by his Majesty and those of the Popish â—unto that advised him to issue out the late Declaration so expresly contrary to Law and the sense of both Houses of Parliament and which gave the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of his Brethren a sufficient ground of petitioning against it and this was so evident that a Jury in which the greatest part were high Prerogative Men could not upon a fair trial but acquit them M. I shall not further dispute this point since you have dwelt so long upon it though I must still tell you I do not look upon this as a sufficient cause for the Nations taking up arms for a reason I shall shew you by and by and therefore I shall now proceed to the next head complain'd of in the Princes late Declaration viz. the late Commission for erecting a new Court for Causes Ecclesiastical but as I will not enter upon the question of the Legality of it so on the other side it was also done by colour of Law and the King as supream head of the Church was told by his Ministers that he had power to erect what new Court Ecclesiastical he pleased provided it was not of the same kind with the High Commission Court which had been abrogated by the Stat. of the 17th of King Charles the I. as likewise particularly excepted in the Proviso in the Stat. of the XIIth of King Charles the II. for restoring Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Bishops Courts so that admitting that Court was not legal yet the Persons who advised the King to erect it and the Commissioners who sate in it were only answerable for it in the next Parliament and though the Bishop of London was suspended and the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge were unjustly expelled by this Court yet sure none of these miscarriages could give the Subjects of this Kingdom any just pretences to take up Arms to redress them being done as I said before by colour of Law without any force or violence and was also submitted to by the Parties against which these Decrees were given and was at the most but a matter of particular concern and reacht no farther than the said Bishop and Colledge and did not touch the Religion and Civil Liberties of the whole Kingdom and consequently was not of that general importance as to be any just cause of the whole Kingdoms taking Arms much less for the Kings Officers and Souldiers to run over to the Prince of Orange as they lately have done F. To answer what you have now said concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission that I must also tell you was issued forth without so much as any colour of Law for it and though the late Chancellor and some of the worst and most Mercenary Judges countenanced it by appearing for and acting in it yet it is very well known that it was never proposed to all the Judges to be argued in the Exchequer Chamber as it ought to have been before a thing of that great importance to the whole Nation had pass'd the Seals as to what you say that the Kings Ministers told him it was according to Law and that they alone ought to answer for it in the next Parliament and that no publick disturbance ought to have been made about it because the things that that pretended Court did were but of a particular concern and only reacht the Bishop of London and one single Colledge that is but a fallacy which you put upon your self for sure if you had better consider'd of it you would find that what these Commissioners have already done is of a little more publick concernment than you are aware of for pray tell me why by the same Law by which the Bishop of London was suspended for his refusal to silence Dr. Sharp all the Bishops in England might not have been suspended one after another by that pretended Court if they had refused to obey or execute any Letters or Orders from the King tho' never so illegal or unreasonable since what command could be more illegal than the King 's positive order to the Bishop to suspend a Clergyman from his Diocess without first hearing him or giving him leave to answer for himself So likewise for the case of Magdalen Colledge by the same Law by which these Ecclesiastical Commissioners took upon them to turn out the President and Fellows for disobeying the Kings Mandamus by the same Law the King might put upon any other Colledge in either University Popish Heads and Popish Fellows till instead of Nurseries for the education of our youth in the Protestant Religion they may become as absolute Popish Seminaries as the Colledges of Doway or St. Omers and though I grant that the persons concerned in these unjust Decrees might have patiently submitted to them without any protestations against the jurisdiction of that pretended Court since they might for some prudential reasons have thought fit to submit to them without making any such protestation and yet for all that not allow their Authority but indeed the matter of fact was far otherwise for when a part of these Commissioners sate at Magdalen Colledge to expel the said President and Fellows from their places contrary to Law and the express Statutes of the Colledge they did all severally protest against their whole proceedings and appealed to the Kings Courts at Westminster And it is a plain proof how willingly Dr. H. the President of this Colledge submitted to this Sentence by his locking the Doors of his Lodgings and leaving the Commissioners to break them open before they could get in and put in his pretended Successour by force But as to what you say that the King was told he might as supream Head of the Church set up what new Court he pleased for the execution of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it is certainly a great mistake for I utterly deny that the King has power to erect any new Courts either Ecclesiastical or Civil unless by Authority of Parliament the Kings power to make a Vicar general being only confirmed by the Statute of King Henry the Eighth as was also the Authority of the high Commission by the Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth and if either of those high spirited Princes hadâ— believed themselves to have been invested with such an unbounded Prerogative they would certainly have exercised it without being beholding to the Parliament but indeed it is but a subterfuge to alledge that this Court was not of the same Nature with that of the high Commission because it did not take upon it to â—â—ne or commit Men to Prison nor to administer the Oath ex Officio to those that were convened before them since it is not the different name or some small difference in the manner of the judicial proceedings but the Causes or Matters that a Court pretends to take Cognizance of that can make it a Court of a quite different nature now it is notoriously known that this late Ecclesiastical
the Father please to sell one or two of his Children whom he least loveth to provide Portions for the rest he may lawfully do it for any thing I see to the contrary So likewise immediately after he asserts the Superiority of all Princes above Laws because there were Kings long before there were any Laws And all the next Paragraph is wholy spent in proving the Unlimited Iurisdiction of Kings above Laws as it is described by Samuel when the Israelites desired a King So that it signifies little what Laws Princes make or what Priviledges they grant their Subjects since they may alter them or abrogate them when ever they please M. But pray take along with you what he says in the next Paragraph you quote where you may see these words It is â—here evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must suffer yet not so as that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for patient Obedience is due to both No Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in crying and praying unto God in that day And that Sir R. F. is very far from justifying Kings in the unnecessary Breach of their Laws may farther appear by what he says Chap. 3. Par. 6. of this Treatise where pray see this passage Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King James teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King Governing in a Settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerateth into a Tyrant so soon as he leaves to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws rigorous or doubtful be may mitigate and interpret them So that you see here he leaves the King no Power or Prerogative above the Laws but what shall be directed and employed for the general Good of the Kingdom F. But pray Sir read on a little farther and see if he doth not again undo all that he hath before so speciously laid down and if you will not read it I will General Laws made in Parliament may upon known respects to the King by his Authority be mitigated or suspended upon Causes only known to him And altho' a King do frame all his Action to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weal doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positively Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the best or only means for the preservation of the Common-Wealth So that if the King have this Prerogative of mitigating interpreting and suspending all Laws in Cases only known to himself and that he is not bound to the Laws but at his own good will and for good example I desire to know what greater Prerogative a King can desire than to suspend the Execution of any Law as often as he shall think fit For tho' I grant the Suspension of a Law differs from the Abrogation of it because the former only takes away the force of it in this or that particular case whereas the latter wholy annuls the Law yet if this Suspension be general and in every case where the Law is to take effect it amounts to the same thing with an Abrogation of it as may be plainly seen in the late King 's Dispersing Power For tho' it be true he pretended to no more than to dispense with this or that Person who should undertake a publick Employment either Military or Civil without taking the Oaths and Tâ—st yet since he granted this Dispensation generally to all Papists and others that would transgress this law it amounted to the same thing during his pleasure as an Absolute Abrogation of it And therefore I do very much wonder why divers who are very zealous for the Church of England and the King's Prerogative should be so angry with him for erecting that Power which not only this Author but all others of his Principles have placed in him And if the King may suspend this and all other Laws upon Causes only known to him I do not see how he differs from being as Absolute and Arbitrary a Monarch as the Great Turk himself and may when he pleases notwithstanding all Laws to the contrary take away Men's Lives without any due Forms of Law and raise Taxes without Consent of Parliament M. But pray read on a little farther and you will find that he very much restrains this Absolute Power in these words By this mean are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerors bound to preserve the Laws Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects F. Were I a Monarch limited by Laws I would desire no greater a Power over them than this you have here brought out of this Author For he says Positive Laws do not bind the King but as they are the bâ—st or only means for the preservation of the Common Wealth In the next place you see that all Kings are bound to preserve the Lives and Estates of their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects Now this Paternal Power is large enough of all Conscience to discharge Princes from any Obligation to the Laws farther than they please For it before appears that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will and not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants therefore if the Power of the King be wholy Paternal he may alter this Will of his as often as he please Nor can his Subjects who are all one with Sons and Servants have any reason to find fault with it For he says There is no Nation that allows Children any Remedy for being unjustly Governed And tho' it be true that he restrains this Prerogative both in Fathers and Kings to the publick good of their Children and Subjects yet as long as he is left the sole and uncontroulable Judge of what is for the publick good all these fine Pretences will signifie nothing For he is bound to observe or ratifie no Laws or Acts of his Predecessors but what he is satisfied tend to this End So that if he thinks fit to Judge that Magna
limit our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes This I hope is sufficient for the Explication of our Saviours Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians which evidently contains the Doctrine of Obedience and Subjection to Princes enforced on us by the Authority of our Saviour himself F. I shall not dispute that this Instance of our Saviour doth enjoyn the Iews to pay Tribute and render all those Rights and Dues to Caesar as the Supream Power which are necessary to it's Essence but you seem to me to stretch this Prerogative a great deal too far when you thus suppose an absolute Subjection to Princes without any resistance to be as plainly enjoyn'd by our Saviour in this Law as paying Tribute For the Reason you give for it viz. that Subjection and Non resistance is as essential a Right of Soveraign Power and as inseparable from the Notion of it as any can be and that it is so acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations is the thing which I deny and which having been the Subject of our last Conversation is still the thing to be proved and I think I have there sufficiently proved that absolute Non resistance is no Essential Right of Soveraign Power nor inseparable from the Notion of it Since by asserting it no just Right of Soveraign Power will be thereby destroyed or taken away but rather confirm'd and that I may make it out yet plainer by a Familiar Instance a General of an Army hath an absolute Power over the Lives of his Souldiers that transgress his Rules of War or Military Discipline but suppose that in a Mad or Drunken sit he should command some Troops of his Guards to cut the Throats of all the rest of the Army and they be such obedient Coxcombs as to go about to put this order in Execution doth it therefore derogate from the absoluteness of his Power as General if the Army will not stand still and let three or four hundred fellows take away all their Lives But that this Principle of Passive Obedience in your Sense of suffering Princes or other Supream Powers to destroy or inslave them is so far from being acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of all Nations that as I think I have proved it to be contrary to the Laws of Nature and Reason so I doubt not but I can much easier make it out by the Laws and Customs of all Nations as well Barbarous as Civiliz'd to be both unreasonable and impracticable And that it is otherwise determin'd by St. Paul I desire you to prove it to me when you come to make use of the 13 th to the Romans so much insisted upon by those of your Opinion But before I make an end with this Text we are now upon I cannot but take notice of your last Assertion That by rendring to Caesar the things which are Caesars God excepts nothing from Caesar 's Right which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign Princes but what is a Violation of and Encroachment on Gods Right and Soveraignty that is we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our Duty to God Now if this be the only limit that our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes as you suppose I wonder by what Law the Learned Doctor from whom you borrow this Principle as also those other Clergy-men of the Church of England could justifie thelr refusing to read the Kings late Proclamation of Indulgence or Toleration for if the King as they own in the Oath of Supremacy is the only Supream Governour of his Dominions in all Things or Causes whatsoever He must likewise be the Caesar here meant in this Text and consequently an Active not Passive Obedience ought to have been paid to this Declaration Since you say that Obedience is by the Law of Nations due to Soveraign Princes to whom we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection which is consistent with our Duty to God and I hope you will not say that this Declaration was inconsistent with that Duty or was any Violation or Encroachment upon Gods Rights of Soveraignty M. As for your last observation upon those Clergy men who refused to read the Declaration I must confess I have according to my Civil Law Maxims no excuse ready for them since with us it is always true in this as well as other absolute Monarchies Quicquid Regi placuit Legi's habet Vigorem Much less can I reconcile it with that unbounded Supremacy which the Oath of Allegiance as also the Opinions of most modern Judges have placed in the King in all Ecclesiastical Matters but indeed I can least of all reconcile it with this Assertion you now mention which I confess I have taken from divers Sermons and Treatises that have been Preaâ—ht and Printed of late by our City Divines to whom I shall leave it to Answer this Objection but to proceed with the design in Hand I shall come in the next place to prove an absolute Subjection without Resistance to be due to the Soveraign Power from our Saviour's rebuke to St. Peter when he drew his Sword and struck a Servant of the High-Priest and smote off his Ear which is as plain a Declaration against Resistance as Words can make it Then said Iesus unto him put up thy Sword unto his place for all they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword For the understanding of which we must consider upon what occasion St. Peter drew his Sword for we must not think that our Saviour doth absolutely forbid the use of the Sword which is to destroy all Civil Governments and the Power of Princes and to proclaim impunity to all which Villanies that are committed in the World The Sword is necessary to punish wickedness and to protect the Innocents In the Hands of Princes it is an Instrument of Justice as St. Paul tells us That they bear not the Sword in vain But are the Ministers of God revengers to exâ—cuâ—e wrath upon him that doth evil In the Hands of privaâ—e Persons it may be lawfully used in Self-defence thus our Saviour a little before his Crucifixion gave Commission to his Disciples to furnish themselves with Swords tho' they parted with theâ—r Garments for the Purchase Which we suppose was not designed as a meer modish and fashionable thing but to defend themselves from the Private assaults of Robbers and such like Common Enemies who as Iosephus tells us were very nuâ—meroâ—s at that time For no Man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away But the Case of St. Peter was very different He drew his Sword indeed in his Masters defence but against a lawful Authority The Officers of the Chief Priests and Pharisees came with Iudas to the place where Jesus was to seize on him This was a lawful Authority tho' employed upon a very unjust Errand but Authority must not be resisted
English and if it were so in this cause it will follow for the same reason in all other Counties all over England Lastly That these Gentlemen were well skilled in the Antient Laws and Customs of England which had been in vain if they had been altered as you suppose M. I will not deny but that in the beginning of the Conquerors Reign many Englishmen might have Estates left them which might not be taken away till some years after and Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour places this Tryal between Earl Odo and Arch-bishop Lanfranc about the first year of K. William and I suppose that it happened before the fifth year of his Reign when Matthew Paris tells us that the Earls Eadwin Morcar and Siward together with Egelwin Bishop of Durham as also many thousands of Clerks and Laicks not being able to bear the severity of K. William fled into Woody and Desart places and from thence got into the Isle of Ely where they fortified themselves and whither K. William followed them and taking the Island made them submit to mercy and then this Author tells us that the K. put the Bishop of Durham in Prison and as for the rest some of them he killed some he put to ransom and others he commited to perpetual imprisonment so that I reckon from this time the King took away most of the Englishmens Estates as not trusting them any more F. If this had all happened as you have put it yet would it not prove what you have maintained for if those Englishmem who had not been engaged with Harold or else had been pardoned for it still held their Estates and as you say they forfeited them afterwards for Rebellion then it is certain K. William did not proceed against the English as a Conqueror since if he had he would have taken away their Estates Iure belli which since as you your self confess he did not whatever Estates he took away afterwards was either for Treason committed by the English or else wrongfully if the former he did it as a lawful King if wrongfully then as a Tyrant and as such could obtain no just right against the English Nation by his unjust proceedings But indeed after all you are quite out in your account concerning this matter for as to the great Tryal you now mentioned it could not be in the first or second year of King William's Reign nor could happen sooner than the sixth or seventh of his Reign for Arch-bishop Stigand was not deposed till the year 1070. which was the Fourth year of K. William and in the next year being 1071. the Annals of Mailros as also the Chronicle of Thomas Wiks place Archbishop Lanfranc's Coâ—secration and fetching of his Pall from Rome so that it could not be until the year after this Rebellion at the soonest when Lanfranc was setled in his Bishoprick that this suit was commenced by him against Earl Odo and therefore a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry had still Estates let them after this Rebellion And that they continued to have so some years after this time appears by those Writs of K. William which Mr. Atwood hath given us in his Ianus Aâ—glorum c. concerning the restitution of the Lands belonging to the Church of Ely which are also transcribed and allowed by your Dr. in his answer to it and I desire you particularly to consider that writ of K. William's directed to Arch-bishop Lanfranc Roger E. of Morton and Ieoffery Bishop of Constance commanding them to cause to be assembled all those shires who were present at the Plea had concerning the Lands of the Church of Ely before the Queen went last into Normandy the rest being most material to the cause in hand I shall give you in Latin Cum quibus â—tiam sinc de Baronibus mâ—is qui competenter adesse potâ—â—unt praedicto placito intersuerunt qui terâ—â—s ejusdem Ecclesiae tenent Quibus in â—num congragatis eligantur plures de illis Angliâ— quisciunt quo modo terrae jacebant praefatae Ecclesiae die qua Rex Edwardus obiit quod inde dixerint ibidem jurando testentur From whence we may also gather that this Tryal concerning the Lands which is here ordered was to be in like maâ—ner and by a Jury of the same sort of Englishmen who tryed the cause between Earl Odâ— and Arch bishop Lanfranc that is they were English Gentlemen of sufficient Estates or Tenants in Capite if you please Now. let us look into the time when this happened since the Writ doth not tell us when it was only that it refers to a Plea held concerning the Church of ELy before the Queens last going into Normandy so that this tryal here mentioned could not happen till after the fourteenth year of K. William's Reign which I prove thus this Queen did not come over into England till the year 1068. when the King returned with his Queen out of Normandy after his Coronation at which she was not present after which K. William went not into Normandy till the seventh year of his Reign when he went over and took Mans and then whether he carried the Queen with him is uncertain but the Annals of Waverly tells us he went over again the next year and then he might carry the Queen with him which might be the first time she returned into Normandy but it appears by the same Annals that the King went over the year after and staying but a little while returned into Normandy to fight against his Rebellious Son Prince Robert where staying not long he returned as soon as he had driven his Son out of Normandy nor do we find he went over again till the 14 year of his Reign being the year 1080. and then I suppose since he stayed there for some time he carried the Queen with him and to this last going over I suppose this Writ we have cited refers for tho' the Queen went over again after this yet she returned no more because she died in Normandy in the year 1083. as Iogulph who was then alive relates the use I make of these particulars is this that long after the time you suppose the English to have lost all their Estates we here find a great Jury of Englishmen summoned out of several shires in England to try this great Cause concerning the Lands which the Church of Ely had been unjustly Disseised of so that here you see after the fourteenth year of this King the English still continued to keep their Estates and to serve upon Juries and consequently the Pleadings before them as well as their Verdict must have been in English M. I shall not insist upon this point any farther yet this much you cannot deny but that all the Pleadings and Proceedings at Wâ—stminster as also the old Law books were all in French as appears by the Mirror of Justices Britton not to mention those of latter days as Littleton's Tenures and others and so were
ADVERTISEMENT THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method Bibliotheca Politica OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the Chief Arguments as well against as for the late Revolution are impartially Represented and considered in Thirteen Dialogues Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First Second Tâ—ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelvth and Thirteenth Dialogues 1694. THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues WHETHER Monarchy be Iure Divino Dialogue the First Whether there can be made out from the Natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Dialogue the Second Whether Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation or People in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Dialogue the Third Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England Dialogue the Fourth Whether the King be the Sole Supream Legislative Power of the Kingdom and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments be a Fundamental Part of the Government or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings Dialogue the Fifth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Thâ— Second Parâ—â— Dialogue the Sevenâ—h A Continuation â—f tâ—e former Discourse concâ—rnâ—ng the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance The Third Part Dialogue the Eighth Whether by the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those Commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Dialogue the Ninth I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom II. Whether King William commonly stiled the Conquerour did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm for Himself and his Heirs as can never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Administration or Tyranny whatever Dialogue the Tenth I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Dialogue the Eleventh I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant can be justified from the Ancient Constitution and Customs of this Kingdom II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England may be justified by the said Constitution III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown was according to Law Dialogue the Twelfth I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks Dialogue the Thirteenth ADVERTISEMENT THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues if therefore any Person who having perused them is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments Answers or Authorities there made use of and supposes he could confute them or else put better in their stead if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject they may if they please send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues who will undertake to communicate them to the Author who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly without any Alterations or Additions together with his Answers or Replys to them if the Subject will admit it the Persons concerned may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term when if sent they shall be Publish'd Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER MONARCHY BE IVRE DIVINO Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the First LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms 1694. The Epistle Dedicatory To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility and Gentry HAving out of Curiosity for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution as well aâ— since for the satisfaction of my own Conscience carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original and Rights of Civil Government aâ— well of Monarchy aâ— the other kinds thereof as also of the Antient Government and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read and making a more certain Iudgment thereupon to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino as of those who only allow it to Government in general of those who hold an Absolute Subjection or Passive Obedience as their Phrase is as well as
Cowardice of his Souldiers F. Methinks Sir there is no such great cause of wonder much less of concern in all this For who can much admire that a Prince should be thus used who had not only provok'd a Powerful Enemy to invade him from Abroad but by industriously labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home had lost the Hearts of almost all except his Popish Subjects insomuch that many of his own Souldiers were so terrified with the Thoughts of being discarded like the Protestant Army in Ireland to make room for Irish and French Papists that they had very little Courage to Fight when they saw Casheering was the best Reward they could expect if they proved Victorious And who can much pity a Prince who would rather loose the Affections of his People than displease a few Priests and Jesuites So that if he suffers he may thank himself it not being Religion but Superstition which brought this Misfortune upon him Since the King having got a Prince of Wales and as it is highly suspected joined himself in a strict League with France for the Extirpation of Hereticks it laid an absolute necessity upon the Prince of Orange to come over that by the Assistance of the States of Holland he might not only relieve us but vindicate his own and her Royal Highness his Princessâ—s Right to the Succession and secure his Countrey from a dangerous and powerful invasion which it was threatned with both by Sea and Land whenever the Kings of France and England should be at leisure to joyn their Forces to make War upon them which you know all Europe hath expected for above these two Years last past M. These things were somewhat if they could be proved but indeed to deal freely with you I look upon this League and the Story of the Suppositious Birth of the Prince of Wales as meer Calumnies cast out of Wicked and Crafty Men to render the King more odious to his People F. Nay Sir you don't hear me positively affirm either the one or the other since I grant they are not yet made out but whatsoever will consider all the Circumstances of the Birth of this Child cannot but be strongly inclined to believe it an Imposture notwithstanding all the Depositions that are taken to the contrary And as for the French League you may be sure if there be any such thing it is kept very private and yet I must tell you there are very high and violent Presumptions to believe it true or else why should the King of France in a late Memorial to the Pope complain that his Holiness by Opposing his Interest in Europe had hindered him in those great Designs he had for the Extirpation of Heresie by which he must surely intend England or Holland Protestantism being sufficiently expelled out of his own Countrey already And he could not do it in either of the other without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother the King of England Or to what purpose should the King of England joyn with France to ruin Holland and his own Son in Law into the Bargain but to make a War meerly for Religion since neither the Dutch nor the Prince their Stadt-holder gave him till now any just Provocation M. Well however these are but bare suspitions and presumptions at most and not proofs and therefore in a doubtful matter as this is if we ought to judge favourably of the Actions of others much more of Princes whose Councils and Actions tho' private yet are still exposed to the Censure and Calumnies of their Enemies and therefore I hope you will not blame me if I freely confess that I am deeply concerned to see an innocent and Misled King forced to seek his Bread in a Forreign Land and the more since many of the Nobility Gentry and Common People have contributed so much to it by taking up Arms against him and that so great a part of his own Army and Officers should contrary to their Allegiance and Trust reposed in them run over to the Enemy Nay that some of our Bishops and Clergy-men should contrary to the so often acknowledged Doctrines of Passiveâ— Obedience and Non-Resistance not only Countenance but be likewise active in such desperate undertakings and this in-direct opposition to the known Laws of God and this Kingdom which must needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papists and a Shame and Reproach to all Protestant Churches abroad and render the people of England odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe F. Well Sir I see you are very warm and I hope more than the cause deserves You may Judge as favourably of the King's Proceedings and as hardly of the Actions of the Nobility Gentry Clergy and People in this matter as you please But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day that they have done nothing by joining in Arms with he Prince of Orange but what is justifiable by the Principles of Self preservation the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government and a just Zoal for their Religion and Civil Liberties as they stand secured by our Laws unless you would give the King a Power of making up Papists and Slaves whenever he pleased But as for your Doctrine of an Absolute Obedience without Reserve and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession you need not be much concerned whether the Papists laugh at you or no since there are very few of them if any who are such Fools themselves as to believe such futilous Opinions But indeed they have more reason to laugh at you whilst you maintain than when you quit them since as they have only rendered you a fit Object of their Scorn so they would have made you but a more casâ—â— Sacrifice to their Malice For what can Thieves desire more than that those they design to Rob should think it unlawful to resist them And what could the Papists have wisht for more than that our Hands being fotterred by this Doctrine of an indefinite Passive-Obedience our Lives Religion and Liberties should lye at their Mercy Which how long we should have enjoyed whenever they thought themselves â—â—rong enough to take them away the late cruel Persecutions and Extirpations of the Protestants in France Savey Hungary and other places have proved but too fatal Examples and therefore no wonder let your high-flown Church-men write or preach what they please if the Body of the Nobility Gentry and People of England could never be perswaded to swallow Doctrines so fatal to their Religion and destructive to their Civil Rights and Liberties both as Mon and Christians And as for the Antiquity of these Doctrines I think they are so far from being the Antient Tenets of the Church of England that they are neither to be found in its Chatechism Thirty Nine Articles or Book of Homilies taken in their true Sense and Meaning thô indeed there is something that may tend that way in some of the late Church-Canons about
happen sometimes to abuse yet I suppose no person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the Execution of it much less to call him to an account or punish him for the Male-administration of his Power And you have granted that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a power of life and death over his Wife if she murthers her Children or commits any other abominable sin against Nature and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family and punish'd as an Enemy to Mankind and so certainly may his Children too But what need I say any more of this Subject when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments concerning the absoluteness and perpetuiry of this Conjugal Subjection and that which will likewise follow from it the constant service and subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature Therefore pray Sir let us return again to that Head and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it F. I beg your pardon Sir if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done but you may thank your self for it who brought me off from what I was going farther to say on that Head by your discourse of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death conferred by God on Adam as a Husband and a Father But first give me leave farther to prove that this subjection of the Wife is neither absolute nor irrevocable For proof of which I shall lay down these Principles 1. That the Wife in the State of Nature when she submits her self to the power of her Husband does it to live as happily as she did before oâ— rather to enjoy more of the comforts of life than in a single State 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own happiness or Self-preservation 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judg of the means that may conduce to these ends for if this were so let him use her never so cruelly or severely she could have no cause to censure him or complain in the least against him 4. If she have not so absolutely given up her Will to his she is still Judge when she is well used by him or else so cruelly that it is no longer to be endured And therefore if such a Husband will not allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment and other necessaries or that he uses her cruelly by beating or other punishments or hath endeavoured to take away her Life in all these cases in the State of Nature and where there is no Superior Power to complain or appeal to she may certainly quit him and I think she is not bound to return to co-habit with him again until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her and is resolved to make amends for the future But whether this Repentance be real or not she only can be Judge since she can only Judge of her own happiness and the means of her preservation And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness and help to each other if he have broke his part of the Compact she is then so far discharged from hers and consequently in the meer state of Nature which is that we are now talking of the Vinculum Matrimonii as you Civilians term it will be likewise dissolved So likewise such a Husband for no just cause or crime in the Wife but only to be rid of her should endeavour to take away her life as suppose to strangle her in her sleep or the like no doubt but she may notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection resist him by force and save her life until she can call in her Children or Family for her rescue and assistance who sure may also notwithstanding this absolute Daspotick Power you place in their Father or Master rescure her from his rage and malice whether he will or not Nay they are bound to do it unless they will be Accessaries to her Murther M. These are doubtful Cases at best and do very seldom happen and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked as to hate and destroy his own Flesh and therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen F. Rarely happen I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bayly nor at our Countrey Assizes where if you please to come you may often hear of Cases of this Nature and I wonder you that are a Civilian and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts brought by Wives for Separation propter Saevitiam c. Should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so ill that it is not to be endured But if the Wife have these Privileges pray tell me why the Children shall not have the same according to your own Maxime of partus Sequitur Ventrem since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles of the same natere with that of the Mother and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of M. Yet I hope you will not affirm but that Children are under higher obligations of Duty and Obedience to their Father than a Wife is to her Husband with whom perhaps she may in some cases be upon equal terms but Children can never be so in respect of their Father to whom they are always inferior and ought to be absolutely Subject in the state of Nature that is before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power F. I thank you Sir for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to and I agree with you in your other Maxim of Quicquid ex me â—xore mea nascitur in potestate mea est yet not in your sense For iâ— I should grant that the Father's Power over the Child commences from his Power over the Mother by her becoming his Wife and submitting her self and consequently all the issue that should be begotten of her to her Husband's Power yet as I have proved already in case of the Wife so I think I may affirm the same in that of the Children That they are not deliver'd by God so absolutely to the Father's Will or disposal as that they have no Right when they attain to years of Discretion to seek their own happiness and preservation in another place in case the Father uses them as Slaves or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause since when Children are at those years I think they are by the Laws of Nature sufficient Judges of their own happiness or misery that is whether they are well or ill used and whether their Lives are in danger or not by their Father's Cruelty For tho' I grant that Children considered as such are always inferior to their Parents yet I must likewise affirm that in another respect as they are men and
the Apostle to Sons but to Servants or Slaves whose lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolue disposal being those whom the Apostle Paul calls Servants under the yoke and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one which you have already denyed this precept doth not at all concern them And as for Example of Isaac that will make as little for your advantage for first as to Abraham he could not but know that to kill his Son without any just cause was as much murder in him as in any other Man Now what could be a juster or a higher cause than Gods particular Command So that as this act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission therefore it is most reasonable to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him to be about nineteen or twenty years of age and of years of discretion to ask where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering was also instructed by his Father before he came to be offered of the reason of his dealing thus with him and then the Submission was not payed to his Fathers but to Gods will from whom he miraculously received his being But if any Man doubt wheter resistance in such a Case were Lawful I leave it to his own conscience to consider whether if his Father had him alone in a place where he could neither run away nor yet call for help he would suffer his Father to cut his Troat without any resistance only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it Not but that I so far agree with you likewise as to limit such a resistance only to the holding his Fathers Hands or warding off his blows but not to the taking away his life but of the two rather to lose his own than to kill him for the reasons you have given and which I will not deny but yet if the Father be mad I much doubt whether the Son is boâ—nd to let him kill him rather than take away his life since such a Father's life is no way useful to the good of the Family So that thô I should grant that Paternal Power is from God and consequently irresissible yet doth it not follow that all the unjust force or violence which a Father as a Man may use against his Sons life or fortune is such part of a Paternal Power as God hath commanded us not to resist since your self must grant that he doth not thus act in going about to kill his Son as a father but a violent and wicked Man So that where the father hath no Right to take away his Sons life I think in all such Cases the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place And if a Man may resist or bind his Father when he is Mad or Drunk and in such fits goeth about to kill him I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the same thing when his Father is transported by a sudden rage or unreasonable malice since both of them do take away the use of natural Reason as much the one as the other according to that saying of the Poet Ira furor brevis est Anger is but a short madness Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Sons life and safety with Drunkenness and Madness nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power but only his Brutish force and violence So that if Sons when grown to years of discretion have not a right to defend their lives in the State of Nature against all Persons whatsoever who go about to take it away without any just Cause every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him when ever being transported by madness drunkenness or sudden passion he hath will so to do which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature of propagating and preserving the species of Mankind if a Father should have any unreasonable unlimitted Power I 'll leave it to your self or any other reasonable Man to consider nor doth it follow that because a Son can in no wise be Superiour to his Father he ought not therefore to resist him since thô I grant punishment is a Right of Superiours over their Inferiours yet so is not resistance since every one knows that resistance is exercised between equals as I have already proved Sons are to their Fathers in all the Rights of life and self-preservation and conseqently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded M. I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature viz. of preserving or prosecuting the common good of Mankind that Fathers should have an absolute irreâ—istible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children let them use it how they will or else that Children should have a Right to resist them in some cases when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause for thô I own that if the former Principle be true Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their Childrens Lives or Estates without any just Cause so on the other side if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives or Estates it will I doubt lay a foundation for horrid confusions and divisions in Families since if Children are under a constant subjection to their Fathers they ought then to be absolutely Subject to them in the State of Nature and therefore ought not to be resisted For if all Fathers and Masters of Families are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife Children and Servants of the Family as your self cannot deny then no resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the peace and tranquility of that Family without the diminution or total destruction of that absolute Power with which they are intrusted And thô I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves not to take away either their Lives or Goods without great and sufficient Cause yet of these Causes Fathers in the state of Nature must be the only and uncontrolable Judges since if Children whom I still consider as Subjects thô not as Slaves in the State as long as they continue members of their Fathers Family should once have a Right to resist when they thought their Lives or Estates were unjustly invaded they might also oftentimes through undutifulness or false suggestions pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad drunk or in a passion and went about to take away their Lives when really they intend no such thing but only to give them due correction Which would give Children an unnatural power of resisting or perhaps of killing their Fathers upon false surmises or flight occasions And as
to Govern all Mankind when in a little time it became so multiplied and dispersed over the Face of the Earth and the Languages so confounded by the Act or Will of God that it was impossible for the Three Elder Sons of these three great Patriarchs to govern them But during the Life of Noah we do not read that any of his Children or Descendants withdrew themselves from him without his leave but rather the contrary for it is said The whole Earth was of one Language and of one Speech and it came to pass as they journeyed from the East that they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar c By which words it appears they kept well enough together and the very reason why they began to build the Tower was left said they We should be scattered abroad upon the Face of the whole Earth So that there was no disunion amongst them nor so much as a desire of it whilst Noah lived F. I pray give me leave to answer what you have said concerning this Distribution of the Earth by Noah's last Will and also his making all his Sons Lords or Monarchs alike both which favour so strongly of the Rabbinical Liberty of Invention that I wonder how any Learned Man can believe such idle Stories especially when the Scripture and the most Antient Histories and Records that are extant in the World mention no such thing and tho' Iosâ—phus may in the place you have cited suppose that every one of the Patriarchs he mentions were Princes or Monarchs yet he doth not say any thing like it concerning the Three Sons of Noah's being Monarchs or of this Partition of the Earth between them but maketh them to live together in those Mountainous parts till they descended from thence into the Plain so that it was impossible for Noah to make a Distribution of those parts of the Earth which were not yet discovered and it is apparent by the Scripture it self that a considerable time after Noah's Death all Mankind lived together and therefore there was no impossibility as you suppose why Noah's Eldest Son could not have commanded his Brethren and their Descendants they being not as yet dispersed or separated from each other as you may see by the first Verses of 〈…〉 of Genesis which you cited but now So that if Noah's Eldest Son was disinherited of his Right of Governing his Brethren and their Descendants that could not be the cause of it which you assign and if Primogeniture be a Divine Right appointed by God himself and unalterable by Humane Laws as you suppose I cannot see how the Will of a Father which is but a Humane Institution can ever alter it For I remember you laid it down as a Maxim at our last meeting That the Divine Right of the Right Heir never dies can be lost or taken away so that if there hath been any such thing as a Divine Right of Primogeniture belonging to the Eldest Son of Noah it is not likely that he would have permitted his two Brothers to have usurped it from him M. I shall not insist longer on this Tradition concerning the Distribution of the Earth amongst the Sons of Noah but certainly it is not a thing to be made so slight of as you do since Cedrenus a Modern Greek Historian is very particular in it besides so many other Learned Men and the great Selden among the rest have given countenance to it And tho' I grant that Primogeniture is of Divine Right yet that might very well be altered by Noah's Will especially since his Children might be satisfied that he being a Prophet and Preacher of Righteousness might make this Division of his Paternal Power by a Divine Command But I shall not dwell longer upon this but proceed to the next Period of Time viz. that of the Confusion and Dispersion of Tongues in which there are more evident Footsteps of this Right of Primogeniture as also of the Patriarchal Power I maintain And therefore pray turn to the 10th of Genesis and there you will find after the Recital of the Genealogy of every one of the Sons of Noah whose Desâ—endants are there particularly set down these words in the fifth verse By these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations And likewise in the 20th verse These are the Sons of Ham after their Families after their Tongues in their Countreys and in their Nations And in the last verse These are the Families of the Sons of Noah and their Generations in their Nations and by these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood So that if we consider the first Plantations of the World which were after the Building of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues we may find the Division of the Earth into distinct Kingdoms or Nations by several Families and Languages whereof the Sons or Grand-children of Noah were the Kings or Governours by a Fatherly Right And for the preservation of this Power and Right in these Fathers God was pleased upon several Families to bestow a Language on each by it self the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom So that it becoming impossible as I said before for the Elder Sons or Descendants of these Three great Patriarchs to Govern all Mankind who now no longer understood each other's Language it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of the several Families should take that care upon them and their Children submit to them wherein they had the direction of God Almighty who had commanded them to obey their Parents and a miraculous declaration of his Will for their Dispersion by the confounding of their Language and that so ordered by God too that the Descendants of the same Person and Family spoke one Tongue was not this a declaring these Fathers Princes of these several Families and Tongues by God himself who by his Providence had thus confounded their Tongues and dispersed them by Families that they could no longer be governed by Three or Four Patriarchs but must have as many distinct Governments as there were different Tongues there being no means at present of any intercourse or correspondence one with another or with their former Governours So that however in this Confusion of Tongues by which as Iosephus supposes there were Seventy two distinct Nations erected yet were they not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours or Government they pleased but were so many distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them of the same Speech Whereby it is manifest that even in the Confusion God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority and Monarchical Power entire by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families which shews that God was still for Government and that Paternal too since it is evident that every People followed their Ancestor or Patriarch as their Prince or
Charta for example for the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo or any Liberty we enjoy are not necessary or contrary to the common good he is not tied to observe them And upon this Principle it was that the Judges in the Reign of King Charles the First founded the King's Prerogative for Ship money For they supposed that the King in case of necessity that is for the publick good of the Subjects might lay a Tax upon the Kingdom tho' without Consent of Parliament So that upon this pretence the King being the sole Iudge of the Necessity he might quickly have raised what Taxes and as often as he had pleased But lest our Kings should think themselves too strictly bound by their Coronation Oaths to observe the Laws pray see in the next Paragraph how this Author endeavours to help the King to creep out of that Obligation too Therefore pray read on Others there be that affirm that altho' Laws of themselves do not bind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at their Coronations tye them to keep all the Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oaths of the Kings of England at their Coronation the words whereof are these Art thou pleased to cause to be administred in all thy Judgments indifferent and upright Justice and to use Discretion with Mercy and Verity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and doest thou promise that those shall be protected and maintained by thee These two are the â—rticles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in general to which the King answers affirmatively being first demanded by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it you to confirm and observe the Laws and Customs of Antient Times granted from God by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity by the Famous King Edward We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The word upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in King Henry the Eighths days the King is to swear wholy to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Iustice with Discretion and Mercy or as Bracton hath it aequitatem praecipiat Misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in his Iudgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to the Equity of his Conscience joyned with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellor rather than of a Iudge And if a King did strictly swear to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any Statute by Act of Parliament which would be very mischievous to the State But let it be supposed for truth that Kings do swear to observe all the Laws of their Kingdoms yet no man can think it reason that Kings should be more bound by their voluntary Oaths than common persons are by theirs Now if a private person make a Contract either with Oath or without Oath he is no farther bound than the Equity and Iustice of the Contract tyes him for a Man may have Relief against an unreasonable and unjust Promise if either Deceit or Error Force or Fear induced him thereunto or if it be hurtfuls or grievous in the performance since the Laws in many Cases give the King a Prerogative above common persons I see no reason why he should be denied the Priviledge which the meanest of his Subjects doth enjoy I need not make any long Paraphrase upon these words it is sufficient that the King is here left sole Iudge of what Laws are Upright and what Unjust and consequently what Laws he pleases shall be observed and what not So that no Laws tho' thought never so just and necessary by the Parliament at the time of making of them shall signifie any thing if he thinks sit afterwards to judge otherwise And lest this should not be sufficient he hath found out another way whereby Princes may absolve themselves of this troublesom Obligation of Oaths and therefore he would have them no more bound up than common persons who because they may have Relief in Publick Courts of Justice against an unjust Promise if either Errour Deceit Force or Fear induced them thereunto nay more if it be hurtful or grievous in the performance Kings who have a Prerogative above common persons and who acknowledge no Tribunal above themselves may absolve themselves of their Oaths whenever they think good by saying it was extorted from them by Deceit Force or Fear or if they cannot satisfie themselves without it they might have had formerly the Pope's Dispensation for Money which we read King Iohn and Henry the Third obtained to be absolved of the Oaths they had taken to observe Magna Charta but this Author hath found out a shorter cut and hath made Kings both Judges and Parties and to absolve themselves by a Fundamental Right of Government And what hath proved the Conclusion of such Princes who have taken this Authors Liberty of breaking their Coronation Oath at their pleasure it hath only taught their Subjects to imitate their Example and to make as light of their Oath of Allegiance M. I will not deny but perhaps Sir R F. may have carried the Prerogative in this point a little too far yet that he meant honestly towards the Common weal in all this I pray see the 8th Section of this Chapter where you 'll find these words Many will be ready to say It is a slavish and dangerous Condition to be subject to the Will of any one Mâ—n who is not subject to the Laws But such Men consider not 1. That the Prerogative of a King is to be above all Laws for the good only of them who are under the Laws and to defend the Peoples Liberties as His Majesty graciously affirmed in his Speech after his last Answer to the Petition of Right howsoever some are afraid of the name of Prerogative yet they may assure themselves the Case of Subjects would be desperately miserable without it So that you see here he asserts no Prerogative in the King to be above all Laws but only for the good of the people and to defend their Liberties which I think is a sufficient restraint of Prerogative F. But read a little lower and the People will have no such great cause to thank him as you may see by these words In all Aristocracies the Nobles are above the Laws and
to defend their own Lives or a Property in any thing they can enjoy and if ever they could be supposed to have done so I think I may boldly affirm that such a Nation are not Subjects but Slaves and the Prince not a Monarch or Civil Governour but only a Lord of a Great Family or Master of a publick Work-house For I take the difference betwixt Subjects or Slaves and Princes and Masters of Families to consist in this that the Power of a Prince is chiefly ordained for the Good and Preservation of his Subjects tho' I grant his own may likewise be included in it as an Encouragement and Reward for his Labour yet not as the principal End of his Institution Whereas in a Family of Slaves they are chiefly ordained for his profit or Benefit that maintains them but their Happiness and Preservation is only accidental and as it may conduce to that The main End also of Civil Government is to institute and maintain a distinct Property in men's Estates and which the Prince or Common-wealth can have no Right to take away And therefore tho' I grant that in those Despotiâ—k Monarchies you mention the Monarchs do exercise an Absolute Arbitrary Power over the Lives Liberties and Estates of their Subjects Yet that this is by Divine Right or Institution I utterly deny or that it was always so in all of them from the beginning for most of those Empires you mention can no otherwise subsist than by a Constant maintaining vast standing Armies or Guards to keep their Subjects in Obedience Nor can any Governments be of Divine Institution which are exercised with a sole Respect to the personal Power and Grandeur of the Prince rather than the Good and Preservation of the People So that if you will but survey the accounts that Travellers give us of those Eastern Parts of the World you will find that there are no known setled Laws or Properties in those Countries except at the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch or his Viceroys and thus all those rich and fruitful Countries of Egypt and Asia which formerly flourished in all Arts Knowledge and Civility and abounded in Multitudes of People are now in most places reduced to meer Deserts and do not breed a Tenth part of that number of People as they did in former Ages Which proceeds from no other cause but the Cruelty and Injustice of the Government quite different from what it was in the time of the Roman Emperours who tho' I confess they were in some sence absolute too yet governed by and were obliged to observe Known Laws and the People had a settled Property in their Estates which the Prince had no Right to take away I shall not enquire how all these Monarchs came to be so Arbitrary at first and thus to abuse their Power But the Generality or Antiquity of this abuse can be no more a Plea for its Right than that because Idolatry was generally practised throughout the World within three or four hundred Years after the Flood till three or above four hundred Years after Christ therefore Idolatry was the True and Ancient Religion of the World Now tho' I will not condemn this sort of Government where the Subjects enjoy no setled Property in Lands or Goods as absolutely unlawful and directly contrary to the Laws of God or Nature Yet in those Kingdoms and Common-wealths where Civil or Hereditary Property is once introduced I think it is not Lawful nor indeed in the Power of the Prince or Common-wealth to destroy or take it away And therefore if the Roman Emperours should have endeavoured by any Laws or Edicts of their own making to have dâ—stroyed all Civil or Hereditary Property in Lands and Goods and to have reduced all the Estates of their Subjects into their own Possession I think they might have been Lawfully disobeyed and resisted by the People since they went about to destroy one great End of Civil Government viz. the Instituting and Maintaining of Civil Property To conclude I freely grant that in all Countries which are governed either by absolute Monarchies or Common-wealths the Soveraignty is so fully in one Person or Body of Men that it hath no other Bounds or Limits under God but it s own Will or Commands Provided they do not apparently tend to the absolute Ruine and Destruction of the People for that being inconsistent with the Notion or End of governing them they are and ever will be Iudges of it And therefore even amongst the Turks and Tartars themselves if they should once find their Prince go about wilâ—ully to destroy them or sell them for Slaves you would soon find notwithstanding this servile Subjection That they would quickly be rid of them as the Ianisaries have served their Emperours of late Years for far less faults M. I cannot deny but you have spoken reasonably enough on this Subject and perhaps if you had restrained this Power of Resistance only to such Cases where the Prince or Monarch makes open War upon his People or doth otherwise actually go about to destroy them it might have been a tolerable doctrine that they may lawfully resist the Forces he shall send against them but this is a Case that so seldom happens if ever at all that it can never be supposed and no Prince unless he were Mad can be guilty of it and therefore when ever he Acts thus I think he may not only be Lawfully resisted but tyed up for a Madman But this is seldom or never the Case between Monarchs and their People for most of the Rebellions and Insurrections that I have ever read of or observed in the World have not proceeded from any necessity that the People had to rise up in Arms and Rebel against their Supream Magistrates because their Lives or Estates were assaulted or in danger to be taken away but for the most part they arose either from the too Great Cruelty or severity of the Supream Power towards some particular Private Men who by themselves and their Friends and Relations have gone about to revenge those Injuries that they supposed had been done them And of this all Histories are to full that I need give no particular Instances of them all which abuses may be reduced to these Heads First when a Prince doth commonly himself violate the Chastities of the Wives or Daughters of the Subjects which tho' it hath been the ruine of divers Princes yet is he able to do this only to some few particular Persons and tho' if he should permit his Soldiers or Officers generally to do this without any Punishment yet even this can hardly if ever extend to all the Wives Daughters or Women in a whole Countrey And therefore both these Cases are to be born withal according to your own Principles since it doth not tend to the Slavery or Destruction of the People I mean as to their whole complexed Body A Second is when an absolute Prince or Monarch goeth about to alter the
to the Word of God and what not and yet you see that from the ill use of this Liberty have sprung all the Different Sects and Heresies in the World Does it therefore follow that Men must not make use of this Liberty because they may abuse it So likewise must Subjects judge in no Case whatsoever when the Supream Power Tyrannizes over them beyond what they are able to bear and must they never resist or endeavour to cast off this insupportable Yoak because they may happen one time or other to be wanton and believe themselves oppress 't when indeed they are not M. I grant your Parallel would have some what in it were the Consequences of every Mans judging for himself in Matters of Religion as fatal to the Peace and Happiness of Mankind as your Doctrine of the Subjects judging when it is fit for them to resist the Supream Powers for I do not at all debar them from the Right of Iudging when they are oppress 't or ill used by them for that may very well consist with the Publick Peace but I utterly disallow all manner of Resistance by Force because it tends not only to dissolve all Civil Government but to disturb the Common Peace and safety of Mankind F. Notwithstanding your Distinction the Parallel with hold in both Cases for are not differences in Religion as fatal to the Peace and Unity of the Church as the Subjects judging when they are oppress 't and thereupon taking up defensive Arms can be to that of a Civil State And do not more Wars and Quarrels arise about Mens differences in Religion than from any other Cause you can Name So that if the Peace of the Church were a sufficient Cause for supposing a certain or Infallible Iudge in Religion there would be the same Reason to suppose it in Civil Matters too And therefore your Argument from the abuse of this Liberty of the Subjects judging when they may resist is of no more force in one Case than the other for I grant it may so happen in a Civil State as well as in an Ecclesiastical that the Subjects may rise up and resist their Civil as well as Spiritual Governours without any just Cause doth it therefore follow that God hath wholly delivered up Mankind to the domineering humours of Men in Power let them abuse it never so grosly And therefore we must not be wiser than God Almighty himself and when he hath not appointed any certain and Infallible Iudges either in Civil or Spiritual matters without any Contradiction or Resistance we ought not to suppose a necessity of such Judges meerly because of some Inconveniences which may perhaps often happen from the abuse of that Christian Liberty he hath given us For then I doubt you will find the Remedy would be much worse than the Disease as if to avoid Heresies we should set up the Pope for an Infallible Iudge So would it be likewise if to avoid Civil Wars and Rebellions we should set up the Supream Magistrate as Mr. Hobbs hath done for a certain and Irresistible Iudge of whatsoever Means are necessary for the People's Quiet and Preservation since I have already proved that an Insupportable Tyranny is not Civil Government and that the Supream Powers can no more alter the Nature of things but their own Laws or Edicts than they can ordain Poyson to be used in stead of wholesom Food by the People M. I confess what you have now said carries some weight with it and my own Carnal Reason doth very much incline me to your Opinion were it not for two things the one as I said is the Horrid Rebellions that have and may again arise in these Kingdoms from this Principle which hath made God so strictly forbid all Resistance of the Higher Powers upon any account whatsoever And therefore you are much mistaken when you assert that Resistance tho' for Self defence is one of the Liberties that God hath left us since certainly he would never so severely have forbidden it but that he not only knew how prone Men's Corrupt Natures were to Rebellion but also foresaw the fatal Consequence of it F. If God's Commands in Scripture be the greatest Argument you have against all Resistance whatever I doubt not but to shew you when We come to it that you as well as others are mistaken in that Strict Interpretation of those places of Scripture and as for the Evil Consequences you suppose may follow from this Doctrine I doubt not likewise but to convince you that much worse will follow from the Irresistible Tyranny of the Supream Powers than ever have happen'd from the Dreadfullest Rebellions And therefore I desire you to take Notice that what I have now said is not out of any design to Iustifie so Horrid a Crime as I grant Rebellion to be or to incite Subjects to be Guilty of it but only to hinder Civil Government from being destroyed and Mankind from being made Miserable For I have first Asserted that no Resistance whatever is to be made in Absolute Governments but in those Cases in which the main Ends of Civil Government are Visibly destroyed or so near it that there is no other means left but Resistance to prevent it And then when things are once brought to this Pass it is not the People that make this War but the Governours who by their Tyranny have brought the Common-Wealth into this Anarchy and Confusion you so mâ—ch Dread so that it is not the People but they that are the Aggressors And as for the ill use that may be made of this Doctrine to stir up the People to Rebellion when they have no just or sufficient Provocation to Reâ—â—st This will not prove of that Dangerous Consequence you imagine if you will but consider that I do not allow this Resistance in any Case but when the Violence or Oppression of the Governors is so Evident and Insupportable to all the People that groan under it that no indifferent Man in his Senses will be able to deny it for as long as there remains any Disputableness whether or no the People are sufficiently Opprest in their Liberties or Estates the Trust Reposed in the Supream Magistrates makes them the Sole Iudges of the Necessity of such Exorbitant Actions as being Intrusted by the People as Men supposed to be both Wise and Good and themselves Ignorant in Diverse Cases of the true means of their own Preservation and the Supream Powers remain the Sole Iudges as long as the Case is Doubtful or Uncertain But since you have already acknowledged that the People might Iudge if such a Case should happen whether the Prince or other Supream Magistrate makes Actual War upon them I would very fain know why the People cannot as plainly distinguish when he sends his Guards or Dragoons to take away their Lives and Liberties or to turn them out of their Estates And 〈◊〉 this be done and the Tyranny so evident and general and
Samuels Days it setled in their Kings For as for the Iewish Sanhedrim whose Power is so much extolled by the Iewish Writers who are all a late Date many years since the Destruction of Ierusalem and therefore no competent Witnesses of what was done so many Ages before it does not appear from any Testimony of Scripture that there was such a Court of Iudicature till after their Return from the Babylonish Captivity But yet God took care to secure the Peace and good Government of the Nation by appointing such a Power as should receive the last Appeals and whose sentence in all Controversies should be final uncontroulâ—ble as you may see in Deuteronomy Chap. 17. There were indeed inferiour Magistrates and Iudges appointed in their several Tribes and Cities which Moses did by the advice of Iethro his Father in Law and by the Approbation of God But as the Supream Power was still reserv'd in the hands of Moses while he liv'd so it is here secured to the High-Priest or Iudges after his Death for it is expresly appointed that if those inferiour Iudges could not determine the Controversie they should come unto the Priests the Levites that is the Priests of the Tribe of Levi who by the 12. v. appear only to be the High-Priest and to the Iudge that shall be in those days that is if it shall be at such a time when there is an extraordinary Judge raised by God for there were not always such Iudges in Israel as is evident to anyone who reads the Book of Iudges they should enquire of them and they shall shew the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall Chuse shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee And what the Authority of the Chief-Priest or of the Iudge when there was one was in those days appears from v. 12. And the Man that will do presumptuously and wilâ— not hearken â—o the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that Man shall dye and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel This is as absolute an Authority as the most absolute Monarch in the World can challenge that disobedience to their Last and final Determination whatever the Cause be shall be punish'd with Death and what place can there be for Resistance in such a Constitution of Government as this It is said indeed v. 11. And according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the Iudgment that they shall tell thee thou shalt do And hence some conclude that they were not bound to abide by their sentence nor were punishable if they did not but only in such Cases when they gave sentence according to the Law of God But these Men do not consider that the Matter in Controversie is supposed to be doubtful and such as could not be determin'd by the inferiour Courts and therefore is submitted to the Decision of the Supream Iudge and as he determin'd so they must do no Man under the Penalty of Death must presume to do otherwise which takes away all Liberty of Iudging from Private Persons tho' this Supream Judge might possibly mistake in his Judgment as all Humane Iudicatures are liable to mistakes but it seems God Almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final Iudgment from whence there should be no Appeal notwithstanding the Possibility of a mistake in it So likewise when God had appointed Ioshua to succeed Moses and had conferrd upon him all that Power that Moses had before and that he came to give his Orders to the two Tribes and an half before their Passage over Iordan you 'l find that they not only promis'd him perfect Obedience as they had before pay'd to Moses but farther also assure him That whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy Commandment and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou Commandest him he shall be put to Death So that there was a Supream and Soveraign that is an unaccountable and irresistible Power in the Iewish Nation appointed by God himself for indeed it is not possible that the Publick Peace and Security of any Nation should be preserved without it F. You have Sir methinks taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at all Deny but rather joyn with you to assâ—rt that Stubbornness and Disobedience to Gods Commands is a very great Sin and the Rebellion thereunto is likened to the Sin of Witchcraft as Samuel shews to no less a Man than King Saul himself when he had Rebelled against that is disobeyed God in not destroying the King of the Amalâ—kites and therefore it is no wonder that in a Government where God himself was the Head and had appointed Moses and Aaron as his Lieutenants or Substitutes under him the one in Civil and the other in Ecclesiastical matters that God should punish their Murmuring and Rebellion against them as done to himself not that I deny but that St. Iude does likewise denounce this Judgment of perishing in the gainsaying of Core against those wicked Hereticks the Gnosticks who thought themselves set free from all Civil subjection and therefore despised Dominions and spake evil of Dignities that is not the Men invested with them but Civil Magistracy it self which they look'd upon as inconsistent with their Christian Liberty But yet for all this and that I grant God denounced no less than the Sentence of Death against any Man that refused to Hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge in those matters that should be brought before them by way of Appeal and also that whoever would not obey Ioshua but should Rebel against his Commandments should be put to Death yet can I not think that there was any Irresistible Power plac'd by God in the Persons of Moses Ioshua or the Iudges or that it was not possible for the Publick Peace or security of the Nation to be preserved without that But indeed all these Persons above nam'd being to be Obeyed as Gods Substitutes or Lieutenants as he was King of the Children of Israel so likewise their Commands or Dictates were only so far to be observ'd as they perform'd this Commission and if they had swerved from it I doubt not but they might not only have been disobeyed but also resisted by them And therefore pray tell me suppose this Rebellion of Core had happened because Moses making himself a distinct party amongst the mixt multitude of strangers that came up with them out of the Land of Egypt and others of his own Tribe or whom he could bring over to his Faction under colour of this Soveraign Power which God had given him had instead of leading and governing the People committed to his charge taken upon him to have rob'd them of all those Goods and Riches which
they had brought with them out of the Land of Egypt and had sold the People or their Children for slaves to the Neighbouring Nations to inrich himself and his Family do you believe that the Children of Israel had been Obliged to have Obeyed such a Leader and not have resisted him and his party if there had been occasion So likewise if Ioshua instead of Leading Gods People into the Holy Land had taken upon him notwithstanding Gods Commands to have carried them again into Egypt can you think they had been bound to Obey him and might not Lawfully have resisted him if he had gone about by the assistance of his Accomplices to force them to it For I doubt not but if these Substitutes had acted contrary to that Commission God had given them they were no longer to be look'd upon as Gods Vicegerents no more than the now Lieutenant of Ireland the Lord Tyrconnel ought to be Obeyed and not resisted if he should go about by Vertue of that Commission which the King hath conferred upon him and by the help of the Rebellious Irish in that Kingdom to murder all the Protestants and set up for himself So likewise all this strict Obedience and submission that was to be paid to the Sentence of the High-Priest or Iudge was only in Relation to God himself whose Sentence it was and who always Revealed his Will either to the Iudge by particular Inspiration or to the High-Priest by the Ephod or Urim and Thummim And therefore we read in Iudges that Deborah tho' a Woman yet being a Prophetess inspir'd by God judged Israel Now suppose that this Iudge or High-Priest neglecting like Balaam the Divine Inspiration and the Dictates of that Sacred Oracle had instead of a Righteous Iudgment given a Sentence in a Cause that had come before them whereby Idolatry or breach of some great Point of the Law of Moses had been established do you think that God ever intended that this Sentence should have been Obeyed under Pain of Death And therefore you may find in the 2d Book of Maccabees that when Iason and Menelaus had by Bribery obtained the High-Priesthood tho' it was then the Chief Authority under the Kings of Syria both in Ecclesiastical and Civil matters yet when they went about to undermine the Iewish Religion and seduce the People to Idolatry they are not at all look'd upon as High-Priests but are there called Ungodly Wretches doing nothing worthy of the High-Priesthood but having the fury of a Cruel Tyrant and of a Savage Beast and were so far from being at all Obeyed by the Iews that Iason Menelaus and Alcimus who were successively High-Priests in the room of Onias were as far as the People were able opposed by them till at last Iudas Maccabeus taking Arms against Alcimus the High-Priest restored by force the true Worship of God So that you see that the Obedience was not pay'd to the Person of the High-Priests only as such by vertue of this Precept in Deuteronomy but only as far as they observed the Law of Moses and gave sentence or Judgment in all matters according to it And therefore it is no good Argument of yours because the People were bound to obey their sentence in doubtful cases therefore they had an absolute irresistible Power to give what Iudgments they pleased and that the People were obliged to observe them under pain of Death and being Guilty of Rebellion For that had been to have given the High-Priests and Iudges a Power to have altered the true Worship of God when ever they pleased and to have introduced Idolatry in the Room of it So that I think none of these places will prove any more but that God and his Lieutenants were to be Obeyed and that it was Rebellion to resist them under the Iewish Government as long as they did not force the People to Idolatry which I do not at all deny M. Tho you labour to wave these examples and Precepts which I have now cited and will not take them for convincing yet let me tell you your exceptions against them only tend to prove that Idolatrous Kings might be resisted under the Iewish Law which is directly contrary to the Sacred History as I shall prove very clearly to you by these following Testimonies I shall make use of yet I think it is much more plain that when the Iews would have a King their Kings were to be invested with a Supream and irresistible Power for when they desired a King of Samuel they did not desire a meer nominal and titular King but a King to Iudg them and go in and out before them and fight their Battles that is a King who had the Supream and Soveraign Authority a King who should have all that Power of Government excepting the peculiar Acts of the Priestly Office which either their High-Priest or their Iudge had before And therefore when Samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their King tho what he says doth necessarily suppose the translation of the Soveraign and Irresistible Power to the Person of their King yet it doth not suppose that their King had any new Power given him more than what was â—â—â—â—cised formerly by the Priest and Iudges He doth not deter them frâ—â— chusing a King because a King should have greater Power and â—e more uncontroulable and Irresistible than their other Rulers were for Samuel himself had before as Soveraign and Irresistible a Power as any King being the Supream Iudge of Israel whose sentence no Man could disobey or contradict but he incurred the penalty of Death according to the Mosaâ—cal Law But the reason why he distuades them from chusing a King was because the external Pomp and Magnificence of Kings was like to be very Chargeable and oppressive to them He 〈◊〉 your Sons and 〈◊〉 them for himself for his Chariots and to be his House Men and some shall ran before his Chariots And he will appoint him Captains over Thousands and Captains over Fifties and will set them to ear his Ground and to reap his Harvest And thus in several Particulars he shews them what burdens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a King which they were then free from and if any Prince should be excessive in such â—â—â—actions yet they had no way to help themselves they must not resist nor rebel against him nor expect that whatever inconvenience they might find in Kingly Government God would relieve and deliver them from it when once they had chosen a King Ye shall cry out in that day because of your King that you have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day That is God will not alter the Government for you again how much soever you may complain of it This I say is a plain Proof that their Kings were to be invested with that Soveraign Power which must not be resisted tho' they oppress their Subjects
been forc'd to fly into Scotland and 〈◊〉 to have defended himself with 1000 or 1500 of his Tenants and followers tho' without Fighting the Kings Forces that should have been seâ—â— against him but flying into the High-lands and had there maintain'd himself as David did by Free Quarters or Conâ—ribuâ—ion of the Inhabitants till his Father dyed would not this have been cryed out upon in all the Pulpits in England as a most Horrid Rebellion of a Son and a Subject against his King and Father tho' he had never done any Act of Hostility against his Forces but always 〈◊〉 from them And yet he being Heir Apparent to the Crown might have pleaded as well as David that he kept these Soldiers about him only to keep himself from being Murdered by those Officious Persons whom his Father or Uncle might send to apprehend him and to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him as might render his advancement to the Throne more easie when ever his Father should dye I shall not urge as a farther proof of the Lawfulness of Davids Resistance of Sauls Forces his Intention to have slay'd in Keilah and to have fortified it against Saul had not he been informed that the Men of that City would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul Since I confess it doth not certainly appear by the Text whether David would have stayed any longer there than till Saul had approach'd near to that place whether the Keilites would have delivered him up or not much less shall I urge that other example which some Men make use of of Davids going to the last Battle against Saul with Achish King of the Philistines For tho' it be plain he march'd with them as far as Apbek in the Tribe of Issachar yet I confess it is not certain whether he really intended to have assisted them or not in this War against his Country since he might either have gone over to Saul at the beginning of the Battle or else have stood neuter tho' neither of them would have been very Honourable or Consonant with Davids Character therefore I shall say nothing of this since the Lords of the Philistines for fear he should prove aâ— adversary to them in the Battle made him retire again into the Land of the Philistines tho' he seemed to be very much troubled to be so distrusted that he might not fight against the Enemies of that King who had so good an Opinion of him And therefore I pray will you proceed to those other Exâ—mples you have to produce out of the Old Testament M. Well since you are not fully satisfied with this Instance of David tho' I am glad you allow the Persons even of Tyrannical Princes to be Sacred therefore to proceed in the story Solomon who succeeded David in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses He multiplied Wives and loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh VVomen of the Moabites Ammonites c. He Multiplied Silver and Gold For this God who is the only Iudge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplish'd in the Days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give Authority to his Subjects to Rebel If to be under the Direction and Obligation of Laws makes a Limited Monarchy it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the Rule of his Government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was Commanded when he came to the Throne to write a Copy of the Law with his own hand and to read in it all his Days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the Words of this Law and these Statutes to do them and yet being a Soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Iudge and Avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal nor do we find tho' there were so many wicked and Idolatrous Kings of Iudah who broke all the Laws of God given them by Moses that ever any of the Priests or Prophets stirred up the People to Rebel against them for it F. Neither of these Instances do reach the Case in hand For I grant that neither the Breach or non-observance of these Precepts enjoyned the Kings of Israel by God Nor yet their open Idolatry were a sufficient Cause for their taking up Arms or resisting their Kings in so doing since those were offences only against God and in which the People had nothing to do those being no part of that Tacit or implicit Compact of Protection and Preservation that goeth along with all Kingdoms and Supream Powers whatsoever And I have already excepted out of the Causes of Resistance or taking up Arms the Princes being of a different Religion from that of his Subject And tho' I must own that the Kings of Israel were under the direction or Obligation of the Law of Moses and so were limited Monarchs yet this limitation was not from the People but from God whose business it was to revenge the breach of it as often as they offended and if they broke those Laws God only was their Judge and Avenger as you your self very well observe who never failed severely to punish this breach of his Laws Nor yet were the People of the Iews always so nice and temperate as you make them For besides the example of Rehoboam which I have formerly made use of you will find in the 2d of Chronicles concerning Amaziah who when he turned away from following the Lord They viz. the People made a Conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there and made his Son Vzziah King in his stead nor do we read that any were punish'd for killing him as Amâ—ziab put to Death the Servants of his Father King Ioash for conspiring against him as it is related in the 10th Chap. of the 2d of Kings and you 'l find in the same Book that the City of Libna revolted which sure is the highest degree of Resistance from that wicked King Iehoram who had slain all his Brethren with the Sword and walked in the way of the Kings of Israel as did the house of Ahab and wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord c. And therefore it is said expresly in the Text that the City of Libna revolted from his hand because he had forsaken the God of his Fathers I bring not these Instances to Iustifie Rebellion but to let you see that it was sometimes practised amongst the Iews tho' you affirm to the contrary But much more lawful was the Resistance which Azariah and the 80 Priests that were with him
you may remember by these words Cum Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de Câ—nsilio de consensu Magnatum Reipublicae communi Sponsione Authoritate Principis praecedente juste fueriâ— definitum But further to let you see how much you are out in your Argument whereby you would prove from the Form of our Indictments of Treason c. That the King hath the Sole Legislative Power of the Kingdom I shall shew you that all our Ancient Laws as well Common as Statute do declare the contrary Since divers Aâ—ts of Parliament have expresly affirmed that such and such Offences were Treaâ—on not only against the King but against the King and the whole Realm too Pray take these instances see the Statute 1 Edw. 3. c. 1. Wherein Hugh de Spencer both the Father and Son are by the King and Parliament declared Traitors and Enemies of the King and of his Realm See likewise 28 Hen. 8. c. 7. Wherein the Crown is setled by Act of Parliament on the Heirs of his Body begotten on Queen Jane or by any other after Marriage and that the Offenders that shall interrupt such Heirs in their Peaceable Succession they with their Abbeâ—tors Maintainers c. shall be declared and adjudged High Traytors to the Realm And therefore divers Ancient Indictments in Stanfords Pleas of the Crown are laid contra pacem Regis Regni And that the Parliament hath reserved to it self a Power by the Statute of the 25th of Edw. 3d. to Determine what Crime shall be Adjudged Treason besides Conspiring to kill the King and those other Offences specified in the same Statute you may Consult the Statute at large But that these Offences can be no other than an endeavour to alter the Government or Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom I think is evident since all Offences relating to the Lives or Honour of the King Queen and their Eldest Son are there particularly specified and it was by Virtue of this Statute that the Late unfortunate Earl of Strafford was first impeached by the Commons and afterwards Attainted by Act of Parliamenâ— in the Year 1641. but whether justly or not it is not my Business now to determine it is sufficient that it was then granted by the King himself that if the Earl was really Guilty of Destroying the Government and Introducing an Arbitrary Power he might have bin deservedly Condemned But that the Power of Making and Dispensing with Laws is particularly applyed not only to the King but to the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons pray remember the Preamble of the Statute I have already cited of the 25th Hen. 8. c. 21. wherein it is so expresly declared as also by the 24th of this King Chap. 12. the Preface of which Statute runs thus And whereas the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobility and Commons of the said Realm at divers anâ— sundry Parliaments as well in the time of King Edward 1st Edward 3d. Richard 2d Henry 4th c. made sundry Ordinances Laws Statutes and Provisions for the entire and sure Conservation of the Prerogatives Liberties and Preheminences of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm c. where pray note that the making of all these Statutes is ascribed to the Lords and Commons as well as to the King Which is also farther acknowledged by the said King Henry when in a Set Speech to the Parliament Reported by Crompton in the Case of Errours he said these words We being informed by our Iudges that We at no time stand so highly in our Estate Royal as in the time of Parliament wherein we as Head and you as Members are Conjoyned and knit together into one Body Politick And sure then if the King's Simile be true whatsoever Functions are performed by the whole Body must be done by the Members as well as by the Head I shall Sum up all I have said into this Syllogism That Power which cannot make or Enact any new Law without the Advice and Consent of two other Bodies is not the Sole Legislative Power But the King is that Power which cannot c. Ergo the King is not the Sole Legislative Power M. I shall not longer Dispute this Question with you Since I own the two Houses have Claimed for some Ages past a Share in the Legislative tho' in a large and improper Sense as you your self do partly grant And though for the more just and equal Course our Kings have for a long time admitted the 3 Estates viz. the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons into a seeming Share of the Legislative Power Yet this was not by Constraint nor by any Fundamental Constitution of the Government as you suppose but only from their own meer Grace and Favour to make Laws by the Consent of the whole Realm because that no one part thereof should have any Cause to complain of partiality And though I grant the King is bound to observe these Laws when made by vertue of his Coronation-Oath so as that he cannot alter them without their Consent yet is he still above the Law by Virtue of his Absolute Monarchical Power and is not Subordinate to it or so bound by it as to be Responsible to the People for any Breach committed by him upon it for that were Derogatory to the Soveraign Power and inconsistent with the Nature of Monarchy and were to set up the Law which is but a Creature of the Prince's making above his Soveraign Authority And this would make our Monarchy a Kind of Government which would neither be Monarchical nor yet a Republic but some Mungrel thing made up of both So that I take the Notion of a mixt Monarchy to be a Contradiction in adjecto A limited Monarchy I confess there may be either by the Monarch's own Voluntary Grant or Consent as in this Kingdom or else on Conditions imposed upon a Prince by others either by a Foreign Power as in Tributary and Feudatary Kingdoms or else by the Natives of the same Country as in some Elective Kingdoms and Principalities but then such Limitations of Monarchical Power represent a Prince as it were fettered and who cannot Act as he would and ought for the Advantage and Wellfare of his People if he had his Liberty and the full Exercise of his Soveraign Power And therefore in most Governments limited after this manner the Soveraignty still remains in the Senate or Pâ—ople that Elected him which makes me think it Solecism in Politicks to affirm that a Monarch properly so called and still continuing so could be thus limited by Laws or Fundamental Constitutions as you call them at the first Institution of the Government For if he were thus limited that Power that could thus limit him must be either Superior or Inferior to him Superior it could not be because both the Prince and the People that could put those Conditions or Limitations upon him could not be his Superiors in the State of Nature before they made him King neither could they be
over the King in the State of Nature than it doth for a Creditor in the like State to compel by force his Debtor to pay him a Sum of Money which he owed him in case there were no Civil Iurisdiction for him to Appeal to And let us farther suppose a Council or Parliament appointed who may Remonstrate to the King his Transgressions or Violations of the Law Yet this may be without any Coercive Power over his Person or of making War upon him since the King may if he please remedy all these Disorders by Redressing their Grievances and punishing the Authors of them So if he will wilfully persist in such Violations as strike at the Fundamental Constitution of the Government and do also go about to execute them upon the People by force this being in effect a making War upon them I suppose they have then a just Right to defend themselves against his Tyranny So that if these Rights or Priviledges we now enjoy were not the meer Concessions of the King's Grace and favour as you affirm but reserved as part of their Birth-Right at the Original Constitution of the Government as I shall prove all our Fundamental Laws were the People have then as much Right to defend them their Allegiance to him being upon that Condition either express or imply'd as any other Nation hath to defend their Lives Liberties and Properties against the Violence of the Supream Powers or any Commissioned by them as I hope I have already proved to you So that notwithstanding all that you have said to the Contrary I think the Notion of a mixt or limited Monarchy in the very institution may be agreeable to Reason and practicable too either in this or any other Kingdom And when you can prove the contrary by History or Matter of Fact as you promise I will give up the Cause M. You have Broached a parcel of Special Common-Wealth Notions in which you are every way out As first in making the King's Authority derived either from or by the Peoples Consent Whereas all our Ancient Lawyers call him God's Vicar or Lieutenant on Earth and not the People's and in the next place in supposing he may be Resisted by Force of Arms whenever the People shall think themselves Opprest or their Fundamental Rights and Liberties as you call them invaded it is contrary to the Express Declaration of the Parliament by two serveral Statutes in the 2d Year of the late King Charles And though you disclaim all Coercive Power of the two Houses over the King yet it is only to place this Right of Resistance in a more fallible and ungovernable Body viz. the whole People in their Natural Capacities which as it is more consistent with your Principles so it is more dangerous to all Supream Powers as well Common-Wealths as Monarchies as I have partly shewed you already and I hope may farther convince you before I have done But since I have not now time to shew you the falsity and absurdity of these Notions and to urge the Statute at large against Resistance in any Case Whatsoever I pray go on in the Method you have proposed and let me see how you can make out that even our Parliaments do not derive that Priviledge they now enjoy of giving their consent to Laws as also their very being to the Gracious Concessions of our former Monarchs F. That I shall do with all my Heart But first let me tell you that though I own the King to be God's Lieutenant in these his Dominions Yet I must likewise aver that it was only by the Consent and Voluntary Submission of the People of this Nation that the first Monarch begin where you will could obtain that Title And as for those Statutes you mention against all Resistance in any Case Whatsoever I doubt not but to shew you that it was never the intent of that Parliament to debar us from all necessary Resistance and Self-defence in cases of illegal Violence and intollerable Oppression unless you can suppose they were resolved to alter the Government and to put it into the King's Power to destroy all our Laws and Liberties and instead of a Lawful King to Set up for a Lawless Tyrant when ever he pleased But to come to the matter in Hand I shall shew you that it is not at all impossible or improbable that without any hinderance of that Power which is necessary to the King as Supream that he might for all that have bin limited as to the Legislative at the first Institution of the Government which I shall thus make out I do therefore in the first place suppose that the English Saxons being a free People after their Conquest of this Island as well Nobles as Commons did agree by their free consents and publick Compacts to set over themselves a Prince or Soveraign and to Resign up themselves to him to be governed by such and such Fundamental Laws Here is a Supremacy of Power set up though limited as to the manner of its Exercise 2. Then because in all Governments after Cases will arise requiring an Addition of Laws suppose them Covenanting with their Sâ—veraign that if there be any Cause to Constitute any New Laws he shall not by his Sole Power perform that Work but that they will reserve in themselves a Concurrent or Co-operative Power So that they will be bound by no Laws but what they joyn with him in the making of 3. I suppose that though the Nobles may personally convenâ— Yet since the Commons being so Numerous cannot meet together in Person therefore for the doing of this Work it be agreed that every City of Considerable Town should have Power to Depute one or more to Act for the whole Body in the Legislature That the Nobles by themselves in Person and the Commons by their Deputies Assembling there may be Representatively the whole Body of the Kingdom with Power to execute that Authority reserved for establishing new Laws 4. Since the Occasion and need of making such Laws and Expounding the Old Ones could not be constant and perpetual therefore we may farther suppose for the avoiding of the inconvenience of three standing Co-ordinate Powers they did not Establish these Estates to be constantly existent but occasionally as the Causes for which they were ordained should require 5. Because a Monarchy was intended and therefore a Supremacy of Power as far as was necessary must be reserved in One it was concluded that these Estates should be still Assâ—mblies of his Subjects and Swearing Allegiance to him and that all New Laws which by agreement of these Powers should be Enacted should run in his Name and be called his Laws and they all bound to obey him in them when thus Establisht And Lastly it being supposed that He who thus was to govern by Law and for the furtherance of whose Government such New Laws were to be made should best understand when there was need of them and that the Convening and
to examine this Quotation because I confess it seems very specious at first sight but if it be throughly examined will make nothing at all for you And to this end pray let us read the Dr's Observations on this Passage at the end of his Answer to Argumentum Antinormaunicum F. But you need not read from the beginning of that Paragraph since I so far agree with the Dr. as that by Principes diversi Ordinus are not to be understood as this Author renders them whom the Dr. here writes against the Chief or Principal Men of several ranks or conditions but the Chief and Principal Men of both Orders viz. of the Clergy and Laity yet will it not therefore follow as the Dr. here would have it that these Principes diversi Ordinis were only Bishops â— Abbots and great dignified Clergy-men only and the Procenes and Magnates the Earls Barons and Temporal Nobility alone for though I grant he produces several Quotations out of Florence of Worcester Malmsbury Eadmer to prove that Principes Regni Ecclesiastici Secularis Ordinis Primates Regni utriusque Ordinis c. were at these Councils yet I have already proved that the words Principes and Primates do not in their proper signification signifie none but Bishops or dignified Clergy-men on the Temporal Nobility only since these words mean no more than Chief Principal or most considerable men both of the Clergy and Laity who had by reason of their Offices Dignities or Estates any place in our General Councils at that time and which did certainly comprehend the Inferiour Clergy also tho' the Dr. has made bold to pass them by without any notice taken of them and if they were then there by the same Rule the lesser Nobility or Commons were also summoned from divers Provinces Cities and great Towns M. Well But pray see here does not the Dr. prove plain enough that this Gentleman he writes against is mistaken in his Translation and applying the words Provinciis Vrbibus for Chief Lay-men from divers Countreys Cities and Burroughs whereas the Dr. here proves that the words mentioned in this passage cannot here mean Lay-men sent from County to Cities but only the Bishops whose Seats are here called Vrbes and which as the Dr. shews us were by a great Council held at London in the year 1077. being the 11th of King William translated from Villages to Cities as were Sherburn in Dorsetshire removed to Sarum Selsey to Chichester Litchfield to Chester which was before this Council at Westminster cited by Sulcardus which this Author places in the 14th of this King And the Dr. here farther proves from these words following pro causis cujuslibet Christianae Ecclesiâ—e that this Universal Synod being called for hearing and handling the Causes of every Christian Church that these words every Christian Church must certainly mean many Churches in England which in reason and probability could not be meant of the small Parish-Churches all the Nation over and therefore must be understood of Cathedrals or Churches where Bishops Seats then were or where they had been or were to be removed F. Pray give me leave to answer this Comment of your Doctors before we proceed farther In the first place suppose I grant him that by Vrbes may here be meant such Cities as had Bishops Seats yet does it not therefore follow that it shall signifie no other Cities or Towns but Bishops Seats only for tho' I grant in the Modern acceptation of this word Vrbs here in England a City and a Bishops Seat are one and the same yet it is plain that at first it was not so for then there had been no need of the Law you mention whereby it was ordained that Bishops Sees should be removed from Villages to Cities nor it seems were all of them so removed at this Council you mention since the Dr. shews us from this very place here cited that some of them still remained in Villis Vicis in Villages and small Towns and therefore it is here said Dilatum est ad Regis Audientiam qui in partibus transmarinis tunc Temporis bella gerebat â—And tho' the Dr. here supposes tho I know not on what grounds that the persons summoned by the King to this Synod from Provinces and Cities were such as were concerned or able to advise the King in this matter of the conveniency of the places whither the Removals were to be made as Deans Arch-Deacons and other dignified persons and Church Officers as well of the Clergy as Laity c. And also the Principes Regni the great Nobility who were in those days present in those Assemblies Now I shall only observe from these words of the Doctors that even in his own supposition all Cities had not yet Bishops Seats annext to them and therefore the word Vrbibus cannot mean Bishops Seats alone but any other great or walled Towns But the worst of it is it falls out very unluckily for the Dr. that this Charter we now mentioned bears date A. D. 1075. two years before this Law for removing Bishops Sees to Cities was made so that all his Learned Comment on that matter signifies just nothing and this is one of the Doctors very rational conclusions which have no other ground than his own Fancy to support them In the next place pray observe the Dr. owns that by these Principes universi Ordinis were meant the chief Clergy-men and Nobility he there musters up but passes by or else did not consider the whole Context of these words hii autem illo tempori diversis Provinciis Vrbibus ad universalem Synodum Convocati which must certainly refer to the Principes Regni diversi Ordinis to the chief and considerable Men both of the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom who were alike summoned from divers Countreys and Cities and great Towns to this Synod Now pray do you or your Dr. tell me if he can what Earls Barons or great Noble-men were then summoned from Cities or great Towns as well as the Bishops and Deans of Cathedrals which if you cannot do I see no reason why we may not understand these Principes Regni who were also summoned from the Countreys and Cities for the Representatives of the Commons of those Cities and Towns at that time In the next place I think the Dr. is as much out in his interpretation of the word pro causis cujuslibet Ecclesiae for the causes of every Cathedral Church since it must certainly mean not only Cathedral Churches but all other Churches whether Parochial or Conventual for that it takes in the latter appears by one great cause of the summoning this Council which was chiefly for the confirmation of the Priviledges of the Abby of Westminster which sure was no Cathedral Church and yet must be some Church or Ecclesiastical Corporation or else this Synod could have had nothing to do with it And I doubt not but this General
any Legal Power all which could never have happened had not that War been not only begun but continued to the very last by a Standing Army which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all I can see no reason in the World for it As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword especially where it is the received Establish'd Religion of a Nation or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent yet a Man may be taken from his Religion and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom or violent Persecution as bad or worse than death what will become of the Church and Religion Establisht by Law when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away destroyed or made to renounce it And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars which if it be any Argument at all is so against all Standing Armies whatever whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers And I think there was much more debauchery in the King 's late Camp at Hounslow-heath as also in all places where they quartered than was lately at York or Nottingham among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debaucht since we may remember that the Parliament Army to its praise be it spoken was infinitely more sober and outwardly religious than the King 's but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles as well as good Discipline I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer and also by a strict Discipline be as little debaucht as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain who if they lye idle as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late are more likely to fall into all the wickedness that attend a loose Discipline and want of Imployment and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example M. I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves and take up Arms when they please for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things And the South part of England for example may think their Religion and Liberties in great danger and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it when the North parts are not under those apprehensions but lye still as was lately seen in the riseings for the Prince of Orange F. As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfie any indifferent and unprejudiced person And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom and that first In respect of the safety of mens lives and the liberties of their persons aly The security of their Estates and Civil Properties And 3ly The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions 1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned or arrested contrary to Law without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus whereby he is sent to prison And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed unless he be removed by due course of Law neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment but ought to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession 2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life or Members without due Trial by his Peers and Legal Judgment given thereupon And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England◠see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or Liberties or his free customs or be Outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes viz. the 37 38 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up and more particularly declared against contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign wherein the late imprisonment of the Kings Subjects without any cause shewed and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expresly resented as also putting Souldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable
dare not insist upon it so that I do not now wonder that the Gentlemen of your Principles are so violent for this right of Resistance since it is only in order to introduce your Darling Doctrine of the Peoples Power of deposing or laying aside their Kings as you term it whenever they shall judge they turn Tyrants and have thereby forfeited their Crowns which is a most dangerous Doctrine and if it should take effect the Princes of the World had need look about them since the People may make up such a pretence for ought I know even against the very best of them that are now Regnant in Europe But sure absolute Monarchs ought not to be outted of their Crowns by strained consequences or forced interpretations of Laws therefore pray shew me this original Contract you so much insist upon and those conditions on which you suppose our limited Monarchs hold their Crowns I confess if you could shew me any clause in our Laws or ancient forms of the Coronation of our Kings as there was at the Coronation of the Kings of Arragon wherein the chief Justice on the behalf of the People plainly told him that they made him King upon this Condition that they would have more Power than himself or that in the conferring of the Regal Power it was expresly reserved in what cases it should be lawful for them to resist the King or to absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance as Bodin tells us it was expresly inserted in the Coronation Oath of Henry II. Duke of Anjou afterwards King of France when he was made King of Poland that if he broke his Oath and violated the Laws and Priviledges of the Clergy and Nobility of Poland then the People of that Kingdom should not be obliged to render him any obedience I grant then that the Liberties of such a People might be preserved but the King that took upon him the Regal Power upon such conditions would not be properly a Monarch but liable to the Judgment of his People whenever he really did or that they imagined he had thus violated their Laws since the Supream Authority would still reside in them But indeed the Case God be thanked is much otherwise with our Monarchs who are Kings by right of Inheritance whether ever they take any Coronation Oath or not as K. Edward the first was whilst he was in the Holy Land almost two years before he could come over to be Crown'd and K. Henry the sixth was not Crowned till the eighth year of his Reign as well as of his Age. But that our Kings are so by Inheritance and by the Laws of God and Man previous to any Coronation Oath or consent of the People is expresly declared by the Act of recognition of K. Iames I. and that Treason could be commited against him before he was Crowned Sir Edward Cooke tells us in Calvin's Case was the opinion of all the Judges of England in the Plot wherein Watson and Clerk the Priests were Executed and Sir Walter Rawleigh condemned So that what you have now urged from Reason or Authority of our Antient Lawyers is either quite mistaken or else does not reach the matter in hand that it cannot be made out from reason is plain since your whole Argument is built upon this false foundation that it is lawful in some cases to resist the King in case of a notorious breach of the fundamental Laws and therefore it is necessary also to declare him to have forfeited his Crown if he persist in this violation whereas I deny your Assumption for I hold it utterly unlawful to resist on any pretence or for any cause whatsoever and therefore it is impossible for the King who as I said but now is an absolute unconditioned Monarch to forfeit his Crown for any such violation of your Original Contracts or Fundamental Laws of Government so that let me tell you that the citations you have brought out of History as also Bracton and Fleta do not prove either the one or the other of these for first as to the clause in King Iohn's Charter concerning resistance and the Barons having a Power thereby to constrain the King to amend his violations of it by making War upon him and that they should not return to their former Allegiance till all was redressed make the most of it it could be no more than a particular concession for himself alone and was not intended to reach his Successours who are not at all mentioned in this Clause and that it was never intended to reach them may further appear because that this clause of resistance is omitted out of all the subsequent great Charters that were granted by Henry the III. or his Son Edward the I. and instead of this it was thought a sufficient security upon the last confirmation of these Charters in the 37 year of King Henry III. for the King Bishops Earls and Barons to agree that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and all the rest of the Bishops should declare all those that wilfully transgressed or infringed the great Charters in any point excommunicated ipso facto not excepting the King himself according to the form of it which you will find in Mat. Paris and other Writers of this Transaction But for the places you have cited out of Bracton there is none of them reach the point in question for as to the first non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Rex the meaning of it is not that he is no King but that he does not act as a King but a Tyrant when he thus governs by his meer Will and not by Law and to the same effect is the next passage Rex est dum bene regit Tyrannus dum Populum fibi tradi um violenta opprimit dominatione all which we readily grant yet since he is still an absolute Monarch all Writers hold that his governing without or against Law cannot give the subjects a power to resist him much less can it be construed as a renunciation or forfeiture of his imperial Power and therefore tho' it is true that as Bracton and Fleta tell us whilst he thus acts he does not act as God's Lieutenant but the Devils Minister yet does it not follow that we may therefore resist him with carnal Weapons or force since we cannot so resist the Devil himself and tho' he may in this matter of breach of the Laws which he has sworn to observe act as the Devils Minister yet notwithstanding in all other points of Government as in the Punishment of Robbers and other notorious offenders and in the due Administration of Justice between Man and Man he still acts as Gods Lieutenant and it is much better that we should have some civil Government tho' mixt with Tyranny and oppression than that we should fall into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War nay that Anarchy too which has been often produced by it and tho' I confess the last place you
tho' they themselves remained free men but your Dr. from whom you borrow this is very much out in his application of those passages he cites for neither of those Authors do affirm this of all owners of Lands whatsoever but only there to give us the Original of Soccage Tennants on the Kings Demeasnes as appears by Bracton's Title to that Chapter from whence the Dr. cites this passage which is de diversis conditionibus personarum tenentium in dominicis Domini Regis and the first words of this chapter make it yet plainer beginning thus in Dominico Domini Regis plura sunt genera hominum sunt enim ibi servi sive Nativi ante Conquestum in Conquestu post Conquestum and under these last ranges the persons you mentioned but Fleta is more exact in his Chapter de Sokemannis where he tells us that these men were Tenants of the Kings Ancient Mannors in Demeasne quia hujusmodi cultores Regis dignoscuntur provisa fuit quies nâ— sectas facerent ad Comitatum vel hundredum tamen pro terra quorum congregationem tune socam appellarunt hinc est quod Sokemanni hodie dicuntur esse So that tho' King William might permit his Ancient Tenants to be thus outed of their Estates they held in his own Demeasnes yet does it not therefore follow that he took away the Estates of the Ancient Owners all over England of whatsoever Tenure they were or of whomsoever held But as for your quotation out of Mat. Paris it proves no more than what I readily grant that King William after his return out of Normandy liberally rewarded his Followers with the Estates of the English which might he only of such as fought against him at the Battle of Hastings and as for that little which was left them which he says was put under the Yoak of a perpetual servitude he means no more by this expression than that new Tenure of Knights service which King William imposed upon them as this Author in the very next leaf speaking of the Lands of the Bishopricks and Abbies which were held before free from all secular servitude sub servitute statuit Militari and therefore you seem to contradict your self when contrary to your own Author Sir William Dugdale you deny the truth of any part of the Story because that in Doomesday book the name of Edwin of Sharnborn is not to be found and that William de Albeni is not named amongst the owners of that Mannor which is not material since this William might obtain a share therein after this Survey was made and as for Sharnborn himself his not being there mentioned is no argument that he had no Lands within that Mannor or the other that is mentioned in that Narrative since oftentimes the chief Lords of the Fee are only mentioned in Doomesday book tho' all the Proprietors under them are not particularly named but it is in vain to discourse any longer with you upon the Subject of your Conquerors taking away the Lands of English owners I have given you my opinion and the reasons against it and if you are not of my mind I cannot help it therefore pray go on to your next head and shew me by sufficient Authorities that King William as a Conqueror altered all the Laws and Customs of this Kingdom M. I will not undertake to prove that he altered all the Laws of England and brought in quite new ones yet that he did so in great part and that by his sole Authority I think I can prove by sufficient Testimonies and therefore I shall begin with that of Eadmer a Monk of Canterbury a companion of Archbishop Lanfranc's who tells us in his History that William designing to establish in England those Usages and Laws which his Ancestors and he observed in Normandy made such persons Bishops Abbots and other Principal men through the whole Nation who could not be thought so unworthy as to be guilty of any reluctancy and disobedience to them knowing by whom and to what they were raised all Divine and Humane things he ordered at his pleasure And after the Historian hath recounted in what things he disallowed the Authority of the Pope and Archbishop he concludes thus But what he did in secular matters I forbear to write because it is not my purpose and because also any one may from what hath been delivered guess what he did in seculars From which I think nothing is plainer than that K. William did not only design to alter many things in the Laws and Customs of England but did also actually do it since to that end he made the Bishops Abbots and other Principal men who were to be Judges in all Courts such as he could wholly confide in now that K. William govern'd the Nation as Conqueror and did so live and repute himself so to be and as such brought in and imposed new Laws upon the People of this Nation is as clear as I shall prove from these particulars first The Justiciaries or cheif Justices the Chancellors the Lawyers the Ministerial Officers and under Judges Earls Sheriffs Bailiffs Hundre duties were all Normans from his first coming until above a hundred years after as I can make it out by particular instances and undeniable Reasons were not the Catalogues too long to be here inserted If therefore the Justiciaries Chancellors Earls Sheriffs Lords of Mannors such as heard Causes and gave Judgment were Normans if the Lawyers and Pleaders were also Normans the Pleadings and Judgments in their several Courts musts of necessity have been in that Language and the Law also I mean the Norman Law otherwise they had said and done they knew not what and Judged they knew not how especially when the controversies were to be determined by Military Men as Earls Sheriffs Lords of Mannors c. that understood not the English Tongue or Law or when the cheif Justiciary himself was a Military Man as it often happen'd and understood only the Norman Language and 't is hardly to be believed these Men would give themselves the trouble of learning and understanding the English Law and Language Secondly Tho' we have many Laws and Customs from the Northern People and North parts of Germany from whence both Saxons and Normans came yet after the Conquest the Bulk and Main of our Laws were brought hither from Normandy by the Conqueror from whence we received the Tenures and the manner of holding our Estates in every respect from whence also have we received the Customs incident to those Estates And likewise the Quality of them being most of them feudal and enjoyed under several Military Conditions and services so that of necessary consequence from thence we must receive the Laws also by which these Tenures and the Customs incident to them were regulated and by which every mans right in such Estates was secured according to the Nature of them from Normandy and brought in by the Conqueror we received most if not all
was that of the free burrough or Tything wherein by the Laws of King Edward the Confessor the Tythingman or Head burrough was the Judge who as that Law tells us determined all suits and differences arising among Neighbours of the same Tything concerning petty Trespasses on one anothers grounds which if they could not be there determined might then be brought before the Court Baron which was incident to every Mannor and wherein the Suitors and not the Lord nor his Steward were the Judges and this as Sir Edward Coke tells us was first instituted for the ease of the Tenants and for the ending of Debts and Damages under Potty Shillings at home as it were at their own doors and let me tell you by the way that sorty Shillings was theo near as much as forty pound is now and if the business could not be ended here or was of too high a nature it was then brought into the Hundred Court where the Hundreder together with the Suitors were Judges and if they had not Justice there they might then remove it into the Court of Trithing or Lathe which was not the smaller Court of the Tithing mentioned nor yet the Court Leet but a particular Court consisting of three or four Hundreds which tho' now quite lost was in being at the time of the Statute of Merton as I shall shew you by and by and if the business could not be decided in the Trithing it was then removed to the Shire or County Court as Mr. Lambert shews in the Laws of King Edward which was then held as now from Month to Month and in which as well as in the Hundred Court the Suitors alone were Judges and tho' it can now only hold Pleas unless it be by Writ of Justices of any Debt or Damage to the value of Forty Shillings or above yet we â—ind from ancient Authors that this Court was so considerable that we have diverse examples of Causes between the greatest Persons of England and for Lands of great value begun and determined in this Court thus Eadmertes relates the great Trial at Pinnesden-heath between Odo Bishop of Bayenâ— half Brother to your Conqueror and by him created Earl of Kent and Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury concerning divers Mannors in Kent and other Counties whereof Earl Odo had diseized the See of Canterbury in the time of Arch-bishop Stigand his Predecessor whereupon the Arch-bishop Petitioned the King that Justice might be done him secundem Legem Terrae and the King thereupon sends forth a Writ to summon a County Court the debate lasted three days before the Freemen of the County of Kent in the presence of many Chiefmen Bishops and Lords and others skilful in the Laws and Judgment passed for the Arch-bishop Lanfrank by the Votes of the Freemen Or primorum or proboâ—â—â— hominum as the Historian calls them So that to conclude this head if no suit could be begun in those days but what was first commenced in the Hundred Court no distringas could issue forth till three demands were made in the Hundred and from thence to be removed to the County Court where regularly all civil causes were try'd by the Suitors as the only Judges as well as in the Hundred Court and Court Baron then it will necessarily follow that unless you can prove which I think is impossible that all the English were at that time Slaves and Villains and had no Free-hold of any sort left them that all Pleading and Proceedings in any of those Courts being before meer Englishmen must have been in English and no other Language so that after all this great cry nor a twentieth part of the Suits in England were brought to London And as for Criminal Causes unless in cases of Treason all Murthers and other Felonies were Tryed and Judged in the Country either within the particular Jurisdictions of Bishops Abbots or great Lords or else of such Cities and Towns who had the Priviledges of Infangthief and Outfangthief together with Fossa and Furca that is a Pit to drown and a Gallows to hang Malefactors and if the offence was done in the body of the County they were then tryed and condemned in the County Court Justices Itinerant not being in use till Henry the seconds Reign M I must confess you have given me a great deal of light in these matters more than I had before but as I shall not dispute whether in the lowest Courts such as the Tythings and Court Barons the smaller English Free-holders might not Judge of Petty causes amongst themselves yet that in those greater causes were brought in the Hundred and County Courts which only the greater Fleemen of the Hundred or County were Judges who these Freemen were Dr. B. hath sufficiently taught us in his Commenes upon the Conquerors Laws as also in his Glossary viz. That they were Tenants in Military Service who in those times were the only great Freemen of the Kingdom and quite different from our ordinary Free-holders at this day These were the Men the only legal Men that named and chose Juries and served on Juries themselves both in the County and Hundred Court and dispatched all Country business under the great Officers I do not deny but that there might be other lesser Freemen in those times but what their quality was farther than that their Persons and Blood was Free that is they were not Nativi or Bondmen it will give a knowing man trouble to discover it to us we find in every leaf of Doomesday Socmen liberi homines Possessors of small parcels of Land but what there quality was and of what interest in the Nation Dicat Apollo no Man yet hath made it out nor can it be done by the account we have of ordinary Free-men for a Century or two last past And for further proof of this That none but Tenants in Capite or Military Tenants at least could be Judges in the County Court appears by the Laws of King Henry the first wherein it is expresly said Regis Iudices Barones Comitatus qui liberas in t is terras habent per quos debent causae singulorum alterna prosecutione tractari c. So that these Barons of the County being certainly Feudal Tenants this service of being suitors to the County and Hundred Courts was a service incident to their Tenures and then it will also follow that those Primores and probi Viri who as you have now related tryed this Cause between Earl Odo and Archbishop Lanfranc and who let me tell you were not only of the County of Kent but of other Counties in England where the Mannors and Lands lay as Eadmerus shews us and who were the Jurors in this great Cause consisted of the great Military Tenants that were not Barons and the less which were the Probi Viri for it can be no ways probable that the ordinary Freemen which made the greatest number and were all bound to
their good behaviour could be the Probi legales homines who served upon Juries to conclude if I have already proved as I think I have sufficiently that K. William took away the greatest part of the Lands of England and gave them to Normans and Frenchmen who were the only true Free-men or Free-holders of the Kingdom and as such owed Suit and Service to the Hundred and County Court in which as you your self set forth all the considerable Actions as well Real as Personal were then commenced and tryed it will also follow that the Suitors who were the Judges in those Courts being for the greatest part at least Frenchmen all the Trials and Proceedings therein must have been in French and not in English which is contrary to what you have undertaken to prove F. If this be all you have to object against what I have now said that all Pleadings in the Inferiour Courts in the Country must in the time of your Conqueror have been in French and not in English I hope I shall give you very good satisfaction to the contrary and therefore I shall prove to you that the very same persons who were the Suitors or Judges in the Hundred Court were also Suitors in that of the County tho' they were of never so small Estates of Free-hold and those that were thus Judges in the Hundred Court were also the same persons of which the lowest Court Viz that of the Headborough or Tythingman did consist appears by the very definition of a Hundred as you may see it in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary Est autem Hundredus portio Comitatus quâ Olim degebant Centum pacis regiae fideiussores uti Decuria quâ decem complexus est igitur Hundredus decem Decurias ut centenarius numerus decies denarium now that the County Court consisted of the same sort of persons of that of the hundred is also as certain since all England was then and is now divided into Counties Hundreds and Tythings so that as the Hundred Court consisted of a hundred Persons who had all given Pledges to the King so did the County Court consist of all the Free-holders or Free-men of the several Hundreds of the County who all owed Suit and Service to the County Court and as such were returnable upon Juries in all Trials in that Court tho' they had never so small Estates of Free-hold for there were no Laws that limited the estates of Free-holders returnable upon Juries on Assizes or Trials to the yearly value of Forty Shillings until the Statute of West II. But that these Suitors to the Hundred Court must have been for the most English in all your Conquerors Reign your Dr. has given us a sufficient testimony in his answer to Mr. A's Ianus Anglorum p. 35. where he tells us the Jurors were antiently called Tests and often in Doomesday-book it is thus sound Testatur Hundredus Teste Hundredâ the Hundred Witnesseth that such Lands is such a Man's or by the Witness of the hundred such Land is a such Man's See the claims in Yorkshire Lincolnshire and Suffolk at the end of the Book Now the use that I shall make of these words of the Drs. is this that in many of these claims the Issue is that such a one held the Land die quo Rex Edwardus suit vivus mortuus now I desire you to tell me if the free-holders of the Hundred were all Strangers and Normans at this time as your Dr. supposes they all were that served on Jurles in the Hundred and County Court how these men could testifie who held the Land at the time of K. Edward's Death and by what Services and I desire you to be pleased to read and consider the Trial mentioned in Doomesday-book between Will. de Chornet and Picot the Sheriff where the proof was by the best and most antient Men of the whole County and Hundred that this Land in question belonged to Chornet per haereditatem sui Antecessoris So that then the best and antientest Free-holders of the County of Berks were the same who were so in the time of K. Edward or else how could they Witness this Land to have been held by Chornets Ancestor But because you have two or three small objections against this truth I shall endeavour to remove them The first is that those who try'd one anothers Causes in the County Court are in the Law of K. Henry I. which you now cited called Barones Comitatus qui liberas Terras habent Therefore you imagine that these Barones Comitatus must needs have been all Tenants in Capite or by Knights Service at least who by vertue of that Tenure owed Suit and Service to the County Court which is a great mistake since every Free-holder of whatsoever Tenure who was resident within the County owed Suit and Service to that Court and it is only by vertue of the twentieth of Henry the sixth which as I have already shewed you limited that Service only to Free holders of Forty Shillings per annum or above now that every Free holder tho' of never so small Estate was anciently a Baron of the County is also as certain in the ancient and larger acceptation of the word Baron which did not originally signifie only a Tenant in Capite or by Knight Service but any other Free-holder who could be returned upon a Jury concerning Free-hold in the County Court now that every Lord of a Mannor and Free-holder was anciently called a Thane before the Conquest appears by this Law of K. Knutes habet omnis dominus familiam suam in plegio suo si accusetur in aliquo respondeat in Hundredo ubi compellabitur sicut recta Lex sit Quod fi accusetur fugiat reddat Dominus ejus Regi Weraem i e. precium nativitatis hominis illius si Dominus accusetur quod ejas consilio sugerit adlegiet se cum quinque Thanis id est Nobilibus idem sit sextus si purgatio frangat ti reddat ei scil Regi Weram suam qui fugerit extra legem habeatur I shall nor trouble my self to translate this Law since the Latin is plain enough only take notice that by this word adlegiet he shall wage Law or make Oath together with five Thanes that is Noblemen or Gentlemen idem sit sextus whereof he himself should be the sixth where you may see that every Free-holder being Master of a Family is here called a Thane who was to give pledge or security that all his Family should answer the Law in the Hundred Court for any offence they should commit and these Thanes were such as Mr. Lambert expresses by Ascitus sibi ingenuis quinque for what he calls ingenuus Brompton calls liber homo that is every Free-holder so that you see Thane ingenuus and liber homo signifie all the same thing that is the lower sort of Thane or Free-holders who owed Suit
Tenants by Knights service as also those aids they were to pay the King or any other Lord they held of towards making his eldest Son a Knight and Marrying his eldest Daughter were in use in England before the Conqueror came over But to observe your commands I shall now proceed to shew that by the Conquest the English for a time lost all their ancient Rights and Priviledges till they again obtained them either by their mixing with the Normans so that all distinction between them and the English were taken away or else they were restored by the Charters of K. Henry the first K. Iohn and K. Henry the third I shall therefore divide the priviledges of Englishmen into these three heads first Either such as concerned their Offices or Dignities Or secondly Such as concerned their Estates Or lastly Such as concerned the Tryal for their lives in every one of which if I can prove the English Natives as well of the Clergy and Nobility suffered confideracie lesses and abridgments of their ancient 〈…〉 liberties which they formerly enjoyed I think I shall sufficiently prove the point in hand As to the first head Ingâ—ph telâ—s us that the English were so hated by the Normans in his time that how well soever they deserved they were driven from their Dignities and strangers tho' much less fit of any Nation under Heaven were taken in their places and Malmesbury who lived and writ in the time of Henry the first says that England was then become the habitation of foreigners and the Rule and Government of strangers and that there was at that day no Englishman an Earl Bishop or Abbot but that strangers devoured the Riches and gnawed the Bowels of England neither is there any hope of ending this misery So that it is plain they were now totally deprived of all Offices and Dignities in the Common Weal and consequently could have then no place in the great Council the Parliament of the Nation both for the raising of Taxes and the making of Laws and tho' I grant Mr. Petyt and your self suppose you found a clause in the Conquerors Magna Charta whereby you would prove that all the Freemen of this Kingdom should hold their Lands and Possessions Well and in Peace free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage so as nothing be exacted or taken unless their Free-services which of right they ought and are bound to perform to us and as it was appointed to them and given and granted to them by us as a perpetual right of Inheritance by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom This Common Council will not help you for without doubt here were no Englishmen in it for certainly they would not grant away their own Lands to strangers These were the Saxon Lands which William had given in Fee to his Soldiers to hold them under such services as he had appointed them and that by right of Succession or Inheritance We will now come to the second point viz. the Priviledges the Englishmen lost as to their Estates for whereas before the Conquest you affirm the K. could nor make Laws nor raise Taxes without the Common Coâ—ncil of the Kingdom it is certain K. William and his immediate Successors did by their sole Authority exercise both these Prerogatives as for his Legislative power it appears from the words of his Coronation Oath as you your self have repeated it out of Florence of Worcester and Roger Hoveden the conclusion of which Oath is se velle reâ—â—am legem statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicire Now the Legislative power was then lodged in him why else did he swear to appoint right Laws For if the constitution had been setled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindered him from making any other and that he could do so appears by that yoak of servitude which Matthew Paris as well as other Authors tells us K. William by his own Authority imposed upon the Bishopricks and Abbies in England which held Baronies which they had hitherto enjoyed free from all secular servitude he now says he put under Military service sessing all those Bishopricks and Abbies according to his pleasure how many Knights or Souldiers each of them should find to the King and his Successors and putting the Rolls of this Ecclesiastical Service in his Treasury he caused to fly out of the Kingdom many Ecclesiasticks who opposed this wicked constitution now if he could do this upon so powerful a Body as the Bishops and Abbots were at this time he might certainly as well raise what Taxes he pleased upon all the People of England and therefore Henry of Huntington tells us that K. William upon his return out of Normandy into England Anglis importabile tributum imposuit Lib. 3. p. 278. And that his Son William Rufus imposed what Taxes he would upon the People without consent of the Parliament appears by that passage of William of Malmesbury which he relates in the Reign of this K. as also in his third book de Gestis Pontificâ—m concerning Ranulâ— whom from a very mean Clerk he made Bishop of Duâ—ham and Lord Treasurer the rest I will give you in Latine Isle siquando edictum regium processisset ut nominatum tributum Anglia penderet duplum adjiciâ—bat subinde idente Rege ac dicente solum esse hominem qui sciret sic agitare ingenium nec aliorum curares odium dummodo complaceret dominum So that you may here see that the Kings Edict or Proclamation did not only impose the Tax at his pleasure but his Treasurer could double it when he had a mind to it without consent of the great Council or Parliament as we now call it and this Prerogative was exercised by divers of his Successors till the Statute de Tallagiâ— non concedendo was made But to come to the last head concerning the alteration of Tryals for mens Lives and Estates by the Conqueror from what they were before it is certain that whereas before the Conquest there were no other Tryals for mens lives but by Juries or else by Fire or Water Ordeal which was brought in by the Danes the Conqueror tho' he did not take way these yet also added the law then in use in Normandy of Trying not only Criminal but Civil Causes by Duel or Combat all the difference was that in criminal cases where there was no other Proof the accuser and accused fought with their Swords and the party vanquished was to lose his Eyes and Stones but in civil causes they only fought with Basâ—oons headed with Horn and Bucklers and he or his Champion who was overcome lost the Land that was contended for from whence you may take notice also of a great alteration in the Law not only concerning Tryals but capital Punishments so that whereas before the Conquest all crimes even Man slaughter it self were either â—ineable according to the Quality of the Person and the Rates set upon
he brought over with him had as you suppose the greatest share of all the Lands in England they would have been too powerful a body of Men to be thus made Slaves at his pleasure but indeed his own Laws shew the contrary for in that very Law it appears otherwise Whereby all the Freemen of the Kingdom were to hold their Lands and Possessions free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage and that nothing should be exacted of them but their free service which they were bound to do according as it is appointed them by the K. and it is granted them by an Hereditary Right for ever by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom whereby you may see that they had their Lands and Liberties granted them for an Hereditary Right not only by the K. but by the Common Council of the Kingdom and that the K. could not alter K. Edward's Laws without their consent the Charter of K. Henry I. says expresly Legem Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater eam emendavit Concilio Baronum suorum Therefore as for that Authority you have brought out of H. Huntington that upon this Kings return from Normandy he imposed a heavy Taxe upon the English this is either to be understood of such a Tax as they gave him voluntarily tho' perhaps they durst not do otherwise as the States of Provence and Languâ—doc are fain to do to the K. of France at this day when he requires it and yet he does not claim those Countries by right of Conquest or if K. William imposed this Tribute without their consents it was not only contrary to the Law just now mentioned but also to his own Coronation Oath whereby he swore to prohibit all unjust Rapines and that he should behave himself equitably towards his Subjects with which certainly his taking away their Money without their consents would by no means consist but to answer that part of the Coronation Oath which you think makes most for you that whereby he swore only to make Right Laws which must have supposed the Power to have been in himself because the Parliament might have hindered him from doing otherwise this is but a cavil for it is already proved that he was to make Laws and raise Taxes by the Common Council of the Kingdom and therefore these words may very well bear another sense and do only give the K. a Negative voice of passing such Laws as the great Council should offer to him or else such as he might propose to them for their consent and I suppose you will not deny but that it is very possible that either the K. or the Parliament may propose such Laws as may not seem equitable or Just and then certainly both the one and the other have a negative vote and ought not to give their consents to them But to answer your last instance whereby you would prove that this King as a Conqueror imposed what Taxes and Services he pleased not only upon the Laity but the Clergy too by making the Bishopricks and greater Abbies liable to Knights Service which you suppose to have been done by his own sole Authority without any consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom this is only gratis Dictâ—m and is indeed altogether improbable for if the K had done this by his sole Power he would have imposed this Service upon all the Abbies in England whose Lands might have been as well reduced to Knights Fees as those that were put under that service and so might have been forced to find as many Souldiers as they had Fees as well as the Bishopricks and greater Abbies but indeed the Clergy were too powerful a body to be thus Arbitrarily imposed upon and they would soon have complained to the Pope against the K. for this new servitude he had imposed upon them and therefore I think we may with much more safety conclude with Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour that this imposition of Knights Service upon the Bishopricks and Abbies was done by the Common Council of the Kingdom It being too great a matter to be done without it for it appears by Eadmerus that the K. held a Council this very year tho' the Laws and Proceedings of it are all lost and this is the more likely to be so because this imposition was not laid upon all the Abbies in England but only upon the Bishopricks and such Abbies as were of Royal Foundation and held immediately of the King before your Conquest and were only such as enjoyed whole Baronies as Mat. Paris there tells us I shall now come to your last head whereby you would prove that your Conqueror by his sole power altered the Course of Tryals and introduced the custom of Duel or single Combat in Civil as well as Criminal Causes the chief argument you have for this is that there is no mention made of this tryal by Duel in our English Saxon Laws before the Conquest which is but a negative argument at the best and you can shew me no Ancient Author that says expresly that K. William introduced it and tho' I grant it is first mentioned in his Laws yet does it not therefore prove that it was not here before since it was certainly in use among the Francs and Longobards who were German Nations as well as the Saxons but admit it were first introduced by the Conqueror this was no badge of Conquest for the Normans as well as the English were subject to this Tryal which was in use in France and Normandy long before this King 's coming in so that admit he first establisht it here it might not have been done by his sole Power but by some Law made in the great Council of the Kingdom tho' it be now lost as we have very few of the Laws that were made by this K. now left us besides those which are called the Laws of K. Edward with this Kings alteration of them all which was certainly done in the Common Council the like I may say concerning the alteration of Punishment for Deer stealing and other crimes which were either Punishable by Pecuniary Mulcâ—s or else by death before the coming in of the Normans since those alterations might be also made by the consent of the great Council but that the same Forest Laws were in use before the Conquest as after you may see in the Forest Laws of King Knute as you will find in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary Title Foresta only the Punishments are there Pecuniary or else loss of liberty which after your Conquest was changed into the loss of Eyes and Members But as for other lesser matters as his disarming the English and forbidding Night Meetings if these things were done as I do not find any express Law for them for there is no such thing mentioned in the Law de nocturnis Custodiis they were either practised by this K. for his own security after the English had by their frequent
little value for those things which are the foundations of our happiness as to desire they should be Sacrificed to an Arbitrary Power nor on the other side have I so great a value for them as to endeavour their preservation by Rebellion and deposing the King which since I look upon as altogether unlawful we are then to follow the Apostles Rule and not do Evil that Good may come of it but as for what I have urged in excuse of the Conquerors Perjury and breach of Laws I confess I have said more than the matter will well bear but I hope you will excuse it since I confess the argument is none of mine but the Doctors from whom I borrowed it and I did not consider the bad consequences of it yet this much I must still freely affirm that neither King William the Conqueror nor his present Majesty who is his heir by an Hereditary Right of Succession either could then or can now at this day be lawfully resisted much less can be deposed or can forfeit their Royal Dignity for any Male administration or Tyranny whatsoever F. Pray give me your reason for that since I think you may be very well satisfied that this Kings Title by Conquest from King William his Ancestors can signifie nothing tho' I should grant the utmost you can demand and therefore tho' I am as much against Rebellion and Deposing of Princes as you can be and doing of evil that good may come of it yet the question remains still to be decided between us whether that resistance I maintain be Rebellion or not and whether it be Treason to deny obedience to a Prince who hath done his utmost to lose the very name of King by not observing those conditions on the performance of which he can only keep his Royal Dignity now since I think I have fully proved the two Points I undertook viz. both that of the Kings forfeiting the Crown in the cases I have put as also that of the matter of Fact whereby you would maintain that the King has an indeseasable Right to the Crown of this Realm â—as an Absolute Monarch by the Conquest now since you decline arguing this Point any farther because you find it is not to be maintained pray let me know what other reasons you have why you cannot come over to my opinion M. Though I am not yet satisfied but that a great deal more may be farther urged by those who are better versed in this controversie to prove that his Majesty hath an unforfeitable Right to our Allegiance by the Conquest of King William and his Predecessors yet I shall not now insist any longer upon that Title which tho' our Kings have by so many gracious condescentions to the People of this Nation seemed to wave yet have they never renounced it as I know of but since his Majesty was setled in the Throne as an Absolute and Lawful King without any Competitor by a long series of aâ— Hereditary Succession of above six hundred years standing and confirmed by the Oaths of Allegiance of the People of this Nation both to him and his Ancestors he is not only our King by the Laws of Man but God also to whom and not to the People he owes his Crown and can therefore neither forfeit it nor be accountable to them for it and when you can prove the contrary you may then convince me to be of your opinion F. We have already partly argued this Point at our third and fourth discourses concerning the lawfulness of resistance but since perhaps you may have still somewhat farther to urge upon so important a question I desire to hear the utmost you can say to prove that Kings owe their Crowns to none but God and therefore ought never to be resisted neither can forfeit their Crown upon any pretence whatsoever and therefore pray appoint me some other time when I may wait on you again and fully discuss this Point since it is now very late M. I am sorry I cannot appoint you any certain time for since I see so great a confusion reigns every where and that there is like to be no Term and consequently no business for men of my Profession I am resolved to retire for two or three months into the Country till I see things a little better setled than they are at present and I heartily wish that the Convention which I hear is like to meet in some time may endeavour the Peace and Settlement of the Nation by sending for the King and the Prince of Wales out of France since I do not desire any more Conquests nor the Government of a Foreign Prince as long as we have a lawful King of our own who will govern us again if he might but as soon as I return to Town you shall be sure to know it In the mean time I am your Servant F. I am yours and wish you a good Journey FINIS Bibliotheca Politica OR A DISCOURSE By WAY of DIALOGUE On these following Questions I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a Just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern Dialogue the Eleventh LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth and Tenth Dialogues 1694. Authors made use of in this Dialogue and how denoted in the Margin The History of the Desertion H. D. The Desertion discussed D. D. Some Observations upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England O. E. I. A Discourse of the Illegality of the Late Ecclesiastical Commission I. E. C. ADVERTISEMENT ON tke first Day of the next Term will be published the Twelfth and Last Dialogue and also a large Index to the whole Work THE PREFACE TO THE READER BEing almost arrived at the end of my intended design I thought fit to let you know that I hoped to have made this the last Discourse that I should have troubled the World with upon these Subjects but when I came to reduce my Notes into form I found that these few sheets would not contain all that could well be said on either side upon the foregoing questions and therefore am forced to refer what remains to be said concerning the Vacancy of the Throne and Their Present Majesties Title thereunto till the next Dialogue which I intend shall be the last And which I should not have drawn to that length had it not been for the benefit of those Gentlemen and others who have not Time or Money to buy or peruse the vast
same right by which they took upon them to make this Declaration by the same right not only every Curate of a Parish but also every Layman in England was free to Judge of the Kings breach of this Law and consequently of denying obedience thereunto which disobedience if it once prove general will quickly make the Kings personal commands wholly insignificant So that it seems it is not the Peopleâ— Judging of the Illegality of the Kingâ— Actions and Commands which is the thing you 〈◊〉 fault with since when these Bishops acted thus all the high men of the Church of England praised it to the Skie So that it seems it is now the bare Censuring and Disobedience that makes it a crime but it is the iâ—sisting such Violent and Illegal orders and commands and at last Declaring that Power void and forfeited by which they were made That sticks in your stomach which is as much as to say that this Judging and Disobedience in its self is no Crime but the pushing it home and doing it in such a way as that it may be mended for the future though this is never lawful to be done but when things come to that extremity that all milder remedies are become ineffectual But to answer your Objections a little more closely the consequences of my Opinion are not so dangerous as you suppose them if you will please to consider what I have already laid down at our last Meeting As first That this Resistance is never to be made but when this violent breach of the Laws becomes evident and undeniable not to the Rabble alone but to the whole Nation that is all sorts and degrees or men and as long as there is any question about it I acknowledge it is by no means to be used And lastly As to declare the Regal Power forfeited this likewise is never to be done but when the King becomes so obstinately resolved to pursue those evil and illegal coâ—â—es as that he is utterly irreclaimable and refuses all propositions and terms of amending or redressing them And as to what you say that the King is hereby depriv'd of all means of justifying himself or vindicating his Actions that is not so since if a War be once begun he may do this either by Declaration or Treaties as King Charles the First did in his War with the Parliament by which means he gain'd a great many both of the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty to his Party who were before absolutely set against him But if you will needs have a Parliament to Judge and examine the reality of this forfeiture I so far joyn with you that though every private man may first judge thereof yet is it not become absolute and an Act of the whole People till the Estates of the Kingdom have by some solemn Vote or Declaration made it so M. Well I see you do all you can to make the best of a bad Cause but though I think nothing of what you have said can give Subjectâ— any right to resist much less to cast off all Allegiance to their Natural Prince yet I shall not now dispute this point any longer with you but will proceed to the merits of the Cause and shall lâ—â— you see that even upon your own principles the King has not been dealt 〈◊〉 in all this whole transaction either like an Ally by the States General of the United Provinces or like a near Relation or a Son in-in-law by the Prince of Orange or like a King by his own Subjects To begin with the Estates in the first place it is apparent that they have acted treacherously with the King and contrary to the last Treaty of Peace and Alliance in furnishing the Prince 〈…〉 their Captain General and 〈◊〉 holder both with Ships Men and Money and make this late Expedition against England without so much as ever declaring the cause of their Quarrel or demanding any satisfaction if any occasion of difference had been given But the Prince of Orange his dealing with the King his Father-in law has been much less justifiable for in the first place he is not only guilty of the same fault with his Masters the Dutch in beginning a War without ever declaring the causes of it or demanding any satisfaction or â—eparation if he had been injur'd till it was too late to go back and that his Fleet was ready and the Army shipt for the Expedition but which was more unkind from a Nephew and a son-in-Son-in-law who had reason to expect all the satisfaction which a King an Uncle and a Father-in-law could give though indeed to speak the truth the whole War was in my Opinion altogether unjust on the Pâ—â—nces side since his chief pretences were to redress Grievances and to re-establish the Bishops and Church of England with the Colledges in their just Rights and also restore the whole Nation to the just Execution of the Laws by a Free Parliament and Priviledges Now I desire to know what the Prince of Orange had to do either as a Neighbour or a Son-in-law to concern himself with the Mis-government of the Affairs of England much less to countenance and take the part of those many Male contents and Traitours who have ever since the Duke of Manmouth's Rebellion gone over into Holland So that upon the whole matter I can find but one thing which he had so much as a pretence of making War about if it had been real viz. the pretended suppoâ—â—â—tioâ—s Birth of the Prince of Wales and yet even for this he ought not to have made War till such time as all reasonable satisfaction in this matter had been demanded and denied him and that the next Parliament which the King had before declared should meet in November last had been either hindered from medling in it or that they had faâ—â—'d to make a due enquiry into it But if we look home F. Pray Sir before you come to consider what has been done here give me leave to iustifie the late proceedings of the States General and the Prince of Orange in this matter First as to the Estates it is a very great mistake for you affirm that they made this War upon the King in their own names or furnish'd the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Sâ—adt-holder or General but only as a free Independent Prince whom they looked upon to have a good Cause of making War against the King of England as one they had great cause to believe was so far engag'd in the France interesâ— as instead of standing 〈◊〉 in this War with the Empire which they every day expected when he would joyn with France and declare War against them as they had reason to â—ear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Eâ—voy in Holland had not long before given them so that indeed it was but according to the Rules of Self-preservation to begin first especially when it might be done without their appearing in it at allâ— but granting
this War had been made in their own names it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages receiv'd and this was the more justifiable because his present Majesty when Duke of York was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils which begun that unhappy War in which he himself serv'd as Admiral But as to the Prince of Orange there is much more to be said in his justification for in the first place tho' in some respects he was a Subject by living under and enjoying divers Lands and Territories and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces yet as he is Prince of Orange he is a free independent Prince and as such has a right of making War and Peace and if so all that is to be further enquired into is whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or â—ot therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a father-in-Father-in-law without first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it I confess this were a good Objection if you could once prove to me that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand both in respect of the Church of England the security of the Protestant Religion the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions by first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if it had been denyed since the King might then have joyned his own with the French Fleet and sent for French Forces into England and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation had been altogether in vain And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases yet will it not hold in this where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs the King might have easily prevented them And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this That Succours were actually offered by the French King and if they were refused by ours it was partly because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out and partly out of a Politick consideration that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects it might give the French such a footing here that they would not be easily gotten out again But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch and the King of France so lately against Spain the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Princes late Declaration they may be reduced to these three Heads First The Restoration of the Church of England with the Bishops and Colledges to their just Priviledges Secondly The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power and those other Incroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgments of Popish Ignorant or Corrupt Judges And Lastly The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales In all which the Prince was so reasonable as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament Now as for the first of these That the Prince as a Neighbour and of the same Religion with us might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under is very evident Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves though Subjects to another Prince Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes As to the French Protestants King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627. But as to the next Head the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties the Prince had as great or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former For Bodin and Barclay though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince though never so highly Opprest yet they count it not only lawful but Generous and Heroick for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injur'd and opprest Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power his Levying of Taxes without Law and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men almost totally dissolved the Government and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest and also of the States whose General and Stadâ—holder he is Of the former since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army and those other methods that have been taken to make it so granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen yet should he happen to die the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England the former of which is as contrary to their consciences as the latter is to their principles and inclinations So on the other side if the Prince of Wales be not the Queens true Son he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point which so nearly concerned their right of Succession For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom as the only proper Judges of the same For as to the Privy Council who by the Kings command though without any president had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it since besides the incompetency of the Judges the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them to set down by
still here for the King did not leave Rochester until the 23d in the morning so it is plain it was not their design to own or take notice of him any more as King and that which makes it more remarkable is that several of the Bishops viz. the Arch-Bishop of York together with the Bishop of St. Asaph and others joyned with the rest of the Peers in these Addresses which was a plain sign they all looked upon the Kings Power to be now at an end But as for the Acclamations of the people or any great joy the City expressed upon the Kings return to Town I doubt you have had a false account of that matter for I cannot hear that any of the Citizens went out to meet him or set any Lights in their Windows though he came into London after it was dark or that any of the better sort bid him God Speed I grant indeed there was a great many of what you call the Mob but more Boys than Men who followed his Coach making Huzza's whilst the rest of the people silently looked on M. I cannot deny but you may have given a true account of these matters since you may have observ'd them better than I yet as you your self have Related them sure the King had sufficient cause to Consult his own Safety and make his escape as soon as he could for what could he expect when once the Prince had secured his Person under a Guard and had refused to Treat with him as King and that also the Peers and divers of the Bishops had made an Association to stand by the Prince of Orange and had made a fresh Address to him without taking the least notice of him as if there had been no such thing as a King in being I say what could his Majesty now expect but either a more close Confinement or else being taken off privately by poyson or some other ways since he could not be forgetful of the King his Fathers saying that there is no great distance between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes or admit he had lived till this Convention Saâ—e what could he have expected more than the retaining the bare Title of King whilst the Prince of Orange or some others appointed by Him had wholly managed the Government at their pleasure or else they might according to your Doctrine have either declared the Crown forfeited or else that he had Abdicated it by his going away or who can tell but they might have again renewed the Villany of 48. and have made him undergone the same Fate with his Father F. I grant you have urged the utmost that can be to justifie the Kings second Departure and as I would not deny but that he was the best Judge of his own Danger so were the Prince Peers and Common together with the City the best and only Judges we could then have of the true means of our settlement and safety since after so many breaches that the King had made upon his first Declaration and Coronation Oath as also his going from his late Promise of calling a Free Parliament I cannot see what farther security he could have given us that he would not repeat the same things over again or admit the Prince had suffered him to continue at White-hall and to call a third Parliament what assurance could he have given that in the end of another forty days we should not have the same trick play'd us and then in March or April have been left in the same state of Confusion we were in in December to the certain ruine of these three Kingdoms and Holland into the bargain And then by that time the French King might have got ready an Army and a Fleet and under a pretence of redeeming his Majesty from the constraint he lay under and of restoring him to the free exercise of his Regal Power have Invaded this Kingdom and I suppose you cannot deny but the King would then have sound Papists and High Tories enough to have joined with him in this pious design for certainly the scruples of the high Church-men would have been the same they are now the obligations of the Oath of Allegiance the same and the supposed Sin of deposing a Lawful K. the same though he had utterly refused to give the Prince and Nation any satisfaction so that then if we had been forced to take Arms and to declare he had forfeited his Right to the Crown all these things would have given as great or rather greater scandal than for the Nation to take him at his first offer and since he had thus rashly deserted the Throne by a needless departure to resolve he should Ascend it no more But suppose what might also as well have happened that the Prince and his Party had been killed or expelled the Kingdom by the King do you think he would have granted us then what he would not grant us now Would he not think you have disbanded his Protestant Army and have kept only Irish Scotch and French Forces in pay and have every day encreased them What respect can we hope he would ever after this have shewn to our Laws Religion or Liberties when he had now no longer any thing to fear The memory of what happened after the Duke of Monmouth's defeat though effected only by those of the Church of England will certainly never be forgotten by others whatever you Bigots of Loyalty may pretend or say So that for my part I stand amazed to see you and so many others scruple the submitting to the present King for if ever man had a just cause of War he had and that creates a right to the thing gained by it the King by withdrawing and disbanding his Army yielded him the Throne and is he had without any more Ceremony ascended it he had done no more than several Princes formerly have done on the like occasions for the Prince was no longer then bound to consider him as one that was but as one that had been King of England yet in that capacity he treated him with great respect and civility how much soever the King complained of it who did not enough consider what he had done to draw upon himself that usage but as for your insinuation that if he had stayed he might have run the same fate with his Father I think it is fuller of Passion than Truth for besides that the Lords and Commons would never had the Impudence to have committed such a Villany and the Prince himself as a Nephew and a Son-in-Law would never have suffered it M. Well God only knows the event of things and we ought to judge charitably and still to hope that if the King might have been restored upon terms that he would have been the better for his Affliction and have amended all those errours he committed since he had seen that neither the Nation nor yet his Neighbours the Dutch would permit him to make himself an Absolute
as a wilful Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government and it is from this first going away that I suppose that the Convention dates his Abdication since though it is true after his return to London he took upon him to make an Order in Council to stop the further pulling down and plundering Popish Chappels and Papists Houses yet was it sign'd by very few of the Council and almost only by those who had been in some Office or Place of Trust so that though he was then own'd by them yet since that Order did only serve to shew his Zeal for the Popish Party and was never obey'd or taken notice of by those to whom it was directed and that neither the Prince nor the City of London owned him afterwards since it had already delivered it self up to the Prince and had as well as the Peers invited him to repair to that City I cannot see that so slight an act as this Order of Council should be counted a return to or a re-establishment in the Throne since the King had not only lost the Crown by his wilful departure without calling a Parliament or giving the P. any satisfaction in the great business of the pretended Prince of Wales or the Nation by repairing up those desperate breaches he had made upon our Fundamental Laws but had also lost his Title to the Crown by being Conquer'd by the Prince in open War as I shall prove more at large another time so that if you please better to consider this Vote of the Convention you will find that these words had Abdicated the Government do not only refer to the last clause of his having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom but to everyone of the foregoing Clauses viz. His having endeavour'd to subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom his breaking the Original Contract and his having violated the Fundamental Laws so that it is plain their notion of Abdication was not fixt only in the Kings Desertion or bare withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom but from his renouncing the Legal Title by which he held the Crown and setting himself up as a Despotick Soveraign and ruling by a mercenary Army and therefore all that you have said about the Kings quitting the Government with a design to return to it again as soon as with safety he might is altogether vain for as he went away because he would not Govern any longer as a King by Law so hath he yet given us no satisfaction that he would not return again to Govern otherwise or rather worse than he did before had he an opportunity so to do that is as the Letter I cited but now phrases iâ— to return and have his ends of us so that this being indeed the case I think I can very well justifie the last clause in this Vote that the Throne was thereby vacant M. Sir you have spoke a considerable time and I doubt more than I can distinctly remember to answer as I should therefore before you proceed to this last Clause of the Vacancy of the Throne the dispute about which I foresee may hold longer than upon any of the former pray give me leave to reply to what you have already said in Justification of all the other parts of this Vote in the first place I will not deny but that if the King had once got the power of making what Mayors Aldermen and other Officers in Corporations at his pleasure it would have gone a great way towards the making the Majority of the Parliament-men nay I likewise grant that by his dispensing Power he might have made what Papists or other person he pleased Sheriffs in any County who would have made such return of Knights of Shires as he should have thought fit yet I suppose this would not have been to the subversion of the Constitution of the Kingdom which I think I have proved to consist originally in the K. alone before any great Councils or Parliaments were instituted And as for those violations of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom the Declaration instances in I think several of them may very well be justified by antient Presidents and ad judged cases in Law and therefore were so far from being violations that they are no more than the Kings exercising of his due Prerogative and though at our ninth meeting I had not time so well to consider these matters as also because I was not then prepared to defend the Kings Proceedings I shall therefore make bold to examine the most considerable of those Articles which the Late Declaration supposes did so highly tend to subvert the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom I shall begin with the first viz. His assuming and exercising a power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Laws and the Execution of Laws without consent of Parliament which Power let me tell you by the way was not asserted to Dispence with all Laws or Statutes whatsoever but only such as the Subject has no particular cause of action in and where the damage that may arise by it doth not concerns the publick safety of which the K. is sole Judge and not any particular mans interest I suppose you cannot but have read that learned and short account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edw. Hales his Case written by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in vindication of himself wherein I think he proves beyond any possibility of a just answer that the dispensation granted to Sir Edward Hales to receive a commission and act as a Collonel of Foot was good notwithstanding his not having received the Sacrament and taken the Oaths and Test appointed by the Act of the Statute of the 25 of Charles II. where he first proves from my L. Cock's Authority that it belongs to the Kings Prerogative to Dispence with all Positive or Penal Laws the penalty thereof is only popular and given to the King and to shew you that my Lord Cook who was never counted any great friend to the Kings Prerogative was not single in this opinion he gives you also the authority of the year Book of Henry the VII where it was own'd by all the Judges That the King can Dispence with all things which are only Mala Prohibita and not Mala â—n se though expresly forbid by Act of Parliament for though says the Year Book before the Statute Coining of Money was Lawful but now it is not so yet the King can Dispence with it so that say I if he can dispence with that which is now made Treason by EÃ the III. he may certainly dispence with all other Penal Statutes of a less nature But because I grant there is some difference between Common Penal Laws which barely prohibit the doing of some things under a penalty and this Act in which there is also an express Clause of Non-obstante that all Licences or Dispensations contrary to this
Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer and give me your answer if you can against the next time we meet and then tell me whether the causes of this threatned Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church as you suppose it will not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion who as well out of Conscience as for their own interest will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Imployments upon their refusal of this Oath M. I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion tho' let me tell you this is the first time that ever you can shew me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the meer Lay Authority of the King and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestants did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion and upon the same account might deprive them and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places F. I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it for Queen Elizabeth and the Parliament were when they made this Act so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome that Mass was then said and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England and yet they still maintain'd an outward Communion though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil â—ower and others ordain'd in their stead So that it is plain the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament could not be Canonical because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power were still alive But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practiced yet if it were then reasonable and done upon good grounds I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilfull and wedded to some old false notions as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom why the King and Queen who are acknowledged to be Supream over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth for a less matter for none of those Popish Bishops though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters But leaving the farther discussion of this Point to those who better understand it I would gladly know of you what you intend to do and what you would have us do who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace for if as you your self allow there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintain'd during King Iames's absence I desire to know of you how it can be managed and who shall manage it in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties for if King Iames be never so much our lawful King it is not now possible for us to be Govern'd by him since he is goâ—e and God knows whether ever he may return again since then you cannot have him if you would and that there is a necessity we should be Govern'd by some body And since it is also as certain that those who actually Govern us will exact this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us as were due to their Predecessors and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office not only of profit but of burthen and charge for the necessary execution of Justice and the maintenance of Civil Government without which we cannot live or subsist without taking this new Oath of Allegiance as the only means to qualifie them for it if then the end viz. Civil Government be absolutely necessary and the taking of this Oath is the only means allow'd of to qualifie men for it this seems as evident to me that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law but by Reason and good Conscience since it is done for the highest and noblest end viz. the publick good of the whole Nation or Common wealth which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us M. I will say something in answer to what you have now alledged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government without which I grant the Kings good Subjects cannot subsist till his return since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought all I can say to it at present it that if all your Country Gentlemen and all the Lawyers in England would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience the consequence then would be that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen and Foreigners on their side who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it and that there are also many Fanaticks and Common-wealths Men who not looking upon themselves as at all oblig'd by your notions of Natural Allegiance and the obligations of any former Oath of Allegiance will get into all the Offices and Imployments of the Kingdom to the great prejudice and destruction not only of the Church but the Monarchy it self which is as yet preserv'd tho the Person
and Service to the Hundred and County Courts and that these very men were such as after your Conquest were called Barones Comitatus appears in this that those who before the Conquest were called Thanes are afterwards called Barons of Counties in all our Ancient Laws and Charters and for this I shall give you the Authority of Sir H. Spelman in his Glossary who tho' he does chiefly understand by this word all sort of feudal Barons dwelling in each County Proceres nempe Maneriorum domini yet nor only these but necnon liberi quique Tenentes hoc est fundoâ—um proprietarii Anglice Freeholders ut superius dectum est So that take it in which sense you will this word cannot signifie only Tenants in Capite or so much as Military Tenants as you suppose since a man might hold a Mannor by other Tenures than Knights Service as by grand or petty Serjeanty or in Soccage by a certain Rent and so likewise might he hold any other lesser Estate of Free-hold by the like Tenures which if it were so your Drs. Fancy of Tenants in Military service being then the only Free-men of the Kingdom and who were capable of serving upon Juries in the Hundred and County Court is a meer Chimera without any ground as I have already proved at our third meeting when I shewed you by the words liberi homines so often mentioned in King William's Laws are to be understood not only Tenants by Knights Service but any other Free-men or Free holders who held Lands or other Possessions which may be also proved farther by the Stat. of Merton Cap. 10. as appears by this clause Provisum est insuper quod quilibet liber â—omoqâ—â— sectam debet ad comitatum trithingum hundredum Wapentagium vel ad 〈◊〉 domini sui libere possit facere Attornatum suum ad sectas illas pro eo faciendas Whereby you may see that every Freeman who was a Master of a Family and not under the power of another was then obliged to pay Suit and Service to the County Trithing and Hundred Courts But say you these persons who were Jurors in this great Cause between Earl Odo and Arch-bishop Lanfranc are there called Primores and Probi viri not only of the County of Kent but other Counties where the Lands lay and it is not probable that the ordinary Free-men which made the greatest number and were all bound to their good behaviour could be the Probi Legales homines who served upon this Jury well I grant it that these Gentlemen you speak of might be Lords of Mannors and considerable for Quality and Estate and who alone were impannelled upon Juries in this and other such great tryals of Novel Disseiâ—in and yet for all that those lesser Free-men or Free-holders you mention were Legales homines and as such were capable of trying all Causes of what nature soever since Sir H Spelman tells us in his Glossary Title Legalis that In Iure nostro de eo dicitur qui stat rectus in Curia non exlex seu utlegatus non excommunicatus vel infamis c. sed qui in lege postulat postulâ—tur Hoc sensu vulgare illud in formulis juridicis probi legalis homines So that he does not make as you do that a Man's legality must depend upon his Tenure but upon his being rectus in Curia So that it is no more an Argument that because in some great Tryals in those times none but the chief and most considerable Men in the County were impannelled upon Juries in the County Court therefore none but they could ever serve there upon Juries at all then it would be now for a man to affirm that because in great Tryals at the Assises or at the Bar at Westminster only Knights and Gentlemen are Impannelled therefore none but they and not any Yeomen or Countrymen can ever serve upon Juries at all But let these Gentlemen you mention have been all Tenants in Capite or by Knights Service if you please yet will it not make good your assertion that they were only Normans or Frâ—nchmen who as the only Proprietors of Estates served upon this and other Juries at that time for they must have certainly been such who of their own knowledge knew the Lauds in question and to whom they did belong before K. William's entrance into England and your Dr. himself in his answer to Mr. Atwood's Ianus fully agrees to this truth as appears by this passage which I desire you would read In Tryals of Novel Dissâ—isin and for the Possession of Lands Customs Services c. the Juries at the time of the Conquest and in several of the King's Reigns next succeeding were Impannelled out of the same Town and Neighbourhood of such as did know the Land and things in question and who had been possessed of it and for what time And to this purpose in an Assize if none of the Jurors knew the right it self or truth of the matter and did testifie so much to the Court upon Oath recourse was then had to others until such were found who did know the truth but if some did know the truth and others not those that knew it not were put by and others called into the Court until twelve at the least should be found to agree therein and for this purpose it was that all Suitors to Hundred and Country Courts were bound to appear there under great penalties that thâ—re might be a Jury of such as knew whose the Land was and so far your Dr. is very much in the right but then that all the Gentlemen that served upon this Jury must be Englishmen is as plain from the reason he hath now given us and if he had not told us so we have an undeniable authority for it to wit the antient Mss. called Codex Roffâ—nsis quoted by Mr. Selâ—en in his notes upon Eadmerus where speaking of this Tryal Praecipit Rex Comitatum totum viz. of Kent absque mora considere homines Comitatus omnes Francigenas praeciput Anglos in antiquis legibus consuetudinibus peritos inâ—unum convenire But it also adds alii aliorum Comitatuum homines and so confirms what Eadmerus says so that nothing is more evident by your Doctors own shewing as also by the Testimony of this ancient Author that this great cause was Tryed either by Tenants in Capite and other great Free-holders were all Englishmen or such Frenchmen as were here before your Conquest so that from this famous Tryal we may draw two of three confusions directly contrary to your assertions First That there were many great Proprietors not only in Kent but in other Counties as appears by Eadmerus who were a sufficient number to try Causes in the County Courts a good while after your Conquerors coming over Secondly That the Pleadings and Verdict in this Cause being before Englishmen and given by them must have been all in
no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects King William and Queen Mary are Declared That they were and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Soveraign Leige Lord and Lady and King and Queen of England c. M. Well it is late and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer since it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them What I have said was only to shew you the Folly and Weakness of such Oaths and Consequently that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us which God forgive this sinful Nation among the many crying Sins it now growns under Yet give me leave still to mind you that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time which Deprivation being uncanonically ordain'd by the meer lay power of the Convention without the authority of a Convocation or Synod such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfullness of the Bishops who are the supreme Pastors of our Church F. I forgot to say any thing of this because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust but since you desire it I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject First I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church as the Kings of Iudah and Israel had among the Jews therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon or else the King and Parliament who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation as the Kings of Iudah were to that of the Jews may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury for Example for Treason or Disobedience to the Government as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King and besides this I can shew you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperours in depriving and banishing not only Bishops but Patriarchs for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod or general Council of other Bishops if your Doctrine were true the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Seats viz. Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria but they are all nominated and put in and out at the Grand Seigniors nay Visiers Will and Pleasure as any Man who will but peâ—uâ—e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see But indeed you fall into this Errour for want of considering the original of Bishop-pricks in England and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation for pray take Notice that though Episcopacy was setled in England in the time of the Britains yet all the Seas and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm in respect of such and such Diocesses have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings and the Authority of our Great Councils which were also confirmed by the Popes Bulls and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament as were all the Bishop-pricks erected in Henry the VIII ths Reign so that let the Bishops meer Spiritual Power of Ordaining Excommunicating c. be derived immediately from Christ if you please yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See is as meer a temporal Institution as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury for Example being a Civil Institution it hath anciently belonged to Supream Powers not only to confer this Power as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum Annulum but also to take it away for Treason or Disobedience against the State since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character or Episcopal Orders but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees or Diocesses thus although the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester with the rest of the Popish Bishops were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th of Elizabeth for not taking the Oath of Supremacy the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Diocesses and therefore I doubt not but that notwithstanding this Depriviation those Bishops might if they had pleased have ordained Priests and confirmed Children and that such Ordinations and Confirmations would been good even in our Protestant Church if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants since 't is very well known that the Church of England ownes the orders of the Church of Rome to be valid which is more then we do for the ordinations of meer Presbyters coming from those Protestant Countrys where there are no Bishops at all the like I may say for their Confirmations too But pray Sir consider how upon your Principles this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it for if the Arch Bishop of Yorke for example will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind as I am credibly informed they will pray tell me how the People of that Province being a distinct Church or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury as to all Spiritual matters as having a distinct Convocation of their own can ever be involved in this Schism by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury And pray also tell me in the next place how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involv'd in this intended Schism since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York nor to any other Bishop but only to their Chancellour and the Vice-Chancellour as his Deputy who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities and therefore their Church