who has seen any thing of our Hâ—stories so that this Notion of tâ—e Enquirers is perfectly Chimerâ—al as to us For granting as Mr. Hunton Observes Treatise of Monarchy pag. 16. That Subjection is not immediately founded in Conquest but in Consâ—rt yet Consent in such a Case is forced necessary and unavoidable and includes an entire Submission to the Conquerors pleasure 〈◊〉 when a King has his Enemies for a Canquered People are no 〈◊〉 at first 〈◊〉 such an Advantage he will scarcely be persâ—â—ded to put any conditions of Forfeiture into his Title and Reigâ—â—â—â— their Courtesy For how frank soever he or his Successors mâ—y be in other respects it 's unimaginable to suppose they will 〈◊〉 them any Dethroning Power in their Charter And 〈◊〉 tâ—e Case stands thus we may fairly conclude That that Magnificency of Style with which our Kings are always mentioned has a suitable Authority belonging to it that those August Names of Imperial Crown Sovereign Supream c. which we meet with so often in our Courts of Justice Conveyances and Acts of Parliament are no empty insignificant Sounds nor ever designed to describe a Precarious Prince who may be Resisted or Deposed at pleasure In his Sixth Section he will allow no Prince to have a Divine Authority unless he can prove his Delegation by Prophets c. And yet St. Paul calls the Roman Emperor the Minister of God and I believe the Enquirer will grant that neither Claudius or any of his Family were Proclaimed by Bath Coll. or Crowned by an Angel from Heaven I somewhat wonder that our Author should advance such Propositions as these who grants Sect. 10. That the Submission of the People together with a long Prescription makes a Prince a legal Governor and when his Power is once settled by Law he has a good a Right to it as any private Person can have to his Property And immediately after he affirms That though a Man has acquired his Property by Humane means such as Succession c. yet he has a security for the Enjoyment of it from a Divine Right Now if Prescription and Succession gives a Prince a good Humane Title and this Title is confirmed by the Rules of Natural and Revealed Religion One would think since he is thus secured in his Government by a Divine Right he had a Divine Right to govern But after all I freely yield the Enquirer That we cannot reasonably conclude from bare Possession that it is the Will of God such Persons should be our Governors for the most part we ought to conclude the contrary because as he well observes this Argument from Possession Iustifies all Usurpers when they are Successful By his Seventh Paragraph we are to take Our Measures of Power and by consequence of Obedience from the express Laws of the State from the Oaths which are sworn by the Subject c. To make this reasoning applicable to the Case in hand I shall only observe at present that by his own Concessions Sect. 13. There are many express Laws made which lodge the Militia singly in the King that make it plainly unlawful upon any pretence whatever to take up Arms against his Majesty or any Commissionated by him and that these Laws have been put into the Form of an Oath and sworn by all those who have born any Employment in Church or State. How well he reconciles the Doctrine of Resistance with these Remarques will be seen afterwards The Eigth Section brings us from Natural Religion to the Scriptures of the Old Testament but it 's only to shew That they are not to be made use of in this matter Now under favour I conceive These Scriptures are not so foreign to the Point as the Enquirer supposes For though the Jewish Government was particularly designed for that People yet being settled by Divine appointment it ought to be highly esteem'd and imitated in its standing and general Maxims by the rest of the World. God perfectly understands the Tempers Weaknesses and Passions of Mankind which makes him infinitely more able to judge what sort of Polity best Answers the Ends of Society So that whatever is not of a peculiar and temporary Nature in his Establishment should be the Model of their Government And to apply this Observation since there were no allowances of Resistance in the Jewish Government But certain Death was the ordained Consequence of Disobedience to the Civil Power Deut. 17. 12. We ought to conclude that such a general Submission is most rational and advantageous for the publick Good and therefore are to take it for granted that all Christian States especially are settled upon this Passive Principle where there are not express Proofs of the contrary For it 's no Honour to the Memory of our Forefathers to infer by remote and strained Implications that they thought themselves wiser than God Almighty To the former part of his Ninth Section I have nothing to object but am ready to joyn Issue with him upon his Notion As to what he mentions concerning The State of the Primitive Christians I shall have occasion to touch upon it afterwards I shall pass over his Tenth Section as being in a manner comprehended in his Ninth and proceed to the Eleventh which brings us home to our English Government Where as a Corollary from his former Discourse he concludes That the Question in debate Must be determined by the fixt Laws and Regulations of the Kingdom Which is some comfort for then we ought not to be over-rul'd by any General Considerations from Speculations about Original Liberty or Arbitrary Constructions of Salus Populi Nor yet by the Authorities of Civilians especially those Foreign ones who have had a Republican Byass clap'd upon their Education In this Paragraph he informs his Reader That the King's Prerogative is bounded and that it's Injustice to carry it beyond it's Legal Extent which no one denies As for his Instance I cannot well imagine what he brought it for I hope it was not to try if he could make some People believe that his Majesty had Levy'd Money by his Army for this he knows is not True. But when any of this Violence happens he tells us the Principle of Self-Preservation seems to take place and to warrant as violent a Resistance It seems to take place i. e. he is not sure on 't But by his own Concessions he may be sure of the contrary if the exercise of this which he calls Self-Preservation be restrained by the Constitution whether it is or not besides what has been said already will appear farther afterwards There is nothing more certain than that as he observes Sect. 12. The English have their Liberties and Properties secured to them by the Constitution But an allowance of fighting their Prince in Defence of these Liberties c. is so far from being Reserved to them that it 's plainly forbidden by Many Possitive and Express Laws Indeed how is it possible such a Liberty should be Reserved in
charged with these Failures while they were living But after they were dead the Custom was to Arraign their Memories and deny them the Honor of a Funeral Solemnity Which punishment was likewise inflicted upon the Iewish Kings who had been very irregular and oppressive in their Government 2 Chron. 24 25 and 28. 27. From all which it appears that a King 's Swearing at his Coronation does not make his Crown forfeitable or subject him to the Censure of the People And since the Breach of an Oath does not imply a forfeiture of Right since the Kings of England claim their Authority by Conquest and Succession from hence these Two Corollaries naturally follow First That with us Power always proves it self unless it appears that it 's given up or limited by any special Agreement Secondly That the Liberties of the Subjects are not founded upon the Reservations of an Original Contract For a Conquered People must not pretend to make their own Terms And therefore their Priviledges are not of their own Creating but Acts of Royal Favour and Condescentions of Soveraignty Indeed when the People are not forced into Submission but freely Elect their Monarch there all remote Inferences and doubtful Cases ought to be Interpreted in favour of the Subject because the Form of the Government had its Beginning from them and in this Case only it is that Liberty proves it self But where the Limitations of a Monarchy are the Condescentions of a Conqueror or his Successors there we are not to stretch the Priviledge of the Subject beyond express Grant. So that whatever Rights or Branches of Government are not plainly conveyed away must be supposed to be still lodged in the Crown For since the Prince was once Vested with Absolute Power and has afterwards bounded himself by his own Voluntary Act The Abatements of his Authority are to be measured by his own evident Declarations and not by any conjectural and consequential Arguings And here that Celebrated Maxim takes undoubted place That all Acts which are made in destruction of Common Law or Antecedent Right are to be Construed strictly and not drawn out into Corollaries and parallel Cases From whence it follows That if it was unlawful at first for the Subjects to resist their Soveraign it must still continue so unless they can prove he has relinquished this part of his Prerogative and given them an express Liberty to take up Arms when they think it convenient which I believe will be hard to find in our Constitution I Confess there is a Resistance Charter granted by King Iohn but such a one as is no ways serviceable to our Author For First It 's a plain Concession from the Crown and consequently far from the nature of a Mutual and Original Contract Secondly Here is no Deposing Power given in case the Articles were broken But on the contrary upon the supposition of a Rupture there is an express Proviso for the security of the King's Person and Royalty for a little after the Clause of Salva Persona nostra we have these remarkable Words Et cum fuerit Emendatum Intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt That is if the King should fail in his Promise and constrain them to make use of Force When their Grievances were redressed and they had put themselves in Possession of their Rights They should then be obliged to obey him as formerly Matth. Par. p. 219. Thirdly This Charter was extorted from the King in a Menacing and Military manner The Barons were up in Arms the City of London declared for them and received them and the King was deserted by his own Army whereas before this Grant the Subjects had no colour of Authority to Levy Arms against the King. Now Rebellion is a very ill bottom to found our Liberties upon The advantages which are gained by such Monstrous Violences as these are no more to be insisted on than the Acquisitions of Piracy and therefore Fourthly This Charter being obtain'd in such an undutiful and illegal way is without doubt one great reason among others why it has been always counted a Nullity for that it 's no part of our Law I shall fully evince First From the Transactions in the Reign of Henry the Third for first in this King's Charter there is no notice taken of any Grant made by King Iohn whereas in the Confirmation of Magna Charta by Edward the First the granting it by Henry the Third is expresly mentioned and the Liberty recited at large Which is a plain Evidence that the one was not looked upon to have the same Authority with the other Secondly That the Magna Charta of Henry the Third was a pure Act of Grace to the Subject and no Confirmation of an Antecedent Right appears from the Instrument it self where in the Preamble the King declares That out of Our meer and free Will We have given c. And towards the end That for this Our Gift and Grant of these Liberties Our Arch-bishops Earls c. have given us the fifteenth part of their Moveables Now besides the wording of the Act which runs as clear for a Voluntary Concession as is possible the very consideration which was given the Crown is a sufficient Argument that the Subjects had no Title to these Liberties before For who can imagine they would have purchased that which was their own already at so dear a rate Thirdly This Charter of Henry the Third though it contains much the same Liberties with the former yet it has none of the same Ratification there are no Proviso's for Resistance in it but instead of Distraining and taking of Castles c. there was a Solemn Excommunication denounced by the Bishops against all Violators of this Law. So that now the Subjects were evidently returned to their former State of Passive Obedience And therefore those Barons who towards the latter end of this King's Reign took up Arms in defence of their Privileges as Matth. Paris relates were disinherited by a Parliament at Winchester which was soon after confirmed in another Parliament at Westminster Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. Ap. 31. More to the same purpose may be seen in the Law called Dictum de Kenilworth For though this Order was made by no more than a Committee of Twelve Peers yet they having an Absolute Delegation as to this Point from the King and the Members of Parliament what they agreed upon has the full Validity of a Law. Fourthly That King Iohn's Charter which warrants Resistance though within a Rule had never any Legal Authority is evident from the Militia Act 14 Car. 2. where the Parliament declares That the Militia was ever the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors But this was a great Mistake if King Iohn's Grant had been Law For by vertue of that Charter provided the King receded from his Articles the Militia was lodged in the Barons and the People were obliged by Oath to assist them against the Crown Now if the case
Authority of the Kingdom Declares their Prince Irresistible this makes him as much so as if he had given himself this Power by Conquest and had been the most Absolute Monarch in the World. And as this Priviledge is clear so he may make it Immortal if he pleases provided he has a Negative upon the Remainder of the Legislative Power as the King has upon the Two Houses so that the Constitution cannot be alter'd without his own Consent Nay if the People have given up their Rights of Resistance by their own voluntary Motion they are bound in Honour as well as Justice to maintain their own Act. So that it seems more unaccountable not to Acquiesce in this Case than if they had been forc'd into such a submission Though it 's not improper to Observe That the Act which I have now in view viz. 13 Car. 2 which tells us It 's unlawfull to Levy War Offensive or Defensive against the King. Does not so much pretend to vest the King with any new Authority as to acknowledg his Antecedent Right where it 's likewise Declar'd that The Militia has ever been the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Which is as plain a Concession as can be that this Parliament did not believe our Government began upon Hobs his Pacts or that the King had his Power Originally from the People But supposing the Government was Founded in the Voluntary consent of the People the contrary of which has been proved yet after they have once by the most Solemn and Deliberate Act bound up their Hands and made it Unlawful under the highest Penalties to use Force against the Magistrate in this Case it 's unreasonable to suppose they can resume their Antient Liberty at pleasure For that which a Man has Alienated by his own free Grant is as much out of his Power as if he had never been possess'd of it at all So that it 's as great Injustice to wrest back that which I have once given away as to invade my Neighbour in his Original Property If it 's Objected That such Laws of Non-resistance as this are to be understood with a Tacit Exception Viz. Provided the Magistrate does not press too hard upon the Constitution and Violate the most Fundamental Parts of it To this I Answer First If a Law which is so absolutely against all Resistance as appears both by the clear and comprehensive stile it 's Pen'd in and by the time in which it was Enacted which was immediately after we were emerged out of the Miseries of a long Rebellion so that we have all imaginable reason to believe the Wisdom of the Nation design'd to make the most effectual Provision to secure us from the like Calamity If I say a Law thus remarkquibly worded and circumstantiated may be eluded by Distinctions and Reservations then the Statute Book is little better than wast Paper for at this rate there is nothing so plain but may be glossed away into insignificancy If he Objects That the Natural Right we have to preserve and protect our selves will justify the Defence of our Lives and Liberties against all Invaders whasoever notwithstanding any positive Municipal Prohibitions to the contrary To this I Answer That to Object thus is to Argue against himself as well as against Reason For he grants by undenyable Consequence Sect. 9. That the Primitive Christians were obliged to Non-resistance because they Lived under a Constitution in which Paganism was Established by Law. He should have said In which Christianity was prohibited for it was possible for both Religions to have been Established as they were in the time of Constantine Now if a Municipal Law ought to be over-ruled by the Law of Nature when they happen to clash then the Christians who lived under the Heathen Emperors might Lawfully have taken up Arms against the Government because they were deprived of their Lives and Fortunes against all Equity and Humanity For to persecute Men so remarquibly Regular and Peaceable both in their Principles and Practices is as manifest a Violation of the Law of Nature as is possible And if it was Lawful for them to resist then they seem bound in Conscience to do it whenever they had a probability of prevailing For without doubt it 's a great fault for a Man to throw away his Life impoverish his Family and encourage Tyranny when he has a fair Remedy in his Hand But our Author has not yet been so severe as to bring in the Martyrs Felo de se. But Secondly The Law of Nature obliges all Men to stand to their Contracts though they have made them to their Disadvantage They must not as the Scripture speaâ—â— change though they Have sworn to their own hurt Psal. 15. Except the Matter of the Contract be Malum in se. But for Men to bar themselves the use of some Liberties though never so unquestionable with respect to some particular Persons and to tye up their Hands in reference to their Governors is no Malum in se for in such a case they dispose of nothing but what is their own and that upon a valuable consideration Thus much is acknowledged by our Author Sect. 1. For he tells us That by the Law of Nature a Man may bind himself to be a Servant or sell himself to be a Slave by which he becomes in the Power of another so far as it was provided by the Contract So that where the Contract is clear it ought to be punctually observed From whence it follows That when a Nation shall Deliberately and Authoritatively declare either that it always was Unlawful for them to take up Arms against their King or at least that it should be so for the future After they have thus Solemnly disclaim'd all manner of Right or pretence to Resistance to defend themselves by Force is a notorious Infraction of their Promise and as much a breach of the Moral Law as of the Statute Book Thirdly Because the Authority of the Constitution must be weakned and the Ends of Government lost by allowing the Subject a Latitude of Exposition therefore the Wisdom of the Nation has thought fit to stick by the Letter when it 's plain and unquestionable though it is apparently against the intention of the Law. Of this Practice I shall give a considerable Instance In the Reign of Henry the Sixth there was an Act made which I have already cited to another purpose in which all Persons not possessed of Forty Shillings per Annum Free-hold are declared uncapable of Electing Knights for the County The Design of which Act was to strike the Mobile out of the Government and that none but Persons of presum'd Discretion might have a share in choosing their Representatives But the value of Money being so prodigiously altered since that time Fifteen Shillings now probably being not more than one then This alteration has thrown the Elections upon Multitudes of People who are apparently excluded by the intention of
in a Publick and Peaceable Way These Unproclaimed Expeditions have been always thought unjustifiable and contrary to the Law of Nature and Nations For those who have a Just Tenderness for the Lives of Men who have any Regard to Justice or the Repose of Christendom will try all other Arguments before they Dispute the Cause at the Swords Point For besides the Roughness of such a Method if Princes should make a practise of Invading each other without warning Men would be almost obliged to sleep in Armour and the World must be always kept up in a posture of Defence for fear of being surprized Now this would be a very troublesome and expensive way of Living and make all Neighbouring Kingdoms especially very distrustful of and disaffected towards each other I know His most Christian Majesty complains in his Memorial That He has been ill used by the Court of Vienna but then He might have pleased to have told the Emperor so before the Siege of Philipsburgh And the Action was still more Unaccountable if he went as who knows but he might upon the bare Presumption of an Injury and relyed upon the Intelligence of a few Sceptical Obnoxious and Discontented Germans who lay under the Imperial Bann And to mention nothing further if this very Disputable Right was only an Expectancy which would have admitted of Slow Forms and kept cold well enough till had fallen as any one might fairly conclude from the Numbers and Inclinations of his Friends in the Empire this was a further Aggravation of the Unreasonableness of his War. I confess if all these hard things are true of the French King I don't wonder if the Enquirer has levelled a whole Paragraph against Him and I wish the Emperor may recover just Damages for so Secret and Violent an Invasion All this while we have been Kings and Emperors but now we must Reign over our selves no longer but descend into the Melancholy state of Subjection However to do the Author right he has put the Yoak on so favourably that whenever we find it galls us we may throw it off again and return to our former Independency For he gives us to to understand Sect. 3. That the True and Original Notion of Civil Society and Government is that is a Com-promise made by such a Body of Men by which they resign up the right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Iustice against one another or in the way of War against their Neighbours to such a single Person or to such a Body of Men as they think fit to trust with this Now not to Examine how our Author comes to know that the Original Notion of Society was the True one It 's pretty apparent his Notion of it is neither Original nor True not Original because it does not comprehend the most Antient beginning of Government viz. Paternal Authority and Conquest in which Cases Men have not the liberty of Articling for Priviledges but must submit to their Parents and Conquerors whether they think fit to trust them or not Secondly His Notion is defective in Point of Truth for he has only restrained his Men from Acting Arbitrarily upon one another or from Fighting a Foreign State without Commission but as for their Governours they may resist them for all his Diffinition when they please for having resigned nothing but their right of demanding Reparations either in the way of Justice or War against their Fellow Subjects or Neighbouring States it follows that one Branch of their Natural Liberty is reserved to them to Fight their Prince with upon Occasion This Conclusion if we had nothing else to infer it follows evidently from his own Principle for since Government is only a Trust committed by the People to a Single Person c. and all Trusts as he affirms in this Section by their Nature import that those to whom they are given are accountable Nothing is more plain then that they may discharge themselves from Subjection whenever they shall think fit to say Their Governours have not kept Touch with them He proceeds to tell us That the Executive Power when separated from the Legislative is a plain Trust and no more than a Subordinate Authority From hence we may observe First That by this Authors Concessions the People have not the Legislative Authority for he owns part of it is in the King from whence it follows that the whole Body of the People is not the Supream Authority nor consequently can call their Prince to Account without his own Consent Secondly That part of the Legislative Authority which is lodged in the People is not given them at large to be exerted at their pleasure but depends upon Stated Rules and Limitations and can only be exercised by their Representatives in Parliament Nay it 's so precarious a Privilege that without the King's leave they can never make use of it for it 's neither Lawful for them to Convene themselves nor yet to Sit any longer than the King pleases For though there is an Act for a Triennial Parliament yet if the King Omits the Calling of them within that time there is no provision made to Assemble themselves which is an Evidence this Power was never conveyed to them by this Act For if it had the Methods of putting it in Execution would have been Adjusted And if the King should refuse to Issue out Writs the Chancellor would have been Authorized to do it Which Power upon the Suppositition of intermediate Failures would have been handed down as low as the petty Constables as it was proposed by the Parliament Assembled in 40 to Charles the First Now if the People have no share in making of Laws but by Representation in Parliament and the Being of this Assembly depends upon the Prince's pleasure then either the King is the Supream Authority in the Intervals of Parliament which may be as long as the Crown thinks fit or else there is no such thing as a Supream Authority in the Nation and consequently no Government Further when the Two Houses are actually Convened when they are Dictating Law and Justice to the Nation and Cloathed with all the Advantages of Solemnity and Power they are then no more than Subjects they are lyable to the highest Penalties if they are proved guilty of those Crimes which deserve them for Felony and Treason are expresly excepted out of their Privileges But to consute the Author's Notion of Government more fully and especially to make his Application of it Unserviceable I shall endeavour to prove Two things against him First That a Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made Secondly That the Kings of England hold their Crown by right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People 1. A Trust does not always imply the Person accountable to whom it 's made which I shall briefly make good these Three ways First From the common Notion of a Trust. Secondly From the
Victory the more remarkable Abrogated the greatest part of the English Laws brought in the Customs of Normandy and ordered the Pleadings to be in French And outing the English of their Antient Inheritances Assigned their Lands and Mannors to his Soldiers Yet so as he reserved the Paramount Lordship to himself and his Successors by Homage That is that they all should hold their Estates by the Feudal Laws and that none but the King should be Independent Proprietors but rather a sort of limited Trustees and Occupants in Tenancy From these Citations we have all imaginable Marks of an entire Conquest The Laws and Tenures and in some measure the Language of the Country were changed The Saxons were Transplanted into Normandy and dispossed of their Estates as appears not only from the forementioned Historians but from Doomse-day Book where we find that almost all the great Proprietors were Normans Now this Survey was made at the latter end of the Conqueror's Reign many Years after his taking the Oath which is by some so much insisted upon as appears from Ingulphus If it 's Objected that William the First granted King Edward's Laws To this I Answer 1. That most of King Edward's Laws were only Penal and respected Criminals as we may learn from Ingulph Hist. Croyland in fine Secondly These Laws of King Edward were not granted by the Conqueror without his own Amendments and Refinings upon them as is evident from the Charter of Henry the First as it stands in Matthew Paris fol. 55. Lagam Regis Edvardi vobis reddo cum eis Emendationibus quibus Pater eam Emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum i. e. I Grant you King Edward ' s Laws with those Amendments which my Father made in them by the advice of his Barons And that these last Words may not be thought to weaken the Testimony it 's not improper to observe that these Alterations are said to be made only by the Advise not by the Authority of the Barons and yet these Barons were Normans too as is sufficiently plain from what has been discoursed already But To Conclude the proofs of this Argument several of our Parliaments acknowledge William the First a Conqueror The Acts all of which it would be very tedious to name run thus in the Preamble Edward V. g. by the Grace of God the Fourth after the Conquest c. Now this is a plain Concession that the Rights of the Subjects were derived from the Crown and in all likelihood was intended to hint as much And therefore unless the Norman Conquest had been evident and unquestionable the Lords and Commons who were always very Tender of their Liberties would never have consented that the Statutes should have been Penned in such a Submissive Style If it be Objected That the Conqueror took an Oath to observe the Laws of the Realm In Answer to this I observe 1. That we have seen already in some measure what sort of Laws these were and how they were managed by him Secondly Neither Pictaviensis Eadmerus Ordericus Vitalis Henry of Huntington or Matth. Paris Write of any Oath taken by the Conqueror Florence of Worcester is the first that mentions it Flor. Wigorn. fol. 635. The Words of the Oath are these Se velle Sanctas Dei Ecclesias ac Rectores earum defendere nec non cunctum Populum sibi subjectum justa Regali Providentia Regere rectam Legem Statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicere i. e. That he would protect Holy Church and the Hierarchy that he would Govern all his Subjects fairly and take a Royal care of their welfare That he would make Equitable Laws and observe them and wholy Prohibit Rapine and Perverting of Iustice. From this I observe Two things First That the Legislative Power was all of it lodged in the Conqueror Why else did he Swear to make Equitable Laws For if the Constitution had been settled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindred him from making any other Secondly The Oath is Couched in very general Terms and admits of a great Latitude of Exposition so that the Conqueror was in a manner left at his liberty to interpret the Obligation as he thought fit Thirdly This Oath was voluntarily taken by the King some Years after he had forced the whole Nation to Swear Allegiance to him We are therefore if it were only for this reason to interpret the Oath to his advantage And to suppose that he would not Swear himself out of his Conquest and Reign at the Discretion of those he had so entirely Subdued so that it should be in their Power to Unking him either upon a real or pretended Breach of his Oath Fourthly We may observe that the Kings of England are in full Possession of the Crown immediately upon the Death of their Predecessors and therefore King Iohn Edward the First and Henry the Fifth had Allegiance Sworn to them before their Coronation From whence it follows that as Swearing does not make them Kings so neither can Perjury though truly Objected un-make them again which will appear more evidently if we consider Fifthly That Perjury in it self does not imply a forfeiture of any Natural or Civil Right Indeed the dread of it ties up a Man's Conscience faster and if he proves guilty makes him lyable to a severer Vengance from God Almighty than simple unfaithfulness upon which account an Oath is counted a considerable security for the performance of a promise And therefore for the greater satisfaction of their Subjects Princes usually Swear to observe those Stated Measures of Justice which were either fixed by themselves or their Predecessors And if they happen to fail in the performance though they forfeit their Honor and the Divine Protection yet there accrues no Right from thence to the People to re-enter upon their fancied Original Liberty For the Duty of those under Authority except where it 's expresly conditional is not Cancelled and Discharged by the mis-behaviour of their Superiors For Example supposing a Father Swears to remit some part of his Authority in the Family and that he will Govern only by such a prescribed Rule his forgeting his Oath afterwards does not void or lessen his Power nor excuse the Children in their Disobedience And to make the Instance more direct if possible The Kings of Persia were Soveraign Monarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch calls them and were Worshiped as the Images of God and could never be set aside but by Death Yet these Princes took an Oath at their Inauguration as Grotius observes from Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus Neither was it lawful for them to alter certain Laws as appears from Daniel and Iosephus The Kings of Aegypt likewise as Grotius relates from Diodorus Sic. had a full and unaccountable Authority they did as he speaks summo Imperio uti yet they were bound to the observance of a great many things which if they neglected to perform they could not be
had been doubtful the Judgment of a Parliament ought to have put an end to the Controversie This Legislative Council has a Power to interpret as well as to alter or enlarge the Constitution an Authority to tell us what has been as well as what shall be Law. Such publick Determinations are as it were first and self-evident Principles in our Government they have a kind of Practical Infallibility in them and ought not to be disputed except where they plainly contradict the Laws of God. Fifthly and Lastly If this Singular Charter had ever been part of our Constitution as it 's plain it never was yet now it can have no manner of Force because the forementioned Statute concerning the Militia not only declares it to have been but likewise to make the Case more incontestable Enacts it unlawful to Levy War Offensive or Defensive against the King. But of this more hereafter If it 's Objected That unless we are allowed to Assert our Rights by Force when they are Invaded the Laws which secure them to us are insignificant because the King may break down these Fences when he pleases To this I Answer That these Laws upon this Supposition are far fâ—om being insignificant because First They are the Boundaries of Right They clearly distinguish the Property of the Subjects from the Prerogative so that the Prince can seldom encroach upon them in any considerable Measure without being Conscious of the Injustice Secondly By vertue of the Laws we are better assured of the Prince's Protection against the Injuries of all our Fellow Subjects which is no small Advantage Thirdly We have the Prince's Honour and Conscience and Interest to secure us I say his Interest for notwithstanding the Subjects were never so well convinced that Resistance is utterly unlawful yet it is by no means adviseable for Princes to try their Patience too far For Religion has a very slender Influence upon the World now a days Nothing is more frequent than to see Men live in those Practices which they know to be Immoral Now Oppression is apt to make wise Men Mad. Nothing touches them so much to the quick as the breaking in upon their Properties and the undermining the Publick Securities And therefore when the Government sits thus uneasy upon them they will be apt to fly out into Disorders notwithstanding all the Restraints of Law and Conscience to the contrary Now since Princes are supposed to be acquainted with the Frailty and Degeneracy of Mankind This consideration of danger will generally keep them within compass and check their Arbitrary Designs though the Principles of Honour and Integrity should happen to prove insignificant This one would think a sufficient Security and more than this is neither allowed by our Government neither can it be by any other First We have no reason to believe our Government permits us to maintain our Rights by Arming against our Prince not only because our Laws plainly declare against all Resistance as I shall shew afterwards but because the Libertys of the Subject were Acts of Grace from the Crown and since they had no right to demand them by Force they must take them upon such Conditions as they are offer'd Now things standing thus we have no imaginable reason to conclude our Kings had any intention to forego their irresistable Authority except they had signed it away in so many Words we are not to suppose they would part with such an inestimable Jewel and be so Prodigal of their Favours without the plainest Evidence Indeed the granting this Liberty would be equally prejudicial to Prince and People and render all Government Impracticable For Secondly The Ignorance and Partiality of the greatest part of Mankind is such that to make it Lawful to resist our Governors whenever we think it necessary is an infallible Expedient to keep a Nation almost always embroyl'd and to banish Peace and Happiness out of the World. Such an allowance as this does in reality dissolve all Government and throw us back into a State of Nature For when a Man may make use of all the Force he can get to redress his Grievances to carve out his Satisfaction and to possess himself of all those Rights he fancies he has a Title to his owning Authority is but a Complement for he is certainly under no Government but his own He is bound to do no injury 't is true but this does not hinder his being independent of Society For his Obligation to Justice results from the Law of Nature which binds him to abstain from Fraud and Violence whether it 's enforced by any Municipal Constitution or not If it 's Objected That this liberty of Resistance is not to be allowed but in Cases of extream Necessity when the Government is in danger of being wounded in its Vitals and the Fundamental Laws are struck at To this I Answer That since the People must be Judges of the Exegencies of State this restraining of Resistance to Cases of Necessity is no Security to the Common Welfare For by this Principle whenever a Man either through Mistake or Design believes or pretends to believe that the Fundamental Laws are broken he has a Warrant to take up Arms and form a Party to dispossess his Governor and if he can discharge himself of his Allegiance when he pleases he is actually free because his Will is in his own Power Farther Except the People are barred from Uniting their Forces against their Governors there can be no determination of Civil Controversies For in regard most People are apt to say they are wronged as often as they lose a Tryal if they have the liberty of Appealing from the Bench to the Neighbourhood and may raise all their Friends and Dependents to oppose the Execution of the Judges Sentence then Right must be resolved into Force and Justice will be all Sword without any Ballance Now that the Doctrine of Resistance gives this dangerous Allowance is plain For though our Author will not permit us the freedom of raising a Civil War upon the account of Male Administration in the Execution of the Laws yet he has not given us any assurance that other Men will be of his mind For may they not object that the prospect of having Justice observed was the principal reason of combining in Society For all Laws how Fundamental soever are designed only as means for the distinction and security of Property for the punishing of violence and circumvention and therefore they ought not to be valued above the End. For if the Prince has an unlimitted Priviledge of corrupting Judges suborning Witness and forcing the Execution of unjust Sentences all other Provisions for Liberty are to little purpose If we are to submit to all this hardship because it falls within the compass of Male Administration What do our Fundamental Laws signify When at this rate may some Men say We can neither have Life Liberty nor Estate secured to us So that if Resistance was allowable in any
Case Oppression and Violence in the Administration of Iustice would Warrant the use of such a Remedy And if every one who imagined himself injured might beat up for Volunteers toredress his Grievances the Judges and Laws would be the only Criminals in a short time and all Disputes would be decided by Blows and Blood. Besides supposing Men were generally agreed That nothing but the Breach of Fundamental Laws would justify Resistance since the People are made the Judges of this Distinction they need only be at the Expence of a hard Name for their enlargement for it 's but calling any disgust or petty Injury a Breach of Fundamentals and the Work is done If it be said That the People are always quiet when they are well used and never attempt to displace their Governours but upon just Occasions To this I Answer That if the generallity of Mankind were Masters of so much Sense and Honesty as this comes to Why did they not continue in that State of Nature some Men fancy them in at first If they had been wise enough to have understood their true Interest What need they have brought themselves under the Guidance and Obligation of Laws If they are so Vertuously enclined Why did they submit their Wills and Powers to a Publick Regulation Why should Men so well qualified for the use of their Freedom be bound to their good Behaviour and come under the restraints of Pacts and Subjection All Authority and Law is a great Reflection upon Mankind it plainly supposes the generallity of us are Weak Deceitful and Turbulent Creatures But if we are so full of Understanding and Conscience as some Men would make us believe all Governments ought to be broken up and every Man have his Original Charter of Liberty return'd him For if we are so fit to be Trusted and to dispose of our own Actions it 's highly unreasonable to keep us in a State of Ignominy and Bondage any longer But English-Men of all others have the least reason to make Panegyricks upon the Discretion and Governableness of the People For not to mention the Barons Wars How many Tylers and Cades and Kets and Flammocks have we had within the compass of Four hundred Years What formidable Bodies did those Massianelos bring into the Field and how near was the State being overturn'd by the Rebellious Levity and Madness of the Multitude And after all these Instances of Confusion we have certainly little reason to think that Vox Populi and Vox Dei are the same or that Right and Wrong depends upon Numbers From what has been said it's apparent That there must be an irresistable Power in all Governments But our Two Houses whose Authority is nearest to the Kings have no share in this inviolable Priviledge For least their Legislative Office should make them forget their Duty to his Majesty they are obliged to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Subjection to him before they are capable of Transacting any business in Parliament 7 Iac. 1. Cap. 6. Sect. 8. 30 Car. 2. Cap. 1. From whence it follows That with us the King and only he is the irresistable Power Neither must this Prerogative be restrained to his Person but extend to his Authority For a King cannot be every where himself neither is he able to punish Offenders by his own single Strength He must govern by his Ministers and sometimes by his Armies Therefore if those who are employed by him may be opposed and hindered in the Execution of their Châ—rgâ— he is as much disabled from pursuing the ends of Government as iâ— Violence had been offered to himself Of this Consequence those who made the late Act of Uniformity were well aware and therefore in the Declaration which they obliged a considerable part of the Kingdom to make the Subscriber does not only declare That it 's not Lawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatever but likewise That he abhors that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against those Commissionated by him Therefore that Objection which is usually made does not come up to the Point viz. That it 's Lawful for a private Person to resist an Illegal Commissioner of the Kings when he comes to dispossess him of his Property or to outrage him in any other respect For though a Man has the liberty of defending himself from Encroachments in a private way yet if he calls in Hundreds and Thousands to his Assistance without the King's Authority he falls under the censure of the Law. Now the reason why the Constitution permits the use of Force in one Case and not in the other is because private Defence though never so unjustifiably managed cannot bring any publick Mischief along with it But if Men were allowed to arm Towns and Countries when they thought fit to complain this would be of dangerous Consequence to the State and make it lyable to perpetual Convulsions so that we should always either feel or fear the Miseries of a Civil War. But to proceed with our Author In his Fourth Section we are told That no consideration of Religion binds us to pay more than we owe not to extend our Allegiance farther than the Law carrys it Which though it 's True yet it 's foreign to the Argument For I shall make it appear farther afterwards that the Laws extend our Submission which is one part of our Allegiance to all Cases whatsoever I suppose this Advice was intended for a preservative against over Dutyfulness and that his Reader might not be misled by the Church of Englands Doctrine of Passive Obedience Now how proper soever such Hints as these may be to some Flegmatick Climates and Constitutions of Liberties I shall not dispute yet certainly the Enquirer could not have thought them over-seasonable Directions for our Conduct if he had pleased to consider either the legal Advantages of the Crown the temper of the English Nation or the time of his own Writing But his generous Zeal for the freedom of Mankind makes him think he can never say nor do enough His Fifth Paragraph supposes an Original Contract and that the Measures of Obedience are to be taken from thence i. e. Once upon a time when every Man was weary of Governing himself any longer they agreed by â—â—â—eral consent to set one of their own Countrym◠〈…〉 â—ome Stranger they had a fancy for upon whom 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Term of King Sovereign or Supream i. e. 〈…〉 glorious Titles without conveying the Power 〈…〉 â—ther to make the Royal Pageant ridiculous 〈…〉 him â—n occasion to over-rate his Authority which 〈…〉 make him stretch it into a Forfeiture in a short time 〈…〉 the People forfeâ—â—ing that they should quickly be out 〈◊〉 with being governed might over Title their Monarch and â—e the Principles of the Conâ—tution weak on purpose that so 〈…〉 â—pse to them the sooner But that neither Willlim 〈…〉 or his 〈◊〉 Succeâ—ors received their Crowns by way 〈…〉 iâ—â—vident to every one
our Government which as the Enquirer acknowledges lodges the Militia i. e. the Power of the Sword singly in the King. So that without his Order none of his Subjects can Form themselves into Troops or carry the face of an Army without being lyable to the highest Penalties And whereas he urges That if we have a Right to our Property we must likewise be supposed to have a Right to preserve it He means by Force To this I Answer First That a Man may have an unquestionable Right to some Things which he has no Warrant to recover Vi Armis but must rest the Enjoyment of them with the Conscience and Prudence of another E. G. If the Father of a wealthy Person falls into deep Poverty he has an undoubted Right to a Maintenance out of his Sons Estate and yet he cannot fairly recover it by Force without a Legal Provision for this purpose To bring the Instance nearer home The Right of making War and Peace is an Indisputable Branch of the King's Prerogative yet unless his Subjects assist him this Authority can seldom be exerted to any Successful effect because his Majesty cannot Levy Money which is the Sinews of War without the consent of Parliament Farther every one who is injured in his Property and endeavours the regaining of it by course of Law has without doubt a Right to have Justice done him But if the Court where the Cause is depending happens to be mistaken or corrupted I desire to know whether it 's Lawful for him to raise his Arrier Ban upon such a Disappointment Our Author is obliged by his Principle to say no and therefore he must either Answer 1. That the Party aggreived ought to appeal to a higher Court to which it may be replyed That it 's possible for him to meet with the same misfortune theÌ„re for our Constitution does not pretend to any Insallible or Impecable Judges 2. His Second Answer must be that this is a Private Case and therefore a Man is bound to submit to ill usage rather than disturb the publick Peace But to this I return that we may suppose a general failure of Justice through Subornation Bribery c. and then the Oppression will be of a publick and Extensive Nature and yet if a grievance of this Magnitude should continue unredress'd after complains our Author will not allow us the benefit of any rougher Methods for he frankly tells us That it 's not lawful to Resist the King upon any Pretence of ill Administration in the Execution of the Law. Pag. 14. so that by his own Argument we may have some very considerable Rights which it 's not justifiable to demand of the Government with a drawn Sword. Secondly This Liberty of Resistance dissolves all Government For as I have already Observ'd when every man is the Judge of his own Priviledges i. e. when he is made the Authentick Interpreter of the Laws and may use all the force he can get at his discretion against the State he is then most certainly to be govern'd by no body but himself And therefore Thirdly This Liberty must be the worst security for Peace and Property imaginable as I shall shew more at large by and by As for his limiting Resistance To plain and visible Invasions This is a very feeble Remedy against Confusion For since every one is made Judge of the Evidence and the generality are naturally over credulous and apt to believe ill of their Governours when designing Men have once impos'd upon their understandings and almost har'd them out of their sences then every thing will be plain to them but their Duty Thus it was plain that Charles the First intended to introduce Popery though possibly never any Person since the Reformation gave â—etter proof of his Adherence to the Church of England than that â—rince Thus likewise at the beginning of this present Revolution it was plain to the greatest part of the Nation that his Majesty had made a League with the French King to Extirpate the Protestants and their Religion Though now the World sees there never was a more Malicious and unreasonable Calumny invented But though Reports of this Nature are never so monstrous and nonsensical yet at this rate we shall never want a Demonstration for a Rebellion as long as such loose Principles as the Enquirer advances are allowed His Thirteenth Section contains nothing but Objections which to do him Justice are fairly put considering the small compass they are drawn into How well he gets clear of the Difficulties he was sensible of the Reader must judge for now we are coming to his Fourteenth and Dead doing Paragraph in which he offers to take off all the Arguments which are made for Non-resistance Now before I reply distinctly to his Answers I shall endeavour to offer something more than I have urged already in Consutation of his main Principle And here it 's not amiss to observe That the Enquirer in his Ninth Section Makes the Measures of our Submission much shorter than those of the Ancient Christians because Our Religion is Established by Law. By vertue of which Distinction he makes our Faith fall under the consideration of Property and from thence concludes by Implication That we may resist our Prince in defence of it But we are to consider though our Religion has a legal Settlement yet we have no Authority to maintain it by Force Nay our Laws are express as it 's possible against all manner of Resistance as himself acknowledges Now the Law is certainly the Measure of all Civil Right and therefore to carve out our selves a greater Security than the Law allows is Destructive of all Government If the Mobile get this hint it 's to be feared they will give him no occasion in their Second Expedition to admire them for Burning and Plundering with so much Temper and Moderation Further he grants by Consequence That the Roman Emperours were irresistable For I don't find that he allows the Primitive Christians a Liberty of Resistance though they were invaded in their Lives and Properties as well us in their Religion Now if these Emperours were irresistable I desire to know what made them so if he Answers the Laws I Reply That the English Constitution is as full against taking Arms to oppose the King as is possible If he Replies That it was unlawful to resist the Roman Emperours because the making of Laws was wholy in their own Power but where the Legative Authority is partly in the King and partly in the People the Case is otherwise To this I Answer That the Division of the Legislative Power does not weaken the Obligation of a Law when all the Distinct Authorities concur to the making of it E. G. I Question not but our Author will grant that the English Laws though the People have a share in Enacting them are as perfect and ought to be as inviolable as those in Turkey where all depends upon the Princes Will Therefore if the