A
REVIEW
OF
THE
Observations
upon
some
of
His
Majesties
late
Answers
and
Expresses
.
IN
the
Contestation
between
Regall
and
Parliamentary
authority
,
finding
by
the
frequent
Declarations
of
the
two
Honourable
Houses
made
unto
the
People
,
(
like
so
many
Appeales
of
the
Body
representative
,
to
the
Body
at
large
,
)
that
the
Soveraign
judgement
of
all
things
is
(
upon
the
matter
)
brought
unto
the
People
,
I
see
not
,
but
that
it
is
both
lawfull
,
and
even
the
necessary
duty
of
every
private
man
,
that
hath
any
understanding
of
the
things
in
question
,
to
publish
his
particular
judgement
&
apprehension
of
them
;
That
from
the
most
free
and
universall
agitation
of
the
truth
,
some
judgement
from
that
vast
body
may
be
rendered
to
the
appealors
satisfaction
.
And
so
,
having
conceived
that
the
Author
of
the
Observations
upon
His
Majesties
late
Answers
,
hath
upon
this
subject
broached
divers
State-doctrines
,
neither
agreeable
to
our
Lawes
,
nor
yet
to
true
Christian
Religion
:
and
that
yet
,
(
to
the
prejudice
of
the
Truth
,
)
they
have
,
as
truths
,
got
a
strong
prepossession
of
men●
mindes
;
I
have
thought
fit
to
offer
such
notions
upon
the
summe
of
them
,
as
I
conceive
ought
to
bring
them
to
a
more
serious
re-examination
.
Saving
therefore
to
His
Majesty
His
Right
of
Animadversion
into
the
particular
falsities
,
insolences
,
and
seditious
calumnies
in
the
severall
passages
of
that
booke
;
I
only
apply
my selfe
to
the
summe
and
scope
thereof
,
and
that
I
find
to
be
to
this
purpose
.
First
,
That
God
is
no
more
Author
of
Regall
power
then
of
Aristocraticall
,
and
as
much
Author
of
usurped
Dominion
as
of
Hereditary
.
That
Power
is
originally
inherent
in
the
People
,
and
but
derivative
in
Kings
.
That
the
People
are
the
efficient
and
finall
cause
of
Kings
.
That
the
name
of
King
is
not
greater
then
of
People
.
That
though
the
King
be
singulis
major
,
yet
He
is
universis
minor
.
That
He
is
not
to
be
accounted
a
God
,
a
King
,
a
Lord
,
a
Father
&c.
to
the
People
conjunctim
,
but
divisim
only
.
That
Treason
(
so
farre
as
it
concernes
the
Prince
)
is
not
so
horrid
in
nature
,
as
oppression
in
a
Prince
,
&c.
In
the
better
examining
of
these
,
we
finde
;
That
God
creating
man
single
,
left
him
not
other
meanes
of
multiplying
,
then
only
by
propagation
,
and
in
propagating
,
he
gave
the
Rule
and
Soveraignty
of
the
issues
propagated
,
to
the
Father
of
whom
they
were
propagated
;
and
in
defailance
of
the
Father
,
He
gave
the
Rule
of
all
the
younger
(
and
consequently
of
their
descendants
too
)
unto
the
first-borne
,
Caine
;
Thy
Brother
shall
be
subject
to
thee
,
and
thou
shalt
beare
rule
over
him
.
So
that
all
men
in
the
beginning
were
born
Subjects
,
either
to
him
that
naturally
was
their
Father
,
or
to
him
that
by
right
of
primogeniture
was
representatively
the
Father
.
After
the
Flood
,
the
then
common
Father
of
the
world
,
having
a
family
of
three
Sonnes
of
differing
condition
,
and
they
(
for
the
plantation
of
the
then
unpeopled
world
)
by
Gods
determinate
fore-councell
dispersed
into
three
distant
parts
of
it
,
the
elder
Brothers
right
of
Soveraignty
over
those
younger
,
(
through
distance
of
place
,
and
want
of
occasion
and
meanes
to
exercise
it
.
)
became
wholy
neglected
,
as
upon
like
severance
and
search
of
new
places
of
Plantation
,
it
,
in
other
places
,
often
after
became
.
But
every
Planter
becomming
so
by
himselfe
a
Father
,
soon
became
a
Family
,
and
from
a
Family
grew
into
a
Citty
,
so
into
diverse
Cities
,
and
at
length
into
a
Kingdome
.
And
though
we
first
heare
of
the
irregular
Kingdome
of
the
descendant
of
Cham
,
yet
find
we
also
,
that
Shem
the
eldest
and
blessed
Sonne
of
those
three
,
was
grown
into
the
Soveraignty
of
a
Kingdome
,
and
was
the
first
King
that
ever
was
in
the
world
:
for
by
the
judgement
and
computation
of
the
Learned
,
Melchisedeck
the
King
of
Salem
,
could
be
no
other
then
very
Shem
himselfe
.
Neither
had
the
tenne
Tribes
of
Israell
,
(
when
revolting
from
the
sonne
of
David
,
they
said
,
they
had
no
part
in
David
,
nor
Portion
in
the
sonne
of
Iesse
,
)
any
other
meaning
then
only
to
inferre
;
That
David
being
neither
their
Father
by
nature
,
nor
in
primogeniture
by
representation
,
they
were
free
from
that
naturall
subjection
unto
his
sonne
,
which
otherwise
(
they
implied
)
they
were
bound
to
be
subject
to
.
And
indeed
,
(
if
there
had
not
been
an
especiall
ordinance
of
God
in
the
case
)
it
had
truly
followed
;
that
being
neither
descended
of
Jesse
,
nor
Iesse
the
first
borne
of
their
common
Father
;
the
rule
of
subiection
which
followed
nature
,
had
not
tyed
them
to
obey
his
sonne
.
The
fifth
Commandement
it selfe
proveth
this
naturall
bond
of
subiection
,
when
(
as
all
Churches
expound
it
)
it
commands
Obedience
to
Governours
,
under
the
name
of
Parents
only
.
And
that
(
according
to
Gods
saying
unto
Caine
)
Soveraignty
did
rightfully
follow
primogeniture
,
we
may
see
it
in
this
;
that
as
God
promised
Iacob
the
Soveraignty
,
so
he
procured
him
the
Birth-right
,
formally
transacted
by
Esaus
sale
of
it
.
Therefore
a
King
being
no
other
then
a
common
Father
,
by
either
naturall
or
legall
Right
;
neither
the
People
,
nor
any
other
Power
then
only
God
(
the
Father
of
nature
it selfe
)
can
properly
be
said
to
be
the
author
of
the
being
of
Kings
.
Next
,
God
hath
not
authorized
Kingly
Power
in
nature
only
;
but
by
his
expresse
promises
before
the
law
,
and
by
his
ordinances
concerning
it
,
in
the
law
,
even
before
ever
the
people
of
Israell
sought
a
King
:
also
by
setling
over
his
People
the
government
of
a
King
:
by
sacrating
that
office
with
annointing
:
by
his
own
assuming
of
the
name
of
King
:
and
by
setting
forth
our
Saviours
Dominion
over
his
Church
,
by
that
name
and
office
.
In
all
which
if
God
hath
done
the
like
for
authorizing
aristocraticall
or
vsurped
Dominion
;
then
is
the
Observour
in
those
assertions
to
be
justified
:
but
if
not
,
then
is
he
in
them
an
Author
of
lyes
.
Yea
,
God
is
more
Author
of
what
he
ordaines
and
directs
,
then
of
what
he
only
permits
;
and
therefore
more
Author
of
good
,
then
of
evill
.
Wherefore
to
say
vsurped
Dominion
referres
as
much
to
God
as
author
thereof
,
as
lawfull
hereditary
Dominion
doth
,
is
not
only
false
but
also
blasphemous
.
As
for
Power
inherent
in
the
People
,
how
should
one
imagine
such
a
thing
?
unlesse
also
he
would
imagine
People
to
be
juvenes
aquilone
creati
,
men
like
grashoppers
and
locusts
bred
of
the
winde
,
or
like
Cadmus
his
men
sprung
out
of
the
earth
;
where
none
deriving
from
any
pre-existent
Parents
,
had
all
of
them
equall
originall
and
power
,
and
therefore
subject
to
no
civill
Power
but
what
by
agreement
they
themselves
ordained
?
But
where
man
is
borne
of
a
Father
,
to
whom
,
by
the
law
of
God
and
nature
he
is
subject
,
he
is
so
farr
from
having
inherent
Power
originally
in
him
,
as
that
he
hath
not
his
own
originall
being
but
only
in
subjection
;
either
to
his
immediate
Father
,
if
his
Father
were
absolute
,
or
to
him
and
his
common
Father
,
if
his
Father
were
a
Subject
.
Now
if
man
,
in
his
particular
and
naturall
capacity
,
hath
not
originall
Power
of
himselfe
inherent
in
him
,
he
cannot
have
originall
inherent
Power
,
by
any
civill
capacity
whatsoever
.
And
though
,
upon
the
overthrow
and
breaking
up
of
Kingdomes
,
instance
may
perhaps
be
given
;
that
People
have
made
themselves
a
King
,
yet
does
not
that
prove
,
the
People
to
be
the
originall
of
Kingly
Power
;
no
more
th●n
going
upon
crutches
,
after
losse
of
a
legg
,
proves
crutches
the
originall
and
naturall
way
of
going
:
for
people
being
by
misfortune
deprived
of
their
naturall
common
Father
and
Soveraign
,
must
of
necessity
entertaine
such
supply
of
their
losse
,
as
their
fortune
can
best
afford
them
.
And
even
in
that
case
too
,
their
making
of
a
King
,
was
no
other
,
then
the
choosing
of
one
to
beare
the
known
Office
of
the
true
and
naturall
common
Father
.
For
we
must
note
,
they
never
made
Kings
by
giving
them
power
constitutive
,
to
doe
so
;
and
so
;
(
as
they
must
have
done
,
if
Kings
had
had
nothing
but
commissionary
authority
from
the
people
,
)
but
they
made
Kings
,
only
by
choosing
one
to
beare
the
office
and
person
of
the
same
Governour
,
that
the
law
of
nature
had
before
described
and
authorized
to
command
and
governe
.
Though
therefore
the
ten
Tribes
of
Israell
rebelled
against
Rehoboam
,
for
refusing
to
releive
their
greivance
,
made
Ieroboam
King
,
and
God
forbad
Rehoboam
to
warre
against
them
for
it
,
yet
this
proves
not
,
That
people
have
power
of
making
Kingdoms
or
Kings
.
For
God
himselfe
had
first
declared
,
that
he
would
rend
ten
Tribes
from
the
Kingdome
of
Iudah
,
and
that
Ieroboam
should
be
King
over
them
.
And
had
Jeroboam
and
the
people
attended
Gods
will
and
pleasure
in
it
,
(
as
David
after
his
annointing
did
)
he
had
beene
a
King
and
they
a
Kingdome
not
of
their
own
making
but
of
Gods
.
But
to
shew
how
quickly
the
by-affections
of
the
people
pervert
the
right
work
of
God
,
when
they
looke
not
as
well
unto
the
way
,
as
unto
the
end
:
we
may
see
,
that
for
all
this
,
new
Kingdome
&
King
were
of
Gods
appointing
,
yet
when
the
people
would
in
a
way
of
their
owne
,
take
upon
them
the
Crowning
of
the
man
appointed
,
God
disclaimes
the
authorizing
of
what
they
did
.
They
set
up
a
King
(
saith
God
)
but
not
by
me
.
Abijah
,
(
Rehoboams
sonne
)
with
foure
hundred
thousand
,
against
eight
hundred
thousand
,
pitched
a
battle
upon
the
right
of
that
Kingdome
,
and
committed
the
cause
to
God
,
though
Ieroboam
had
entrapped
him
in
an
ambush
,
God
gave
such
a
sentence
against
Ieroboam
and
his
people
,
that
after
an
overthrow
and
slaughter
of
five
hundred
thousand
of
them
,
they
were
disabled
from
ever
recovering
strength
in
all
Abijahs
dayes
.
And
that
Subjects
for
luck
sake
may
take
heed
of
making
new
Kingdomes
,
or
Kings
:
this
King
(
the
only
instance
of
peoples
King-making
,
and
yet
in
making
of
whom
the
people
did
only
anticipate
Gods
purposed
work
)
became
the
instrumentall
efficient
of
their
finall
destruction
,
&
(
setting
up
the
Idolatry
which
the
people
themselves
had
first
affected
)
his
sinne
through
all
his
successours
so
adhered
to
them
,
as
that
it
never
left
them
,
untill
it
had
extirpated
them
from
their
own
,
and
transferred
them
captives
into
another
Country
.
To
conclude
this
point
,
when
we
heare
God
himselfe
stiling
himselfe
a
King
,
a
great
King
of
Kings
,
and
telling
us
that
the
Kingdome
is
the
Lords
,
&c
:
who
without
reluctance
of
conscience
and
even
horrour
of
it
,
can
yeild
the
power
of
Kings
to
be
derivative
,
and
the
People
to
be
the
originall
of
it
?
for
then
,
God
by
setting
himselfe
forth
in
the
name
of
a
King
,
does
instead
of
presenting
himselfe
,
in
a
notion
of
magnificence
and
Soveraignty
,
present
himselfe
under
the
notion
of
an
inferiour
and
of
a
derivative
,
from
a
more
Soveraigne
and
originall
Power
:
whereas
we
see
God
never
expresses
his
Power
by
the
name
of
an
Elder
,
or
of
a
Magistrate
,
or
any
subordinate
Authority
how
good
or
honourable
soever
.
Yea
to
be
King
of
Kings
,
is
then
no
more
,
then
to
be
the
derivative
and
creature
of
Kings
.
As
for
the
Peoples
being
the
efficient
and
finall
cause
of
the
King
.
If
one
knew
in
what
sence
the
Observour
would
be
understood
,
he
were
soone
answered
.
For
if
he
would
be
understood
according
to
the
propriety
of
his
wordes
,
(
as
indeed
that
which
he
would
maintaine
does
need
he
should
,
)
Then
is
that
position
not
only
false
,
but
an
impious
falshood
,
even
full
blasphemy
:
for
properly
God
,
and
none
but
God
,
is
the
efficient
and
finall
cause
of
all
things
:
there
being
no
difference
betweene
the
efficient
cause
and
the
Creatour
.
But
if
the
Observour
means
,
that
the
people
be
the
instrumentall
cause
of
Kings
;
the
instrumentall
cause
and
mediate
end
,
are
termes
of
so
extreame
and
notorious
difference
,
and
consequence
,
from
efficient
and
finall
cause
,
as
it
is
by
no
meanes
to
be
pardoned
him
that
he
should
meane
the
one
,
and
say
the
other
.
Besides
,
to
understand
him
so
,
does
overthrow
all
that
he
drives
at
:
for
if
the
People
be
but
the
instrumentall
cause
of
Kings
,
then
can
they
not
be
the
end
of
Kings
,
no
more
then
the
instrument
of
any
worke
can
be
the
end
for
which
the
work
was
made
,
but
contrarily
the
work
is
the
end
of
the
instrument
,
and
therefore
greater
then
the
instrument
.
As
for
the
people
,
they
are
so
farre
from
being
the
finall
end
of
Kings
,
as
that
they
are
not
any
way
the
end
of
them
.
For
government
is
the
end
of
Kings
(
of
which
the
People
are
but
the
Subject
)
and
God
alone
is
both
the
efficient
cause
and
finall
end
,
both
of
the
Government
,
Governour
,
and
Subject
to
be
governed
.
As
for
that
which
he
affirmes
,
That
though
Kings
be
singulis
majores
yet
are
they
vniversis
minores
,
and
that
wherein
soever
they
be
to
be
accounted
.
Gods
,
Lords
,
Fathers
,
Heads
,
unto
the
People
;
they
are
not
so
to
be
understood
,
otherwise
then
as
to
the
particular
persons
of
men
,
considered
singly
not
jointly
,
what
an
impudent
insolence
is
it
that
one
that
has
use
of
reason
,
should
so
wickedly
belye
the
principles
of
it
,
to
so
infinite
a
consequent
of
absurdities
.
For
if
Princes
be
Kings
,
Lords
,
Fathers
,
Heads
,
&c
:
to
the
single
persons
of
the
Subject
only
,
and
not
to
the
universality
of
them
,
then
is
every
single
Subject
by
himselfe
alone
a
body
politique
,
whereof
the
King
,
as
King
,
is
Head
,
and
so
hath
as
many
Kingdomes
as
Subjects
:
&
every
one
being
distinct
in
relation
one
from
the
other
,
have
not
,
nor
can
have
any
civill
communion
among
them
;
neither
can
any
of
them
have
to
doe
with
the
civill
Affaires
one
of
another
.
And
further
,
(
which
is
not
only
false
,
but
destructive
to
the
publique
weale
and
safety
of
all
Kingdomes
)
If
Kings
be
not
Heades
of
the
publique
community
of
their
People
,
as
well
as
of
the
private
particulars
of
them
,
then
is
the
publique
community
out
of
the
Kings
Protection
,
and
Kings
are
discharged
of
all
care
of
the
publique
.
For
the
mutuality
of
relation
betwixt
Protection
and
Subjection
,
suffers
not
the
one
to
move
,
but
within
the
limits
of
the
other
,
and
if
the
universality
must
be
under
the
Kings
Protection
,
it
must
be
also
under
His
Subjection
,
for
which
cause
the
ancient
and
constant
wisedome
of
our
Peers
and
Commons
sitting
in
Parliament
as
the
Body
representative
of
the
whole
Subject
of
the
Kingdome
,
doe
in
the
Preamble
of
their
Acts
,
in
that
quality
,
to
this
day
,
recite
themselves
His
Majesties
loyall
and
faithfull
Subjects
.
So
that
in
this
point
the
Observour
insolently
controules
the
Wisedome
and
Iudgement
of
the
representative
of
the
whole
Kingdome
,
as
well
as
contradicts
the
principles
of
reason
.
Lastly
,
whereas
he
saith
that
Treason
so
farre
as
it
concernes
the
Prince
,
is
not
so
horrid
in
nature
as
oppression
in
a
Prince
.
Without
excusing
any
way
or
diminishing
the
faults
of
Princes
,
in
any
the
least
act
of
oppression
,
let
every
one
but
aske
his
owne
conscience
,
whether
is
more
horrid
in
nature
,
Superiors
to
wrong
Inferiours
,
or
Inferiours
their
Superiours
:
Maisters
their
Servants
,
or
Servants
their
Masters
:
Husbands
their
Wives
,
or
Wives
their
Husbands
:
Fathers
their
children
,
or
children
their
Fathers
:
and
he
will
soon
find
the
impiety
of
this
assertion
.
And
whereas
now
the
Observor
professeth
his
good
will
and
affection
to
Monarchy
.
You
may
by
these
grounds
which
he
hath
laid
,
and
by
his
propounding
to
us
for
a
patterne
to
our
Kings
,
the
condition
of
the
Prince
of
Orange
,
and
for
our
Kingdome
,
the
patterne
of
the
Common-wealth
of
Venice
,
know
how
false
a
meaning
he
hath
,
and
what
his
designe
is
;
even
to
loosen
the
sacred
tye
of
Obedience
toward
our
Liege
Soveraigne
,
and
with
it
the
firme
and
setled
stability
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
to
prepare
mens
hearts
and
perswasions
,
to
the
receiving
of
some
new
forme
of
Government
,
according
to
the
fancy
of
the
common
People
.
Having
therefore
with
false
principles
endeavoured
to
found
the
originall
of
all
Soveraignty
in
the
People
,
as
hoping
thereby
to
find
meanes
to
pluck
it
out
of
the
Kings
hands
:
he
then
proceeds
to
perswade
,
that
not
only
naturall
reason
,
but
even
the
frame
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
the
positive
lawes
thereof
,
doe
all
concurr
to
maintaine
the
highest
Soveraignty
to
be
in
the
People
.
But
when
he
should
make
that
apparent
by
the
manifest
Iudgement
and
Acts
of
our
Law
;
not
being
able
to
doe
that
,
he
seekes
by
sly
insinuations
,
to
have
that
admitted
and
swallowed
,
which
to
prove
he
knowes
were
impossible
.
Therefore
pretending
to
shew
the
originall
,
the
progresse
,
and
changes
of
soveraigne
government
,
all
from
,
and
by
the
authority
of
the
People
,
even
from
the
fall
of
Adam
to
the
present
.
when
it
should
be
expected
he
should
shew
the
Soveraignty
of
this
Kingdome
to
be
deriued
from
them
,
he
runnes
himselfe
into
a
puzle
,
and
then
breakes
off
and
tells
us
what
he
thinks
,
and
he
thinks
,
that
when
most
Countries
have
found
out
an
Art
and
peaceable
order
for
publique
Assemblies
,
whereby
the
people
may
assume
its
own
power
,
to
doe
it selfe
right
,
without
disturbance
to
it selfe
,
or
injury
to
Princes
;
he
were
unjust
that
would
oppose
that
art
and
order
.
That
Princes
may
not
be
beyond
all
limits
of
Law
,
nor
tryed
upon
them
by
private
parties
,
the
whole
Community
in
its
underived
Majesty
,
shall
convene
to
doe
Iustice
,
&c
:
and
so
he
goes
on
insinuating
,
that
our
Parliaments
are
such
publique
Assemblies
,
wherein
the
Community
in
underived
Majesty
convenes
to
doe
justice
upon
the
King
.
Truly
I
am
not
so
well
affected
to
arbitrary
Government
,
as
to
admit
the
judgement
(
much
lesse
the
thought
of
one
man
)
to
be
proof
of
Law
and
Government
,
We
shall
therefore
by
Gods
helpe
examine
how
well
this
new
conceipt
agreeth
with
our
Lawes
and
auncient
setled
frame
of
Government
.
But
this
is
obvious
a
forehand
,
that
it
is
so
farre
from
being
true
that
most
Countries
,
have
found
the
art
and
order
of
Assemblies
wherein
the
People
may
assume
the
power
of
doing
themselves
right
.
As
that
unlesse
you
will
call
the
Assembly
of
some
meere
popular
Republique
,
such
an
assembly
:
there
is
not
the
ordinance
of
any
such
assembly
to
be
found
in
all
the
world
.
and
the
reducing
of
our
Parliaments
to
such
Assemblies
,
will
suit
as
well
,
as
the
shaping
of
our
Kingdome
to
the
frame
of
the
common-wealth
of
the
Venetians
,
or
of
the
Hollanders
.
That
we
may
know
therefore
that
our
Parliaments
are
no
such
imaginary
Assemblies
,
in
which
the
people
in
underived
Majesty
convene
to
assume
any
Power
supposed
to
be
theirs
originally
,
and
with
that
Power
to
doe
themselves
right
.
Even
the
Observour
himselfe
hath
assured
us
,
when
in
his
fast
and
loose
play
,
he
unawares
confesseth
that
the
composition
of
our
Parliaments
are
so
equall
and
geometricall
,
and
all
parts
so
orderly
contribute
their
office
,
as
that
no
part
can
have
any
extreame
predominance
over
other
.
This
is
most
true
that
he
confesseth
.
God
grant
that
no
endeavour
to
the
contrary
may
ever
deprive
the
Kingdome
of
the
right
benefit
of
this
happy
and
well
composed
Ordinance
.
But
now
then
if
our
Parliaments
be
ordained
Assemblies
,
composed
of
three
necessary
different
parts
,
one
Soveraigne
,
the
others
Subject
,
some
appearing
for
their
own
interests
,
others
representatively
for
them
that
sent
them
,
and
all
ballanced
in
such
a
geometricall
equality
,
as
is
proper
for
the
conservation
of
their
severall
rights
and
interests
from
any
extream
predominance
of
one
of
the
parts
above
the
other
.
Then
can
they
not
be
assemblies
of
resumption
of
the
peoples
supposed
power
,
for
in
such
imaginary
assemblies
,
there
must
be
a
dissolution
of
all
constitute
orders
,
degrees
,
and
qualities
of
the
parts
,
and
all
the
members
must
be
reduced
to
a
naturall
coequality
undistinguished
by
any
difference
,
of
quality
,
degree
or
priviledges
whatsoever
:
so
as
there
must
be
neither
King
,
nor
Peers
,
nor
any
office
or
power
of
the
former
State
remaining
,
but
all
resolved
into
a
meere
Chaos
,
till
all
be
new
framed
by
the
deity
of
the
people
.
So
farre
therefore
are
our
Parliaments
from
the
nature
of
such
assemblies
,
as
that
the
endeavour
of
introducing
of
such
Assemblies
is
most
seditious
,
traiterous
,
and
destructive
,
not
only
to
the
person
and
dignity
of
the
King
,
to
the
Crowne
Imperiall
and
to
the
Kingdome
it selfe
(
whose
well
ballanced
rights
have
(
beside
other
tyes
)
beene
so
often
,
so
solemnely
,
and
by
so
many
of
us
,
even
by
our
whole
representative
body
sworne
to
be
defended
)
but
even
to
the
rights
,
priviledges
,
and
being
,
of
the
blessed
Ordinance
of
our
Peace
and
well-fare
our
very
Parliaments
themselves
.
For
we
must
know
,
that
our
law
(
taking
notice
,
that
in
every
State
,
there
are
three
parties
capable
of
just
or
unjust
Soveraignty
;
that
is
to
say
,
some
Prince
;
the
Nobles
;
and
the
People
)
judged
no
government
so
safe
and
assured
,
as
where
every
of
the
three
parties
capable
of
Soveraignty
,
were
in
some
sort
admitted
to
a
participation
of
it
,
but
so
admitted
,
as
that
still
the
Soveraignty
should
cleerly
remaine
to
Him
that
ought
to
be
the
Soveraigne
.
And
to
this
end
,
our
law
(
having
first
through
the
piety
of
our
law-giving
Princes
obtained
a
just
&
regular
course
of
government
;
the
stability
whereof
it
found
to
be
more
concerned
in
the
power
of
making
lawes
,
then
in
any
other
power
belonging
to
the
Soveraigne
)
did
for
preventing
innovations
that
might
subvert
that
setled
regularity
:
in
such
a
sort
establish
the
frame
of
State
and
government
,
as
that
the
Prince
should
have
his
hands
bound
up
from
using
the
legislative
power
without
the
concurrence
of
the
Peers
and
Commons
.
But
then
,
to
the
end
that
they
(
whose
consent
was
brought
in
only
to
prevent
the
evill
which
absolute
power
might
worke
against
the
setled
frame
of
the
State
)
might
not
themselves
become
that
evill
,
which
they
were
called
to
prevent
:
The
Law
gave
to
them
no
more
interest
in
the
legislative
power
then
it
had
still
left
in
the
hands
of
the
Prince
,
to
wit
,
to
every
of
the
three
parties
,
the
King
,
the
Peers
,
and
the
Commons
,
an
equall
power
of
assent
or
dissent
in
making
of
new
Law
.
And
so
by
opposing
the
single
power
of
every
one
of
them
,
to
the
votes
of
every
other
two
;
made
so
secure
a
ballancing
of
their
powers
one
against
another
;
as
that
no
practice
of
any
two
of
them
can
doe
any
thing
to
the
prejudice
or
diminution
of
the
third
,
without
that
third
party
it selfe
doe
give
consēt
unto
it
.
Nor
did
the
providence
of
the
Law
here
rest
.
But
considering
that
in
the
power
of
making
Lawes
it
had
now
opposed
the
powers
of
two
numerous
bodies
,
against
the
power
of
the
single
Soveraigne
.
It
foresaw
,
and
feared
that
by
the
Soveraignes
consenting
to
Lawes
for
the
ease
and
benefit
of
the
Subject
,
things
might
passe
to
the
prejudice
and
diminution
of
the
soveraignty
,
if
the
single
person
of
the
soveraigne
(
surcharged
with
the
care
of
the
manifold
affaires
of
the
Kingdome
)
should
be
left
all
alone
to
advise
and
dispute
His
Right
against
all
the
wisedome
and
sollicitation
of
the
numerous
body
of
the
Subject
.
To
prevent
that
:
it
ordained
,
that
the
King
should
at
His
owne
discretion
sweare
unto
Himselfe
a
body
of
Councell
,
to
advise
Him
in
the
concernements
of
His
Soveraigne
Rights
,
and
safety
(
which
is
His
Privy-Councell
)
and
a
body
of
Councell
at
law
,
to
advise
Him
that
He
may
neither
doe
,
nor
suffer
contrary
to
the
rule
of
Law
.
And
through
this
even
Counter-poise
&
ballance
of
all
the
three
States
of
Parliament
(
as
through
a
meanes
wherewith
God
hath
especially
blessed
us
above
other
Lands
)
doe
we
enjoy
the
assurance
of
a
regular
freedome
,
under
the
government
of
a
just
and
legitimate
soveraignty
.
In
which
,
if
without
the
free
concurrence
of
every
of
the
three
ordained
parties
,
there
shall
be
any
invasion
and
exercise
of
the
legislative
power
;
then
shall
the
well
ballanced
frame
of
legitimate
law-making
be
overthrowne
,
and
with
it
,
the
rightfull
being
and
use
of
Parliaments
destroyed
.
But
the
Observor
having
not
ascribed
such
underived
Majesty
to
Assemblies
of
the
Community
,
to
the
end
to
maintaine
the
rights
of
Parliaments
,
but
to
innovate
Parliaments
to
the
destruction
of
their
true
being
,
and
to
the
transformation
of
the
State
and
government
.
Howsoever
that
fol.
15.
he
tells
us
only
of
some
defects
in
Parliament
that
might
receive
amendment
:
yet
let
's
he
slip
,
that
those
Defects
,
are
Divisions
betweene
the
two
Houses
,
and
betweene
the
King
and
them
.
Now
Division
being
almost
inevitable
,
and
power
of
dissenting
necessary
for
ballancing
the
three
differing
parts
of
Parliament
,
to
prevent
this
power
of
dissenting
,
were
to
destroy
the
ballance
and
being
of
Parliaments
,
and
to
make
them
Courts
of
popularity
,
where
they
that
please
the
People
should
absolutely
carry
all
things
.
Though
therefore
he
here
discovers
his
designe
,
yet
being
assured
not
to
bring
it
about
,
but
by
misleading
the
most
faithfull
and
well-affected
both
to
true
established
Religion
&
Government
,
He
covertly
pursues
His
purpose
altogether
under
the
shew
of
vindicating
the
Rights
,
Priviledges
,
&
being
of
Parliaments
.
So
,
whereas
our
Parliaments
are
assemblies
wherein
the
whole
State
in
three
distinct
formall
parts
convenes
in
Councell
,
&
wherein
every
of
those
three
parts
have
free
power
of
allowing
or
disallowing
of
any
thing
propounded
for
a
law
,
and
wherein
the
law
taketh
notice
of
no
vote
,
nor
act
,
for
any
generall
law
,
save
what
doth
passe
with
concurrence
of
all
the
three
parts
of
the
Assembly
,
The
Observor
tells
us
,
that
for
the
King
to
say
,
that
without
the
Kings
concurrence
and
consent
,
Parliaments
are
without
all
power
,
this
at
one
blow
confounds
all
Parliaments
,
and
subjects
us
to
as
unbounded
a
Regiment
of
the
Kings
will
,
as
any
Nation
under
Heaven
ever
suffered
under
.
And
his
reason
is
,
If
Kings
may
so
frustrate
Parliaments
,
He
may
by
the
same
meanes
frustrate
all
inferiour
Courts
,
&
then
farewell
Law
,
Right
,
Liberty
,
and
all
things
.
O
impudence
!
does
His
Majesty
in
this
claime
more
,
then
either
the
House
of
Peers
to
it selfe
,
or
the
House
of
Commons
to
it selfe
challengeth
?
Nay
,
claimes
His
Majesty
more
then
He
acknowledgeth
due
by
the
Law
to
each
of
the
two
Houses
,
as
well
as
to
Himselfe
,
freely
to
assent
or
disassent
to
what
is
propounded
for
a
Law
,
and
doe
not
,
and
have
not
,
both
they
and
His
Majesty
and
both
their
Predecessours
ever
practised
that
power
?
so
as
we
have
had
scarce
one
Parliament
wherein
either
King
or
Peers
,
or
Commons
(
or
perhaps
every
one
of
them
)
have
not
severally
dissented
from
the
votes
each
of
other
two
and
tye
their
dissent
frustrated
the
votes
of
the
other
two
,
and
yet
(
God
be
praised
)
our
Parliaments
doe
,
and
(
we
hope
)
still
shall
continue
,
notwithstanding
such
undermining
foxes
would
bring
that
three
fold
Cord
of
our
State
,
into
the
singlestring
of
a
popular
Assembly
,
and
all
things
so
into
confusion
?
And
how
false
is
the
consequence
that
if
the
King
by
dissenting
may
make
voyd
,
the
sentence
of
the
two
Houses
of
Parliament
He
may
also
voyd
the
sentence
of
any
inferiour
Court
of
Iustice
?
When
in
Parliament
,
the
law
hath
appointed
the
King
Himselfe
to
give
His
owne
Vote
and
consent
,
personally
if
He
will
,
or
by
His
Letters
under
His
great
Seale
,
if
He
will
.
But
in
inferiour
Courts
hath
appointed
none
to
give
sentence
or
Iudgement
but
only
those
Iudges
who
in
a
definite
and
formall
way
are
ordained
to
be
the
only
Ministers
and
Deliverers
of
the
Kings
Iustice
and
Iudgement
in
that
behalfe
,
so
as
no
personall
or
instrumentall
assent
or
dissent
of
the
Kings
,
can
alter
or
frustrate
the
sentence
or
judgement
of
any
inferiour
Court
,
because
that
though
the
Iudges
there
give
the
Kings
Iudgement
,
and
not
their
owne
;
yet
the
Law
having
authorized
none
but
them
to
be
the
givers
of
the
Kings
Iudgement
there
,
it
taketh
no
notice
of
any
other
judgement
in
those
Courts
,
then
only
of
the
sworne
Iudges
themselves
,
and
though
the
King
,
the
Peers
,
and
Commons
in
Parliament
have
every
one
the
power
,
by
any
one
of
their
votes
to
frustrate
the
votes
of
two
of
them
,
from
becomming
the
Iudgement
of
the
whole
Court
:
yet
cannot
the
Vote
of
either
the
King
,
the
Peers
,
or
Commons
alone
,
or
of
any
two
of
them
,
frustrate
or
change
the
Iudgement
of
any
inferiour
Court.
And
it
is
further
to
be
observed
that
in
those
Courts
the
Iudges
judge
as
strangers
of
matters
that
concernes
others
only
and
not
themselves
and
therefore
render
Iudgement
in
invitum
,
against
the
will
of
one
of
the
parties
at
least
,
in
which
case
because
expedit
rei
publica
ut
finis
sit
litium
,
if
all
the
Iudges
agree
not
,
yet
Iudgement
shall
be
given
according
to
the
Iudgement
of
the
Major
part
.
But
now
(
contrary
to
the
use
of
inferiour
Courts
)
The
parties
in
Parliament
in
(
those
things
that
concerne
the
publique
)
meddle
not
as
meere
Iudges
,
but
as
Parties
interessed
,
with
things
that
concerne
every
of
their
owne
Rights
,
in
which
case
it
is
neither
Law
nor
reason
,
that
some
of
the
Parties
should
determine
of
that
that
concernes
all
their
mutuall
interests
,
invitâ
altera
parte
,
against
the
will
of
any
one
of
the
Parties
.
But
that
all
Parties
concurre
,
or
else
their
mutuall
interest
to
remaine
in
the
same
condition
it
was
before
,
For
Parties
cannot
meddle
with
Iudging
in
invitum
,
but
per
consensum
,
and
therefore
no
major
part
of
the
three
Parties
in
Parliament
,
but
the
consent
of
all
three
,
must
make
the
judgement
of
that
Court
,
otherwise
two
of
the
three
Parties
,
may
totally
or
in
part
oppresse
the
third
,
and
then
one
of
those
two
,
oppresse
the
other
,
and
be
a
sole
arbitrary
Tyrant
.
The
King
and
Peers
may
oppresse
the
Commons
;
the
King
and
Commons
,
may
oppresse
the
Peers
,
the
Peers
and
Commons
may
oppresse
the
King
:
and
then
the
Peers
being
easily
suppressed
by
the
Commons
,
what
shall
hinder
but
that
some
Appian
decemvirate
(
that
under
shew
of
zeale
of
reforming
Church
and
Common-wealth
,
may
carry
the
sound
and
well-affected
Subject
with
them
)
After
they
shall
have
not
only
possessed
mens
mindes
with
the
lawfulnes
of
their
authority
,
but
possessed
themselves
of
the
Militia
&
all
the
Power
of
the
Kingdome
,
and
two
or
three
yeare
kept
all
that
power
in
their
hands
,
pretending
they
cannot
sooner
perfect
their
Lawes
of
Reformation
(
though
indeed
they
doe
but
time
it
out
,
till
they
secure
all
unto
their
private
ends
)
(
as
Appius
in
all
things
did
)
what
then
(
I
say
)
shall
hinder
,
but
that
by
meanes
of
some
such
decemvirate
among
the
Commons
,
some
Appius
may
invade
an
absolute
Soveraignty
over
us
,
or
missing
that
,
resolve
yet
all
our
setled
State
,
into
an
unsure
troublesome
Aristocracy
?
or
Republique
?
The
better
to
prepare
the
way
to
some
such
upshot
.
The
Observor
findes
a
defect
in
the
frame
of
our
State
,
he
cannot
see
how
Parliaments
can
have
sufficient
power
,
to
restraine
Tyranny
,
if
they
can
doe
no
Act
without
the
Kings
consent
.
And
he
findes
,
that
if
Princes
in
matters
that
concerne
the
publique
,
be
admitted
to
preferre
weake
opinions
(
as
he
calls
them
)
before
Parliamentary
motives
,
then
Parliaments
are
vaine
,
Princes
unlimitable
,
and
Subjects
miserable
.
The
Observer
will
be
more
wise
and
faithfull
then
the
Law
it selfe
,
and
looking
only
one
way
,
tells
us
of
insufficient
provision
for
restraint
of
regall
power
,
without
some
coercive
superintendant
be
placed
over
it
.
But
the
law
that
lookes
every
way
,
tells
us
,
that
the
erecting
of
such
a
superintending
power
,
would
unsoveraigne
our
King
,
and
make
that
superintending
power
Soveraign
and
when
it
were
made
,
the
exercise
of
it
would
be
subject
to
more
dangerous
extravagances
then
regall
power
is
,
and
yet
lesse
capable
of
regulation
then
it
.
Therefore
the
law
(
knowing
that
there
is
none
but
God
,
qui
custodiat
ipsos
custodes
,
that
can
restraine
supream
Governours
,
and
knowing
that
nothing
in
this
world
can
be
reduced
to
so
absolute
a
perfection
of
setlednesse
,
but
that
in
the
last
meanes
it
must
meerly
depend
upon
the
providence
of
God
)
after
a
full
consideration
of
the
weaknesse
and
imperfection
of
every
severall
forme
of
Government
,
concludes
,
that
the
Soveraignty
was
better
placed
in
the
hands
of
a
sole
Prince
,
then
in
a
popular
,
or
Aristocraticall
hand
,
and
that
a
positive
knowne
law
,
without
any
coercive
superintendant
,
was
a
sufficient
and
the
best
boundary
of
regall
power
,
against
any
irregularity
whatsoever
,
especially
when
the
law
(
being
backed
with
a
Parliament
of
all
the
orders
of
the
Kingdome
)
shall
thereby
find
meanes
of
discovery
and
manifestation
,
both
of
the
truth
of
the
law
it selfe
,
and
likewise
of
the
violation
of
it
.
For
the
law
,
and
the
transgression
of
the
law
,
being
both
at
once
made
manifest
and
notorious
,
that
will
so
sufficient
a
security
of
the
future
observance
of
the
law
,
as
Princes
will
not
further
endure
to
violate
it
;
because
(
as
the
Poet
saies
)
Nec
pueros
coram
populo
Medea
trucidat
,
Aut
humana
palam
coquit
exta
nefarius
Atreus
.
Infamous
acts
will
not
endure
to
be
committed
in
the
sight
of
all
the
world
.
Therefore
to
say
truth
the
Observor's
conceipt
of
having
some
superiour
power
to
enforce
the
law
that
should
regulate
the
power
of
the
Soveraigne
Prince
,
is
a
meere
false
conception
,
of
an
heart
as
traiterous
to
God
as
to
his
Prince
,
who
would
have
absolute
security
by
an
arme
of
flesh
,
when
no
such
can
be
given
to
it
.
For
,
to
regulate
his
Prince
,
he
would
not
only
have
a
law
,
but
a
superiour
power
to
enforce
that
law
;
and
such
a
superiour
power
being
once
erected
,
that
must
also
be
either
boundlesse
,
or
must
be
circumscribed
with
a
law
:
if
circumscribed
with
a
law
,
then
also
must
that
law
have
a
superiour
coercive
power
,
to
enforce
it
,
and
so
must
we
have
superiour
Power
,
over
superiour
Power
,
usque
ad
infinitum
,
and
yet
at
last
,
leave
the
most
superiour
power
,
in
that
liberty
which
the
Observour
calleth
boundlesse
,
arbitrary
,
and
tyrannicall
.
And
how
absurd
a
thing
is
it
to
imagine
,
That
when
the
Law
hath
trusted
the
soveraigne
Power
in
the
hands
of
the
King
,
it
should
again
distrust
Him
and
unsoveraigne
Him
,
and
place
in
another
the
soveraignty
of
the
same
soveraign
Trust
?
and
with
a
second
absurdity
leave
in
the
Kings
hand
the
Power
of
calling
together
and
dissolving
the
power
whereby
He
himselfe
should
be
constrained
?
and
(
to
make
up
all
)
should
by
authority
of
that
power
,
constrain
all
the
Heads
of
the
people
,
and
even
the
representative
body
of
that
power
,
by
solemne
oath
,
to
declare
that
the
King
is
not
only
Supream
Governour
,
but
that
He
is
the
only
Supream
Governour
,
when
(
such
a
superiour
power
admitted
)
he
can
be
neither
only
,
nor
at
all
,
Supream
.
But
the
Observour
aiming
more
to
subvert
what
is
established
,
then
to
reduce
things
unto
their
first
establishment
,
quarrels
still
with
the
Regall
power
;
and
he
reasons
,
that
whether
or
no
the
Law
gives
the
single
Person
of
the
Prince
as
full
and
free
a
Vote
to
assent
or
not
assent
,
as
it
doth
to
either
the
House
of
Peers
or
House
of
Commons
,
yet
is
not
the
Prince
to
use
the
liberty
of
His
Vote
licentiously
,
but
advisedly
and
by
Councell
,
and
what
Councell
can
He
have
more
wise
,
faithfull
and
impartiall
,
then
theirs
that
represent
the
whole
Kingdom
,
who
cannot
be
supposed
to
have
private
ends
as
Courtiers
,
Cavaliers
,
and
private
men
may
have
?
Truly
that
Princes
ought
with
great
respect
to
hearken
to
the
advice
and
information
of
the
great
Councell
of
the
body
of
their
people
,
who
can
so
much
as
make
a
question
of
it
?
But
why
should
these
things
be
objected
to
His
Majesty
?
For
what
Prince
of
all
his
Predecessors
hath
so
much
harkened
&
condescended
to
his
great
Councell
,
as
His
Majesty
at
once
hath
done
unto
this
present
Parliament
?
Not
any
one
;
Nay
,
not
the
whole
succession
of
His
predecessors
since
the
granting
of
the
great
Charter
hath
done
the
like
.
Witnesse
the
condescending
to
the
Earle
of
Staffords
attainder
,
the
damning
of
Ship-mony
,
and
of
all
Monopolies
,
the
Star-Chamber
,
and
high
Commission
Court
,
the
taking
away
of
the
Votes
of
Bishops
&
of
Popish
Lords
,
the
parting
with
the
long
used
power
of
imposing
upon
merchandize
,
bounding
of
Forrests
,
and
yeelding
to
the
regulation
of
whatsoever
further
greivance
should
be
found
in
the
common-wealth
.
And
(
for
a
seale
of
observance
of
all
)
the
granting
of
a
Trienniall
Parliament
,
and
the
perpetuating
of
this
present
Parliament
.
With
what
dispensation
of
the
violating
of
Christianity
can
a
Subject
(
through
all
these
presumptions
to
the
contrary
)
charge
his
Soveraigne
with
aversnes
to
publique
counsell
,
and
inclination
to
private
whi
perers
?
O
that
being
at
once
possest
of
so
many
not
long
since
unhoped
for
satisfactions
,
we
might
not
want
hearts
to
enjoy
them
and
acknowledge
them
.
But
the
two
Houses
thought
the
Kingdome
in
imminent
danger
,
and
desired
it
should
be
put
in
a
posture
of
defence
,
and
His
Majesty
by
evill
Counsell
refused
and
deserted
them
.
Truly
the
Observour
neither
doth
nor
can
shew
,
that
His
Majesty
,
upon
the
Parliaments
apprehension
of
danger
,
refused
to
take
order
for
the
defence
of
the
Kingdom
;
for
the
contrary
thereof
is
true
.
And
in
His
seeking
to
secure
it
by
a
military
posture
,
He
so
farre
condescended
to
the
satisfaction
of
His
Parliament
,
as
that
He
offered
to
change
the
persons
,
that
in
any
County
had
the
charge
of
the
Militia
,
if
His
Parliament
made
any
just
exception
to
any
of
them
.
And
for
His
Maiesties
comming
to
the
Parliament
to
Westminster
,
even
in
that
also
He
so
farre
hearkned
to
them
as
that
he
offered
,
that
if
,
to
secure
future
seditions
,
they
would
make
some
exemplar
punishment
of
the
Actors
in
the
late
seditious
Tumults
there
,
He
would
even
come
thither
.
And
being
refused
in
that
:
He
notwithstanding
,
offered
them
to
come
to
any
other
indifferent
place
.
As
for
the
place
where
they
now
sit
,
who
(
that
hath
vowed
His
Faith
to
the
Lawes
of
the
Land
,
and
to
the
Priviledge
of
Parliament
)
can
in
such
conscience
as
He
will
answer
God
withall
,
hold
that
a
place
of
indifference
and
of
freedom
to
vote
in
,
where
the
people
in
Tumult
demanded
of
the
House
of
Commons
to
know
who
were
the
Lords
that
refused
to
vote
with
them
,
and
where
some
of
the
Peers
were
assaulted
by
the
multitude
for
having
differed
in
their
votes
from
them
,
and
yet
none
of
those
Tumulters
were
punished
or
ever
questioned
for
it
?
But
ere
we
leave
this
point
of
hearkning
to
the
advice
of
Parliamet
,
we
must
consider
too
,
that
though
we
grant
it
behoovefull
for
the
King
to
hearken
to
His
Parliament
,
we
must
not
understand
it
so
behoovefull
,
as
that
there
should
be
inevitable
necessity
laid
upon
Him
,
that
He
must
follow
whatsoever
they
advise
,
for
then
at
one
blow
we
overthrow
the
fundamentall
Law
&
frame
of
Parliaments
.
If
from
any
of
the
three
formall
parts
of
the
Parliament
we
take
away
the
freedome
of
voting
,
to
assent
or
dissent
,
we
breake
the
threefold
cord
of
the
State
,
we
cast
away
the
ballance
of
it
,
&
even
dissolve
the
very
frame
it selfe
.
If
when
for
necessity
of
State
,
the
Head
assembles
the
whole
body
in
Counsell
,
(
where
the
Law
gives
the
Head
one
vote
of
three
,
and
allowes
Him
a
Body
of
Privy
Councell
to
maintain
the
proper
Rights
of
the
Head
)
the
Head
may
not
use
that
Power
which
the
Law
giveth
it
,
no
not
in
case
the
two
other
partes
contest
&
claime
part
of
the
Right
belonging
to
the
Head
,
&
where
(
by
Law
)
the
Vote
of
the
Head
is
opposed
in
ballance
,
to
the
moderation
of
those
two
powers
;
as
well
as
their
powers
are
opposed
in
ballance
to
the
power
of
the
head
;
but
that
the
Head
must
do
all
things
according
to
the
advice
&
counsell
of
the
two
parts
,
which
are
the
body
of
the
Subject
.
Then
all
that
solemne
forme
of
Law
,
that
calleth
the
Head
,
Soveraign
:
that
authoriseth
the
Head
to
swear
a
body
of
Privy
Councell
;
to
convoke
the
Nobles
and
Commons
in
publique
Counsell
;
to
call
to
that
Counsell
whom
He
thinker
good
:
to
take
homage
of
the
Peers
,
and
Oath
of
Supreamacy
of
the
Commons
:
and
having
used
their
Counsell
,
at
His
Iudgement
to
dissolve
it
.
All
this
(
I
say
)
is
then
a
meer
misleading
formality
of
the
law
,
The
Soveraignty
(
against
all
our
Oathes
and
expressions
to
the
contrary
)
is
not
in
the
King
but
in
the
people
;
the
King
is
the
only
Subject
,
and
but
a
common
vouchee
,
whose
concurrence
is
unavoidably
implyed
;
His
will
,
his
understanding
,
and
his
power
(
though
he
be
acknowledged
Head
,
Soveraigne
,
and
chief
residence
of
authority
)
is
all
subjected
to
the
body
of
the
very
Subject
that
in
Parliament
doth
sweare
subjection
to
Him
.
The
tripartite
frame
of
a
Parliament
of
three
Estates
,
is
a
vanishing
apparition
:
there
is
really
nothing
but
a
meer
popular
assembly
,
not
of
Subjects
but
Soveraignes
.
The
Crowne
Imperiall
and
Kingdome
it selfe
,
(
though
asserted
by
our
solemnest
Acts
of
Recognition
and
oathes
of
the
body
representative
,
)
are
meer
non
entia
,
we
are
but
a
Republique
,
and
the
chief
Head
of
the
Kingdome
hath
not
(
beside
the
name
)
more
of
a
King
,
then
the
Duke
of
Venice
,
or
the
Prince
of
Orange
.
And
this
being
hid
ever
since
the
first
beginning
of
the
Kingdome
;
the
whole
generation
of
the
Subject
ever
since
,
hath
by
the
injury
of
our
Lawes
,
been
most
impiously
mis-worne
in
their
allegiance
;
and
the
errour
hath
never
been
discovered
till
the
whole
Kingdome
(
having
now
solemnly
sworne
to
stand
to
,
and
defend
the
Lawes
)
cannot
receade
from
their
wrong-sworn
obedience
,
but
with
the
guilt
of
universall
perjury
,
and
under
the
burthen
of
that
guilt
,
expose
an
old
grown
Kingdom
,
to
the
hazards
of
a
new
framed
Common-wealth
.
All
this
does
necessarily
follow
,
if
we
take
away
the
freedome
of
the
Kings
assent
and
dissent
in
Parliament
;
or
barre
Him
of
the
use
of
His
Counsells
advice
therein
.
I
should
little
need
to
say
any
thing
concerning
that
which
the
Observour
so
much
pretends
that
Communities
,
and
universalities
of
men
,
are
voyd
of
corrupt
affections
and
of
private
ends
,
and
that
therefore
their
desires
are
alwayes
lust
,
and
their
councell
faithfull
and
impartiall
.
But
when
in
the
fallacy
of
this
perswasion
there
lyes
(
I
fear
)
a
great
part
of
the
sinne
,
for
which
Gods
anger
now
so
publiquely
doth
shew
it selfe
upon
us
,
I
would
be
loath
to
passe
it
over
without
any
touch
at
all
.
I
feare
we
are
too
diffident
to
rest
upon
the
ordinance
of
God
:
I
feare
we
are
too
confident
of
our selves
,
as
if
our
owne
naturall
providence
(
if
we
were
left
unto
it
)
were
beyond
any
other
meanes
of
safety
,
although
it
were
the
ordinance
of
God
unto
us
.
A
word
or
two
shall
not
therefore
be
unnecessary
concerning
the
corruptions
&
errors
that
even
communities
themselves
are
often
subject
to
.
That
Communities
are
lesse
subject
to
private
ends
and
affections
then
particular
men
are
,
is
true
:
but
it
is
also
true
,
that
they
are
not
absolutely
free
from
them
,
and
when
they
fall
into
them
,
they
are
more
fatally
violent
and
dangerous
.
And
though
one
would
think
it
repugnant
,
that
an
universality
(
which
conteines
the
whole
publique
)
should
have
private
ends
;
or
that
that
should
any
way
be
counted
private
,
which
they
that
conteine
the
publique
doe
pursue
:
yet
seeing
it
is
not
the
number
of
agents
,
but
the
capacity
in
which
they
act
,
the
quality
of
their
acting
,
and
the
coherence
or
incoherence
of
what
they
pursue
,
with
the
publiques
end
and
weale
;
that
makes
the
actions
of
men
publique
or
private
:
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
if
without
authority
,
or
out
of
the
way
of
the
publique
ordinance
,
men
pursue
any
thing
(
though
the
whole
community
concurre
in
the
pursuit
)
yet
is
all
of
the
nature
of
a
private
action
,
done
to
a
corrupt
and
private
end
,
for
though
the
thing
intended
be
to
the
present
good
of
the
publique
,
yet
being
beside
the
ordinance
and
way
,
it
is
in
consequence
against
the
good
and
weale
of
the
publique
,
&
so
against
the
very
ends
of
the
publique
.
And
as
in
the
body
naturall
a
very
few
members
(
that
is
none
but
the
eyes
)
have
the
sense
of
seeing
,
but
all
the
members
have
the
sense
of
feeling
.
so
in
Communities
all
have
the
sence
of
enjoying
good
,
or
suffering
evill
:
but
very
few
the
faculty
of
discerning
the
cause
and
means
of
either
.
Yet
the
major
part
of
the
Community
(
more
carried
by
sense
then
true
discerning
)
oft
makes
the
judgement
of
the
whole
Community
,
and
brings
it
to
act
that
,
that
agreeth
not
with
the
intended
weale
of
the
Comity
.
By
this
means
(
at
the
best
)
the
whole
universality
of
the
Israelites
(
contrary
to
their
own
finall
good
and
prosperity
)
forced
their
Priest
to
set
them
up
golden
Calves
.
By
this
meanes
the
universality
of
them
againe
revolted
from
David
(
their
King
by
Gods
immediate
Ordination
)
to
Absolom
an
usurper
.
By
this
means
the
universality
of
the
tenne
Tribes
,
for
redresse
of
their
grievances
,
rebelled
against
Davids
Grand-child
,
and
set
up
Jeroboam
,
who
reviving
their
own
affected
false
religion
,
authorized
that
sinne
which
pursued
them
in
their
extirpation
.
It
is
therefore
an
untruth
,
to
say
that
Communities
can
have
no
private
ends
,
and
a
belying
of
the
Law
and
Truth
to
say
(
as
fol.
22.
)
that
ever
there
was
such
a
Maxime
.
But
it
will
be
said
,
that
though
in
Communities
the
body
at
large
(
in
which
the
vulgar
is
the
greatest
part
)
may
be
subject
to
corrupt
affections
and
ends
;
yet
the
body
representative
,
which
is
the
Choice
of
the
Community
,
is
to
be
presumed
free
from
corrupt
ends
and
affections
,
and
therefore
most
wise
,
faithfull
,
and
assured
.
Truly
we
pray
,
that
since
in
this
knot
lye
many
scruples
that
wring
the
consciences
of
thousands
in
our
Israel
,
we
may
with
modest
freedom
,
reason
the
things
that
tend
to
clearing
the
honour
and
observance
due
to
representatives
.
To
whom
we
acknowledge
the
highest
honour
and
observance
that
can
be
given
to
the
body
represented
.
But
the
honour
and
authority
of
the
representative
will
alwaies
depend
upon
two
things
,
that
is
,
the
quality
and
condition
of
the
body
represented
,
and
the
quality
of
the
representation
it selfe
:
for
as
that
is
more
or
lesse
proper
and
lively
,
so
will
it
derive
more
or
lesse
authority
and
reputation
.
If
therefore
the
body
at
large
be
an
absolute
free
soveraigne
(
as
is
the
Community
of
a
right
Republique
)
the
true
representative
of
that
body
is
then
to
be
observed
with
all
soveraigne
honour
and
due
subjection
:
but
if
the
body
at
large
be
it selfe
a
Subject
,
the
honour
and
authority
of
the
representative
cannot
exceed
the
honour
and
authority
of
a
Subject
:
for
none
can
make
their
image
more
then
they
themselves
are
.
Next
then
,
(
besides
that
all
representations
how
plenarily
soever
authorized
,
must
ever
be
subject
to
the
condition
of
the
body
represented
)
The
repute
and
authority
of
representatives
,
will
also
follow
the
soundnesse
or
weaknesse
,
exactnesse
or
imperfection
of
the
representation
it selfe
.
For
if
throughout
an
whole
Community
the
representers
be
equally
and
proportionably
ordained
according
to
the
true
relative
interest
,
that
each
part
which
sendeth
them
hath
to
the
whole
publique
(
as
in
the
united
Provinces
they
are
)
there
will
be
all
full
acknowledgement
of
authority
to
the
representative
,
that
possibly
can
be
to
the
body
at
large
:
and
there
will
also
be
some
presumption
that
the
representers
are
authorized
,
to
determine
soveraignly
of
those
things
that
concerne
the
publique
.
But
if
(
on
the
other
side
)
there
be
no
equality
,
in
making
representers
,
observed
:
but
that
some
parts
send
as
many
as
others
that
are
an
hundred
times
greater
and
more
considerable
,
both
in
power
and
support
of
burthen
in
the
Commonwealth
and
if
for
some
of
the
parts
none
are
admitted
to
choose
the
representers
,
but
substantiall
legall
Freeholders
,
and
for
other
parts
all
are
admitted
of
what
condition
soever
.
And
if
the
number
of
those
that
are
unproportionably
and
promiscuously
chosen
,
doe
three
or
foure
fold
,
exceed
the
number
of
them
that
are
strictly
chosen
for
the
most
principall
part
of
the
Community
.
And
lastly
,
if
it
lye
in
the
power
of
some
other
authority
to
give
to
some
particular
Townes
the
power
of
sending
representers
,
equall
in
number
to
the
greatest
Provinces
of
the
Community
.
These
circumstances
will
not
only
detract
from
the
repute
and
authority
that
a
more
exact
representative
of
the
Community
might
have
,
but
vehemently
demonstrate
that
the
institution
and
end
of
such
a
representative
is
rather
to
minister
information
of
the
state
and
condition
of
every
of
those
particular
places
and
advice
,
and
assistance
to
some
other
soveraigne
,
and
to
consent
with
him
,
then
to
determine
soveraignly
it selfe
.
To
come
then
to
the
Objection
of
the
assurednesse
of
Representatives
in
their
judgement
and
fidelity
.
If
in
Kingdoms
,
we
by
the
representative
body
of
the
Community
meane
a
perfect
representation
of
the
whole
body
Politique
,
so
as
that
the
head
as
well
as
the
other
parts
doe
freely
cooperate
and
concurre
(
as
in
our
Acts
of
Parliament
it
ever
doth
)
then
can
we
presume
no
other
Counsaile
more
assuredly
wise
,
faithfull
,
or
safe
for
the
publique
,
then
is
the
counsaile
of
the
universall
representative
in
that
sense
.
But
if
by
the
representative
,
we
mean
the
representation
of
the
grosse
of
the
body
without
the
head
,
(
that
is
,
the
representative
of
the
body
of
the
Subject
only
)
then
is
the
assertion
false
,
for
the
Law
presumes
not
in
the
representative
of
the
Subject
,
so
assured
judgement
and
fidelity
for
government
,
as
it
doth
in
the
soveraigne
head
alone
,
for
then
it
would
not
have
placed
the
soveraignty
in
the
head
,
but
in
the
representative
of
the
grosse
of
the
body
.
But
the
Law
knowing
both
Communities
themselves
,
subject
to
dangerous
inclinations
from
private
incitements
,
and
their
representatives
likewise
subject
to
misleadings
,
factions
and
ambitions
of
private
men
,
hath
(
as
in
the
most
assured
place
,
placed
the
soveraignty
in
the
head
,
and
the
head
so
having
the
ordinance
,
both
for
judgement
and
for
government
,
where
the
ordinance
is
,
there
is
the
blessing
and
there
the
best
assurance
.
We
need
not
seek
examples
how
representative
bodies
of
Subjects
moving
without
consent
of
their
head
have
been
misled
:
there
is
not
one
imitable
example
to
be
found
that
ever
the
representative
of
the
Subject
,
moved
to
act
soveraignly
without
the
consent
of
the
head
.
But
we
have
examples
of
soveraigne
representatives
,
in
Republiques
themselves
,
notoriously
misled
by
private
men
;
was
there
ever
a
more
reverend
representative
then
the
Roman
Senate
,
yet
did
not
Appius
and
his
Faction
,
under
the
Colour
of
a
Dec●mvirate
(
or
Comittee
of
reformation
)
so
blind
that
Senate
,
as
to
work
them
to
conferre
all
the
power
of
the
Commonwealth
into
his
,
and
his
Factious
hands
,
to
the
subversion
of
the
common
liberty
?
so
as
that
if
by
accident
he
had
not
been
taken
away
,
he
had
made
himselfe
Prince
?
And
was
not
that
soveraigne
representative
,
another
time
wholly
swayed
and
caried
by
Marius
and
Sulpitius
?
Sure
as
nothing
is
more
wholsome
for
the
publique
,
then
that
the
Soveraigne
of
a
Kingdom
should
often
have
the
advice
of
the
body
representative
of
the
Community
,
so
is
it
most
dangerous
for
the
publique
to
have
the
advice
of
the
Community
enforced
on
the
Soveraigne
.
Least
so
that
that
should
be
for
Our
good
,
be
unto
us
an
occasion
of
falling
.
But
the
Observour
insists
not
so
much
,
that
the
representative
body
is
the
great
Councell
of
the
King
and
Kingdom
:
as
that
it
is
the
supream
judge
and
the
most
soveraigne
power
.
If
the
Prince
(
saith
he
)
be
seduced
,
some
Court
must
judge
of
the
seducement
,
and
some
power
enforce
that
judgement
,
and
that
must
be
the
Parliament
(
meaning
the
two
houses
of
Parliament
.
)
We
have
already
shewed
the
absurdity
of
a
superior
power
to
enforce
the
Soveraigne
:
but
farther
to
dissolve
all
difficulties
in
this
false
assertion
,
we
must
know
that
in
Parliament
there
are
diverse
kinds
of
judgements
.
And
that
the
meer
representative
body
,
that
is
,
the
house
of
Commons
solely
,
hath
not
any
judicatory
power
by
it selfe
,
unlesse
it
be
in
particular
cases
concerning
their
own
house
and
members
.
But
they
are
as
the
great
Inquest
of
the
Kingdom
to
enquire
,
discover
,
impeach
,
&c.
The
house
of
Peeres
hath
generally
in
all
things
judgement
preparatory
in
order
to
judgement
of
Parliament
,
as
to
give
Oath
,
to
take
recognisance
,
to
fine
,
to
imprison
&c.
In
matters
that
come
before
them
bywrit
of
Error
,
it
hath
judgement
decisive
to
determine
and
adjudge
Law
.
But
this
judgement
it
hath
not
as
it
is
part
of
the
representative
body
:
for
the
representative
body
hath
not
therein
any
part
with
it
.
But
the
house
of
Peeres
alone
hath
this
superior
judgement
,
as
great
Court
of
the
Kings
Barons
of
the
Kingdom
,
which
being
assisted
with
the
Iudges
of
all
the
Benches
,
is
by
formall
Ordinance
of
Law
in
all
matters
so
coming
before
it
,
the
proper
and
immediat
superior
Iudge
of
Law
.
But
it
is
not
absolute
supreme
Iudge
of
Law
in
all
things
:
and
therefore
it
cannot
revoke
the
judgement
which
it selfe
hath
given
.
Neither
can
the
House
of
Commons
,
nor
the
two
houses
together
revoke
,
or
anull
any
judgement
given
in
the
House
of
Peeres
,
or
elsewhere
;
therefore
also
the
two
Houses
are
not
supream
judges
or
declarers
of
Law
.
The
Observer
(
fol.
44.
)
tells
you
the
reason
,
To
be
supream
judge
or
declarer
of
Law
is
all
one
as
to
be
supream
maker
of
Law
,
and
that
you
know
the
two
Houses
are
not
.
But
in
the
whole
three
Estates
of
Parliament
,
that
is
,
in
the
King
,
the
Peeres
and
Commons
,
there
and
there
only
are
all
powers
ingredient
,
for
they
upon
Bill
are
not
only
judges
of
the
last
resort
,
to
reverse
the
judgement
of
the
House
of
Peeres
and
of
inferior
Courts
,
but
they
can
repeale
and
restore
,
and
repeale
againe
in
infinitum
their
own
Iudgements
and
Acts.
And
they
can
not
only
declare
the
Law
but
they
can
make
the
law
,
and
none
but
they
.
They
alone
are
they
that
cannot
be
bound
by
precedents
or
Acts
of
Parliament
,
they
alone
are
they
that
have
the
Legislative
Power
:
and
therefore
they
,
and
only
they
that
have
the
absolute
Supream
Iudgement
of
the
Law
.
But
(
saith
the
Observer
)
The
King
deserts
His
Parliament
,
implying
that
then
the
two
houses
must
be
Supream
judges
;
though
otherwise
they
were
not
.
As
well
may
he
imply
,
that
if
the
King
come
not
to
Parliament
then
are
the
two
Houses
no
more
Subiects
,
but
Soveraign's
,
yea
Soveraign's
in
the
highest
exaltation
.
Let
us
see
what
this
deserting
is
,
that
shall
so
easily
create
Soveraignty
in
Subiects
.
We
know
that
by
the
law
,
the
Kings
personal
presence
is
of
no
absolute
necessity
to
the
proceedings
of
Parliament
,
and
that
by
the
law
(
declared
and
confirmed
33.
Hen:
8.21
.
)
the
Kings
presence
is
not
necessary
at
His
giving
consents
to
Acts
passed
,
but
He
may
give
consent
in
His
absence
by
His
great
Seale
.
If
then
the
Law
count
His
personall
absence
no
deserting
:
and
as
to
deserting
for
want
of
iust
and
reasonable
consent
to
their
demands
,
His
Maiesty
be
so
little
faulty
toward
this
Parliament
,
as
that
he
hath
given
His
Consent
beyond
the
example
of
His
Predecessours
.
Where
then
shall
a
sincere
Conscience
in
any
deserting
the
King
hath
made
,
finde
warrant
enough
to
desert
this
Soveraign
,
and
acknowledge
another
Superiour
?
but
to
return
.
Diversity
of
Powers
and
authorities
exercised
in
the
severall
parts
of
Parliament
,
necessarily
causes
a
diversity
of
respect
and
observance
to
be
rendred
to
them
.
And
though
the
iudgement
of
the
representative
of
the
Subiect
(
that
is
of
the
Peers
and
Commons
)
in
those
things
wherein
it
is
properly
exercised
,
ought
to
have
esteem
and
credit
before
any
other
iudgement
of
the
Subiect
.
Yet
is
it
not
to
be
opposed
to
the
iudgement
of
the
Soveraigne
,
in
those
things
which
the
law
hath
entrusted
to
the
iudgment
of
the
Soveraign
for
the
law
trusteth
none
but
whom
it
iudgeth
to
have
judgment
,
fidelity
,
&
provision
of
all
necessary
incidents
sufficient
for
that
trust
and
then
it
preferrs
both
the
Acts
and
iudgement
,
of
the
party
trusted
,
before
any
other
iudgement
whatsoever
.
Not
is
the
iudgment
of
the
whole
Kingdome
any
whit
slighted
thereby
,
no
more
then
if
in
particular
Sciences
(
as
Divinity
,
Philosophy
,
Physick
,
Mathematique
,
&c.
)
the
iudgement
of
the
professors
of
those
Sciences
should
be
preferred
before
the
iudgement
of
the
whole
body
representative
,
for
Vnicuique
in
sua
arte
credendum
:
Matters
of
State
and
secrets
of
government
are
not
only
unfit
and
dangerous
to
be
publiquely
managed
,
by
so
numerous
a
body
as
our
representative
is
,
but
the
greater
part
are
so
little
experienced
or
able
to
manage
them
as
that
in
Edw.
the
thirds
time
,
the
House
of
Commons
themselves
(
as
the
Observour
(
fol.
6.
tell
us
)
desired
they
might
be
spared
from
giving
advice
in
those
matters
,
de
queuxals
nont
pas
cognizance
,
of
which
they
had
not
the
Cognisans
.
The
Iudgement
of
the
body
representative
it selfe
,
did
not
at
that
time
beleive
,
but
that
aswell
the
Iudgement
,
as
the
care
of
the
Ardua
Regni
,
did
cheifly
belong
to
the
King
.
To
whom
alone
,
the
Law
having
committed
the
Soveraign
Government
,
ordained
him
withall
,
a
body
of
sworn
privy
Councell
to
advise
with
therein
,
and
a
sworne
Counsell
at
Law
to
advise
Him
of
the
Rights
and
Priviledges
,
that
belong
unto
Him
as
supream
Governour
,
and
first
of
the
three
States
of
Parliament
.
If
any
of
these
sworn
Counsailers
shall
Counsaill
the
King
against
the
known
Law
,
or
any
by
their
counsaill
,
act
any
thing
against
it
:
after
legall
proceeding
and
conviction
,
it
will
soon
be
out
of
question
what
shall
become
of
them
.
But
if
without
legall
proof
of
particulars
,
such
Counsailers
shall
by
generall
vote
of
the
Subject
,
be
cēsured
private
whisperers
and
seducers
of
the
King
,
and
to
be
wholly
removed
from
Him
:
then
shall
the
King
at
once
be
dangerously
deprived
of
the
constant
meanes
which
the
Law
hath
especially
ordayned
Him
,
for
support
of
His
Right
against
the
other
two
opposed
powers
,
and
for
the
good
discharge
of
His
Kingly
office
.
Besides
if
men
shall
so
be
condemned
and
made
guilty
,
more
by
Soveraignty
and
uncontroulablenes
of
Iudgement
ascribed
to
the
condemners
,
then
by
clearnesse
of
evidence
and
legall
proof
of
any
fact
then
is
the
birth-right
of
the
Subiect
,
in
the
highest
concernment
of
Life
and
fortunes
taken
from
Him
,
and
He
muststand
and
fall
by
the
vote
of
the
people
,
that
(
like
a
Iudgement
infallible
)
shall
supply
the
office
of
both
witnes
,
Peers
,
and
Iudge
.
While
I
pursue
the
examination
of
those
things
which
the
Observour
would
have
received
for
reason
,
I
may
not
let
slip
the
observing
of
his
slye
unfaithfulnes
and
deceipt
,
to
passe
over
that
point
which
most
of
all
concernes
the
soules
and
bodyes
,
lives
and
fortunes
of
the
whole
Kingdome
,
and
all
because
his
want
of
proof
in
that
point
,
does
(
if
noted
)
overthrow
all
that
he
contends
for
.
For
though
he
argues
the
lawfulnes
of
Subjects
taking
up
Armes
and
resisting
the
Authority
and
Commands
of
the
King
,
under
the
warrant
of
a
generall
rule
to
this
effect
,
That
in
extream
perill
and
failance
of
ordinary
meanes
,
any
extraordinary
meanes
may
be
taken
for
the
safety
of
the
People
:
yet
finding
an
impossibility
of
proving
the
State
in
such
extream
danger
(
for
indeed
such
a
danger
must
be
so
visible
to
all
men
as
not
to
need
any
proving
)
and
finding
it
also
not
possible
to
prove
a
necessity
of
the
Subjects
arming
himselfe
for
want
of
other
meanes
,
when
His
Maiesty
,
(
in
whom
the
naturall
ordinary
meanes
of
protection
is
placed
)
readily
offered
,
and
yet
offers
,
to
performe
that
regall
office
of
protecting
;
The
Observour
passes
over
the
matter
without
proving
either
danger
or
want
of
other
meanes
,
and
presses
only
the
lawfulnes
of
selfe-defence
in
extreame
danger
,
as
if
(
if
that
were
granted
)
all
men
might
take
up
Armes
whether
there
were
danger
or
no
,
and
whether
there
were
other
ordinary
meanes
of
defence
or
no
,
and
so
securely
doe
we
pursue
this
errour
,
as
that
we
with
it
swallow
any
thing
,
and
because
that
in
ordinary
providing
for
danger
before
it
threaten
;
the
ordinary
courses
of
putting
the
Kingdom
in
a
posture
of
defence
by
Commissions
of
Lievtenancy
and
of
Array
,
are
voted
illegall
;
therefore
we
not
only
admit
them
to
be
so
,
but
we
admit
also
that
the
King
(
to
whom
it
properly
belongs
to
take
order
for
the
safety
of
the
Kingdome
)
may
not
in
extreamity
of
danger
,
by
any
meanes
that
he
can
use
,
raise
Armes
,
and
put
the
Kingdome
in
a
posture
of
defence
,
but
the
Subject
(
to
whom
it
is
Treason
(
by
the
Law
)
to
raise
Forces
without
authority
from
the
King
)
he
may
(
against
the
ordinary
rule
of
Law
)
raise
Armes
in
the
very
same
forme
that
is
unlawfull
for
the
King
to
doe
,
and
all
because
of
the
extream
necessity
and
danger
.
Yet
the
very
same
necessity
and
danger
shall
not
make
it
lawfull
to
the
Right
and
proper
Authority
of
the
King
to
doe
the
very
same
thing
.
Oh
,
what
shall
we
say
,
when
at
once
,
extreame
necessity
is
pretended
,
all
wonted
formes
of
defence
(
without
shewing
a
lawfull
forme
)
are
declared
unlawfull
,
and
the
course
which
Law
abhorres
,
and
the
Conscience
of
every
Law-sworne
Christian
trembles
at
,
is
set
on
foot
,
without
the
warrant
of
the
lawfull
Soveraign
,
when
yet
he
is
ready
to
supply
that
office
in
the
Iust
and
lawfull
way
?
I
cannot
also
but
note
,
that
though
levying
of
Armes
and
putting
the
Kingdom
in
a
posture
of
defence
is
a
right
so
clearly
belonging
to
the
King
,
as
that
we
know
His
Majesty
,
&
all
His
Predecessors
have
ever
been
possessed
of
it
as
a
right
and
authority
inseperably
annexed
to
the
Crown
,
which
nere
any
have
lawfully
exercised
,
but
they
.
And
though
the
representative
body
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
(
in
them
)
every
one
of
the
body
represented
have
,
according
to
the
positive
law
,
sworn
allegiance
to
the
King
and
sworn
to
assist
and
defend
&c.
all
Priviledges
,
preheminences
,
and
authorities
belonging
to
his
highnesse
,
His
heirs
and
successors
,
or
annexed
to
the
Imperiall
Crown
of
the
Realm
&c.
Yet
is
not
the
observer
afraid
to
say
that
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
is
not
endangered
by
such
taking
of
Armes
.
Nor
is
he
affraid
to
say
that
next
to
renouncing
of
God
,
nothing
under
Heaven
can
be
more
perfidious
then
peoples
withdrawing
themselves
from
their
representations
.
As
if
Subjects
,
by
giving
authority
to
some
of
their
fellowes
to
represent
them
,
&
to
advise
,
&
consent
for
them
,
gave
them
a
power
so
much
above
the
condition
of
Subjects
,
yea
so
much
above
the
condition
of
their
Soveraign
,
as
that
neither
breach
of
faith
,
nor
Oath
,
nor
any
other
duty
unto
him
,
were
comparable
to
their
withdrawing
from
the
vote
or
act
of
their
own
representers
:
as
if
the
right
of
the
King
,
the
Crown
,
&
Kingdom
;
&
the
concurrence
of
the
three
Estates
in
Parliament
,
did
not
so
concern
the
Commons
of
the
Land
but
that
,
(
against
all
)
they
stood
soly
bound
in
allegiance
to
their
representers
as
to
the
only
Soveraignes
of
their
obedience
.
Of
that
it
may
please
the
two
honourable
Houses
to
take
into
a
serious
consideration
;
how
repugnant
these
positions
are
to
the
loyalty
of
a
true
Christian
:
how
hard
it
is
for
a
pious
conscience
to
perswade
is
selfe
,
that
they
that
broach
such
Doctrines
intend
nothing
but
the
defence
of
the
King
,
of
the
lawes
of
the
Land
,
and
of
the
true
Protestant
Religion
:
how
much
the
name
and
Maiesty
of
God
himselfe
is
blasphemed
,
when
in
a
Christian
Kingdom
that
boastes
it selfe
of
the
knowledge
and
true
profession
of
his
word
;
such
Doctrines
so
derogatory
to
Christianity
should
so
audatiously
be
maintained
:
And
lastly
,
how
much
it
must
needs
reflect
upon
their
own
honour
,
in
poynt
of
jealousie
and
distrust
(
as
if
some
ill-affected
factious
persons
had
too
great
an
influence
and
power
over
their
votes
)
when
such
impious
assertions
,
so
desperatly
misleading
the
soules
and
consciences
of
men
,
are
so
licentiously
divulged
without
any
condemnation
check
,
or
discountenances
,
from
them
though
earnestly
desired
by
His
Majesty
at
their
hands
.
I
suppose
there
remaines
not
in
the
observations
any
thing
materiall
,
that
is
not
already
answered
.
As
for
the
design
of
changing
Religion
into
Popery
,
which
the
observer
perhaps
glances
at
in
speaking
of
Popish
Prelaticall
and
Military
Courtiers
.
If
a
Christian
can
in
his
conscience
find
any
other
ground
for
such
beleife
then
only
the
opinion
of
a
judgement
,
that
would
be
beleived
rather
for
authorities
sake
,
then
for
any
thing
prooved
or
discovered
,
he
then
may
well
listen
to
it
.
But
if
instead
of
presumptions
that
way
,
he
findes
presumptions
of
intended
change
to
the
contrary
Corruption
of
Religion
,
a
good
Conscience
will
not
be
so
Popishly
affected
,
as
for
the
infallibility
of
any
judgement
,
to
beleive
contrary
to
what
his
heart
telleth
him
the
most
apparent
presumption
must
incline
him
.
For
besides
that
it
is
easier
to
bring
in
a
corruption
in
extremity
contrary
to
an
old
exploded
corruption
,
then
to
recover
that
,
that
hath
been
once
exploded
,
(
as
Popery
hath
been
and
is
.
)
We
have
His
Majesties
often
solemne
attestation
of
God
,
imprecating
the
prosperity
of
Him
and
His
,
if
he
do
not
maintain
the
true
Protestant
Religion
established
in
the
Church
of
England
against
all
Popery
.
We
have
not
the
like
on
the
other
part
,
against
Schismaticall
innovations
.
Yet
our
Schismatiques
are
thrice
as
many
as
our
Papists
;
and
whereas
our
Papists
are
(
God
be
thanked
)
disarmed
,
awed
,
and
in
feare
,
our
Schismatiques
are
bold
,
armed
,
and
in
authority
,
and
therefore
licentious
,
and
tumulting
in
every
place
.
God
will
require
an
account
of
our
Oathes
,
and
Protestations
for
defence
of
the
true
Protestant
Religion
,
aswell
against
Schismaticall
corruptions
,
as
against
Popish
.
And
an
account
of
our
solemn
Oathes
of
Supremacy
,
and
of
observance
of
the
Law
,
as
well
against
popular
insolences
,
and
invasions
of
Soveraigne
power
,
as
against
regall
Tyranny
.
Let
us
take
heed
,
that
when
because
of
Oathes
the
Land
already
mournes
;
we
through
an
universall
breach
of
Oathes
make
it
not
for
perjury
mourn
more
greivously
.
Least
when
with
our
solemn
Oathes
,
we
have
brought
the
animadversion
of
our
observance
of
Law
,
of
right
,
and
of
Religion
,
before
the
presence
of
God
,
as
Iudge
and
Revenger
of
it
;
and
with
out
own
hands
kindled
a
fire
for
the
triall
of
it
:
we
our selves
be
found
guilty
of
a
breach
,
or
of
halting
in
it
.
Let
us
weigh
well
the
cause
,
the
ground
,
the
way
,
and
the
end
of
our
taking
Armes
,
that
the
horror
of
unjust
and
causelesse
blood-shedding
may
not
lye
upon
us
;
let
us
see
what
it
is
that
we
would
have
,
which
we
may
not
already
have
without
it
.
May
we
not
after
some
provision
made
for
forbearance
of
such
Ceremonies
,
as
by
the
Iudgement
of
the
Church
shall
be
thought
fit
to
be
spared
,
have
the
authorized
service
of
the
Church
established
?
And
after
purgation
and
regulation
of
some
enormities
in
Church
government
,
have
the
discipline
of
the
Church
of
England
in
a
good
condition
setled
,
with
severe
penall
provision
against
connivers
and
Innovators
in
the
one
or
in
the
other
?
Hath
not
His
Majesty
declared
himselfe
ready
and
willing
to
consent
thereto
?
Againe
,
to
make
sure
the
abolishing
of
all
grievances
already
supprest
,
and
to
regulate
Armes
,
and
some
other
extravagances
in
government
not
yet
provided
for
,
may
we
not
have
fit
provisionary
lawes
,
with
severe
and
penall
damning
of
all
practices
to
the
contrary
?
Doth
not
His
Majesty
to
that
also
freely
offer
His
consent
?
what
can
be
wanting
to
the
setling
of
as
sound
and
well
a
governed
Church
and
State
,
as
any
Nation
under
Heaven
hath
ever
lived
in
?
For
if
by
a
severe
Law
the
persons
of
them
that
shall
attempt
any
thing
prejudiciall
to
the
setled
practice
of
Religion
or
to
the
declared
liberty
of
the
Subject
be
exposed
to
exemplary
punishment
,
no
feare
of
Innovation
to
the
prejudice
of
either
can
remaine
.
Nor
can
we
feare
His
Majesties
tolerating
of
offenders
when
besides
his
imprecating
in
that
case
himselfe
and
His
,
he
has
(
in
case
he
so
violates
the
Law
)
with
His
owne
mouth
dispenced
with
His
Subjects
obedience
.
As
for
Our
Parliaments
,
it
can
no
way
be
in
the
power
of
the
King
to
take
away
the
least
Right
,
much
lesse
the
being
of
Parliaments
;
for
whatsoever
a
King
can
doe
to
the
prejudice
of
Parliaments
,
and
how
soever
averse
He
may
be
from
them
,
yet
alwayes
the
necessity
of
State
will
at
last
enforce
the
calling
of
a
Parliament
,
and
when
it
is
called
,
it
is
presently
repossessed
,
and
re-invested
of
all
the
Rights
and
Priviledges
that
doe
belong
unto
it
.
For
nothing
but
a
Parliament
it selfe
,
or
so
much
of
a
Parliament
,
as
in
the
peoples
opinion
shall
have
the
authority
of
a
whole
Parliament
,
can
any
way
destroy
the
being
of
Parliaments
,
or
deprive
them
of
the
least
right
or
priviledge
belonging
to
them
.
To
conclude
therefore
,
if
they
that
devised
and
broached
the
new
State
principles
&
doctrines
published
in
the
Book
of
Observations
,
have
in
them
dealt
truely
and
faithfully
with
the
Subject
.
Then
let
the
Author
of
those
Doctrines
reioyce
in
them
that
receive
and
maintaine
them
;
and
let
the
maintainers
of
them
reioyce
in
them
that
were
the
authors
.
But
if
they
have
dealt
unfaithfully
and
deceiptfully
with
the
soules
of
the
Subiect
to
cause
the
blinde
(
that
cannot
Iudge
)
to
erre
,
thereby
to
bring
to
passe
their
own
designed
innovations
.
Then
let
it
please
the
just
,
and
all-seeing
Supream
Iudge
of
Iudges
in
mercy
to
so
many
thousand
soules
in
this
our
Jsraell
,
who
in
the
darknesse
of
these
difficulties
know
not
the
right
hand
from
the
left
,
to
send
(
as
once
he
did
at
Jothams
instance
)
Iud
9.16
.
a
fire
from
the
malitious
authors
of
them
,
to
bring
to
confusion
and
shame
the
malignant
maintainers
and
defenders
of
them
;
and
a
fire
from
them
to
bring
to
confusion
the
malitious
authors
.
And
let
the
Throne
of
our
Soveraigne
Lord
the
King
,
(
with
us
the
only
supream
Vice-gerent
of
the
great
and
Supream
Iudge
)
be
in
righteousnesse
,
in
Iudgement
,
to
true
Religion
,
and
in
Peace
for
ever
established
over
us
.