IT is certainly obvious to the meanest Capacity, how various and different mens Sentiments are concerning this great and happy Revolution; they who have been so injurious to their Country, as to assist and further the pernicious Designs of the late King, cannot but exclaim against those who have so timely frustrated their arbitrary and damnable Devices. Others there are, who have industriously labour'd to intimate to the late Government, how subservient they would be to its ends, when it would think fit to employ them as Actors in a National Tragedy. It cannot therefore be expected that any thing imaginable can be sufficient to silence the Clamours of such Men, whose Opinions are still broader or narrower than their Consciences, but always squaring with their InteresTs; who endea­vour to destroy the Publick Peace, by their opposi­tion [Page 2]to the present Government, as they did by their submission to the former.

For thô it hath been reputed as the Characteristick of a good Government, Ʋbi quisquis, quod vellet, sentit, & quod sentit, dicere licet; yet it must be taken with due restrictions: For as it is unreasonable and inju­rious to persecute Men to the utter loss of their lives and Fortunes, for not obeying the Commands of a Prince, which are notoriously repugnant to the known and approved Laws and Constitutions of the Nation they live in; so it is not convenient for any Government (thô acting by the foundest Rules of Policy, and endeavouring to the utmost the Publick good and welfare) to permit Incendiaries with an impetuous and unbridled Malice, to mis­represent their Actions to the People; who easily give Credit to the most absur'd Assertions, if but plausibly insinuated. And like Heresies in the Church, thô built on the weakest Foundations, notwithstanding the most solid Reasons imaginable are apply'd to suppress them, often spread their Contagion so universally, that they threaten the Peace of the whole Community, and are very rarely supprest, till the Authors are crusht by the weight of the Civil Power: So dangerous a thing it is (both to Church and State) to permit Men to broach Opinions publickly, which tend to alienate the Hearts of the Subjects from their Princes.

It was an usual thing in the last two Reigns, either to ruine such as opposed the Court Intriegues by formal Tryals at Law, for Sham plots and Conspi­racies, when the Treasonable Words or Pamphlets were for the most part so evidently true, that it was pity to punish the Authors. Another Project was fre­quently [Page 3]practis'd, which was to buy off such Men who were more than ordindary bold in canvasing their Designs: A thing necessary to be used by such Princes who would transgress the Legal limits which have been prefixt to prevent their Exorbi­tances, and have resolv'd to acquire an absolute and despotick Power; thô it be with the hazard of their own, and the Nations downfal, whose Designs only want discovery to be exploded.

But in this present Government, where we are blest with a King that designs to carry on the true Interest of the Nation, (which is apparent by his many large and advantageous Concessions to his People, since His Accession to the Crown, having in a manner suspended his Negative Voice) there is no need to practise the aforesaid Stratagems; seeing he will have as well the Natural, as the Political Strength of the Kingdom, and may safely bring such Male Contents to condign Punishment. For those Men that either Lost any thing, or expected to gain any thing by the former Government, will in no wise be satisfied without having a share in this, which I am perswaded the King does not intend to grant.

So that I direct not my Discourse to any of the fore mentioned Men, knowing they will be against Reason, as often as Reason is against them: But there are another sort of Men who highly approve of our Deliverance; but not of the Methods by which it was accomplish'd. Which is implicitly, thô not in direct Terms, to desire Effects without their Causes; for the Gordian Knot is to be Cut, not untyed.

Now it is expedient to satisfie these Men, be­cause they are numerous, and also because their Disgust springs from Conscience or Inadvertency, and not from Prejudice.

First then it is observable, that many were for ma­king Terms with the late King, and bringing him to a temper more suitable and agreeable to our Laws and Constitutions. This would have been an admira­ble Project, if we could have obliged our present King to return from whence he came, and be always in a readiness with a sufficient Fleet and Army to come and assist us, when the late King should again invade our Properties. Nay, this would not serve our turn, unless we could entreat the French King to lie still with his Fleet, and not obstruct our Second Deliverance. And herein consists the weak­ness of this Invention, being it requires little less than Impossibilities to sustain it.

Now one would think, that we above all other People, had sufficiently experienc'd how uncapable the most exquisite Laws are to defend us from the encroachments of a Prince, whose Inclinations per­swade their violation, and are absolutely incon­sistent with his Religion: So that if we consider, how all the Laws were enacted against Papists that could be devis'd or thought necessary, were with the greatest ease imaginable eluded and rendred useless; 'twill be natural to conclude, That the Means we have used were the only effectual ones for our Peace and Happiness, and that one Restau­ration is enough in an Age.

Now there are some superficial Objections made against the Deposition of the late King, viz. That many Kings have been privately Assassinated; but that we hear of none who have been publickly Deposed by the Jurisdiction of a National Council or Assembly, without the Limits of our own Kingdom.

In Answer to which I shall endeavour to make it appear, That it hath been the practice of all Nations, and at all times, to assert their Juris­diction (as we have done) by the Deposition of Evil Princes, whenever they had the means to effect it. And we may safely bid any of our Neigh­bouring Kingdoms, who have not been in our Cir­cumstances, to cast the first Stone at us.

Now, as previous to our main design, we shall lay down this Position, (and shew our Reasons for it) That as Government and Authority in general is from God; so the particular Forms and Magistrates are left to the Election of the People; that is, Whe­ther they'l have Democracy which is Popular Go­vernment, by the People it self, as Athens, Thebes, and many other Cities of Greece had in old times; or as the Cantons or Switzers at this day have; or else Aristocracy, which is the Government of some certain Chosen number of the best; as the Romans many years were govern'd by Consuls and Senators, which the States of Holland imitate at this day: Or else Monarchy, which is the Regiment of one, and this of an Emperour, King, Duke, Earl, or the like. These particular Forms (I say) are not determin'd by God or Nature, as Government in general is; for then they should be all one in all Nations, as the other is, seeing God and Nature are one to all; but it is left to every Nation and [Page 6]Country to chuse that Form of Government which they shall like best, which Aristotle proveth throughout all the second and fourth Books of his Politicks very largely; laying down divers kinds of Govern­ments in his days, as in Greece, that of the Mile­sians, Lacedemonians, Candians and others, and sheweth the Causes of their difference, which he attributes to the diversity of Mens Natures, Cu­stoms, Educations, and other such Causes, that inclined them to make Choice of such or such Forms.

And this might be proved also by infinite other Examples, both of Time past and present, and in all Nations and Countries, which have not had only different Forms of Government the one from the other; but even among themselves, at one time one Form, and another at other times. For the Romans first had Kings, and after rejecting them for their Evil Government, they chose Consuls, which were two Governours for every Year, whose Authority they limited by a multitude of Senators, which were of their Council; and these mens Power was restrained also by adding Tribunes of the People; and sometimes Dictators, and finally they came to be governed last of all by Emperours. The like may be said of Carthage in Africa, and many Cities and Commonwealths of Greece, which in divers Seasons, and upon divers Causes, have taken different Forms of Government to themselves.

The like we see in Europe at this Day; Naples hath a King for its Sovereign; Rome, the Pope; Venice and Genoua have Senators and Dukes, but their Dukes have little Authority. Florence, Mantua, Parma, Ʋrbin and Savoy have their Dukes only, [Page 7]without Senatours, and their Power is Absolute. Milan was once a Kingdom, but now a Dukedom. Burgundy and Lorain had once Kings, and after Dukes, and now Kings again. Bohemia and Polonia were formerly Dukedoms, and now are King­doms.

The like may be said of France, after the expul­sion of the Romans, which was first a Monarchy, under Pharamond their first King, and so continued for many years under Clodion, Merovis, Childerik and Clodovaeus their first Christian Kings; but after it was divided into four Kingdoms, one of Paris, another of Soissons, the third of Orleance, and the fourth of Metz; and so it continued for many years; but afterwards it was one Monarchy again. England also was first a Monarchy un­der the Britains, and then a Province under the Romans, and after an Heptarchy under the Saxons, and now a Monarchy again under the English.

And all this by Gods permission and approbation, who in token thereof, suffered his own Peculiar People of Israel to be under divers manners of Government in divers Times; as first under Pa­triarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; then under Captains, as Moses, Joshua, and the like; then under Judges, as Othniel, Ehud and Gideon; then under High-Priests, as Ely and Samuel; then under Kings, as Saul, David, and the rest; and then under Cap­tains and High-Priests again, as Zorobabel, Judas Machabeus, and his Brethren, until the Govern­ment was taken from them, and they brought under the Power of the Romans.

Wherefore there can be no doubt, but that the Commonwealth hath power to chuse their own Form of Government, as also to change the same upon reasonable Causes, as we shall make appear they have done in all Times and Countries; and God no doubt approveth what the Realm deter­mineth in this Point, for otherwise nothing could be certain; for on these Changes depend the Titles of all Princes and Potentates from the foundation of the World; and if they should not be justi­fiable, we must condemn as Illegal the Acts and Jurisdiction of almost all the Princes and Gover­nours that ever have Reign'd, which were great rashness and folly to do.

In like manner it is evident, That as the Com­monwealth hath Authority to chuse and change her Government, so hath she also to limit the same with what Laws and Conditions she pleaseth; from whence ensueth the diversity of Power which each of the former Governments had; as the Dukes of Venice at this day are for their Lives, (except in certain Cases, wherein they may be Deposed;) and those of Genoua only for two years, and their Power is very small and much limited, and their Heirs have no Claim or Pretence at all after them to that Dignity, as the Children and next of Kin of other Dukes of Italy have, thô in different sort also: For that the Dukedoms of Ʋrbin and Parma are limited only to the Heirs Males, and for defect thereof, to return to the Pope or See of Rome, Florence and Mantua are to return to the Empire for like defects, and not to pass to the Heirs Female, or next of Kin, as Savoy and others do.

And now if we respect God and Nature, as well might all these Governments follow one Law, as so different; for that neither God nor Nature prescribeth any of these particular Forms, but concurreth with that the Commonwealth appointeth; and so it is to be be­liev'd, That God concur'd as well with Italy, when it had but one Prince, as now when it hath so many; and the like also with Switzerland, which once was one Commonwealth under Dukes and Marquesses of Austria, and now are divided into Thirteen Cantons, under Popular Magistrates of their own; and its certain, that God approves of our most Gracious Prince King WILLIAM, since his Election by the People, as he did of the former Princes, while the Commonwealth were contented with them: so as when Men talk of a Natural Prince, or Natural Successor (as many times I have heard the Word us'd if it be understood of one that is Born in the same Realm or Country, and so of our own Natural Blood, it hath some Sense, thô he may be good or bad, and none have been worse or more cruel many times than Home born Princes:) but if it be meant, as thô any Prince had his particular Government or Interest to succeed by Institution of God or Nature, its ridiculous, for that God or Nature giveth it not, as hath been declared; but the particular Constitution of every Common­wealth within it self.

Now the Government of every Prince is to be respected according to the benefit that redounds to the Subject, for whose good it was ordain'd; and when the Subjects live well and prosperously, are defended and maintained in Peace, Safety and Wealth; when Justice is done equally to all Men, [Page 10]the Wicked punished, and the Good rewarded; when true Religion is maintain'd, and Vertue promoted; this is that which importeth the Realm and Subjects, and not where, or in what Country the Prince or his Officers were Born, or of what Nation, Language, or Kindred they be; for that as soon as he is placed in that Dignity, he becometh a Stranger to me, and it availeth me little whether he be of my Blood and Country, or not. And I may say, as the People of Israel said to Rehoboam, who being King Davids Grand-Son, and of the House of Jesse, thought his State assured, and so might oppress the People at his pleasure; Quae nobis pars in David, vel quae haereditas in filio Jesse? and so they left him, and chose to be under Jero­boam a Stranger.

For what availed it them that lived in Spain under Peter the Cruel; or in England, under Richard the Third, commonly call'd the Tyrant; what did it import them, that those Princes were of their own Country or Blood, seeing they did that to them, which a Stranger (thô never so barbarous or cruel) would scarce have done? As in like manner, What did it import those Noble Families of the De la Pools, Staffords, Planta­genets, and others, destroy'd by Henry the Eighth? What avail'd it to them, that the said King was not only their Country-man, but their near Kins­man? What profit or commodity was it to Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, that he lived under King Richard the Second, who was his Nephew, or to George Duke of Clarence, that King Edward the Fourth was his Brother; when both were disgrac'd and put to death by them, and lost [Page 11]their Lands and Dignities, which perhaps under a strange Prince they might have enjoyed many years? And lastly, what availeth it to Scot­land or England, that the late King James was descended of them, and born with us, or to the present Queen, that he was her Father, when he endeavour'd utterly to destroy the Peace and Tranquility of those Nations, and unnaturally to exclude his Royal Daughter from the Inheritance of these Three Kingdoms, to set up a suspected Child, to finish the Game which he had begun; so as we may say (as before, What part have we in James, or what Inheritance in the Son of the Martyr?

And so much for this first Point, which is the ground of all the rest I have to say.

Now since we have (as I take it) fully prov'd, That no King or Goverour hath his Interest from God or Nature, but from the particular Institutions of the Commonwealth; I shall proceed to evince both by Reason and Example, that they have Laws and Rules prescribed by the said Common­wealths, by which they are bound to Rule and Govern their People.

Now I do really believe, that of all other Governments Monarchy is the best, and least subject to the Inconveniences that others are, and that Popular Governments are the worst, and have soonest come to ruine; as may be shewed not only by old Examples of Greece, Asia and Africa, but also many Cities in Italy, as Florence, Bolonia, Siena, Pisa, Arezzo, Spóleto, Perugia, Padua, and others, which upon the fall or diminution of the Roman Empire (under which they were before) took unto them­selves [Page 12]Popular Governments, wherein they were tossed with continual Seditions, Mutinies, and banding of Factions, and could have no end of their Miseries, until after insinite Murthers and Mas­sacres, they came in the end under the Monarchy of one Prince, as at this day they remain. So where the Government of Aristocracy took place, there were perpetual Divisions among the Senators; as in Carthage, which was the Reason that Succours were not sent to their Captain Hannibal in Italy, after his so great and important Victory at Canna, being the preservation of the Roman Empire, and the loss of their own. As also afterwards, the Emula­tion and Disunion of the Roman Senators among themselves in the Contentions of Marius and Silla, and of Pompey and Coesar, was the occasion of all their Destruction, and of the Commonwealth with them.

Now if the Prince who governeth alone, and hath Supreme Authority to himself, as he resembles God in this point of sole Command; so could he resemble him also in wise, discreet and just Govern­ment, and in Ruling without Passion; Nothing more excellent in the World could be desired for the perfect Felicity of his Subjects. But because a King is a Man, as others be, and therefore not only subject to Errors in Judgment but also to passionate Assections in his Will; therefore it was necessary that the Commonwealth, as it gave him this great power over them, so it should assign him the best Helps that might be, for directing and rectifying both his Will and Judgment, and make him as like in Government to God, whom he repre­senteth, as mans Frailty can reach unto.

For this Consideration they assign'd to him the assistance and direction of Law; Which ( Aristotle saith) is a certain Mind disquieted with no disordi­nate Affection, as mens Minds commonly be; for that when a Law is made, for the most part its upon due consideration, and without perturbation of evil Affecti­ons, as Anger, Envy, Hatred, Rashness, or the like Passions; and it is referred to some good End and Commodity of the Commonwealth; which Law being once made, remaineth still the same, without alteration or partial Affection, being indifferent to all, speaking alike to every Man, in which it resembles the Perfe­ction of God himself. For which cause the said Phi­losopher saith, Aristot. lib. 3. cap. 12. That he who joyneth a Law to govern with the Prince, joyneth God to him; but he that joyneth to the Prince his Affections, joyneth a Beast: So that a Prince Ruling by Law is more than a Man, or a man Deified; and a Prince Ruling by his Will, is less than a Man, or a man Brutified. In another place the same Philosopher saith, Aristot. lib. 1. cap. 2. That a Prince who leaveth Law, and Ruleth himself and others by his Appetite, is of all Creatures the worst, and of all Beasts the most furious and dangerous: For that nothing is so outragious as Injustice Arm'd, and no Armour is so strong as Wit and Authority; the first he hath as Man, the other as a Prince.

For this cause all Commonwealths have prescribed Laws unto their Princes, whereby to govern as by a most excellent, certain and immutable Rule; to which sense Cicero said, Leges sunt inventoe, Lib. 2. Offic. ut omni­bus semper una, & eadem v [...]ce loquerentur. For which reason they have been called by Philosophers a Rule or Square inflexible: But the Prophet David (who was also a King) seemeth to call them by the Name [Page 14]of Discipline; for that as Discipline keeps all the parts of a Man, or of a particular House in order; so Law (duly administred) keeps all the Members of a Commonwealth in Peace and Plenty. And to shew how severely God exacteth this at all Princes hands, Psal. 2. he uses these Words; And not learn ye Kings, and be instructed ye Princes of the Earth: Serve God in fear, and rejoyce in him with trem­bling. Embrace the Discipline, lest he enter into wrath, and so ye perish from the way of Righteousness. Which Words being spoken by a Prophet and a King, contain many Points worthy of Considera­tion:

As first, That Kings are pound to learn Law and Discipline: Secondly, To observe the same with great humility and fear of Gods Wrath: And, Thirdly, That if they do not, they shall perish from the way of Righteousness. As if the greatest Plague imaginable to a Prince were to lose the Way of Righteousness, Law and Justice, in his Govern­ment, and to give himself over to Passion and his own Will, whereby he is sure to come to Ship­wreck.

From like Authority, and for like Consideration, have come the Limitation of all Kings and Kingly Power, in all Times, and in all Countries, both touching themselves their Posterity and Successors. Which is apparent in the two most Renowned States of the World, that of the Romans and Gre­cians, who both began with Kings but yet with far different Laws and Restraints about their Autho­rities.

For in Rome, the Kings that succeeded Romulus had great Authority, but yet their Children, or next in [Page 15]Blood, succeeded them not, unless chosen by the Senate and People; so as of the Three most excellent Kings that ensued immediately after Romulus, viz. Numa Pompilius, Tullius Hostilius, and Tarquinus Priscus, Tit. Liv. lib. 1. doe. 1. none of them were of the Blood Royal, nor of Kin to one another, nor yet Romans born; but chosen rather from amongst Strangers, for their Vertue and Valour. In Greece, among the Lacede­monians, which was the most eminent Kingdom at that time, the Succession of Children was most certain; but yet their Power was so restrain'd by the Ephori, as they were not only checked and chastned by them, if occasion served, but also De­prived, and sometimes put to Death. For this Cause Aristotle did justly mislike this eminent Jurisdiction of the Ephori over their Kings; but yet we see hereby what Authority the Commonwealth had in this case, and what their meaning was in making Laws, and restraining their Kings Power, viz. thereby the more to bind them to do Justice.

We may repeat a multitude of such Examples in Heathen Kingdoms, but being they may be rejected, as being no President for us, we shall haste to shew, How Christian Kingdoms have limited their Princes.

Now, if we consider the Roman Empire as it is at this day annexed to the German Electors; thô it be the first in Dignity amongst Christian Princes, yet we shall see it so restrained by particular Laws, as the Emperour cannot do so much as other Kings; for he can neither make War, nor exact any Mony but by the free leave and consent of the German Dyer or Parliament; and as for his Children, or next of Kin, they have no Interest or Pretence to succeed in their Fathers Dignity, but only by free Election, [Page 16]if they shall be thought worthy. Nay, one of the chiefest Points that the Emperour must Swear at his Entrance is, Sleyden, lib. 8. That he will never go about to make the Dignity of the Empire Peculiar or Hereditary to his Family, but leave it to the Electors (free in their power) to chuse his Successor, according to the Law made by Pope Gregory the Fifth, and the Emperour Charles the Fourth.

The Kingdom of Polonia is much of the same manner with the Empire, both for its restraint of Power, Cromenias, lib. 3. hist. Polo. and successions of its King, for they have great Limitations, being they can do nothing of great moment without the consent of certain Prin­cipal Officers, called Palatines or Castellans; neither may their Children succeed them, unless they are Chosen; as in the Empire, in Spain, France and Eng­land, the Priviledges of Kings is much different from the former.

The Kings of Spain and France have greater Power than the Kings of England; for that every Ordination of these two Kings is Law it self, without the Approbation of the Commonwealth: But in the Point of Succession it appeareth, that the restraint is far greater in those two Countreys than in England; for in Spain the next of Blood cannot succeed but by a new Approbation of the Nobility and Bishops of the Realm, as it is expresly set down in the two Ancient Councils of Toledo the 4th and 5th. In France the World knows, that Women are not admitted to succeed in the Crown, be they never so near in Blood, neither any of their Issue, thô it be Male. For which cause Edward the Third of England, thô he were Son and Heir to the Daughter of France, whose three Brothers were [Page 17]Kings, and left her sole Heir to her Father Philip the Fourth, yet was he put by the Crown, and Philip de Valois, a Brothers Son of Philip the 4th preferr'd to it by general Consent of the whole Par­liament of Paris. And thô the Salic Law is not very ancient, as the French themselves do confess, and much less made by Pharamond their first King, or in those ancient Times, as some without ground do affirm; yet we see its sufficient to bind all Princes and Subjects of that Realm to observe the same, and alter the course of Natural Descent and Nearness of Blood, as we have seen; but such things are not suffered in England, for that our Laws are otherwise, which were made by the Commonwealth.

By all which it is manifest, that most Kingdoms have different Laws and Customs, both as to their Authority and Succession; and it is not enough for a man to alledge bare propinquity of Blood, for that he may be excluded for several other Reasons, which we shall hereafter discuss.

I know it hath been confidently asserted by some base Flatterers, that in all successive Monarchs the Heir should enter by title of Birth, without condi­tion, consent, or approbation of the Realm; as also without Coronation Oath, or Obligation to fulfil any Law, or to observe any Priviledges of Church or State. These are things which only serve to ter­risie the People, and set them more against his En­trance, than to advance his Title.

Another of their Propositions is, That albeit the Heir apparent, which is next by Birth to any Crown, should be never so impotent or unfit to govern; or if it should be known, that he were most Malicious and Wicked, and should go about to destroy the [Page 18]Commonwealth, and drown the Ship he had to guide; yet (say they) he must be Sacred, and ad­mitted without contradiction to his Inheritance, which God and Nature hath designed him, and his direction, restraint or punishment, must only be re­mitted to God alone; for that no Man or Common­wealth may reform or restrain him.

This Doctrin (one would think) should be no sooner delivered, but contemn'd by any Rational man, who regards the end why all Commonwealths and Kingdoms, and all Governments were ordained by God and Nature, and not the flattering or adoring of any one miserable Man, who shall endeavour to destroy the whole.

But to come to the particular Matter we are to treat of, which is, What is to be attributed to Suc­cession or Propinquity of Birth alone?

First therefore, I am perswaded that Succession is much to be preferred, not for that it wanteth all all Difficulties and Inconveniences; but like as be­fore I have shewed of the particular Government of Monarchy in respect of other Forms, viz. that it wanted not all, but had sewer Inconveniences than other Forms of Regiment have; so I say also of this, That thô some Inconveniences are not wanting in Succession; yet they are commenly far less and fewer, than would follow by meer Election, which is subject to great and continual danger of Ambition, Emulation, Division and Sedition, which do evidently threaten the universal destruction and desolation of the whole Body at the Death of every Prince, which Inconveniences have no place in Suc­cession.

Secondly, The Prince who is in present possession, [Page 19]knowing that his Son or next of Kin is to succeed, takes care to leave the Realm in good order; as the Husbandman doth to Till and Manure the Ground, which is his own, and must remain to his Posterity.

Thirdly, There are less alterations in Common­wealths where Succession prevails, for that the Son commonly retains the same Friends, Counsellors and Officers which his Father had before him, and often pursues the same Actions and Intentions.

Fourthly, He that entreth by Succession is either born a Prince, or hath been much respected for his Title to the Crown, and bringeth less Passions of Hatred, Emulation, Anger, Envy or Revenge against particular Men, (for that no man durst offend him) than he who entreth only by Election; for he having been a Subject and equal to others before his Ad­vancement, and therefore had contention with many, especially about his Election, which he will seek to revenge when he is in Authority. As on the other side also, such as were his Equals before will bear him less respect, and be more unwilling to obey him, than if by Birth he had been their Sovereign.

Now as by Succession we remedy the difficulties of Election, yet there remains one great and mani­fest Inconveniency in the former; namely. That some unapt, impotent or evil Prince may offer to enter by priority of Blood, which is to be prevented by adding Election, Consent and Approbation of the Realm to Succession, so as Succession by Ele­ction, and Election by Succession will be help'd, and the one made a Preservative and Remedy against the other. And this is the wisdom and high Policy left by God and Nature to every Commonwealth, for their own Conservation and Maintenance, and [Page 20]every Man that is void of Passion, will not only allow, but also commend the same.

Now we shall proceed and shew what Interest a Prince hath before he's Crown'd or Admitted by the Realm, which I take to be the same as the King of the Romans hath to the German Empire, after his Election, and before he is Crown'd Or to use a more familiar Example to Englishmen as the Mayor of London hath to the Majoralty, after he is Chosen, and before he is admitted or taken his Oath. For as this Man in rigour is not truly Mayor, nor hath his Jurisdiction before his Oath and Admission, nor the other properly Emperour before his Coronation; so is not the Heir truly King, though his Predecessor be dead, and he next in Succession, until he is Crown'd or Admitted by the Commonwealth; thô for better keeping of Order, and avoiding Tumults and Consusion, most Commonwealths that have their Princes by Succession, have con­sented, that from the Death of the former Frinces all Matters of Government shall pass in the Name of the Successor, (if his Succession be clear under supposition of the Confirmation and Approbation of the Commonwealth afterwards.

Now as for the Princes of England, it's expresly noted by English Historians, that it only hapned to Henry the Fifth, among all his Predecessors, to have Homage done unto him before his Coronation and oath taken, and that for the exceeding Love and Affection the People had for him. Whereof Polydore writeth in these words: Polydor. Virgil lib. 22. Prince Henry, after he had finisht his Fathers Funeral, caused a Parliament to be conven'd at Westminster, where whilst Consultation was had according to the ancient [Page 21]Custom of England, about Creating a new King; be­hold on a sudden certain of the Nobility of their own free wills began to Swear Obedience and Loyalty to him: Which demonstration of love and good will was never shewed to any Prince before, until he was declared King.

And Stow expresseth the same thing in his Chro­nicle, Stow in the beginning of the Life of Henry the 5th in these words; To this Noble Prince, by assent of the Realm, the Nobles after three days offered to do Fealty before he was Crown'd, or had solemniz'd his Oath, well and justly to govern the Commonwealth; which Offer before was never found to be made to any Prince of England. Thus much Stow.

In whose Narration, as also in that of Polydore, it may be noted, that King Henry was not called King till after his Coronation, thô his Father had been dead almost a Month before: As secondly, That the Parliament consulted about making a new King, according to the Custom of their Ancestors; which argueth that he was not yet King, thô his Father was dead; and that the manner of our Old English Ancestors was not to account him so before his Admission. Thirdly, That this good Will of the Nobility, to acknowledge him for King before his Coronation and Oath solemniz'd, truly and justly to govern the Realm, was very extraordinary and meer kindness. And lastly, That it was never done to any Prince before Henry the Fifth. All which Points do demonstrate, that it's the Coronation and Admission that makes a true and perfect King, let the Title by Succession be what it will; and that the Consent of the Realm is of much greater con­sequence than nearness of Blood.

This may be prov'd by many Examples in Eng­land, where Admission has prevail'd against Right of Succession, as in William Rufus, who succeeded the Conquerour, and King Henry the First his Bro­ther, in King Stephen, King John and others, who only by Admission of the Realm were Kings against the order of Succession. To these we may add Henry and Edward, both Sirnamed the Fourth, whose Entrances to the Crown, if we well consider, we shall find that both of them founded the best and surest part of their Titles upon the Election and Consent of the People: And both of them having Remorse of Conscience at their dying days, being they put so many Men to death for maintenance of their Rights and Titles, had no better way to appease their own Minds, but by thinking they were plac'd on the Throne by the Voice of the Realm, and consequently might lawfully defend the same, and punish such as intended to deprive them.

Moreover, if we look into the Actions of Princes in all Ages, we shall find that such Kings as were most politick, and had the least doubt or suspicion of Troubles about the Title after their Deaths, have caused their Sons to be Crown'd in their own days, as trusting more to that, than to their Title by Suc­cession, thô they were never so lawfully and lineally descended. And of this I could alledge many Ex­amples out of divers Countreys, but specially in France, since the last Line of Capetus came to that Crown; for Hugh Capetus himself procured Robert his eldest Son to be Crown'd in his own days and Robert did the same for his youngest Son Henry. Henry also did entreat the States of France to [Page 23]Admit and Crown Philip the First, his eldest Son, in his own time; and this Kings Son Lewis did the same to both his Sons, first to Philip, and after his death to Lewis the younger. And for the same cause, the Prince of Spain is Swore and admitted by the Realm, during his Fachers Reign. The same Consideration also moved King David, to Crown his Son Solomon in his own days.

And finally our King Henry the Second of Eng­land, considering the alteration the Realm had made in admitting King Stephen before him, against the order of Lineal Succession; and fearing the like might happen after him, caused his eldest Son Henry to be Crowned in his life time: But this Device had but ill success, for King Henry the younger made War upon King Henry the elder, and got both the Kings of France and Scotland, and many Nobles both of England and Normandy to take his part; for which cause 'tis probable, that this thing has never since that time been us'd in England. But yet hereby its evident, what the Opinion of the World was in those days of the force of Corona­tion and Admission of the Commonwealth, and how little the propinquity of Blood prevailed without it.

I might bring insinite Examples from the Gre­cians and Romans to this purpose; but that it may be ojbected, that they are too old and far fetch'd Examples, and ought not to be Presidents to us in these Ages. Wherefore I shall only give some few Examples of the Jews, being they were Gods Elect People, and so fit Presidents for us to follow, and then hasten to those of kiter Times.

First, then Thô God made Saul a true and law­ful King, and consequently gave him all the Kingly Priviledges, Benefits and Prerogatives belonging to that degree and state; whereof one was, That his Children should succeed after him in the Crown; yet after his death, God suffered not any of his Generation to succeed him, tho' he left behind a numerous Issue; and among others, Ishbosheth a Prince of 40 yeras old, whom Abner the General Captain of that Nation follow'd for a time as their lawful Lord and Master by Succession, until God check'd them for it, and induc'd them to reject him, and to receive David, newly elected King, who was a Stranger by Birth, and no Kin to the King deceased.

Now if any one shall say, that it was for the Sin of Saul, whom God had rejected, I do confes; it, and yet it makes nothing against our purpose, being we do not pretend that a Prince, who is next in Blood, can justly be put back, unless for his own defects, or those of his Ancestors. And it's to be noted, That Jonathan (who was a good Man, and much praised in Holy Writ) being slain in the Battle, and leaving a Son named Mephibosheth, who was also put back, tho'b y nearess of Blood he had great interest in the Succession, and much before David, and that only (for ought appears) upon the account of Saul his Grandfather.

After David succeeded Solomon, who was his younger and tenth Son, and the fourth only by Bathsheba, tho' Adonijah the Heir apparent, seeing his Father old and ready to dye, had call'd many of the great Men of that State, both Spiritual and Temporal, intending to have proclaimed himself [Page 25]Heir apparent to the Crown; but Bathsheba and Nathan the Prophet coming to the old King, as he lay on his Bed, put him in mind of his Promise to Bathsheba, made for preferring of her Son; telling him, (which pleased him well) Quod occuli totius Israel in eum respicerent, ut indicaret eis, quis sederet in solio suo post ipsum. Which was as much as to say, That the whole Commonewealth referr'd it to his choice, which of his Sons should Reign after him. Upon these Reasons and Perswasions the old King was content they should take Solomon out of hand, and put him on the Kings own Mule, and carry him about the Streets of Jerusalem, accompanied with his Guards, and crying with found of Trum­pets, Long live King Solomon.

Hereby we may learn, That these and the like determinations of the People, about admitting or refusing of Princes, to Reign or not to Reign over them, when their Designs are to good Ends, and for just Respects and Causes, are allowed also by God, and many times are his own special Drifts and Dispositions, thô they seem to come from Man.

Whereof there can be no more evident Proof, than that which ensued afterwards to Prince Reho­boam, the lawful Son and Heir to King Solomon, who refusing to take away some hard and heavy Impo­sitions, laid on the People by Solomon his Father, lost ten of the twelve Tribes, who refused to admit him for their King; but chose rather one Jeroboam that was a meer Stranger, and God al­lowed thereof, 1 King. 12.21. as the Scripture in express words testifies: For when Rehoboam took himself to be openly injur'd, would by Arms have pursu'd his [Page 26]Title, and had gathered an Hundred and fourscore Thousand chosen Souldiers to reduce the Rebels (as he called them) to their Obedience. God appeared to one Semia, an holy Man, and com­manded him to go to the Camp of Rehoboam, and tell them, that they should not fight against their Brethren, who had chosen another King, but that every Man should go to his House, and live quietly under the King they had chosen, and so they did; and this was the end of that Tumult which God for the Sins of Solomon had permitted and allowed of.

And thus much I thought good to relate con­cerning the Jewish Commonwealth, for that it may give light to all the rest I am to treat of; for if God permitted and allowed this in his own Com­monweal, that was to be the Example and Pattern of all others that should ensue, no doubt but he approveth also the same in other Realms, when just occasion offers, either for his Service, the good of the People, or for the punishment of the Sins and Wickedness of some Princes, that the Line of Suc­cession should be altered.

Now then, to pass on further, and to begin with the Kingdom of Spain; which hath had three or four Races or Descents of Kings, as France also and England have had; First Race. And the first Race was from the Goths, which began their Reign in Spain after the expulsion of the Romans, about the year of Christ 416, to whom the Spaniard referreth all his Nobility, as the French doth to the German Franks, and the English to the Saxons, who entred France and England in the same Age, as the others did Spain; and the Race of the Gothish, Kings endured [Page 27]Three hundred years, until Spain was lost unto the Moors.

The second Race is from Don Pelago, Second Race. that was chosen first King of Austria, after the destruction of the Kingdom by the Moors, about the year of Christ 717; which Race continued, and added Kingdom unto Kingdom for the space of Three hundred years, until the year of Christ 1034, when Don Sancho, King of Navarre, got the Earl­dom of Aragon and Castile, and made them King­doms, dividing them among his Children, to his second Son Don Ferdinando, Sirnamed afterwards The Great; he gave not only the Earldom of Ca­stilia, but by Marrying also the Sister of don Der­mudo, King of Leon and Asturia, he joyned all those Kingdoms together; Third Race. and so from that Day began the third Race of the Kings of Navarre to Reign in Castile, and so endured for Five hundred years, until the year of Christ 1540; when the House of Austria entred to Reign by Marriage of the Daughter of Don Ferndinando, Sirnamed The Catholick; Fourth Race. and this was the fourth Race of the Spanish Kings after the Romans.

Now in these four Ranks of Regal Descents, divers Examples may be alledged for my purpose; yet I shall pass by my first Race, for that its evi­dent by the Councils of Toledo, which were held in those Times, That express Election was joyned with Succession; for in the 4th Council of Toledo, Cap. 74. are these Words, Let no man among us snatch the Kingdom by presumption; but the former King being dead, let the Nobility of the Kingdom, together with the Priests and Clergy, appoint the Successour of the Kingdom by Common Council. Which [Page 28]is as much as if they had said, Let no man enter upon the Kingdom by presumption of Succession alone; but let the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, by Com­mon Voice, see what's best for the Weal-publick.

Don Pylao (the first King after the destruction of the Kingdom by the Moors) died, and left a Son named Don Favilla, who was King after his Father, and Reigned two years, aftes whose Death none of his Children werre admitted for King, thô he left many; but Don Alonso was chosen by the unanimous Consent of the Gothish Nation; and for no other Reason, Ambro. Moral. lib. 13. cap. 6. 9. 10. but that the Kings Sons were young and unable to govern; and this Alonso proved an excellent King, and as Sebastianus, Bishop of Salamancha (who lived in the same time) writes, was for his Valiant Acts Sirnamed The Great.

To this Famous Don Alonso succeeded his Son Don Fruela, who was a Noble King for Ten years, and had many great Victories over the Moors; but after declining to Tyranny, he became odious to his Subjects, and was Deposed and put to Death Anno Domini 768; Moral. l. 13. cap. 17. and tho' he left two Sons, yet for the Prejudice conceived against their Father, neither of them were admitted by the Realm to succeed him; but rather his Cousin Don Aurelio, who Reigned Six years, and died without Issue; and because the Hatred which the Spaniards con­ceived against the Memory of Don Fruela was not yet extinguish'd, they would not yet admit any of his Generation, but excluded them a second time, and chose Don Silo, a Brother-in-Law of his; so that the right Heirs of Don Fruela were twice put back for his evil Government.

But Don Silo being dead without Issue, as also Don Aurelio was before him, and the Anger of the Spaniards against Fruela being well asswaged, they admitted his Son Don Alonso, whom they had twice put back: But he dying without Issue, Don Ramiro his Cousin was chosen; Moral. cap. 33. and thô Don Ramiro was next in Blood to Alonso, yet he was elected by the States, as the Historian expresly writes.

But in the time of Don Ramiro, the Law of Succession by propinquity of Blood, was much reviv'd and strongly confirm'd, and from this time forward the King always caus'd his eldest Son to be named King or Prince, and to be always Sworn by the Realm and Nobility; yet we shall find this Ordinance to have been frequently broken upon several Considerations. As for Example, after some Descents from Don Ramiro, which were Don Ordonio (this Mans Son) and Don Alonso the Third, Don Garzia and Don Ordonio the Second; all four Kings by orderly Succession: It hapned that in the year of Christ 924, Don Ordonio the Second dying, left four Sons and one Daughter lawfully begotten, and yet the State of Spain displaced them all, and gave the Kingdom to their Uncle Don Fruela, second Brother to their Father; and for no other Reason, but their being young, and not so able to govern as their Uncle was. But after a year this Fruela died, leaving many Sons of a full Age; yet the Spaniards put them all by the Crown, and those Don Alonso the Fourth.

And this shall suffice concerning the Race of Don Pylao, first Christian King of Spain, after the En­trance of the Moors.

Now for avoiding prolixity we'll omit many Instances that are for our purpose, and be content to repeat a few of latter Date. And,

First, In the year of Christ 1276. Don Sancho (Sirnamed El Bravo, for his great Valour) was chosen, and his Nephews, who were Heirs appa­rent, put back, because he weas a great Warriour, and more like to manage better the Matters of War than they: And this was done in a General Parliament, which was held at Segovia in the year 1276. and the two Princes his Nephews were put in Prison; but afterwards by the intercession of their Uncle King Philip of France, they were releas'd, and had certain Lands given them; and of them came the Dukes of Medina Coeli, and all the rest of the House of Cerda, which are of great Nobi­lity in Spain.

Not long after this, Garab. lib. 15. [...] 1. An. 1363. when Don Pedro (Sirnamed The Cruel) King of Castile was driven out, and his Bastard-Brother Henry the Second set up in his place; John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, having Married Dono Constantia, the said King Peters Daughter and Heir pretended by Succession to the said Crown of Castile, which was really his Right; but yet the State of Spain denyed it flatly, and defended it by Arms, and prevailed against John of Gaunt, as did also the Race of Henry the Bastard against his lawful Brother, and the Race of Don Sancho the Uncle against his lawful Nephews; and this hapned in the third and principal Descent of the Spanish Kings, when this Matter of Succession was most assuredly and perfectly establisht; and yet who will deny the Kings of Spain, who held [Page 31]under the latter Titles, To be true and lawful Kings?

By which it appears, how frequently the Line of Succession has been altered in Spain, upon any reasonable Consideration, which they imagined to be for the Publick good: And the like we shall find in France and England, which we shall begin to treat of.

Now concerning the State of France, thô since the Entrance of King Pharamond with his Franks out of Germany, which was about the year of Christ 419. they have never had any Stranger come to wear the Crown, which they attribute to their Salick Law, that forbids Womens Reign; yet they have twice chang'd their whole Race and Linage of Kings, once by the Entrance of King Pepin, who put out the Line of Pharamond, about the year 751. and again in the promotion of Hugo Capetus, who put out the Line of Pepin in the year 988. so as they have had three Descents and Races of Kings, as well as the Spaniards.

Now I'le pass over all the first Race of the Franch Kings, as I also did the Spanish, because some men may say, That the Commonwealth and Law of Succession was not so well setled in those days, as it was afterwards in the time of Pepin, Charles the Great, and their Descendents. There­fore I shall only mention the second Rank, which began with the Exclusion and Deposition of their lawful King Childerick the Third, and Election of King Pepin in the year of Christ 781, after 22 Kings, which had Reigned of the first Line of Pharamond, for the space of Three hundred years.

This King Reigned 18 years, being a famous King, as all the World knows, left his Kingdom by Succession to his eldest Son Charles, Sirnamed aster The Great, for his Famous and Heroical Acts. And thô the whole Kingdom belong'd to him by right of Succession, yet did the Realm of France shew her Authority in his Admission, [...]rard. du [...]ilan. lib 3. as the Histo­rian relates in these Words; King Pepin being dead, the French chose for their King his two Sons, Charles and Carlomon, on condition that they should divide the Realm equally betwixt them; which was a heavy Condition to the elder Brother to part with half his Kingdom.

After these Brothers had Reigned together three years. King Carlomon died, and left many Sons; but the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of France Swore Allegiance to Charles, without any respect to the Children of Carlomon, who by right of Suc­cession should have been preferred.

After Charles the Great Reigned his Son Lewis the First, Sirnamed Debonnaire, of his Courtesie, who entred with great Applause of all Men, for the exceeding grateful Memory of his Father; but he was Deposed by the means of his Sons, and was put in a Monastery; thô after he came to Reign again, [...]erard. lib. 5. [...]n. 834. and his fourth Son by his second Wife named Charles the Bold, succeded him in the Crown, after many Battels against his elder Brother Lothair, to whom it belong'd by Succession.

After Charles the Beld succeeded Lewis the Se­cond, who was the third Son, for the Second died before his Father; and the Eldest was put by for his ill Demeanour: This Lewis also had like to have been deprived by the States at his Entrance, [Page 33]for the Hatred conceived against his Father, Gerard. lib. 1. had he not call'd a Perliament at Campeigne, and sweetned the People and Nobility with many fair Promises. This Lewis left two Bastards by a Concubine, who were call'd Lewis and Carlomon, as also an Infant newly born of his lawful Wife Adeltrude, Daughter to King Alfred of England, which Infant was King of France after, by the Name of Charles the Simple, thô not immediately after the Death of his Fahter: For the Nobles of France said. They had need of a Man to be King, and not a Child; and so the whole State of France chose for their Kings the two afore­said Bastards; and they were Crowned most solemn­ly, and divided the whole Realm between them, An. 881. and Queen Adeltrude with her Child (true Heir of France) fled into England to her Fahter, and there kept him many years; in which time she saw four or five Kings Reign in his place successively.

Of these two Bastards, the Elder named Lewis Reigned but Four years, and died without Issue, the second, named Carlomon, lived but one year after him, and left a Son called Lewis, which suc­ceeded him in the Kingdom by the name of Lewis the Fisth, and Sirnamed Faineant, for his idle and slothful Life; for which, as also for his vicious Behaviour, and in particular for taking out and Marrying a Nun of the Abby of S. Saveour, he was depriv'd and made a Monk in the Abby of S. Denis, where he died, and in his place was chosen King of France, and Crown'd with great Solemnity, Charles the Fourth, Emperour of Rome, who was Nephew to Charles the Bold, before mentioned; and therefore the French. Historians say, That he came to the Crown, partly by Succession, and partly by [Page 34]Election; but for Succession we see it was of no account, being Charles the Simple the right Heir was alive in England, and as it were forgotten, being they had thrice excluded him, and would not receive him, after they had deprived Charles for his evil Government; and rather chose one Odo, Earl of Baris and Duke of Angiers, and caused him to be Crown'd.

But after a few years being weary of this Man's Government, and moved with Compassion towards the Youth in England, they Deposed him while he was absent in Gascony, and call'd Charles the Simple out of England, and restor'd him to the Kingdom of France, leaving only to Odo the State of Aquitain, with Title of a Duke, wherewith in rine he contented himself, seeing he could get no more. But yet his Posterity by virtue of this Ele­ction, ever after pretended a Title to the Crown of France, and never desisted until by Hugo Capetus they got it; for Hugh was descended of this King and Duke Odo. This Charles the Simple was decoy'd into the Castle of Perene in Picardy, where he was made Prisoner, and fore'd to resign his Kingdom unto Ralph King of Burgundy, and soon after he died in the Castle and his Queen Odin and English Woman fled into England, with her little Son Lewis, unto her Uncle King Adelstan, as Queen Adeltrude had done before.

But this new King Ralph lived but three years aster, and then the States of France considering the Title of Lewis the Lawful Son of Charles the Sim­ple, which Lewis was commonly called by the name of d'Outremere, that is, beyond Sea, being he was brought up in England; the said States being [Page 35]continually solicited by the Ambassadors of King Adelstan, and by William Duke of Normandy, in behalf of the young Prince; they resolved to call him home, as they had done his Father, and to admit and Crown him King, and so they did; and he Reigned Twenty seven years, and was a good Prince, and died peaceably in his Bed in the year of Christ 945.

This Lewis d'Outremere left two Sons behind him, the eldest succeeded him by the name of Lothair the First, and the youngest he made Duke of Lor­rain. Lothair dying left one Son named Lewis, who succeeded him by the name of Lewis the Fifth; but dying without Issue, the Crown was to have gone by Lineal Succession to his Uncle Charles, Duke of Lorrain, second Son of Lewis d'Outremere; but the States of France put him byfor mislike of his Person; chose Hugo Capetus Earl of Paris, and so ended the second Line of Pepin, and of Charles the Great, and entred the Race of Capetus.

Now thô all the French Chronicles are carnest defenders of their Law of Succession yet they justifie the Title of Capetus against Charles of Lor­rain, as may appear by the Words of an ancient and diligent Chronicler of the Abby of S. Denis, who defends King Capetus in these Words: We may not grant by any means, that Hugh Capet should be esteemed an Invader or Ʋsurper of the Crown of France, seeing the Lords, Prelates and Princes of the Realm did call him to this Dignity, and chose him for their King and Sovereign Lord. Upon which Words Belforest saith, as follows: Bel. lib 3. cap 1. I have laid besore you the Words and Censure of this good and religious Man, for they seem to me to touch the quick; [Page 36]for in truth we cannot defend the Title of Capetus by any means from Ʋsurpation and Felony, but by justifying his coming to the Crown, by the consent and good will of the Commonwealth.

And these Instances out of the second Line of France, I take to be sufficient proof of our Assertion, without going any further; for if we do but number these Kings already named of this second Race, from Pepin to Capet (which are about Seventeen in Two hundred thirty eight years) we shall sind, that not few, but the most part of them did both enter and enjoy their Crown and Dignity contrary to the Law of Lineal Descent, and of next Succession by Blood.

We shall therefore instance some Examples for our purpose out of the English History, and so conclude this Point.

First then it's to be noted, That the Realm of England hath had as great variety, changes and diversity in the Races of their Kings, as any Nation in the World: For after the Britains, it had Romans for their Governours for many years, and then of them and their Roman Blood, they had Kings of their own, as appears by that Valiant King Aurelius Ambrosius, who resisted so manfully the Saxons for a time; after his they had Kings of the Saxon and English Blood, and after them of the Danes, and then of the Normans, and after them again of the French; and last of all of the Scotch, of whom King james the Sixth was descended, which continues to this day.

Now I mean to pass over the first and ancient Races of Kings, as well of the British and Roman, [Page 37]as also of the Saxon Races, until King Egbert the First of that Name, King of the West Saxons, and almost of all the rest of England besides, who therefore is said to be properly the first Monarch of the Saxon Blood, as he that first commanded the Realm to be called England, which ever since has been observ'd.

Thsi Egbert was banish'd the Realm by King Bri­tricus, for the suspected that he might be chosen King, by reason of his great Prowess and Valour. He lived many years in France under the Famous King Pepin; afterwards hearing Britrious was dead, he came into England, Polydor. lib. 4. and was chosen King by uni­versal Consent of the People; and he prov'd one of the best Kings that ever the Saxons had before, or perhaps after; and he and King Pepin of France began their Reigns as it were together, and came both to their Crown by no other Title, but the Election of the People.

This King Egbert left a lawful son behind him named Ethelwolf, who succeeded him in the King­dom, and was a Famous a Man as his Fahter. This Ethelwolf had four lawful sons, who all in their turns succeeded by just and lawful Order in the Crown, viz. Ethelbald, Ethelbert, Ethelred and Alfred, and all the latter Three were most excellent Princes, especially Alfred, who drow Rollo, that Famous Captain of the Danes from the Borders of England with all his Company into France, where he got the Country, then name Neustria, and now Normandy, and was the first Duke of that Nation, from whom our William the Conquerour came after­wards in the 6th Descent.

This Alfred left one Son behind him named Edward, who dying left two Sons, lawfully begotten of his Wife Edigna, one called Edmond, the other Eldred, Polydor. lib. 5. [...]tow pag. 130. and a third Illegitimate, nam'd Adelstan, whom he had by a Concubine. This last was preferr'd to the Crown before the other two legi­timate princes, only for his Valour and Conduct.

This Man dying without Issue, his lawful Brother Edmond, put back before, was admitted to the Crown, who Reigned six years, and left two lawful Sons; but they bing young were both put back, and their Uncle Eldred preferr'd before them; who after Nine years Reign died without Issue, and so his elder Nephew Edwin was admitted to the Crown, who after four years was Depos'd for his lew'd and vitious Life and his younger Brother Edgar admitted in his place.

This King Edgar, who entred by Depositio; of his Brother, was one of the rarest Princes that the World had in his time, both for peace and War, Justice, Piety and Valour. He lest two Sons by different Wives, Edmond and Etheldred; the first was Murther'd, after which many good Men of the Realm were of Opinion, not to admit the Succession of Etheldred, both in respect of the Murther of King Edward his elder Brother, committed for his sake; as also for that he seem'd a Man very unsit for Government; and of this Opinion was that holy Man Dunstand, Archbishop of Canterbury, who in flat words denied to Consecrate him; but seeing the most part of the Realm incline to his side, he told that it would repent them afterwards, and that in his Life the Nation should be destroy'd; as indeed it was, and he forc'd to Normandy, and left Sweno [Page 39]and his Danes in the possession of the Realm, thô after Sweno's Death he return'd and died in London. He had two Wives, the first an English Woman, by whom he had prince Edmond, Sirnam'd Ironside, for his great strength and courage.

Now he that will consider the passage of the Crown of England from the death of Edmond Iron­side, eldest Son of King Etheldred, until the acqui­sition thereof by William Duke of Normandy, will easily se what Authority the Commonwealth hath had, to alter Titles of Succession, according as pub­lick necessity required.

Now since King William the First, commonly call'd the Conquerour, (thô in truth he never grounded his Title upon any thing, but the Election of the Con­fessor and Consent of the people) the exclusion of Princes against the ordinary course of Succession, is more notorious than in elder times; therefore I shall only refer the Reader to their particular Lives, who succeeded before the lawful Heirs by propinquity of Blood. As first, William Rufus and henry the First, before Robert their elder Brother, King Stephen before Henry the Second, and King John before Arthur Duke of Britain. Some years afte, when the Barons and States of England dislik'd the Governent of King John, they rejected him and chose Lewis the Prince of France to be their King, and swore Fealty to him at London, and depriv'd the young Prince Henry his Son; but after the death of his Father king John, they recall'd again that Sentence, and admitted this Henry to the Crown by the name of Henry the third, and disannull'd the oath, and Al­legiance made to Lewis of France. Now from this Henry the Third, the Houses of Britany, Lancaster [Page 40]and York, do seem to issue, as a triple Branch our of one Tree.

Now if we consider the Titles of the Kings of the House of York and those of Lancaster, we shall see plain­ly, that the best of all their Titles (after the deposition of King Richard the Second) depended most or the Authority of the Commonwealth; for as the People were affected, and the greater part prevailed, so were their Titles either confirm'd, altered, or disannulled by Parliament; and yet we may safely affirm, that either part, when they were in possession of the Crown, and confirm'd therein by parliament, were true and lawful Kings, and that God concur'd with them, as with true Princes for government of their People: For if we should deny this Point, great Inconveniences would follow, and we should shake the States of most princes in the World at this day, as by Examples which I have already alledg'd may appear. And sO I shall end this point, affirming, That as propinquity of Blood is a great preheminence towards the attaining of any Crown, yet it doth not bind the Commonwealth to admit it, if weigh­tier Reasons should urge the contrary.

Now it will be a further proof of what I have before alledg'd, ( viz. That all Commonwealths have prefix laws to their Princes, which they are as much bound to keep as any Subject) if we consider their oaths at their Admission or Coronation. And first of the Emperour, who Swears to defend the Christian Religion, to minister Justice equally to all Men, to keep and observe all laws and priviledges of the Empire; not to alienate or engage the possessi­ons of the Empire, to condemn no man but by course of Law, and that whatsoever he does otherwise, [Page 41]shall be void and of no validity. Unto these Arti­cles he Swears first by his Legates, and he gives a Copy of his oath to each Elector, and after he goes to be Crown'd; where in the middle of Mast the Archbishop of Colen asks in the presence of all the the People, Whether he is ready to Swear to the afore­said Articles? and he answers that he is; then the Archbishop leads him to the high Altar, where he Swears to them in express words; which being done, the Archbishop turning to the princes of the Empire and People there present, asks them Whether they be content to swear Obedience and Fealty to him? who answers, Yes: then he's Anointed, and the other two Archbishop lead him into the Vestry, where Deacons are ready to put on his Robes; then the Bishop of Colen delivereth him a drawn Sword, and puts a Ring on his Finger, and a Scepter in his Hand; and then the three Archbishops put the Crown on his head, and so he's plac'd on the Imperial Throne, where all the Princes swear Obedience to him.

Now it's to be noted, that the Emperour Swears three times, twice himself, and once by his Deputies, before his Subjects Swear once to him.

In Polonia, the manner of Crowning thieir King is in substance the same as of the Emperour. His Oath is in these Words; I do promise and swear before God and his Angels, that I will do Law and Justice to all, and keep the Peace of Christ's Church, and the Ʋnion of his Catholick Faith; and if (which God forbid) I should break my Oath, I am content that the Inhabi­tants of this Kingdom, owe no Duty or Obedience unto me, as God shall help me, and gods Holy Gospel.

In Spain I find, that the manner of admitting their Kings was different, and not the same before and after [Page 42]the destruction thereof by the Moors; but yet in both times their Kings did Swear in effect the self-same Points, which before have been mentioned in other Kingdoms.

Now Ambrosio Moral. reports, Ambro. Moral. lib. 13. cap. 2. That a certain law was found writen in the Gothish Tongue, and left since the time of Don Pelayo the first King after the Moors; which prescrib'd, how Men must make their King in Spain, and how he must swear to the priviledges and Liberties of that nation. Before all things it's establisht for a law, Liberty and Priviledge of Spain, that the Kings shall be made by Voices and Consent perpetually; to the intent, that no Evil king may enter without the Consent of the people, seeing they are to give him that which with their Blood and Labours they have gain'd from the Moors. Thus far goes the first Article of this Law, which is the more to be noted, because the most ancient of the Spanish Historians do say, that from this Don Pe­layo the Succession of their Kings was ever by pro­pinquity of Blood; and yet we see, that Election was joyned with it in express terms. The second part of that Law contain'd the Ceremonies us'd in those old times at the admission of their Kings.

Now as fro France, their ancient Ceremonies of Crowning their old Kings, was much after the manner which I noted before out of the Law of Don Pelayo, first King of Spain after the Moors: But as concern­ing the principal Point of that Action, which is the substance of admitting the King unto his Royal Au­thority, and of Oath by him made of governing well and justly, and of the reciprocal Oath of Obe­dience made to him by his Subjects, it was not much different from what is now used: The Archbishop [Page 43]of Rhemes being vested in Pontifical Attire, and come to the Altar to say Mast 9where the King is also upon a high Seat placed) he turns to him and says these sords; Sir, that which we require at your hands this day is, that you promise unto us, that you'l keep all Canonical priviledges, Law and Justice, due to be kept and defended, as a good King is bound to do in his realm. To which the King answers, I do promise to every one of you, that I will keep and maintain all Canonical priviledges, Law and Justice due to every Man, to the utmost of my power, and by Gods help will defend you, as a good King is bound to do. This being done, the king Swears and makes his oath, laying his hands upon the gospel, in these Words following; I do swear and promise to all Christian People, subject unto me, these Points ensuing: First, To procure that all my Subjects be kept in union of the Church, and I will defend them from all Excess, Rapin, Extortion and Ini­quity. Secondly, I will take care that in all Judgments, Justice shall be kept, with Equity and Mercy. Thirdly, I'le endeavour (as much as possible) to chase and drive out of my Realm, all such as the Curch hath, or shall declare Hereticks, as God shall help me, and his holy Gospel. Thus Sweareth the King, and then kisses the Book, and immediately is sung Te Deum; and then the King's vested, and the Ring, Scepter, Crown, and the other Kingly Ornaments are put on him, with Declaration first what they signifie; and then particular Prayers are made to God, that their signi­sication may be by the King fulfilled.

Now England hath particularly taken her Cere­monies from France, Belfor. in vita Phil. 2. being many of our English Kings have come from thence, as William the Con­queror, born in Normandy, Stephen Earl of Blois and [Page 44] Bullen, a French-man, and Henry the Second, born likewise in France, and Son to the Earl of Anjou. Now the Arcbishop of Canterbury, doth ordi­narily perform the Ceremonies at the Coronation in England, as the Archbishop of Rhemes doth in France; and we may collect the substance of what the Kings of England formerly swore, from the Bishops Letter to Henry the Seocnd, as also from the Speech of Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury to Henry the Fourth. In the former are these Words; Do you remember the Confession which you made and laid upon the Altar at Westminster, for keeping and defending the liberty of the Church when you were Consecrated and Anointed King by Theobaldus our predecessor? By which it appears. that he not only Swears, but gave up his oath also in Writing; and for more solemnity and obligation, laid it down with his own hands upon the Altar.

That to Henry the Fourth, was occasioned by his attempting to take the temporalties from the Cler­gy; wherefore the Archbishop desired him to remem­ber the Oath which he made, that he would delend the Church and Ministers thereof; and therefore pray'd him, to permit and suffer the Church to enjoy the Priviledges and Liberties which it did in the time of his Predecessors; and he also desired him, to consider his Promise made to the Realm, which was, That he would preferve unto every Man their Right and Title, so far as in him lay. At which the King was so moved, as he would hear no more of that Bill of Laity; but said, He would leave the Church in as good, or better condition than he feaund it. The other conditions of good Government are ex­presly set down in the king of Englands oath, re­corded [Page 45]by ancient Writers in these Words; Holing. p. 47 & 1005. That he will (during his Life) bear due reverence unto Al­mighty God, and to his Church; and that he will admi­nister Law and Justice equally to them all, and take away all unjust Laws. Which after he had sworn, then did the Archbishop 9turning to the people) declare whatthe King has promised, and by an Herald at Arms asked their Consents, Whether they were content to submit themselves unto this Man, as unto their King, or no, under the Conditions proposed? And when they have yielded, the Archbishop beings to put on the Regal Ornaments, as the Sword, Ring, Scepter and Crown, as in the French Coronation, and bids him hold his Place and keep his Oath.

And this is the sum of the English Coronation, which may be read in Stow; Stow in the Life of Ric. 2. but especially the Ad­missions as well of the said henry the Fourth last mentioned; as also of King Edward the Fourth, at their first Entrances to the Crown; for in the Ad­mission of KIng Henry, Stow shews how the People were demanded thrice. Whether they would be con­tent to take him for their King? And then the Arch­bishop read to them, what this new King was bound by oath unto. At the Admission also of King Edward the Fourth, Staw shews how the Peoples Consent was solemnly demanded in S. Johns Fields by London; notwithstanding King Edward had prov'd his title by Succession in the parliament at Weslminster; And now the Consent of the people being had, (or, He being thus Elected, as Stow's Words are) he was with great Royalty convey'd to Westminster, Stow in the L [...] [...] of Hen. 6. p. 7 and in the Hall set in the Kings Seat, with S. Edwards Scepter in his hand; and then the people were askt if they would have him King? and they cried, Yea, yea. Thus far Stow.

Now if any except against these Instances, because they entred and began their Reigns upon the depri­vation of other Kings then living, let them look into the Coronations of Edward the 6th, Queen mary and Elizabeth, and they will find, That the Consent of the People and their Acceptation of those Princes, is not only demanded by the publick Cry of a He­rald at Arms, which stands on the side of the Scaffold whereon the Prince is Crowned, and the peoples Answer expected till they cry, Yes, yes; but also that the said Princes gave their Corporal Oath unto the Bishiop who Crowned them, to uphold and manintain the true Faith, with the Liberties and Priviledges of the Church; as also to govern by Justice and Law: Which Oath no doubt hath been most solemnly sworn by all the Kings and Queens of England, from the days of Edward the Confessor at the least, and whosoever would see more Points of these Oaths set down in particular, let him read Magna Charta and he'l be satisfied.

By all which, and by much more that might be alledg's in this matter, it is evident, that this Agree­ment, Bargain and Contract between the King and his Common wealth at his first Admission, is as cer­tain and firm (notwithstanding any pretence or in­terest he hath by Succession) as any Contract or Marriage in the World can be; which is an act that lively expresseth the other; so as we must condemn the Assertions of those Men, as absurd, base and im­pious, who say, That only Succession of Bloor is the thing without further Approbation, which makes a King, and that the Peoples Consent to him who is next by Birth, is nothing at all needful, be he what he will; and that his Admission or Coronation [Page 47]is only a matter of external Ceremony, without any effect, for increase or confirmation of his Right.

having now proved by Examples of our own and neighbouring Nations, That all their Kings have been Sworn to the observation of their Laws and Constitutions, before their Coronation or Admit­tance by the Commonwealth; I shall proceed to make it appear, That Kings in all Christian King­doms have been Deposed for breach of the aforesaid Original Contract; but with this Protestation before­mentioned, that I do not intend any disrespect against the Sacred Authority of Princes and Governours, but only to shew, that as nothing under God is more honourable, prositable or Sovereign, than a good prince; so nothing is more pestilent, or bringeth so great destruction and desolation, as an evil one. And therefore as the whole Body is of more Authority than the Head, and may cure it, if discomposed if they infest the rest; seeing that a Body Civil may have many heads by Succession, and is not always bound to one as a Body Natural is; which Body Natural, if it had the same ability, that when it hath an aking or sickly Head, it could cut if off and take another; I doubt not but it would do so, and that all Men would confess that it had sufficient Autho­rity and Reason to do the same, rather than all the other Parts should perish, or live in pain and continual torment. But yet the matter is much clearer that we have in hand for easing our selves of wicked Princes, as I shall now begin to declare.

First therefore, I should alledge some Examples out of Scripture, but that some Men may chance to object, That those things recorded there of the Jews, are not so much to be reputed for acts of the Commonwealth, as [Page 48]for particular Ordinations of God himself: Which yet is not any thing against me, but rather makes much for our purpose, by reason the matter is much more authorized hereby, seeing whatsoever God did ordain and exercise in his Commonwealth, may also be pra­ctis'd by others, having Gods Authority and Appro­bation for it. Wherefore I shall hasten to Examples nearer home, and more proper to the particular pur­pose we treat of; yet I cannot omit noting two or three out of the Bible, that do appertain to this pur­pose also; and these are the deprivations of two wicked Kings of Judah, Saul and Amon; (thô both were lawfully placed in that Dignity) and the bring­ing in of David and Josias in their rooms, who were the two most excellent Princes that ever that Nation, or any other ever had to govern them.

And first, King Saul, thô he was chosen by God to that Royal Throne, yet he was slain by the Philistins, by Gods Order, as it was foretold him, for his diso­bedience, and not fulfilling the Law, and living within the Limits prescribed unto him. Amon was lawful King also, and that by Natural descent and succession; for he was Son and Heir to King Manasses, whom he succeeded; and yet he was slain by his own People, because he walked not in the way prescribed unto him by God: And unto these two Kings so deprived God gave two Successors, the like whereof are not to be found in the whole Race of Kings for a thousand years together; for of Josias it is written, He did that which was right in the sight of god, neither did he decline to the right hand nor to the left; He reigned 32 years; and Jeremiah the Prophet, who lived in his time, loved this good King so extremely, as he never ceased to lament his Death. As for King David, [Page 49]it will be needless to report how excellent a King he was; for (as many Learned men do note) he was a most perfect Pattern for all Kings that should follow in the World; not only in matters of Religion Piety and Devotion, but also of Chivalry Valour, Wisdom and Policy; neither is it true which Machiavel, and some others of his School affirm, for defacing of Christian Vertue, That Religion and Piety are often Lets to po­litick and wise government, and do weaken the high Spirits of magnanimous Men, to take in hand great Enterprizes for the Commonwealth. This (I say) is extremely false, for Grace doth not destroy or corrupt, but perfecteth Nature; so as he who by Nature is valiant, wife, liberal or politick, shall be more, if he's also pious and religious. Which is evident in King David, who notwithstanding all his Piety, omitted nothing belonging to the State and Government of a noble, wife and politick Prince.

And now if we leave the Hebrews and come to the Romans, we shall find many notable things in that State for our purpose: For when Romulus their first King declin'd into Tyranny, he was put by by the Senate, and in his place was chosen Numa Pompilius (a notable Prince) who prescrib'd all their order of Religion and manner of Sacrifices, imitating therein the Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews, as Tertullian and other Fathers do note; he began also the building of their Capitol, and did other beneficial things for that Commonwealth. Again, when Tarquinus the Proud, their 7th and last King was expell'd for his evil Government, we see the success was prosperous, for that not only no hurt came thereby to the State, but exceeding benefit, being their Government and increase of Empire was so prosperous under their Con­suls, [Page 50]that whereas at the end of their Kingly Govern­ment they had but 15 Miles Territory without their City, it is well known, that when the Consuls Go­vernment ended, and was changed by Julius Caesar their Territory reached more than 15000 Miles in compass; being they had not only Europe under their Dominion, but the principal parts of Asia and Africa also; so as this Chastisement so justly inflicted on Tarquin, was profitable and beneficial to their Commonwealth also. Moreover, when Julius Caesar had broken all Law both human and divine, and taken all Government into his own hands, he was (as the World knows) slain by his Senators in the Senate-House, and Octavianus Augustus prefer'd in his room, who proved the most famous Emperour that ever was. When Nero the 6th, Emperour of Rome, who succeeded lawfully his Uncle Claudius in the Empire, was depos'd and sentenc'd to death by the Senate for his wicked Government, thô Peace en­su'd not presently; but that Galba, Otho and Vitel­lius, three Captains of the Empire, made some little interludes of Tragical killing one another; yet within few Months the whole Empire by that means fell into Vespastan and his Son Titus's hand, two of the best Governours that ever those times saw.

The like may be noted of the Noble rank of five excellent Princes, viz. Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, Antorinus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, who succeeded in the Empire by the just Death of cruel Domitian; which Execution its thought the Senate secretly procured, (not being able to perform it openly by Justice) which appears, because when the act was done, the Senate did presently by publick Decree allow it, and dis­annull'd all his barbarous acts for their exceeding [Page 51]Cruelty, and commanded his Arms and Memorials to be taken down every where, and chose for his Successor one Cocceius Nerva an Italian, a Man of excellent Vertue, by whom they not only enjoy'd the most prosperous time of his Government; but of all the four who ensued him, no less worthy than himself. Not long after the Succession of these ex­cellent Emperours, there came to the Crown by law­ful descent, a youth named Antoninus Heliogabalus, Son of the Emperour Antoninus Caracalla, and Grandchild (as was supposed) to the famous and noble Emperour Septimius Severus, who died in England; which Youth, as he was highly honour'd for a time upon the account of his worthy Grand­father; so after for his own Beastly life, he was depriv'd and put to death by the Souldiers, at the request and common desire both of the Senate and People; who ordained also in his detestation, That no Emperour after him should be call'd Antonius. This Man being deposed as aforesaid, there was pre­fer'd to the Empire in his room a hopeful young Man of his next Kingdred, named Alexander Severus, being admitted by common Consent both of Senate and People, who prov'd one of the rarest Princes (for Valour and Vertue) that ever the Roman Empire had; so as the excellency of Severus seemed fully to recompence the wickedness of Heliogabalus.

I may name many other such Examples, and among the rest that of Maxentius, who being lawfully possess'd of the Empire (being Son to Maximinianus the Emperour, which Reign'd with Dioclesian) yet for his Tyrannical Government that was intolerable, its supposed that the Senate (not being able to match him in open strength) sent privily into England and France, [Page 52]to invite Constantine to come to their relief, and so he did; and Maxentius being drown'd in the River Tyber, Constantine (afterwards Sirnam'd the Great) succeeded in the Empire, who was the Emperour (as the World knows) who first publickly professed himself a Chri­stian, and planted our Faith over all the World. And so I shall end with the Roman Empire.

Now if we come lower down, and nearer home, we have yet another Example more remarkable than the rest; which is, the change of the Empire from the East to the West, for the evil Government of Irene and her Son Constantine the 6th, who was de­posed first, and his Eyes put out by his own Mother Irene, and the Empire usurp'd by her; who not being able to Rule it in such order as was requisite for so great a Monarchy, she was deprived thereof by the Sentence of Pope Leo the Third, and by Consent of all the People and Senate of Rome, Charles King of France and Germany (after Sirnamed the Great) was Crown'd Emperour of the West; which Succession continues as it were to this day, and many Worthy men have succeeded therein, and insinite acts of Ju­risdiction have been exercised by that Authority, which were all unjust and Tyrannical, if this change of the Empire, and deposition of Irene and her Son, for their evil Government, had not been lawful. It were too long to run over all other Kingdoms, and therefore I shall only touch some in those Points that are most notorious.

Now the two famous Changes that have been made in the Royal Line of France; the first from the Race of Pharamond and Clodoveus to the Line of Pepin, and the second from the Race of Pepin to Hugo Capetus; whereon are they founded, but upon the [Page 53]Judicial chastisement and deposition of two evil Princes, the first of Childeric the third lawful King of France, the second of Charles of Lorain, who was kept Prisoner during his life in the Castle of Orleance? And thus muhc all the French Histories do affirm, and do attribute to these Changes the prosperity and greatness of their Kingdom. And so much for France, where many other Examples might be alledg'd, as of King Lewis the Third, Sirnamed Fainant, and of Charles Sirnamed Le Gross. who succeeded him, both of them depos'd by the States of France, as before I have noted.

But now if we step over the Pyrenean Mountains, and look into Spain, where we shall not fail of many Examples to our purpose, both before the oppression of that Realm by the Moors, and after. for before, in the year of Christ 630, we read of a lawful King named Flaveo Suintila, put down and deprived with his whole Posterity, in the fourth Council National of Toledo, and one Sissinando confirmed in his place; Ambrosio Mora lib. 11. cap. 19. notwithstanding that Suintila was at the beginning of his Reign, a very good King, and much commended by S. Isidorus Archbishop of Sevil; who yet in the said Council was the first Man who subscrib'd to his deprivation. After the entrance of the Moors also, when Spain was reduc'd again to order and govern­ment of the Spanish Kings; Garib. lib. 13 cap. 15. we read that about the year of Christ 1282. one Don Alonso the 11th of that name, King of Castile and Leon, succeeded his Father Ferdinand, Sirnam'd the Saint, and he obtain'd the name of Sabio and Astrologio, that is, of Wise and so an Astrologer for excelent Learning and peculiar skill in that Art as may appear by the Astronomy Tables that at this day go under his Name, which are the most perfect and exact that ever were set forth, by Judg­ment [Page 54]of the Learned. This Man, for his evil govern­ment, and especially for Tyranny used towards two Nephews of his, was deposed of his Kingdom by a publick Act of Parliament in the Town of Validolid, after he had Reigned 30 years; and his Son Don Sancho the 4th was Crown'd in his place, who for his valiant Acts was Sirnam'd El Bravo, and it turn'd to the great commodity of the Commonwealth.

The same Country of Spain some years after, about the year of Christ 1368, Garib. lib. 14. cap. 40, & 41. having to their King one Don Pedro, Sirnamed the Cruel, who for his inju­rious Proceedings with his Subjects, they deposed, and sent for his Bastard Brother out of France, and made him King. And thô Edward, Sirnamed the Black Prince, by order of his Father Edward the 3d of England, restored the said Peter again; yet it was not durable, for that Henry having the favour of the Spaniards, return'd and depriv'd Peter the second time, and slew him in fight hand to hand, who proved an excellent Prince, and for his great nobility in Conversation, and prowess in Chivalry, was called El Cavalero, the Knightly King, and for his exceeding benignity and liberality was Sirnam'd also El delas Mercedes, i.e. the King who gave many Gifts, or the liberal, frank, and bountiful King; which was a great alteration from King Peter the Cruel, his Predecessor.

In Portugal also, before I go out of Spain, I will alledge one Example more, which is of Don Sancho the 2d, fourth King of Portugal, lawful Son to Don Alenso Sirnam'd El Gardo, 3d King of Portugal. This Don Sancho (after he had Reigned 34 years) was deprived for his defects in Government, by the universal Consent of all Portugal; Garib. lib. 4. de hist. Port. cap. 19. and this approved by a general Council in Lions; and Don Alonso, third Brother to the said [Page 55] Don Sancho, succeeded; who enjoy'd the Kingdom of Portugal prosperously and peaceably all the days of his life, and he was a notable King; who among other great Exploits set Portugal free from all subjection, Garib. hist. Port. lib. 34. cap. 20. dependance and homage to the Kingdom of Castile, which unto his time it had acknowledged, and he left for his Successor his Son and Heir, Don Dionysio el Fabricador, that is, the Great Builder, for he built and founded above 44 great Towns in Portgual, and was a very excellent Prince.

In Polonia, Henry the 3d, who was King of France, thô before Sworn King of Poland, Vide Gagnen. part. 1. of which Crown he was deprived by publick Act of Parliament, for departing thence without Licence, and not returning at his day, by the State appointed and denounced, by publick Letters of peremptory Commandment. This was a clear Abdication, and the said State pro­ceeded against him much after the same manner, as ours did against the late King James.

In Denmark, Cisternus their lawful King, if we re­spect his descent in Blood, being Son to King John, who Reigned before him, and Crown'd in his Fathers life, was deposed for his intolerable Cruelty, and driven into Banishment, together with his Wife and three Children, which were all disinherited and his Uncle Frederick, Prince of Holsatia was chosen King; and Cisternus, thô he married the Sister of Charles the 5th Emperour of Germany, and was Related also to Henry the 8th of England; yet he could never prevail to be restored, but past his time miserably, partly in Banish­ment, and partly in Prison, till he died.

Now I think it convenient to end this short Nar­ration with an Example or two out of England being I have not read of more remarkable Accidents con­cerning [Page 56]this Point, than in the History of this King­dom: But for brevities sake, I shall content my self with three or four Examples which hapned since the Conquest, thô I may well look higher, as appears by the deprivation of King Edwin and others.

Now I might instance King John, who the States had deprived, first at Canterbury and after at London, in the 18th year of his Reign; but being he was in actual War with the Barons, and had a considerable Party to espouse his Quarrel, and not being deprived by Parliament I shall therefore pass it by, not account­ing it so compleat a Deposition, as that of Edward the Seconds was, Polydor. lib. 18. it being done by Act of Parliament assembled in London in the year 1326, and his Body adjudg'd to perpetual Imprisonment, he being Pri­soner at that time in the Castle of Wallingford, Stow in the Life of Edw. the 2d. whe­ther divers (both Bishops, Lords and Commoners) were sent to him, to denounce the Sentence of the Realm against him, viz. how they had deprived him, and chosen Edward his Son in his stead: For which act of chasing his Son he thank'd them heartily, and with many Tears acknowledg'd his own unworthi­ness. Whereupon he was degraded; his name of King first taken from him, and he appointed to be call'd Edward of Carnarvan; and then his Crown and Ring were taken away, and the Steward of his House brake the Staff of his Office in his presence, and discharged his Servants of their Services, and all other People were discharged of their Obedience and Allegiance to him; and towards his Maintenance he had only 100 Marks a year allowed for his Expences, and then he was delivered into the hands of parti­cular Keepers, who led him Prisoner from thence to many other places, using him with extreme Indignity [Page 57]in the way, until at last they took away his Life in Berkley Castle, and his Son Edward the 2d Reign'd in his stead; who (if we respect either Valour, Prowess, length of Reign, acts of Chivalry, or the multitude of Famous Princes his Children left behind him) was one of the noblest Kings that ever England had.

After him succeeded Richard the 2d, Son and Heir to the renowned Black Prince of Wales; who forgetting the miserable end of his Great Grandfather for evil Government, and the felicity of his Grandfather for the contrary, suffered himself to be abus'd and misled by evil Counsellors, to the great prejudice and dis­quiet of the Realm: For which cause (after he had Reigned 22 years) he was also depos'd by Act of Parliament held at London 1399, and condemn'd to perpetual Imprisonment in the Castle of Pomfret, where he was soon after put do death, as the other before had been; in whose place (by free Election) was chosen the Noble Henry Duke of Lancaster, who prov'd a notable King, and was Father to Henry the 5th, commonly call'd the Alexander of England; for as Alexander the Great conquered most part of Asia in the space of 9 or 10 years, so did this Henry con­quer France in less time.

I may also reckon in the number of Princes de­priv'd for defect in Government (thô otherwise of no ill life) Henry the 6th, who after 40 years Reign was deposed and imprisoned by Edward the 4th of the House of York; and the same was confirm'd by the Commons, and especially by the People of London, and also by publick Act of Parliament; not only in respect of the Title which King Edward pretended, but also by reason that King Henry suffered himself to be over rul'd by the Queen his Wife, and had broken the Articles of Agreement made by the Parlia­ment, [Page 58]between him and the Duke of York, and solemn­ly sworn on both sides; in punishment whereof and of his other negligent and evil Government, Sentence was given against him, and Edward the 4th elected in his place, who was an excellent Prince.

But after this there sell another Accident much more notorious, which was, That Richard Duke of Gloucester, this King Edward's Brother, did put to death his two Nephews, and made himself King; and thô he acted very barbarously by taking the Crown in this wicked manner, yet when his Nephews were once dead, he might reasonably seem to be lawful King, both in respect that he was next Mále after his Brother; as also, because his Title was authoriz'd and made good by many Acts of Parliament, both before and after the deaths of those Infants; and yet (I think) no man will say but that Henry of Richmond had very good reason to come out of France, being Called and Invited by the People of England to re­venge the Cruelties and Arbitrary things done by Richard the 3d; and that this undertaking was no less successful than generous, and obtain'd the Crown for his pains, after that Richard had died in the Field, and became King by the name of Henry the 7th; and no man (I suppose) will deny him to have been a true and lawful King. And moreover, as I said before, I would have you consider in all these mutations, what Kings always succeeded in the places of such as have been depos'd, as namely in England, in the place of those Five Kings before-mentioned viz. John, Edward the 2d, Richard the 2d, Henry the 6th, and Richard the 3d, there have succeeded three Henries, the 3d, 4th, and 7th, and 2 Edwards, the 3d and 4th some of them most rare and valiant Princes who have done many im­portant Acts in their Commonwealth; and among [Page 59]others have raised many Houses to the Nobility, put down others, changed States both abroad and at home, distributed Ecclesiastical Dignities, altered the course of Descent in the Royal Blood, and the like; all which was unjust, and is void at this day, if the Changes and Deprivations of the former Princes were not lawful; and consequently King James the 6th of Scotland, nor any of his Descendents, had Title to this Crown, because they descend from those Kings who were elected in place of the deprived. And this I take to be a sufficient proof, That lawful Kings have many times been lawfully deposed by the States of the Kingdom, for Misgovernment.

Now I suppose it will be readily granted, That this ample Authority has been actually exercised by the aforesaid Commonwealths against their evil Princes: but yet many perhaps will ask Quo jure, by what Law or Right? I answer, By all Laws both Divine and Human: Divine, by that Form of Government which every Kingdom doth chuse unto it self, as also the Conditions, Statutes and Limitations which it shall appoint to their Princes, as largely before hath been declared: And by Human Law also; being all Law, both Natural, National and Positive declares, That Princes are obliged to govern by Law and Order: For if they should be bound to no Rules of Justice, but must be obeyed, be their Commands never so illegal and wicked then is the end of all Royal Government and Authority utterly defeated and useless; then may we submit to all the Injustice and Arbitrary Commands that can be given to publick Murderers, Ravishers, Thieves and Spoilers, to devour us; for such indeed are they who follow no Law, but Pas­sion and Sensuality, committing Injustice by their publick Authority.

And finally, (which is the chiefest Reason of all and the very ground and foundation of all Kingly Authority among Christians) the Power and Authority which the Prince hath from the Commonwealth is not absolute, but a Power delegate, or Power of Trust delegated by Com­mission from the People, which is given with such Restri­ctions, Limitations and Conditions, even with such plain Promises and Oaths of both parties, (I mean between the King and Peo [...]le at the day of Admission or Coronation) as if the same be not kept, but wilfully broken on either part, then is the other not bound to observe his Promise, tho' never so solemnly made or sworn; for that in all Bargains, Agreements and Contracts, where each part is mutually and reciprocally bound to the other, by Oath, Vow or Condition, there if one party break his Promise, the other is not obliged to perform. And this is so evident by all Law, both of Nature and Nations, and so conform­able to all Reason and Equity, that it's inserted among the very Rules of both the Civil and Law of Nations, where it's said, Frustra fidem sibi quis postulat servari ab co, cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat; He doth in vain require a Promise to be kept to him by another, to whom he refuseth to perform that which himself promised. And again, Non astringitur quis Jaramento adimplendum, quod juravit, si ab alia parte non impletur, cujus respectu prae­buit Juramentum; A man is not bound to perform that which by Oath he promised, if on the other part that be not performed, in respect whereof his Oath was made. As for Example, if two should swear to assist each other upon the way in all respects, and after falling upon Ene­mies who were Relations of Friends to one of them, and he should take their part against his Companion, its clear that the other was not bound to keep his Oath to that Man, that had so wickedly broken his to him: Nay, not only in this case, that is so evident by Nature it self, but in many others also, it is both lawful, honest and conve­nient, to leave sometimes the performance of our Oath, when by fulfilling it, there would accrue any notable Inconveniences against Religion, Piety, Justice, Honesty, or the weal-publick, or against the party himself to whom [Page]it was made. As if one had sworn to restore a Sword to a mad or furious Man, wherewith it were likely he would destroy himself or others; and such like cases, which Cicero sets down in his first Book of Offices, and deduces them from the very ground of Nature, and Reason it self, and says, that it were against the duty of a good or honest Man, it such cases to perform his Promise. Our Divines also do alledge the Example of Herod, who had sworn to the Daughter of Herodias, to give her what she demanded, who demanded the Head of S. John Baptist, thô Herod was sorry for it; yet saith the Text, For his Oaths sake he commanded it to be performed; which yet no man will deny, but that it had been far better left unperformed, according to the Rule of Law, In malis promissis fidem non expedit-observare, It is not expedient to keep our Oath when unlawfully made. And in the second Part of the Decretal there's alledged this Sentence out of Isidorus, and establish'd for Law, In malis promissis rescinde fidem, in turpi voto muta decretum, impia enim promissio quae scelere impletur; In evil Promises perform not your word, in an unlawful Vow or Oath change your determination; for its an impious Promise that cannot be fulfill'd, but with Wickedness. So as nothing is more largely handled both in the Civil and Canon Law, than this matter of Promises, how and when, and in what case they hold or bind, and when not.

All which to apply to our matter of Kings; We are to understand that two evident Cases are touched here, when a Subjects Oath or Promise of Obedience may be left unperform'd to his Prince: The first, when the Prince observes not the Promise or Oath made to the Common­wealth at his Admission or Coronation; the second, when it should turn to the great damage of the Weal publick, (for whose sake only good Princes were ordain'd as often before hath been said and proved) if the Subject should keep his Promise and Oath made unto him. For if in my Opinion he is an Enemy to the Truth, and that his Reli­gion obliges him in Conscience to destroy and extirpate all that are not of it, shall act against my Conscience and sin damnably in the sight of God, if I do not endeavour [Page]to render him incapable of destroying others that are not of his own erroneous Opinion, and of bringing their to perdition, wherein I am perswaded he remains. This Doctrin is founded upon the discourse of S. Paul to the Romans and Corinthians, against such Christians as were invited to the Banquets and Tables of Gentiles, [...] 14. Cor. 10.14. and finding Meats offered to Idols (which they esteemed unlawful to eat) did yet eat the same against their own Judgment and Conscience, which the Apostle saith was a damnable Sin; not because the thing it self was evil or unlawful, but because they judg'd it so and yet did it.

And now to apply all this to our present purpose, affirm and hold, That for any man to give his help, con­sent or assistance to the making or upholding of a King whom he believes to be of a wrong Religion, and ob­liged to root out and extirpate those he thinks Hereticks, and who consequently will endeavour all he can to pro­mote it and ruin ours, our Liberties, Propertie; and what else is valuable to us, is a most grievous and damnable Sin For if S. Paul has plainly and absolutely pronounc'd in the place before alledged, that even in eating a piece of Meat that its damnable for a man to discern and yet eat: What may we think will it be in so great and important: matter as he making of King if, for a man to dissemble or act against his own Conscience or Judgment? that is to say, to discern and judge that he's a declared Enemy of our Religion, and obliged t destroy the Professors o [...] it; and yet to further or uphold his Authority and Go­vernment over Protestants, where he may be able to ruin or pervert many, and to obstruct all Honour and true Worship due to God? and whether he does this or not yet I shall be guilty of it all; for that knowing and per­swading my self, that he is like or disposed to do it by the Principles of his Religion, yet for fear, slattery, carelesness, emulation against others, vain pretence of Title, want o [...] Zeal to Gods true Religion and Worship, or for such other passions or temporal respects, I favour or further his Pretences, or do not resist him when it's in my power, by which I do justly make my self guilty of all the Evils, Miseries and Calamities both Temporal and Spiritual, [Page]which afterwards by his evil Government do, or may ensure, for that I knowing him to be such an one, did notwithstanding assist his promotion. And thus much for matter of Conscience.

But if we respect Reason of State also and Worldly Policy, it must be great folly and oversight for a man to promote to a Kingdom; in which he must live, one of so pernicious and destructive Religion to himself; for let the Bargains and Agreements be what they will, and fair Promises and vain Hopes never so great, yet seeing the Prince once made and setled, must needs proceed accord­ing to the Principles of that Religion, and consequently must soon break with the other Party, thô before he loved him never so well, (which perhaps is very hard, if not impossible, for two of so opposite Religions to love sincerely;) but if it were so, many suspicions, accusations, calumniations and other aversions must needs light on the Party, who is of so opposite and different Religion from his King, as not only he cannot be capable of such preferments and honours which he may desire and de­serve in his Country, but also he shall be in continual danger, and subject to a thousand Molestations and Inju­ries, always incident to those men who are not currant with the course of their Prince in matters of Religion: Which to remedy, they must either dissemble deeply, and against their own Conscience pretend to favour and for­ward the Designs of the Government, how pernicious soever they may be to the welfare of the Kingdom; or else to avoid this slavish dissimulation, they must wave all the temporal Commodities of this life, and leave the be­nefits which their Country might afford them, and live Exiles in a forein Kingdom; which has been the fate of many brave Men in our time: So as of all the disabilities which serve to exclude or remove a Prince, the adhering to so destructive and pernicious a Religion as Popery is, is the principle, and ought to be the first and chiefest thing con­sider'd by the Commonwealth; especially he being of that Religion which denies all charity, peace, happiness, or security of Life or Property to such as are not of its Communion; whose growth and increase the State hath [Page] [...] [...] [...]nicious a Doctrin, which notwithstanding [...] useless and ineffectual for our security, when [...] James, a protest Papist, was admitted to [...], who with one breath suspended and annull'd [...] the Laws of the Reformation. And thô we have been [...]uilty of great oversight and failure, and been wanting to the security and support of the true Protestant Religion, when he was but Heir apparent, and (as I said before) a Spouse betrothed only, and not married to the Common­wealth; yet (to pursue the Allegory) we have made as good reparation, as such an oversight could permit, by divorc­ing him, and taking a new Husband of our Perswasion.

Now S. Paul to the Corinthians determines plainly, That if two Gentils married together in their Gentility (which none can deny to be a true Marriage for so much as con­cerns the Civil Contract) and after one is made a Chri­stian, the other will not live with him or her; or if he do, nor without blaspheming God and temptation to Sin: In this case (I say) the Apostle teacheth and out of him the Canon Law decrees, that this is sufficient to break and dissolve utterly this Heathen Marriage, and that the Chri­stian may marry again, and this only for want of Religion in the other party, which being so in an actual Marriage, which is so much favoured by Christ, when he said, Whom God hath joyned, let no man separate; it is much cleaver in this Metaphorical Marriage of a King to the Common­wealth, which may be dissolved for many more Rea­sons, and with infinite less danger of incurring Gods An­ger than the former: So that I hope all ingenuous Readers who peruse this Treatise, and throughly weigh and con­sider the Examples and Arguments herein mentioned, will think themselves free from all obligations of Duty or Allegiance to the late King James, being his Authority is expired, to which Allegiance, was inseparably incident, and seated in the Royal Persons of Willian and Mary our most renowned King and Queen, whom we are bound to obey without the least scruple.