinance of man, &c. whether to the King as Supream.

Answ. Many learned Expositions are gi­ven of this place by very learned Di­vines, D^r Hammond and others. I shall for the present only content my self with that brief one of Piscator, who expounds it, Ratione subjecti non ratione causae, That is, Kings are said to be the Ordinance of men, as they exercise their Authourity amongst men, not as men are Authors of their Authority, for that only belongs to God; and therefore the King is called Rom. 13. the Minister of God; and the words of that Text intimate so much, that this subjection should be unto Kings, Dei causa, for the Lords sake, for only by him Kings Reigne, Prov. 8. Like as it is of Ministers of the Gospel, they have imposition of [Page 65] hands from men, and preach to men, but their function and authority is from God, and therefore they are called, Ministers of God, and of Jesus Christ.

4. It is objected, that the King is not King till he be Crowned, and then at his Coronation he promiseth by Oath to his people three things, saith Bracton. 1.Bracton Lib. 2. Sanf. pl. Cor. To see the peace of the Church and people be kept. 2. To repell all force, and keep his peo­ple from wrong. 3. That in all his judgements he exercise Justice and Mercy; Now if he performe not these Conditions, the people are free, and not bound to obey.

Answ. It is neither so nor so,C. 7. Rep. Calvins case. for Kings are absolute Kings before they be Crowned, for Coronation is not es­sentiall to the King, but only orna­mentall: Edward the 4^th called his Parliament before he was Crowned, so did King Hen. 6. call divers, being not Crowned till the 10^th year of his Raigne; and it was adjudged in the Case of the Lord Cobham, Cok. 3. Inst. 1. Hen. 7. S^r Walter Rawley, &c. 1. Jac. that to conspire [Page 66] the death of the King before his Co­ronation was High-Treason.

2. The Oath he takes at his Co­ronation to performe those recited promises to his people, is not Condi­tionall, neither doth any clause in it sound like a Condition, unless they will have it to be in the conclusion of the Oath, which then also makes a­gainst them; for the words are, Ita me Deus adjuvet, Let God deal thus and thus with me, if I performe not the Oath made to him: It is not, Ita me juvet populus, Let the people do so and so to me. And the Perjury of Princes is tryed at Gods Barre, not at mans.

Object. 5 It is confessed to be true, that the King is greater than any one single person in the Kingdome, but he is not greater than all the people of the Kingdome put together, And there­fore a new distinction kindled from a new-found-light of singulis major and universis minor, infused into some people, have made them swell at this day till they are ready to burst; which being strictly examined, will prove [Page 67] nothing else but bulla bullata, a blown bubble, which experience tells us, is nothing till it be blown, and quickly blown into nothing: And therefore I will give it a twofold answer.

Major and Minor are terms of quantity, Answ. as magis and minus are termes of quality. Now in things of quantity, the distinction of singulis major, and universis minor, holds true; but not in things of quality, (quantity and quality being of severall natures, and belonging to severall Predicaments,) as for example, a Schoolemaster of a Schoole is for the most part in respect of quantity of body greater than any Boy of the Schoole, and less than all put toge­ther; But that man deserves to be whipt that will affirme, that in respect of power and authority, he is not greater than all the Boyes in the Schoole put together, he having power to correct them, not they him.

So, and much more may it be said of Kings and Princes, that they are in power and dignity universis majores, [Page 68] greater than all the people joyned to­gether, in that the whole people make but one body Politick, of which the King is the Head, and hath as much power and superiority over that Body politick without check or controll, as the head of any man hath over the na­turall body, for so is the resemblance of Law.

Secondly, I answer, the Kings Su­premacy doth not as other Powers re­ceive their efficiency from naturall and inferiour Causes, for his preferment doth not spring from the dust, but from him who stiles himself the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who re­moveth Kings, and setteth up Kings, as Daniel speaks.Dan. 2.21. And therefore the Kings Authority being from him, it cannot possibly be subject to any infe­riour Magistracy which derives it self only from the Prince; for not only all single-Persons within the Realme, but all Corporate and Representative Bo­dies derive their dignity and power from him, and acknowledg in their entire and universall capacities, to owe unto him all humble obedience, as it [Page 69] is expressed in the Statute of 24. Hen. 8.24. Hen. 8. c 12. And then it necessarily follows accord­ing to that Maxime in Schooles, Quic­quid efficit tale, illud magis tale, He that as Head gives power to his Subjects, cannot himself be subject to that power he gives.

The sixth and last Objection, and Object. 6 the most Giant-like, from whence all other Objections, like hands from the shoulders of Briareus, are derived from two new coined distinctions from new men, and of a new Mint, viz. A Sub­ordinate Power to the King, and a Co-ordinate Power with the King; An actuall power or presence of the King, and a virtuall power or presence of the King: and upon these two di­stinctions the Objection stands thus. When the King, Lords and Com­mons meet in Parliament, they meet as three Estates, The King the first, the Lords the second, and the Com­mons the third. These three (say they) in the passing of Bils have a Co­ordinate power. So that if the Lords and Commons do pass a Bill, and the King refuse it, yet it shall pass as a [Page 70] Law, by virtue of two Co-ordinate powers against the third power, and so the King shall have no negative voice. And in case the King shall be absent from Parliament, whereby he cannot assent, then by reason of a virtuall power of a King, which in case of his absence is vested in the two Houses, the consent of the two Houses shall in­clude his assent, and so shall pass as a Law by way of Ordinance: So that in both cases, the scope and drift of the Objection is to exclude the King from having any Negative voice.

Answ. Admitting this distinction to be true (though I can shew divers Parliaments which make the King more than a third estate,) I shall notwithstanding give this answer; That this being an Objection so greatly countenanced by men of the Gown, I will not be so uncivill, as to say it is absurd, irratio­nall, and illegall; But I will crave leave to endeavour to prove all these three.

For the first; If the King and Lords which (as they say) are two the great­est Estates in Parliament, (though in [Page 71] truth the King be more than an E­state) should agree upon a Bill, and the House of Commons should refuse to agree to it; yet if this should be true, as is objected, then the two Co-ordinate powers (as they speak) of King and Lords assenting to the Bill, should over-rule the third, not assenting to it, and so the Bill should pass as a Law to bind the whole King­dome, without the House of Com­mons: Or put the case the House of Commons should absent themselves, (Speaker and all) as it is not time out of mind that such a case hath been, yet the two other Co-ordinate Powers, in this case of absence, might by the like reason, by a kind of virtuall power, (I know not from whence) pass the Bill as a binding Law for the whole King­dome, which how absurd these Con­clusions are from the two former di­stinctions, I leave to all the Com­mons of England to judg of: Eadem est lex, ubi par ratio; nay the reason is much stronger in the Kings case. For if the Lords and Commons which are the lesser Powers, may exclude the [Page 72] Kings negative voice, which is the Supreame Power, much more may the King and Lords being the greatest Powers, exclude the Commons which is the least. And if so, then what need is there of their presence in Par­liaments; And if that, then what need of Parliaments? So endless are the absurdities that follow upon con­clusions, that arise from brainless di­stinctions.

Secondly, It is irrationall; for how can it be thought reasonable, that the King who hath the sole right of Call­ing Parliaments at his will and plea­sure, to give him counsell and advice touching those weighty affairs, for which he cals them, should not have liberty to assent or disassent to what both Houses advise, be it good or bad? Otherwise it will follow, that if they shall tender him a Bill for the taking a­way the Rights of his Crown, which by his Coronation-Oath, he is bound to maintain, or tender him a Bill for his deposition or dethroning (as they did to those two unfortunate Princes, Edw. 2. and Rich. 2.) he must yield [Page 73] his assent to those Bils, in that the concurrence of the two other Co-ordi­nate Powers (as they call them) had taken away his Negative voice. What had become of our Religion at this day, if this had been either Law or Reason in the first year of the Raign of Queen Elizabeth, when the Lords and Commons of that Parliament would never have abolished Popery and the Masse, had it been in their Power by Law, to have excluded that religious Queen of her Negative voice? But the Judges of the Realme (though all of them at that time Po­pishly affected, and) as learned men as any were either before, or since, knew no such Law, as by two illegall distinctions (as they are applyed) to de­prive the Crowne of its most ancient Prerogative.

3. But thirdly and chiefly, The two distinctions of Co-ordinate and Sub­ordinate Power, Actuall and Virtuall Presence, as they are applied in the Objection, are against Law.

Co-ordination as well in Logick as in Law, are of things of the same rank, [Page 74] of the same dignity, and of the same order: As for example, four Judges of the Kings Bench are said to be Co­ordinate in Power, because they are men of the same rank, of the same dignity, of the same power; and the like of the four Judges of the com­mon-Pleas, and the Barrons of the Exchequer. And the Kings Com­mission under his own broad-Seale (not any other) which gives them their dignity, is alike to them all. But it is otherwise in the high Court of Parlia­ment; the King sits there as the Su­preame Power, the Lords sit beneath his Throne all uncovered before him; the Commons stand bare at the Barre; and both of them in all their publick Acts, where they speak of him, ac­knowledge themselves his humble and dutifull Subjects. So likewise, be­tween the Lords House, and the Com­mons House, there is a great difference in point of rank and order. For the Lords House is by divers Acts of Parliament,33. Hen. 8. cap. 21. Co. 5. rep. 14. à Crompt. Jurisd. tit. Parl. and Book-cases, called the upper, or higher House; The Com­mons House is called, the neather or [Page 75] lower House. And when these Hou­ses send to one another, the Com­mons send Members of their own, on the message; the Lords send no Members, but only Attendants on their House. No Lord comes to the Commons House, much less stands at the doore, and waits as the Commons do. And when both Houses meet at a Conference, the Lords sit with their Hats on, the Commons stand before them with their Hats off, with many more differences of rank and order, disproving a Co-ordination be­tween them, which for brevities sake I omit. The truth is,☜ that in passing of Bils there is a joynt concurrent a­greement of the King, and two Hou­ses of Parliament, which may be pro­perly called a Co-agreement, argu­ing a Co-assent of will, but by no means can it be called a Co-ordinati­on, intimating a sameness in rank, dig­nity and power.

For the other distinction of actuall and virtuall presence, or actuall and virtuall power, as it is apply­ed in the Objection, it is alike [Page 76] illegall, which will thus appeare.

Before the Statute of 33. Hen. 8. cap. 21. never any Bill passed in Par­liament for a Law (the King being within the Realme) by the Lords and Commons alone, without the Kings personall assent in Parliament to the Bill, as he that gave life and being to the Law; And therefore their ancient Statutes ran in the Kings name alone, as the principall Agent and efficient in passing a Law, as the Statute of Mag. Charta, 9. Hen. 3. though made with the assent of Lords and Commons, yet it runs in this forme, Henricus Dei gratiâ, &c. Sciatis quod Nos in­tuitu Dei ad exaltationem Sanctae Ec­clesiae, & emendationem Regni no­stri, spontanea & bona voluntate no­stra dedimus & concessimus, &c. has libertates subscriptas, &c. So the Sta­tute of West. 1. in 3. Edw. 1. runnes thus;41. Hen. 3. 52. Hen. 3. West. 2. c. 3. 28. Edw. 1. c. 5. 1. Edw. 2. Ceux sont le establishments, le Roy Edw. fitz l' Roy, Hen. faits à Westminster. The like is said of the Statute of York, 12. Edw. 2. and many more, which for brevities sake I have quoted in the Margin.

Neither can any man alive give me one instance since Parliaments began in England, that while the King was within the Realme, in what condition soever he was in, that ever any Act or Ordinance of Parliament passed as a Law without his personall assent. I put the case of the Kings being with­in the Land. For when he was neces­sitated to go out of the Land, as Edw. 1. into the holy Land, Hen. 5. into France, they made by their Commis­sions a Custos Regni, which supplied the Kingly office, as William Long­champ Bishop of Eli, was made Custos Regni, to Hen. 5. and the reason of the Law was plaine in it, for while the King is in England, he ought to Act as a King, by personall assent­ing to Bils, one of the highest Acts of Majesty which he is to enjoy by Law.

But the Statute of 33. Hen. 8. cap. 21.Stat. 33. Hen. 8. cap. 21. made a little alteration of the Law in the manner of passing of Bils, which Statute was made at the hum­ble desire of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, upon their impeach­ment [Page 78] of Queen Katherine Howard, (King Hen. 8. wife) of High-Treason, where they humbly beseech the King, (for feare trouble should arise to his heart, and unquietnesse to his mind, to the shortning of his dayes, if he should appear in person in the Parlia­ment, and assent to the Bill of her At­tainder,) To grant his Royall Assent to the Bill of her Attainder, by his Letters Pattents to be Signed with his own hand, and to be put under his Great Seal, and so to be no­tified and published in the Higher House, &c.

Higher House (so it is there called) to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons, there to be assem­bled; and such assent by the Letters Pattents of the King, is declared to make a perfect Act for the Attainder of that Queen; and that no scruple might be made hereof in time to come, concerning this particular, a generall provision is there made for all future Parliaments in these words following.

Be it declared by Authority of this [Page 79] present Parliament, that the Kings Royall assent by his Letters Pattents under his Great Seale, and Signed with his hand, and declared and noti­fied in his absence to the Lords Spi­rituall and Temporall, (and to the Commons Assembled together) in the higher House, is, and ever was of as good strength and force, as though the Kings person had been there personal­ly present, and had assented openly and publickly to the same.

In which Statute (which I have dili­gently perused) these things are very observable.

1. That before this Statute, the Kings personall and open assent to Bils in Parliament, was so requisite that they could not pass without it; which was the cause that made the Lords and Commons in those dismall Parliaments, in the dayes of those two infortunate Princes, Edw. 2. and Rich. 2. to require their personal assent to their own deposition by Act of Parliament, before they went to execute the sen­tence of deposition against them, which they like two weake Princes [Page 80] yielded unto, especially the latter, who had he had but a piece of that Li­on-like heart of the first of his name,King Rich. 1. called Ceur de Lyon. he would never have assented to an Act of the Renunciation of his own Crown; and not only so, but to sweare to it upon the Gospell, never to im­pugne it in thought, word or deed, (so saith the Record of that Parlia­ment) and after to subscribe to it with his own hand; and further in Con­firmation of it, pulled a Gold Ring off his finger, (being his Privy-Sig­net) and put it on the finger of his usurping Successor, the Duke of Lan­caster. All which things he so tame­ly yielded unto,Rot. Parl. 1. Hen. 4. n. 13, 13, 15, 58, 59, 60. and when Chief-Justice Thirning (too bad a man for so good an office) upon that renunci­ation pronounced the sentence of deposition against him, the poore King gave him this pittifull answer, That he looked not after rule, but only hoped his Cosen would be a good Lord to him.

Had this virtuall power of passing Bils by the two Houses, without the personall assent of the King, been ta­ken [Page 81] for currant Law in those dayes. The Judges of those times would not have advised Hen. 4. to obtain a per­sonall assent especially of an imprison­ed King.

2. And therefore the vanity of this virtuall power was well discerned by the Lords and Commons in that Parliament of 33 Hen. 8. as may ap­pear in this; That because it was not thought convenient the King should personally assent in Parliament to the Attainder of his own Queen, yet they devised a way by that Act, whereby in substance he should do (in effect) the ve­ry same thing; for by his Letters Pat­tents he was to assent to the Bill, and that virtuall assent was to be Signed with his own hand, and the Commis­sioners appointed by the Letters Pat­tents to signifie his assent to the Bill, were to notifie it to the Lords and Commons Assembled in the Higher House, not as their own, but as the Kings assent. What needed all this adoe and caution, if this new device of the virtuall Power in the two Houses would have served the turne.

[Page 82]2. The second thing observable in this Act of 33. Hen. 8. is this, that the manner of assent to Bils by the Kings Letters Patents, seemed by that Act to be a doubt and ambiguity to the Lords and Commons, who thought that after-ages might confirme it so; And therefore they made a generall provi­sion by that Act, that for all time to come, the Kings Royall assent to Bils, by his Letters Patents Signed with his hand, and notified by his Commis­sioners to the Lords and Commons, should be of as good force and strength as if the King had personally appeared in Parliament, and openly assented: Which strongly implies, that out of those two cases, no Bill in Parliament could pass by the Kings assent. From whence then should this virtuall pow­er and presence proceed, when neither given to the Houses by the King, nor created by Law, it is not easie to be imagined, unless from some turbulent brain, like that of a Monosyllable Judge in the dayes of King Edw. 2. (the worst kind of Judge, when op­posite to the Crown) called Judge [Page 83] Inge, who delivered it for Law, that the Lords of the upper House without the King and Commons might make Ordinances, displace offi­ces, &c. and had a joynt regiment with the King, in the Government of the Kingdome; &c. for which opinions notwithstanding his great skill in the Law, he obtained among the Commons no other reputation, than of a learned Traytor.

3. The third thing observable is this, That as it is a just priviledge of the Lords and Commons in Parlia­ment, to assent or disassent to Bils in Parliament, though never so bene­ficiall to the Commonwealth, so it is likewise an undoubted prerogative in the King, being the Highest Estate in Parliament to have that power and pri­viledg. And therefore the Lords and Commons do in that Parliament hum­bly desire the King, that for the en­tire love and affection he beareth to the Common-wealth, for the conser­vation of his own Majesty, and for the peace and unity of all his Subjects, he would pass that Act of Parlia­ment, which plainly sheweth, that the [Page 84] King had a negative voice as well as they, and might assent or disassent at his pleasure, and an undoubted right of his Crown, as might be proved by infinite examples in all times.

4. The fourth and last thing obser­vable in that Act is this, That when an Act is passed by both Houses of Parliament, yet it is not perfect, nor can be put in execution as a Law, till after the Kings royall assent, and so is the expression of the Lords and Com­mons in that Act of Parliament, That his Majesty would grant his royall assent to that Act, that so after that, it might stand as a perfect Act, and be put in due execution accordingly. And so was the Law ever taken by those two famous Lawyers and Parli­ament men, the Lord Cook, and M^r Plowden, Plow. fol. 79. Co. Com. Lit. fol 90. in their learned writings of the Law. But concerning this ne­gative voice of the King, I shall have occasion to reserve it hereafter for a longer discourse, concerning the Pri­viledges of the Estates in Parliament, what belongs to the King as he is King, and the Supreame Estate in Parlia­ment; What belongs to the Lords cal­led [Page 85] in sundry Acts of Parliament, the Higher House and what belongs to the Commons called in these Acts the low­er House, a work not done by any, and yet not much difficult to be done But I cannot yet performe it, till I can reco­ver those Notes and Collections I have made out of divers Records of Parliaments, which are now by these unhappy times devided from me, and I from them.

And thus have I endeavoured to answer the main Objections against this Soveraigne Power of the Crown of England, and cleared it from the Disloyall aspersions of undutifull men; And therefore shall now in the next place handle the exercise of this Soveraigne Power in the two last Conclusions, and so make an end.

The fifth Conclusion is this, That Conclus. 5 this Soveraigne Power is given to the King, as well for the preservation of himself, as for the governement of his People in Peace and safety, for the performance whereof the Law of Eng­land, doth furnish him with the power [Page 86] of the Sword, and annexeth to his Crown the Soveraigne Command of the Militia, and therefore he is by our Law called, the chief Captain of all Chivalry within his Dominions. This unquestionable Prerogative of the Crown,Plow. Com. fol. 268. a. I could prove by many Arguments derived from the Law of God, the Law of nature and reason, the Law of Nations, and most abun­dantly from the Imperiall Laws, di­gested into a compleat Body by Justi­nian, out of a vast confused heap of former Laws. From these Laws doth the common Law of England bor­row many grounds of Law, in so much that in divers things a man cannot un­derstand the depth of the Laws of England without some insight and knowledge in the Civil Law; and it is well known, that our ancient Lawy­ers, such as Glanvill, Bracton, Brit­ton, &c. were well studied in the Ci­vill Law. But I intend a compendi­ous discourse, and not a volume, and therefore shall prove this point suffici­ently by the common Law without the help of any Ground or Maxime [Page 87] taken from the former Laws, but on­ly of such as are incorporate into the common Law of England.

In the very beginning and in the very first words of Justinians Insti­tutes, (an exact Compendium of the fifty Books of his Pandects) it is thus said, Imperatoriam majestatem non solum armis decoratam sed etiam le­gibus opus esse armatam: ut utrumque tempus & bellorum & pacis recte possit guhernari; This Text of the Civill Law is admitted by Chief Justice For­tescue, De Laud. Leg. Aug cap. 1. fol. 4. to belong by the common Law to the Crown of England, and therefore as to the first part concern­ing the Militia, I will first prove it by ancient and sound authourities in Law. 2. By many Acts of Parliament. And 3. I will give the Reasons of the Law in both, and so conclude this fifth Proposition, reserving the latter part concerning the Laws in the sixt and last Conclusion.

Chief Justice Glanvile Glanvil in Pro­lego. in his learn­ed Book of Law, Written in the time of Hen. 2. hath these words; Regiam Majestatem non solum armis contra [Page 88] rebelles & gentes sibi regnoque insur­gentes oportet esse decoratam: Reg. Ma. in Praef. sed & legibus ad subditos & populos pacifi­cè regendos decet esse ornatam.

Regia Majestas, A learned Trea­tise of Law Written at the same time thus saith; Regi duo sunt necessaria, Arma quibus hostes debellet, leges quibus subditos pacificè regat.

Lib. 1. in Princip. Bracton, A learned Judge of the Land, in the dayes of Hen. 3. thus Writeth; In Rege qui recte regit ne­cessaria sunt duo haec, viz. Arma & Leges; Cat. br. fol. 113. quibus utrumque tempus bel­lorum, & pacis recte possit guber­nari.

The Natura brevium, A Book of high esteem in our Law, layeth down this for a Ground, Et est à entendre que le roy, doit de droit sauver & de­fender son Reaume vers la mere comme vers enemyes, q' il ne soit surround, ou degaste & de provider remedy pur ceo. Cook. 2. Rep. It is to be understood, (saith that Book) that the King ought of Right to save and defend his Realm, as well against the Sea, as against ene­mies, that it be not surrounded and [Page 89] spoiled, and to provide remedy for it.

It is likewise resolved for Law in Wisemans case, that to give Land to the King in consideration that he is head of the Commonwealth, preser­veth his people in Peace, and repel­leth the enemies of it, is no conside­ration in Law to raise a use; because the King by his Office ought to do all this. And the reason of all these Authorities is upon this ground. The Law which trusteth the King with the end, viz. the preservation of his people in Warre and Peace, trusteth him with the means to do it, viz. Armes and Laws. Many more Au­thorities might be cited, which for brevity I omit, and come in the se­cond place to the Acts of Parlia­ment.

And the first and most ancient is that Law of King Canutus, Inter leges Ca­nuti. c. 10. Cook 2 Instit. fol. 701. Lamb. 135. Cook. 1. Instit. fol. 75. which was before the Conquest; Qui pen­sionem ad oppida pontesve reficiendos denegabit▪ Militiamve subt [...]rfugerit, dabit Regi si Anglus fuerit 26 so­lidos; where it appears, that the Subject was bound as well to con­tribute [Page 90] to the Kings Militia (for that is the word there used) as he was to contribute to the repair of high-wayes and Bridges; which strongly inferres, That the King hath as much Soverign Power over the Militia of the King­dome, as he hath over high-wayes and Bridges.

Amongst the Laws of King Ed­ward the Confessour, it is thus pro­vided in these words: Debent enim universi liberi homines secundum feu­dum suum & secundum tenementa sua arma habere, & illa semper prompta conservare ad tuitionem Regni & ser­vitium Dominorum suorum juxta prae­ceptum Domini Regis explendum & peragendum.

And William the Conquerour con­firmed that Law in these words: Sta­tuimus & firmiter praecipimus, ut omnes comites, & Barones, & Mili­tes, & servientes, & universi liberi homines totius regni nostri praedicti habeant & teneant se semper in ar­mis, & in equis ut decet & oportet, & quod sint semper prompti & para­ti ad servitium suum integrum ex­plendum [Page 91] & peragendum cum semper opus adfuerit secundum quod nobis debent de feudis & tenementis suis de jure facere, &c. By both which Laws it plainly appears; That all Earls, Barons, Knights, and Free­men of England, (and such were all those that were not villains, Sock­men, or Copy-holders) were to be in armes upon the Command of the King, and defence of his Kingdom (for so he calls it, because King and Kingdom are Relatives, and that man that loves not the one loves not the other, let his pretence be what it will) And not only such Freemen that held their Lands by bearing arms, but all others, as the exigence of the King­dom should require, which appears in this, That the King before the Statute of Quia Emplores terrarum in 18. E. 1.Litt. l. 2. c. 8. Cook. Instit. fol. 75. might create tenures by bearing of Arms; nay more, by creating the greatest Officers of Arms in the Kingdom, as to be Marshal of the Kings Host, to be high Constable of England, and Earl Marshall of England, &c. By which means it [Page 92] grew to be a usage and custom in the Crown of England, 30. Octob. 7. Ed. 1. to have the sole command of the Militia in the King­dom, as appears plainly by the Sta­tute of 7. Ed. 1. where it was agreed by the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, and Commonalty of that Parliament held at Westminster.

That it was the Kings right, and belonged to him of his Royal Seigni­ory, to defend all force of Armour, and all other Force against the Peace, at all times when it shall please him, and to punish them which shall do the contrary according to the Laws and usages of the Realme; And hereunto the people are bound to aid the King as their Sovereign Lord at all seasons, when need should be.

And the same King Edward the first, to shew his chief Power and Command in this matter of the Mi­litia, given to him by the ancient Laws and Statutes of this Realm, about six years after, viz. in the 13. year of his Reign, doth by the Sta­tute of Winchester provide in this manner, That every man shall have [Page 93] Harnes in his house to keep the Peace according to the ancient assesse. That ancient assesse is thus explained,Stat. de Win­chester, 13. [...]. 1. cap. 6. that is to say, Every man from fifteene years old to fourty, shall be assessed and sworne to armour according to their quantity of Lands and Goods, to wit, from fifteen pound Lands, and fourty marks goods a Halbert, a Brest­plate of iron, a sword, a knife, and a horse: and from ten pound Lands, and twenty marks Goods, a Halbert, a Brest-plate of Iron, a sword and a knife: and from fourty shillings Land to an hundred shillings of Land, a a Sword, a Bowe and arrows, and a knife, &c. And so downward, as ap­pears more at large in that Statute: Wherein it is likewise provided, that two Constables in all hundreds should be chosen (now called high Consta­bles) for this purpose, that twice every year they should take view of the Armour, and present to the Ju­stices such defaults about Armour, as they should see in the Coun­trey.

It is true,4^o & 5^o. Phil. & Mar. cap. 2. that at the Parliament of [Page 94] 4, 5. Phil. and Mar. this Statute was repealed, not as to the power of im­posing Arms, but as to the Quantity and proportion of Arms, (the man­ner of Arms being at that time chan­ged, and the value of Lands increa­sed, whereby a greater proportion was assessed) this may appear by the third Chapter of that Parliament, where the power of mustering of men, and levying a number of them for the Kings service in his warres, is placed wholly in the Crown. And therefore that Statute of Repeal is warily penned, for it is not a repeal of the common Law concerning Arms, but of such Statutes only as concern the keeping and finding of Horse, horses, or Armour: which Statute of Repeal was afterward re­pealed by King James, so that it necessarily followeth, that either the Statute of Winchester is still in force, and standeth for Law, or else if it be repealed, the common Law of England concerning finding of Arms, is in force at this day. Ma­ny more Statutes there are concern­ing [Page 95] this Royal Prerogative of the Mili­tia in the times of the succeeding Kings between Ed. 1. and Q. Mar. especially in the days of E. 3. a martial Prince, and a great Souldier, which for the great number of them I shall omit, and come in the last place to consider the reasons of the Law in thus placing the chief power of the Militia in the Crown.

And the first Reason is taken from the Office and Duty of a King, mentioned by Plowden in the case of the Information for Mines; where it is said,Plow. Com. fol. 315. b. That the King is the Head of the Commonwealth, and the Sub­jects are his Members, and the Kings Office to which he is appointed by Law, consisteth in two things; to wit, in Armour to defend them against all hostility, and in good Laws. And therefore it is that Lipsius makes mi­litary Prudence a necessary requisite for a Prince for the defence of his own Person, his Crown and people,5^o. lib. Pol. c. 2. which would not be so necessary, if the power of the Sword did not pro­perly and peculiarly belong unto him. And therefore thus is laid [Page 96] down by him, Tolosanus, Bodine, and Bozerus (famous and learned Politicians) as a maxim most essen­tial to royal Majesty, Solius est Prin­cipis bellum suscipere, decernere, indi­cere, & administrare. It is only pro­per to a Prince to denounce Warre, to undertake it, to order and deter­mine it, which they largely prove; I shall only but quote the places in the Margin.Tolos. l. 9. c. 1. Bod. l. 1. c. 10. Bo [...]er. de Jur. Belli c. 4. Lipsius l. 5. c. 4. Cook. 3. Instit. fol. 9. And agreeable to this is the Law of England; No Subject saith Sir Edw. Cook (an Authour of an approved Authority) no Parliament, can levy Warre within the Realm without Authority from the King, for to him, saith he, it only belong­eth. And therefore he puts these cases, That if Subjects (in the Plu­ral number) shall levy Warre to expulse strangers, to deliver men out of prisons, to remove Counsellours, or against any Statute, or to any other end, pretending Reformation of their own heads, without war­rant, they are (his own words) saith he, a levying of Warre against the King. And hereupon it was resol­ved [Page 97] for Law in the dayes of King Edward the 4th,19. E. 4. fol. 6. b. That if the King of England do make a league with the King of Denmark, and all the Subjects of England will make War against those of Denmark, if the King of England assent not to it; It shall not be accounted a Warre. For none in England can raise Warre, but by Authority from the King, as was said before.

The second Reason is drawn from the Office and Duty of Subjects, which is to be obedient to Autho­rity, and to fear and honour their Princes. It is the speech of God from the Law of Nature,Mal. 1.6. If I be a Father, where is my honour? and if I be a Master, where is my fear? Kings are both, and therefore ho­nour and fear do naturally belong to them. And can the King have either, if the Sword should not be in his hand? It is the very argu­ment of the Apostle, to perswade Subjects to be afraid of committing evil, Rom. 13.4. because the King beareth not the Sword in vain, but is Gods minister, [Page 98] to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. A King without a Sword is like a Father without a rod, the child incorrigible, the Subject rebel­lious. The true duty of Obedience to a Prince, is a sweet mixture of fear and love; they are loved for their mercy, they are feared for their Justice, of which the Sword is the pro­per Ensign.

Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. Kings are smitten, when they are deprived of their Swords; and we have seen the sad experience of it with our eyes. Since our Shepherd hath lost his Sword, what a scattering there hath been of all his people, of all sorts, of all Countreys, of all Cities, Towns and Families, breach upon breach, worse than that scattering in Israel, when there was no King: And which will never be happily pieced again, till the people be reduced to their obedience, and the King resto­red to his honour.

Fire we know, when it is held from ascending to its proper Ele­ment, [Page 99] by the obstinacy of a thick Cloud, how it rends the Heavens in pieces by horrible thundering and roaring: Such is military power with-held by the Subject from the Crown, till it return thither again, it causeth the pillars of a Kingdom to shake and tremble: It turns Law into Lust, Justice into Op­pression, Kindness into Cruelty, Li­berty into Slavery, and a well com­posed Commonwealth into a rude dis­orderly Camp.

My third and last reason is taken from the constitution of the Common­wealth.

The world (of which all orderly Republicks, are but so many hand­some pieces) is named in Gteek Κόσμος, signifying Order and Orna­ment; the obedience of Heaven and Earth to that Law of Nature God hath set them in the stay of the whole world, and makes it at this day so lovely and beautifull: For should the Sunne and Moone wander from their beaten wayes (as a Reverend Divine elegantly ex­presseth [Page 100] it) the times and seasons of the year blend themselves by a disor­derly and confused mixture the winds breath out their last gaspe, the Clouds yeeld no rain, the earth be defeated of heavenly influence, the fruits of the Earth pine away as Children at the withered Brests of their Mother; what would become of man, whom these things now do all serve? The like I say in a Commonwealth. If Kings should yield up their Crowns unto their Subjects, whereby Ser­vants should ride on Horseback, and Princes walk like Servants on the ground, which must needs so come to passe, if the Chivalry should be in the people, what con­fusion and deformity should we then behold in the Common­wealth? It would be as mon­strous and ugly a sight in that Politique Body, as in the Body Naturall; To see the Head be­come the Foot, and the Foot the Head, from whence Anarchy and Desolation must needs follow, when the King by this means shall be­come [Page 101] the only Subject in the Land.

Many more reasons may be ad­ded, but these shall suffice, and I shall in the next place handle the second weapon of the Crown, by which the People of the Realme is governed in the time of Peace, viz. The Lawes of the Land, by discussing the sixth and last conclusion, which is this.

That this Kingly Government be according to the Law of the Land, not by the Laws of lust, but by the Laws of the Land; by legal, not by arbitrary power; and this makes the King of England the greatest and most compleat Mo­narch in the world. That the Crown of England is incorporated, and interwoven with the Laws of the Land. For it is the grosse ig­norance of those men, that make Monarchy to consist in Exemption from Laws; such a Monarchy is rather to be called Dissolute, than Abso­lute; Impotent, than Powerfull; [Page 102] Tyrannical, than Regal. I have many learned Authours to warrant this; I will only instance in three, Rex (saith Bracton Bracton l. 2. c. 9) dicitur à bene regendo, non à regnando; quia Rex est dum bene gerit, Tyrannus au­tem dum Populum sibi concreditum violenta opprimit Dominatione, saith Sir Jo. Fortescue. Ch. Just. of Engl. Fortes. de laud. leg. Ang. c. 37.

Quis enim (Rex) potentior li­beriorve esse potest quam qui non solum alios, sed & seipsum suffi­cit debellare; quod potest, & sem­per facit Rex politice regens populum suum?

But above all is the Testimony of King James, as great a Prince in Learning, as in Power; A King, saith he, governing in a setled Kingdome, leaves off to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soone as he leaves off to rule accord­ing to his Lawes. Therefore all Kings that are not Tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their Lawes, and they that perswade [Page 103] them the contrary, are vipers and Pests both against them, and the Commonwealth. And afterward de­claring to the Lords and Commons his opinion of the Common Laws by which his Realme was governed he thus speaketh, First as a King I have beast cause of any man to dis­like the Common Law. For no Laws can be more advantagious for a King, and extendeth further his Praeroga­tive than it doth. And for a King of England to despise the Common Law, it is to neglect his own Crowne.

And how apt and convenient a Law it is for the people as well as for the Crown, he expresseth it in another speech to the Parliament, I must needs confesse, and I think I am a­ble to prove it, that the grounds of the Common Law of England are the best of any Law in the world, either civill or municipall, and the fittest for this people. Upon all which it plainly appears, as I said before, that a King of England governing ac­cording to his Laws, is the most abso­lute [Page 104] and free Monarch of the world; For this is true freedome in a Prince, to be loved at home, and feared a­broad, to be able to defend his own people at home from oppression and violence by his Laws, without the help of an Army; to keep and conserve all his Subjects in happy peace, by a sword made of Parchment and Paper in his Laws, and not by a Sword made up of Iron and Steel in his Armies. This is excellently and at large declared by the same S^r John Fortescue, Chap. 35, 36, 37. in his book of the praise of the Laws of England, where in three severall Chapters he sets down the differences betwixt the English Governement by the Laws, and the other Governement by Ar­bitrary power (misnamed Regall Pow­er) and there makes the Comparison betwixt the Governement of Eng­land, and that of France; That they are poor Peasants, we a rich people; They are so pilled and polled with Taxes and Impositions (especially that of Salt) that they are not able to sup­ply their King, if he should need their succour, we are able to succour him [Page 105] in Warre, and to relieve him in want; No Souldiers (in time of peace) can come by Law into our Houses, spoile our Goods, and eat us out with Free-Quarter as they do there; Nor are we privily executed by Martiall Law, without open and ordinary Justice as they are, with many more grie­vances which he there relateth at large, and unto which I referre my Reader. So that no Nation under Heaven is more happy under Kingly Governement, than we are here in England, were we a thankfull people, or rightly prized our own happinesse, For the Crown of England is so encir­cled with good Laws, that it is scarce possible for a King of England to fall into Tyranny,8. Hen. 4.19. 8. Hen. 6.20. 2. Rich. 3.11. for he neither speak­eth, nor acteth, nor judgeth, nor ex­ecuteth, but by his Writt, by his Laws, by his Judges, and Ministers, and both these sworne to him to judge a right, and to execute justice to his People. For the King doth nothing in his own Person.Fortes. de de Land Leg. cap. 8. If he sit in judge­ment as he may do in any of his Courts, as King Richard 2. King [Page 106] Edward 4. and King Henry 8. did in the Kings-Bench, King Henry 7. and King James in the Starre-Cham­ber, yet he pronounceth [...] ⟨not⟩ judge­ment himself upon his People, but it is left by him to the proper Judges of that Court under him, which is the reason why it is said in our Law, that the King can do no wrong; for if the Subject here in England be wronged, it is by some Judge, Offi­cer, or Minister, &c. under the King which hath wronged him, and for which the Subject may have his pro­per remedy in Law, in which justice cannot be denied him, or delayed by the Judges,9. Hen. 3. c. 29. 5. Edw. 3. c. 9. who are required by their duty and Oath, not to stay or stop Justice,2. Edw. 3. c. 8. either for the Great Seale or Little Seale, which are the high­est Commands of the King. The words of the Statute are more Em­phaticall, Item, It is Accorded and Established, 18. Edw. 3. Oath of the Justice. that it shall not be com­manded by the Great Seale, nor the Little Seale, to disturbe or delay Common Right; And though such commandment do come, the Justices [Page 107] therefore shall not leave to do right in any point.

But above all the Statute of 20. Edward 3. is remarkeable, which hath these words, We Command all Our Justices that they shall from henceforth do equall Law and Execu­tion of Right to all Our Subjects rich and poor, without having regard to any person, and without omitting to do Right for any Letters or Command­ment, which may come to them from us, or from any other, or by any o­ther Cause. Let the Judges do right, and the Kings of England, as they can do no wrong; so are not they wil­ling to do it, as may appear in the examples of King James and the King that now is, T ⟨W⟩hen I was a Re­porter in the Common-Pleas about 12^o Jac. There happened in that Court a Suit in a Quare Impedit, Between S^r Edward Pincheon, and one Harris the Kings Incumbent, which Suit after a long and tedious delay in Chancery, came at last to receive a Judgement, in the Court of Common-Pleas; At the day ap­pointed [Page 108] for giving of Judgement, The Lord Hubert Chief Justice of that Court, produced a Letter out of his Pocket from King James, for deferring Judgement, which he shew­ed to the rest of the Judges of that Court, Warburton, Winch, and Ni­colls, desiring their Advice what to do: Justice Nicolls Puisne Judge of the Court, and first to Argue, spake openly in this manner; My Lord, This Cause hath had ma­ny delaies, It is our duty to do equal right to all his Majesties Subjects, and that we ought not to delay Ju­stice, neither for the Great Seale, nor the Little, and much lesse for a Letter; And therefore for my part I will go on and proceed to Judgment, which he then gave for Sr. Edward Pincheon, and the rest of the Judg­es followed according to their turns and did the like. How this wrought with King James the Consequence will shew. For about a year after, when Officers were to be chosen for the Prince his Sonne, the King that now is, then newly made Prince [Page 109] of Wales, The Highest Office being the Office of Chancellour, had di­verse great Competitors, the Lord Hubert, and Sr. Francis Bacon then Atturnay Generall and some others. The King rejected them all, and of himselfe chose Justice Nicholls, that neither sought it, or thought of it, sixty miles off at his house in the Countrey, being in the long Vaca­tion; and I was sent for from the Tem­ple to convey his Patent to him into the Countrey, which I did accordingly; and about a Moneth after, going up at Michaelmas Terme, he was presented to the King, who scarce ever saw him before. The King told him, That he took notice of him for an honest and a just Judge, and one that would take no Bribes, and therefore had made choice of him to serve his Sonne in his Highest Of­fice, &c.

The like I have heard of his Ma­jesty that now is, by another Judg a Successor of his in the same Court of Common Pleas, who did Exe­cution of Justice notwithstanding the [Page 110] Kings Letter, whereupon he was sent for to the King, who grew angry with him for doing contrary to his Letter; The Judge acquain­ted him with that high command that was laid upon him by the Sta­tute of 2^o Edward 3, to do equall Law and Execution of Right to all his Majesties Subjects, and by his Oath to the King to performe it; telling his Majesty, That his Throne was established by executing Justice, and much Honour redounded to him thereby, and many other words de­livered in better Languge than I am able to expresse, whereupon the Kings heart began to melt, telling the Judge he was well pleased with him, and bade him go on in the wayes of Law and Justice, and he should have his favour in stead of his frowne. And hereupon I heard the Judge deliver this opinion of him. That he thought he would make the justest Prince upon Earth, had he Ministers about him answerable to his goodnesse. Thus are good Kings soon­er brought to sed their Errours in [Page 111] the quiet and still wayes of Justice grounded upon the sincerity of im­partiall Laws, than by the Coun­cels of publique Persons, when they are prosecuted in a violent way. And such a naturall Inclination to the love of Justice doth possesse the spi­rits of Princes, that they seldome miscarry in their duties, did not their Ministers under them, whom they entrust with their Laws, first fayle in theirs. And therefore I do affirme and maintaine, that since the bloudy contentions about Mag­na Charta, which were begun and continued in the Raignes of King John and Henry 3, and happily quieted by King Edward 1, who re­deemed his Captive Father out of Prison, vanquished the rebellious Ba­rons, and confirmed the great Charter, the Oppressions of the People of England, have been chiefly caused by their fellow Subjects, not by their Princes. And therefore the Armes taken up against them for that cause were utterly groundless and unlawfull, as were the Arms taken up against [Page 112] those lawfull, but very infortu­nate Princes Edward the 2. and Ri­chard 2. which brought on their De­position, and Murther afterwards (the most traiterous and bloody acts that ever were committed by English­men against their Soverign) none of which acts do the known and establish­ed Laws of England allow, in Subjects against their own lawfull Sove­reigns.

A short touch of which Laws, joyned with an expression of the form of their Oaths, taken at their Coro­nation, (not commonly known, and lesse understood by the People) I will in the next place handle, and so end this my sixth and last Con­clusion. The whole frame and Body of the Common Law of Eng­land, is aptly divided into these two parts:

• 1. Jus Regium.
• 2. Jus Populi.

1. The Law which concerns the King, being an essential part of the [Page 113] Common Law, the Subject of Eng­land is bound by his Allegiance and Oath to observe and keep, as strictly and exactly, as that Law which con­cerns himself, which every religious and conscientious Subject will readily do. For I do not find in all the Book of God a more certain mark of an irreligious man, than a despiser of the just Government and com­mands of his Sovereign.

2. The Law which concerns the People being another essential part of the Common Law, the King of England is tied by his Oath at his Coronation, as much to maintain, defend and keep, as he is the Rights of his Crown. So that the Law makes a Marriage between these two Rights, as well in re­spect of the Prince, as of the People.

The Jus Regium belonging to the King is divided into

• 1. Jus Maje­statis.
• 2. Jus Praero­gativae.

Jus Majestatis is that which be­longs to him as King, common to [Page 114] him, with other Princes, by the Law of Nature and Nations; as for example, to have the Supream Pow­er in making Laws, the chief com­mand of the Militia, by which he bestows the Degrees of Knighthood, the coyning of Money, the giving of Honour, the pardoning of Offen­ces, the sole making and disposing of the Great Seale, the dispensing with penall Lawes, the making of Judges and Officers, with divers more.

The Jus Praerogativae, is that which belongs to him as King of England, and given to him by that Law alone, which is very large, and of which the Statute De Praero­gativa Regis made 17^o E. 2. is but a piece.

The Jus Populi is that, which by the same Common Law belongs to the People, divided into two parts, Clergy and Laity; the one called Jus Ecclesiae, the other called Jus Regni, and so distinguished in the Parliament Writ. These two Rights of King and People make up the Body of [Page 115] the Common Law of England, chiefly consisting in Customes, Liberties, Priviledges and Immunities belonging to Prince and People, and by them approved of, as good and profitable to both, by an immemorial prescri­ption, which maketh the best Law of all, as most fixed and immutable. For other Laws which are not so tried by long tract of time, are much subject to change and fluctuation, which is the reason why the Laws of England have at this day the ho­nour above others, in that they consist upon such ancient and unsha­ken Principles. But this is a great misery which hath befallen this King­dom, and which we feel at this day, that the People of England have been very industrious, to know their own Rights, but are very ignorant in the Rights of the Crown. Though by their Oath set down in the Sta­tute of 1. Elizab. they are bound to know them in what they swear, That they shall to their Power assist and defend all Priviledges, Prehemi­nencies and Authorities granted, or [Page 116] belonging to the Kings Highnesse, his Heirs and Successours, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crowne of this Realme. The ignorance where­of, hath, I fear, to the crying sinnes of this Land, added the Luod cries of Perjury and Rebellion. And herein those of our own Profession are not without blame, in that I find many Tracts of Law, touching the full Rights of the People; but not one compleat Treatise of the whole Prerogative of the King. One Judge Stanford hath learnedly writ­ten upon the Statute of Praerogati­vae Regis, made and enacted 17^o. Edward 2. consisting chiefly in Wardships and Tenures; but what is that to the large Prerogatvie of the King, extending to other things? Had that been well done, things had not been so ill done at this day.

The Lawes of England, as well those which concern the Kings Pre­rogative, as those that concern the People, are both of them so united to the Crown, that the one cannot [Page 117] be without the other: insomuch as the safety of the one, is the safety of the other; and the hurt of the one, is the hurt of the other: of which many instances might be gi­ven, and some of them not written in Ink, but in Blood; whereby a man would think it impossible for a King of England to govern other­wise, than by his Laws. And there­fore for preventing that possibility, and all jealousies and feares touching the same, the King takes a solemne Oath at his Coronation to maintain them all, which I will set down ver­batim, as it is to be found in an old A­bridgment of the Statutes of H. 8. in these words,

THat he shall keep and maintaine the Rights and Liberties of the Holy Church, Oath. of old time granted by the righteous Christian Kings of Eng­land: And that he shall keep all the Lands, Honours and Dignities righ­teous and free of the Crowne of England, in all manner whole, with­out any manner of minishment. And [Page 18] the Rights of the Crowne, hurt, de­cayed, and lost, to his power shall call againe into the ancient Estate: And that he shall keep the Peace of the Holy Church, and of the Clergie, and of the People with good accord. And that he shall do in all his Judge­ments, Equity and Right, Justice with Discretion and Mercy. And that he shall grant to hold the Lawes and Customes of the Realme, and to his power keepe and affirme them, which the Folke and People have made and chosen: And the evil Lawes and Customes wholly to put out: And stedfast and stable Peace to the People of this Realme keepe, and cause to be kept to his power. And that he shall grant no Char­ter, but where he may doe it by his Oath.

In which these things are shortly observable,

1. That the King ought by his Oath, under the pain of Perjury, to maintain the Rights of his Crown, as well in time of Warre by his Sword, [Page 119] as in time of Peace by his Lawes, without any manner of diminution: And this belongs to him to do so, as an essential part of his Office, men­tioned in the Laws of S^t Edward, in these words,Leg. Edw. cap. 17. de offic. Re­gis. Rex quia Vicarius sum­mi Regis esse, debet de jure omnes terras, & honores omnes, dignitates Jura, & Libertates Coronae Regni hu­jus in integrum cum omni integritate, & sine diminutione observare, & defen­dere, &c.

2. That if the Rights of the Crowne be hurt, decayed or lost, the King is bound as well in duty as by his Oath, to the uttermost of his Power to endeavour the re­stitution of them to their ancient estate; And this is to be done, as well for the safety and benefit of his people, as for his own honour and dignity, as may appear by the Petition of the Lords and Com­mons in the Parliament of 14^o Rich. 2. in whose Raigne the Crown suffer­ed much losse and dammage;Rot. Parl. 14. R. 2. n. 15. where they desire, That the Prerogative of the King and of his Crowne may be [Page 120] kept, And that all things done or attempted to the contrary might be redressed, and that the King be as free as any of his Progenitors were.

3. That the King is to keep and maintaine the Rights and Liberties of the Church and Clergy of England, consisting not only in their Functions and Jurisdictions, but in their Lands and Revenues.

4. That the Laws and Customes of the Realme, which the people have made and chosen, are to be under­stood only of those Laws and Cu­stomes then in being at the time of the taking of that Oath: For these Reasons;

1. The words are in the Preterper­fect Tense, which the people have made and chosen, not in the Future Tense, which they were hereafter to make, and which the King could not swear to keep, till he knew what they were.

2. The words are chiefly meant of such Laws and Customes which lay in usage and immemoriall prescrip­tion, [Page 121] which have their essence and life from time past; For no Cu­stomes can begin by Law in time to come.

3. They were such Laws and Cu­stomes which the King at the time of the taking of this Oath had a Legall power to judge of and determine, whether those Laws were good or bad; for the evill Laws and Customes he was wholy to put out, which must of necessity be referred to the time past or present: for of future things he could possibly have no knowledge; Where also by like necessary conse­quence it follows, that the King hath a Supreame Vote in all Laws whatso­ever, to judge whether they be good or evill, for his Crown, his Church and Kingdome, and accordingly to as­sent or disassent, or else it will be im­possible for him to avoid the Crime of Perjury.

5. The King shall grant no Char­ter but where he may do it by his Oath; Now the Charter there meant, is the Charter of Pardon, granted by the King in the Cases of Manslaugh­ter, [Page 122] Robberies,6. E. 1. Stat. de Gloc. c. 9.2. E. 3. Stat. de Northton. c. 2. 4. E. 3. c. 13.10. E. 3. c. 2.14. E. 3. c. 15. Fellonies, and other trespasses against the Peace; And what in these Cases shall be done ac­cording to the Kings Oath, and what not, is resolved and determined by divers Acts of Parliament, which I have Quoted in the Margin.

So that by all I have said it plainly appears, that the King in respect of his Duty and Office, in respect of his Oath, in respect of the Dignity and Honour of his Crown, and the good of his People, is to Governe them by the Laws of the Land. And so have I made good my sixt and last Conclu­sion.