LXVII.

JUGGLING.

'Tis not juggling that is to be blamed, but much juggling, for the world cannot be governed without it. All your rhetorick, and all your elenchs in logic, come within the compass of juggling.

ΤΟ

LXVIII.

JURISDICTION.

Sup

I. THERE'S NO such thing as spiritual jurisdiction; all is civil, the church's is the same with the lord mayor's. pose a Christian came into a pagan country, how can you fancy he shall have power there? He finds fault with the gods of the country. Well, they will put him to death for it. Then he is a martyr; what follows? Does that argue he has any spiritual jurisdiction? If the clergy say the church ought to be governed thus, and thus, by the word of God, that is doctrine all, that is not discipline.

2. The pope, he challenges jurisdiction over all; the bishops, they pretend to it as well as he; the presbyterians, they would have it to themselves; but over whom is all this? The poor layman.]

I. ALL things are held by jus divinum, either immediately or mediately.

2. Nothing has lost the pope so much in his supremacy, as not acknowledging what princes gave him. 'Tis a scorn

upon the civil power, and an unthankfulness in the priest. But the church runs to jus divinum, lest if they should acknowledge what they have, they have by positive law, it might be as well taken from them, as given to them.

LXX.

KING.

I. A KING is a thing men have made for their own sakes, for quietness' sake. Just as in a family one man is appointed to buy the meat. If every man should buy, or if there were many buyers, they would never agree; one would buy what the other liked not, or what the other had 10 bought before, so there would be a confusion. But that charge being committed to one, he according to his discretion pleases all. If they have not what they would have one day, they shall have it the next, or something as good.

2. The word king directs our eyes. Suppose it had been consul or dictator. To think all kings alike, is the same folly, as if a consul of Aleppo or Smyrna, should claim to himself the same power that a consul at Rome had. What, am not I consul? Or a duke of England should think himself like the duke of Florence. Nor can 20 it be imagined that the word Bartλeùs did signify a king

1. 15. directs our eyes.] This seems to mean, the word catches our eyes and suggests the notion that it bears everywhere the same

sense.

This and the next clause seem directed against the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1640, framed by the Convocations of Canterbury and of York, in which the most high and sacred order of Kings is said to be 'of divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts both of the Old and New Testaments.' Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 545

ΤΟ

the same in Greece, as the Hebrew word did with the Jews. Besides, let divines in their pulpits say what they will, they in their practice deny that all is the king's. They sue him, and so does all the nation, whereof they are a part. What matter is it then, what they preach or talk in the schools?

3. Kings are all individuals, this or that king; there is no species of kings.

4. A king that claims privileges in his own kingdom, 10 because they have them in another, is just as a cook, that claims fees in one lord's house because they are allowed in another. If the master of the house will yield them, well and good.

5. The text [Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's] makes as much against kings as for them; for it says plainly that some things are not Caesar's. But divines make choice of it, first in flattery, and then because of the other part adjoined to it [Render unto God the things that are God's], where they bring in the 20 Church.

6. A king outed of his country, that takes as much upon him as he did at home, in his own court, is as if a man and I being upon different ground, I used1 to lift up my voice to him, that he might hear me, at length should come down to me and then expect I should speak as loud to him as I did before.

1 As if a man and I being upon different ground, I used, &c., H. 2] as if a man and I being upon the ground, used, &c., H. As if a man upon a tree, and I being upon the ground used,

&c., S. As if a man on high, and I being upon the ground used, &c. Early printed editions. No one of all these is quite satisfactory. I have chosen what seems the least faulty.

1. 2. let divines in their pulpits &c.] See, e.g., Dr. Manwaring's two Sermons on the King's prerogative, in which he insists that the King's power is not bounded by law; that it is the duty of his subjects to obey his illegal commands; and that if they are deprived of property in their goods they have no choice but to submit. Fuller, Church History, century xvii, bk. xi. secs. 61, 62, 63, in ann. 1628.

LXXI.

KING OF ENGLAND.

I. THE king can do no wrong: that is, no process can be granted against him, you can have no remedy against him. What must be done then? Petition him, and the king writes upon the petition Soit droit fait, and sends it to the chancery, and then the business is heard. His confessor will not tell him he can do no wrong.

2. There's a great deal of difference between head of

1. 2. The king can do no wrong] Explained by Blackstone as meaning only 'that in the first place, whatever may be amiss in the conduct of public affairs is not chargeable personally on the king; nor is he, but his ministers, accountable for it to the people: and secondly, that the prerogative of the Crown extends not to do any injury.' Commentaries, bk. iii. ch. 17, sec. I. Selden's remark deals only with one incident of the maxim, and guards, in the last clause, against one possible misinterpretation of it.

1. 8. There's a great deal of difference &c.] By 26 Henry VIII, cap.i. it is declared and enacted that the King's Majesty is the only supreme head in erthe of the Church of England. This Act was confirmed, with penalties, by 1 Edward VI, cap. 12.

In 'our Canons,' i. e. in the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of 1640, sec. 1, Concerning the Regal Power, the words used are 'The most high and sacred order of Kings is of divine right. . . . A supreme power is given to this most excellent order by God himself in the Scriptures, which is that kings should rule and command in their several dominions all persons of what rank and estate soever, whether ecclesiastical or civil....

'The care of God's church is so committed to Kings in the scripture that they are commended when the church keeps the right way, and taxed when it runs amiss, and therefore her government belongs in chief unto Kings.' Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 545.

The difference of which Selden speaks is that the King, as head of the Church, is the fountain or original of all spiritual authority in his dominions, in the full sense in which he is the fountain of honour and the fountain of law; while the words of the Canon mean no more than that the Church and its ecclesiastical rulers are subject to the civil power. This latter is all that was claimed by Elizabeth, and all that was expressed in Article 37. On the other hand, every Bishop in his Oath of Homage, taken when he obtains the tem

the church, and supreme governor, as our canons call the king. Conceive it thus; There is in the kingdom of England a college of physicians, the king is supreme governor of these, because they live under him, but not head of them, nor president of the college, nor the best physician.

3. After the dissolution of the abbeys, they did much advance the king's supremacy, for they only cared to exclude the pope: hence have we had several translations of the Bible put upon us. But now we must look to it, 10 otherwise the king may put upon us what religion he pleases.

4. 'Twas the old way when the king of England had his house, there were canons to sing service in his chapel: so at Westminster, in St. Stephen's chapel, (where the House of Commons sits) from which canons the street Canon-row has its name, because they lived there; and he had also the abbot and his monks, and all these the king's house.

5. The three estates are the lords temporal, the bishops

poralities of his see, acknowledges that I hold the said Bishopric, as well the spiritualities as the temporalities thereof, only of your Majesty.' This appears to be a survival of the earlier view.

1. 12. 'Twas the old way &c.] On the King's Chapel Establishment see Excursus C.

1. 19. The three estates are &c.] Who formed the three estates was one of the disputed questions of the time. See, e. g., a speech by Bagshaw (Feb. 9, 1640): '(It was said) that episcopacy was a third estate in Parliament, and therefore the King and Parliament could not be without them; this I utterly deny, for there are three estates without them, as namely the King, who is the first estate; the Lords Temporal is the second; and the Commons the third. Nalson, Collections, i. 762.

Nalson quotes, on the other hand, from the Parliamentary Roll, I Richard III, 'at the request and by the assent of the three estates of the realm, that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of this land assembled in this present Parliament,' &c., i. 764. See, also, a proclamation by Queen Elizabeth (1588) which speaks of the estate of the prelacy, being one of the three ancient estates of this realm under her Highness.' Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 340.