Subjection to Adam since they could never have quitted his Family without his consent and when they did quit it unless he pleased to manumit them they their Wives and Children were still as much Subject as they were before Since I do not see if they were once Subjects to him how any thing but his express will and consent could ever discharge them from it Nor was that Authority which every one of these Sons of Adam might Exercise over their Wives and Children though they were not freed from the power of their Father any more inconsistent with that Subjection and Obedience they owed him as their Prince than in an absolute Monarchy the power of Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children as to the things relating to the well-ordering and governing their Families is inconsistent with that supreme predominant power which the Monarch hath over the Father himself and all his Family or than the power of a Master of a Family in the Isle of Barbadoes over his Slaves that are Married and have Children is inconsistent with that Marital and Paternal power which such a Slave may exercise over his Wife and Children within his own Family though still subordinate to the will of the Master who may forbid any such Slaves or their Children to Marry but where he hath a mind they should and may likewise hinder them from correcting or putting to Death their Wives and Children without his consent Though such Subjects in an absolute Monarchy or Slaves in a Plantation cannot have or enjoy any Property in Lande or Goods but at the Monarchs or Masters will And so likewise at first none of these Sons of Adam though they set up distinct Families from their Fathers could enjoy or inclose any part of the Earth without his Grant or Assignment to whom the whole was given by God before It seems likewise to be a great mistake when you at first affirmed that all Civil Government was Ordained by God for the benefit and advantage of the Subjects rather than the Governours Whereas from the first and most Natural Government it appears that Children who were the Subjects were Ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who were the first Monarchs as their Parents for them From all which we may draw these Conclusions First that from Gen. 3. v. 6. already Cited we have the Original Charter of Government and the Fountain of all Civil Power derived from Adam as the Father of all Mankind So that not only the Constitution of power in general but the special limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy and the determination of it to the individual person of Adam are all Ordinances of God Neither had Eve or her Children any Right to limit Adam'â— Power or joyn themselves with him in the Government Now if this Supreme Power was setled and sounded by God himself in Fatherhood how is it possible for the people to have any Right to alter or dispose of it otherwise it being God's Ordinance that this Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as any Acts of his Will So that he was not only a Father but a King and absolute Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or Slave being one and the same thing at first the Father having power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants at his pleasure and though perhaps he might deal too severely or cruelly in so doing yet there was none above him except God in the state of Nature who could call him to an account much less resist or punish him for so doing F. You have Sir made a very long Speech upon the Monarchical power of Adam which you have made of so large an Extent that this imaginary Kingship will swallow up all the other more dear and tender Relations both of a Husband and of a Father So that were I not satisfied you were a very good natured Man and spoke more the sense of others than from your own Natural Inclinations I should be apt to believe that if you had sufficient Power you would prove as great a Tyrant over your Wife Children and all that should be under your Command as such Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave but since I hope your Errour lyes rather in your Understanding than in your Natureâ— I shall make bold to shew you the mistakes you have committed in those Principles you here lay down I might first begin with the place of Scripture you farther insist upon for Eve's absolute Subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel as is us'd here to Eve and tho' you are pleased to think my exposition of this place so ridiculous yet I doubt not but I be able to prove when I come to speak of this pretended Divine Author of Elder Brothers over this younger that this place cannot be understood in any such sense according to the best Interpretation that both the reason of the Subject and the sense the best Commentators put upon it can allow but I shall defer this till we come to discourse concerning the successors of Adam in this Monarchical Power you suppose And therefore I shall only at present pursue that absolute Power which you suppose Adam to have had not only over Eve but all her descendants So that your Argument of Eve's and consequently all her Childrens absolute Subjection to Adam depends upon a very false supposition For if the Subjection of Eve to Adam and of all Wives to their Husbands is not servile or absolute neither can that of the Children be so since according to your own simile if the streams are of the same nature of the Fountain they can never rise higher than it and tho' I grant Adam might in some cases have put his Wife or Children to death for any enormous crime against the Law of Nature yet I allow him that power not as a Husband or Father but only as a Lord or Master of a separate Family who having no Superiour in the state of Nature I grant it is endued by God with this Prerogative for the good of his Family and preservation of Mankind lest such horrid crimes so much to its prejudice should pass unpunisht But that the Husband or Father doth not act thus in either of these two capacities I can easily prove First Because the Scripture tells us the Husband and Wife are one Flesh and that no man ever yet hated his own Flesh so that it is impossible for a Husband to put his Wife to death till by the greatness of her Crimes she becomes no longer worthy of that tender affection he ought to bear her Then as to the Father he as a Father ought not to desire to put his Son to death whose being he hath been the cause of and who is principally made out of his own substance and on whom he hath bestowed nourishment and education for
of this Divine Power of Adam but this I am sure of Parents can never signifie Heirs Male or Female much less a Child who may sometimes according to your hypothesis happen to be Heir but since I am gotten into this mistake I shall not leave my hold but shall make bold a little to argue our Great Grand Mother's Title for indeed I cannot see any reason why her Eldest Son for Example should have any right to Govern his Mother and all his Brothers and Sisters whilst she was alive For first if your Argument from Generation must be good that every man that is born becomes a subject to him that begets him this Argument will serve for Eve as well as Adam since as I have already proved the Mother hath as great if not a greater share in the Generation of the Children than the Father Or secondly if you insist upon the Divine grant you so much â—â—lked of last time of Adam's Dominion over the Creatures in which his Children were included I then proved to you that this Grant was made as well to Eve as Adam And consequently thâ— either she must have thereby an equal right with him or at least after his Decease to this Dominion as a Husband and Wife when joynt Purchasers have to an Eâ—tate at Common Law And lastly If the Commandment of Honour thy Father and thy Mother were then in Force by the Law of Nature or by express Command from God and that by Honouring obeying must be meant as most Commentators agree then it will follow that after Adams Decease all Eves Sons and Descendants tho' never so remoâ—e were to have obeyed or been subject to her and not to her Eldest Son unless you can shew me that the Salique Law against the succession of Women was made by Adam the first Monarch which I suppose you will not undertake to prove M. I must confess I did not consider this difficulty for indeed it might never have happened since Eve might have died before Adam or if she did out-live him which is uncertain yet she was then very old and consequently besides the natural weakness of her Sex uncapable or unfit for Government and so might very well leave it to Seth since Cain the Eldest had by the Murder of his Brother and his flying away into another Country forfeited his Birth-right and made himself uncapable of the Succession F. So then here is a Forfeiture and an Abdication of this Divine Right of Succession in the very first Descent whereas indeed I supposed that this Divine Right had been at least as unforfeitable as the Crown of England the very Descent of which as our Lawyers tell us purges all defects in the next Heir tho' he had murdered his Father and Elder Brother too But I only shew you the absurdity of this Notion and shall not longer insist upon it therefore pray procâ—ed M. I cannot tell what might have been said if Cain had come to claim his Birth-Right but this is certain that he neither did or could come to do it since God condemned him to live in a strange Country far from his Brethren and we read That Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the Land of Nod on the East of Eden and he built a City and called the Name of it Enoch after the Name of his Son Enoch And there are four descents set down immediately of his Family which could be no other than the Princes of that City of Cain's Race So that you see even in Cain's Line the Principality descended to the Eldest Son F. I confess Cain's Children and Grand-Children are particularly set down in Scripture but that they were Princes or Monarchs over their Posterity or which way this City was Governed after Cain's Death whether by one or by all the Sons of Cain is no where mentioned but I see some Men can find even absolute Monarchy in a Text where the Scripture mentions no such thing and no wonder for the Alchymists have found out likewise the invention of their Elixir or Philosophers Stone in such Texts as you or I can see no such thing But to be more serious That a Father should be Lord over his Children and Posterity I confess there may be some colour of reason tho' none cogent enough to make it out But that an Elder Brother hath any Natural or Divine Right to be Lord over all the rest of his Brethren I can find no ground for in reason even upon your own Principles for if every Man by his Birth become the subject of him that begets him it will necessarily follow that a Man by his Birth cannot become a subject to his Brother who sure did not beget him Therefore I suppose you will still insist upon that place in the fourth of Genesis which you cited at our last Meeting when God told Cain speaking as you suppose of his Brother Abel His desire shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt Rule over him From which words I then told you I thought an absolute subjection of Abel and of all younger Brothers whatsoever could not reasonably be inferred for you may remember I shewed you that this Promise by God to Cain concerning Abel might be only personal and relate to Abel only and not to the rest of his Brethren much less all other younger Brothers that should be in the World And in the next place this Ruling might only have been by advice and perswasion and not by any Authority or Right of commanding him So that if this be the place as I suppose it is from whence you would deduce your Divine Right of Elder Brothers being Monarcâ—s over the younger in all Hereditary Monarchies I must freely tell you I think it a very bold undertaking to found a Divine Right upon such doubtful expressions as these of God to Cain M. I confess I was now about again to urge this place to you for as I was not then well satisfied with your explanation of it which you now again repeat so upon second thoughts I am much more unsatisfied with your Paraphrase upon them For you seem to me plainly to pervert the sense of the words and make them signifie just nothing For sure when God spake the same Words to Eve concerning Adam as he did to Cain concerning Abel can you conceive they were meant personally to Eve only and concerned no other Wife that should be after her Or can you assign any Reason why these words should be rather meant personally in the last and not in the first case Unless you will do it out of pure Love to Anarchy and confusion And if you say these words do not signifie any despotick Power but a Ruling or Governing by fair means or persuasion this seemeth meer trifling with Gods Word who says expresly Thy Brothers desire shall be Subject to thee That is say you as far as he thinks fit and thou shalt rule over him that is if
a like Soveraignty by Right of Fatherhood over the same People divided into so many distinct Governments either then these seventy two Fathers were actually Rulers just before the Confusion and then they were not one People but an Aristocratical Common-Wealth and then where was your Monarchy Or else these seventy two Fathers had Paternal Authority but knew it not which is hard to suppose And if these seventy two Grand-children of the Sons of Noah had a Right to divide this Supreme Paternal Authority of Adam into as many distinct Governments as there were Heads of Families why might not their Sons have done so in infinitum And then there could never be any Common Prince or Monarch set over them all but by Force or Conquest or else by Election Either of which destroys your Notion of the Divine Right of Primogeniture M. 'T is a very pleasant Notion methinks this of yours that the Posterity of the first Planters of the World should follow their Ancestors not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers and from a Reverence forsooth and Affection to their Age Wisdom and Experience Indeed I am thus far of your mind that these Children followed their Fathers freely and were not driven afore them nor dragged after them with Chains But to infer from hence that they owed their Father none of this Service or Attendance but out of meer good Nature and Gratitude which are due to Strangers that have obliged us by being our Benefactors is a Notion that only becomes one that owns no Right to be derived from Patriarchal or Paternal Power and since there was none of these Patriarchs who were the Leaders of Mankind in this Dispersion but might be one or two hundred years old if not more can any thing in Nature look more ridiculous than for the Children and Descendants of these Old Men to elect them who begat them to be their Leaders and Governours at a hundred years of Age And to give you an Answer why Governments might not upon my Principles crumble into new ones in infinitum I think it may be sufficient to tell you that First God prevented it and that for the most part by Monarchs ever since the Creation of the World and altho' he was pleased to permit many Divisions after this time yet he would never suffer Mankind to be crumbled into such small Divisions as to make every distinct Houshold an Independent Government Secondly Those Monarchs prevented it who would be sure to reduce to their Subjection any person that should attempt to divide himself or Family from the rest and set up for an Independant State without his leave and liking Thirdly The necessity of Mankind prevented it such small parcels of Men not being able to preserve themselves but by uniting with the rest for their Support and Protection So that if you could never so clearly prove that here was no Subordination to the Eldest Son or Heir of Noah yet this signifieth nothing for God ordered it so to be and if these Grand sons of Noah were Independant Governours of their own Families with any Subordination to the Eldest Son's Son or Heir of Noah yet were they still Soveraign Princes and much less had any dependance upon their own Children and Descendants So that hitherto the Multitude were kept under Subjection and could not set up a Common-wealth without rebelling against those Independant Governours Now if in this horrible Confusion of Tongues the People by the Will of God still fell under the Monarchical Government of these Fathers of Families I desire to know when they could obtain their Freedom and in what Age it began F. I must confess you had some Reasons to look upon my Notion of the Descendants of the Sons of Noah following their Ancestors in this Dispersion not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers to be as ridiculous as you are pleased to make it could you have any way proved at our last meeting that the Power of Parents over their Children and Grand-children to all Generations is as absolute and perpetual as that of a Master over his Slaves and that a Son and a Servant were all one at the first but since you failed in that Proposition which is the ground-work of all the rest I must beg your pardon if I cannot found the Descendants of Noah following their Fathers or Ancestors in the Dispersion upon any higher ground than meer Gratitude and Esteem I mean for all such of them who were themselves at that time Masters or Heads of separate Families and I desire to know of you by what other Motive or Obligation a Great Grand-son for Example was obliged to follow his Great Grand father to the World's end as his Prince or Leader when perhaps his own Father thought fit to lead him another way and I desire you to shew me if they had as they might very well have commanded different things which was to be obeyed And how Disobedience to a Man 's own Father in this case would have consisted with that Law of Nature which you so much insist upon of honouring a Man's Father But indeed all this mistake proceeds from your first false Notion which I see you cannot yet be quit of in still supposing the Obedience and Subjection of Children to their Fathers to be absolute and perpetual The contrary to which I have already made out at our last meeting And therefore I must tell you again that this Notion of these Grand-children or Descendants following their Fathers or Ancestors not out of Duty but Choice is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it and tho' I do not suppose that they Elected these Ancestors of theirs for their Leaders by a Balotting-Box yet this much I am sure of that they might prefer if they pleased the following of their Father or Grand-father rather than their Great Grand-father if they perceived that he had doted through Age or else by Weakness or Infirmities was unable to lead them or that his natural temper was so Imperious and Tyrannical that there was no living under his Government Neither doth the Scripture it self any where declare the contrary only says in general that by these Grand-sons of Noah the Isles or Countreys of the Gentiles were divided according to their Families and Nations without particularly telling us who were the Princes or Leaders of each Tribe or Family And to instance if this Division happened in the time of Peleg or Phaleg as the Greek LXX makes it then not Arphaxad the Great Grand-father or Selah the Grand-father but Heber the Grand-son was the Prince or Leader of his Family at this Division Since it is from him that Iosephus supposes the Hebrews not only to have descended but to have taken their Names Nor do you any better answer the other Difficulty how all these Seventy two Patriarchs or Great Grand-fathers could all of them claim alike Regal Power from Adam or Noah whose Right Heir could be but one Person
it would be left in her Power not only to govern her self but by marrying to chuse a King for her Subjects whom they do not approve of And therefore we read that in diverse of the Antient Kingdoms of the World Women were excluded from the Succession Nor are these the only questions that either might then or else have in latter Ages been started concerning Succession in Kingdoms and Principalities and have been the cause of great disputes between Pretenders to Crowns where a King Dies without Lawful Issue as whether a Grandson by a Younger Daughter shall inherit before a Grand-daughter by an Elder Daughter Whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before the Younger Son by a Wife From whence also will arise many Questions concerning Legitimation and what by the Laws of Nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine All which can no ways be decided but by the Municipal or Positive Laws of those Kingdoms or Principalities It may further be enquired whether the eldest Son being a Fool or Madman shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a Wise Man And what degree of â—olly or madness it must be that shall exclude him and who shall be the Judges of it Also whether the Son of a Fool so excluded for his Folly shall succeed before the Son of his Wiser Brother who last Reigned Who shall have the regal Power whilst a Widdow Queen is with Child by the Deceased King until she be brought to Bed These and many more such difficulties might be proposed about the Title of Succession and the Right of Inheritance to Kingdoms and that not as idle speculations but such as in History we shall frequently find examples of not only in our own but likewise other Kingdoms From all which we may gather that if the Laws of God or Nature had prescribed any set rules of Succession they would have gone farther than one or two cases as concerning the Succession of Elder Sons or Brothers where an Elder Son dies without Issue and would also have given certain infallible rules in all other Cases of Succession besides these and not have left it to the Will or particular Laws of diverse Nations to have established the succession so many several ways as I am able to shew have been practised in the World M. I must confess you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex the Succession to Adam which seems designed for nothing else but to make me believe that if Adam or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes it must have been by the Consent or Election of their Children or Descendants which is all one as to say that those Antient Princes derived their Titles from the Iudgment or Consent of the People the contrary to which is evident as well out of Sacred as Civil History F. Since you appeal to History to History you shall go and to let you see that I have not invented these doubts about Succession of my own Head and that there might have very well been a real dispute about the Succession to Adam in the Cases I have put may appear by the many disputes and quarrels that have been in several Nations concerning the Right of Succession between the Uncle and the Nephew of which Grotius is so sensible that he confesses in the latter end of the Chapter last cited that where it could not be decided by the Peoples Iudgment it was fain to be so by Civil Wars as well as private Combats and therefore he is forced ingenuously to confess that this hath been practised divers ways according to the different Laws and Customs of Nations and he gives us here a distinction between a direct Lineal Succession and a transversed and acknowledges that amongst the Germans as also the Goths and Vandales Nephews were not admitted to the Succession of the Crown before their Uncles the like may be said of the Saxons and Normans and therefore we find in our Antient English History that before the Conquest the Uncle if he were Older always enjoyed the Crown before the Nephew which I can more particularly shew you if you think fit to question it The like manner of succession was also amongst the Irish-Scotch for above 200 years after â—â—rgus their first King The like Custom was also observed among the Irish as long as they had any Kings amongst them and is called the Law of Tanistry The same was also observed in the Kingdom of â—astile where after the death of Alphonso the fifth the States of that Kingdom admitted his Younger Son Sancho to be King putting by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grand-Son to the late King by his Eldest Son tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand-Father's Will So likewise in Sicily upon the Death of Charles the Second who left a Grand Son behind him by his Eldest Son as also a Younger Son named Robert between whom a difference arising concerning the Succession it being referred to Pope Clement V. He gave Judgment for Robert the Younger Son of Charles who was thereupon Crowned King of Sicily and for this reason it was that Earl Iohn Brother to King Richard the second was declared King of England by the Estates before Arthur Earl of Brittain Son of Ieoffrey the Elder Brother and Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry the second in that little Treatise we have of his makes it a great question who should be preferred to an Inheritance the Uncle or Nephew But as for Daughters whether they shall inherit at all or not or at least be preferred before their Uncles is much more doubtfull since not only France but most of the Kingdoms of the East at this day from Turkey to Iapan do exclude Women from the Throne And it was likewise as much against the Grain of the Antient Northern Nations and hence it is that we find no mention of any Queen to have reigned amongst the Antient Germans or Irish-Scots and never but two among the English-Saxons and those by Murder or Usurpation and not by Election as they ought to have done And upon this Ground it was that the Nobility and People of England put by Maud the Emperess and preferred Stephen Earl of Blois to the Crown before her for tho' he derived his affinity to the Crown by a Woman yet as being a Man he thought himself to be preferred before her So likewise in the Kingdom of Aragon Mariana in his History tells us that Antiently the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter examples may also be given of divers of the other instances but these may suffice M. I Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little for by these examples you would seem to infer that these Laws about setling the succession of Crowns in several Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People whereas I may with better reason suppose that if such Laws and Alterations have been in such successions they were made by
Gideon speaking to the Men of Shechem that they had made Abimelech the Son of a Maid Servant King over the Men of Shechem because he is your Brother So likewise after Abimelech was Dead the Children of Ammon made War against the Children of Israel as appears by the 10th of Judges and they encamped in Gilead which was a Country on the other side of Iordan which was inhabited by the Reubenites the Gadites and the other half of Manasses who by themselves consulted for their own safety for it is said in the last verse of this Chapter And the People and Princes of Gilead said one to another What man is he that will begin to fight against the Children of Ammon He shall be Head over all the Inhabitants of Gilead From which assembly and consultation it plainly appears that they looked upon themselves to have a Right of setting a Prince or Head over them distinct from the rest of the Tribes of Israel And in the next Chapter you will find that Iephtha was made Prince or Judge by the Elders of Gilead and tho' it is said that Iephtha went with the Elders of Gilead and that the People made him Head and Captain over them yet that cannot be meant of all Israel but only of the two Tribes and a half which inhabited the Land of Gilead for we find chapter the 12. the Men of Ephraim making War upon Iephtha because he had not called them out to sight against the Ammonites and you will find verse the 4th that Iephtha gathered together the Men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim and that the Men of Gilead smote Ephraim In all which story it appears there was none concerned in this War but the Gileadites only that is those Tribes that inhabited that Region I have likewise another Authority for this separate Power of each Tribe when there was no common Judge over them as may appear from the Story of the Danites in the 18th chapter who wanting a Country to dwell in it is there said the Children of Dan sent five men of their Family to Spy out a Country for them which thing could not be done without an Assembly of the Chief of the whole Tribe Neither is there any mention in all this Story of any such Chief or Prince of the Tribe as you suppose only that six hundred men went by common consent who made War and Conquered the City and Country of Laish which they called Dan. But that all the Children of Israel during the Intervals of the Judges did meet in one Common Council or Assembly upon any great accident or emergency appears by the twentieth Chapter of this Book of Iudges where after the Rape and Murder committed upon the Levite's Wife it is said in the two first verses Then all the Children of Israel went out and the Congregation was gathered together as one man from Dan even to Beershebah with the Land of Gilead unto the Lord in Mizpeh And the Chief of all the People even of all the Tribes of Israel presented themselves in the Assembly of the People of God four hundred thousand footmen that drew Sword Who being thus met the Levite the Husband of the Woman that was slain having told them the Story concludes thus Behold ye are all Children of Israel give here your Advice and Counsel and the result is All the People arose as one Man saying We will not any of us go to his Tent neither will we any of us turn into his House c. Now if this were not as Democratical an Assembly as you can any where meet with in either the Roman or Greek Hist. I leave it to you your self to Judge tho' I grant the chief of the People or Tribes of Israel might preside in it To conclude I think I may with very great reason maintain with Iosephus that the Government of the Tribes of Israel was Aristocratical before their setting a King over them for had Samuel been endued with an absolute Monarchical power as you suppose it had been a very needless request of the Children of Israel to ask him to make them a King to Judge them as other Nations M. You have made a very long I had almost said a tedious discourse to prove that the Government of the Children of Israel was not Monarchical before the time of Saul and tho' I cannot now well remember all the particulars of your discourse yet this much I can gather from it that you are fain to confess that during the Intervals of the Judges and when there was no King in Israel but that every Man did that which was Right in his own Eyes Even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Benjamitical War you mentioned for providing Wives for the Benjamites we find the Elders of the Congregation bare the only sway To them also were Complaints to be made as appears by Verse 22. And though mention be made of all the Children of Israel all the Congregation and all the People yet by the Term of all the Scripture means only all the Fathers and not all the whole multitude as the Text plainly expounds it self in the second of Chronicles where Solomon speaks unto all Israel viz. to the Captains the Judges and to every Governour the Chief of the Fathers So the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel But I am less edified with your Notion in making any of the Tribes to have set a Judge or Captain over themselves distinct from the rest of the Tribes of Israel For the example you quote of Abimelech makes directly against you it being said verse the 22d of that Chapter that Abimelech Reigned three Years over Israel and in the next chapter it is said there arose to defend Israel Tola the Son of Puah and that he Judged Israel that is all the twelve Tribes twenty years and if Gideon the Father of Abimelech was Judge over all Israel as it appears by the Story he was it will likewise follow that Abimelech his Son succeeded tho by Force and Murder into the same power It is likewise as plain notwithstanding what you have said to the contrary that the Elders of Gilead did not alone make Iephtha their Head or Captain For tho' I grant Jephthah tells them that if he fought and delivered them from the Children of Ammon that he would be their Head Yet it is plain by the 11th verse of that Chapter that Jephthah went with the Elders of Gilead and it was the People viz. of all Israel made him Head and Captain over them and it appears that Jephthah uttered all these words before the Lord in Mizpeh where it appears by the seventeenth verse of the former chapter the Children of Israel were then assembled and incamped Nor am I yet satisfied but that tho' God out of a special love and care to the
But it is very strange to me that none of them deposed any thing concerning their seeing any Milk come from Her Majesties Breasts after she was Delivered And perhaps there was good reason for it for I have had it from good hands that she had none afterwards whatever she had before the reason of which deserves to be enquired into since it is very rare But as for the Mid-Wife her deposition is equivocal That she took a Child from the Body of the Queen She is also a Papist and consequently a suspected witness in this cause Whereas all this might have been prevented had the Queen were she really with Child been perswaded to be Delivered not within the Bed but upon a Pallate where all the persons whose business and concern it was to be present might have seen the Child actually born nor needed there to have any men been by though I have heard that the late Queen of France was Delivered of the present King the Dake of Orleans not being only present in the Room but an Eye-witness of the Birth And so sure if somewhat of this nature had been done it might have saved a great deal of dispute and bloodshed which has already or may hereafter happen about it And therefore I do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange should not take this partial Evidence that has been given for sufficient satisfaction so that whether this Birth of the Queens was real or not I shall not now farther dispute It is sufficient that if His Highness and His Princess had just and reasonable suspitions of an Imposture whilst they remain under them they had also a just cause of procuring a Free Parliament to examine this great affair and also to obtain it by force since it was to be got no other way M. I need not further dispute this business of the Prince of Wales with you since I durst appeal to your own Conscience whether you are not satisfied notwithstanding these supposed indiscretions in the management of the Queens Delivery that he is really Son to the Queen and I think it would puzzle you or I to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better evidence than this has been and I think all those of your party may very well despair of producing any thing against it since the Prince of Orange himself has thought it best to let it alone as knowing very well there was nothing material could be brought in evidence against him But I shall defer speaking further to this Head till I come to consider of the Conventions setling the Crown upon the Prince and Princess of Orange But before I come to this I have many things further to observe upon the Princes harsh and unjust proceedings with his Majesty and refusing all terms of Accommodation with him upon his last return to London In the first place therefore I must appeal to your self whether It were done like a Nephew and a Son-in-Law after the King was voluntarily returned to White Hall at the perswasion of those Lords who went down to attend him at Feversham when he had had scarce time to rest him after his journey and the many hardships he had indured since his being seized in that Port and when he had but newly sent my Lord Feversham with a kind Message and Complement to the Prince inviting him to St. Iames's together with some overtures of Reconciliation as I am informed the Prince should make no better a return to all this kindness than to clap up the Messenger contrary to the Law of Nations as his Majesty observes in his Late Paper I now mentioned And should without any notice given to the King of it order his men to march and displacing his Majesties Guards to seize upon all the Posts about White-Hall whereby his Majesties Person became wholly in his Power And not content with this he likewise dispatcht three Lords whose names I need not mention to carry the King a very Rude and Undutiful Message desiring him no less than to depart the next Morning from his Pallace to a private House in the Countrey altogether unfit for the reception of his Majesty and those Guards and attendance that were necessary for his security Nor would these Lords stay till the Morning but disturbing his rest delivered their Message at Twelve a Clock at Night nor did they give him any longer time than till the next Morning to prepare himself to be gone and then the King was carried away to Rochester under the conduct not of his own but of the Princes Dutch Guards in whose custody his Majesty continued for those few days he thought fit to stay there till his departure from thence in order to his passage into France by which means the Prince hath render'd the breach irreconcileable between his Majesty and himself for whereas if he had come to St. Iames's in pursuance of the Kings Invitation and had renewed the Treaty which was unhappily broke off by the Kings first going away there might have been in great probability a happy and lasting reconciliation made between them upon such terms as might have been a sufficient security for the Church of England as also for the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you so earnestly contend for whereas by the Conventions declaring the Throne vacant and placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein they have entail'd a lasting War not only upon us but our Posterity as long as his Majesty lives and the Prince of Wales and his Issue if he live to have any are in Being F. I confess you have made a very Tragical relation of this affair and any one that did not understand the grounds of it would believe that King Iames being quietly setled in his Throne and the Prince of Orange refusing all terms of reconciliation had seiz'd upon his Pallace and carried him away Captive into a Prison whereas indeed there was nothing transacted in all this affair which may not be justified by the strictest Rules of Honour and the Law of Nations for the doing of which it is necessary to look back and consider the state of affairs immediately after the Kings leaving Salisbury and coming to White-hall where one of the first things he did after he was arrived was to issue out a Proclamation for the calling a new Parliament which was so received with great satisfaction by the whole Nation and immediately upon this the King sent the Lords Hallifax Nottingham and Godolphin to treat with his Highness upon those Proposals of Peace which he then sent by them and to which the Prince return'd his answer the heads of which are very reasonable without demanding any other security for himself and his Army than the putting of the Tower and Forts about London into the Custody of that City now pray observe the issue of all those fair hopes before ever the terms propos'd by the Prince could be brought to Town the King following the ill advice of the
P. 3. Anarchy of mixt or limited Monarchy F. A. M M. 4. Preface to the Observations on Aristotle F. P. O. 5. Directions for Obedience to Governours D. O. G. 2. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha B. P. P. His Conclusion to the same B. C. P. 3. Patriarcha non Monarcha P. N. M. 4. Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis G. I. B. 5. Pufendorf de Iure Naturae Gentium P. I. N. 6. Two Treatises of Government T. T. G. 7. Rushworth's Historical Collections R. H. C. 8. Bishop Sanderson's preface to the power of the Prince c. B. S. P. P. Adertisement I Desire always to be understood that when I make use of the word People I do not mean the vulgar or mixt multitude but in the state of Nature the whole Body of Free-men and women especially the Fathers and Masters of Families and in a Civil State all degrees of men as well the Nobility and Clergy as the Common People THE First Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civil Lawyer Supposed to be immediately upon the late KING IAMES's first Departure F. GOOD Morrow Sir what at your Study thus early this Morning M. That is no wonder if you were acquainted with my Hours But pray Sir may I not likewise ask you what extraordinary occasion brings you out of your Lodgings so much sooner than your ordinary time F. Why Sir I 'll tell you Being awake very early this Morning and not able to sleep for thinking on the great Change that might happen let either the King or Prince get the better and hearing some odd Rumours last Night of the King's Intentions to go away I was resolved to get up and go to the Coffee-house to hear what News where I had scarcâ— satâ— down before a Gentleman comes in from Whitehall and brings us a certain account that the King withdrew himself this Morning between three and four of the Clock no Body knows whither tho' most believe he is gone after the Queen into France which I thought would be so surpriâ—ing I will not say welcome to you that being so near your Lodgings I thought it would be worth while to step up and tell you of it and take your Thoughts of this great and I hope happy Change which so great a Revolution is likely to produce in this Nation M. I thank you Sir for your kindness tho' it is not half an Hour ago that one I employ in some Business relating to a Client of mine came hither and gave me the same account that you do tho' it was no great surprize to me for ever since Sunday that the King sent the Queen and Prince away I believ'd that he gave the Game for lost F. I must confess I was of another Mind and thought that when he had secured the Queen and Child he would have had one Brush with the Prince before he could have got to London and if he had the worst of iâ— he could have but gone away at last But to leap away on this Manner and to loose Three Kingdoms without ever striking one stroke it is not I confess sutable to that high Character his Admirer have always had of his Courage and Conduct M. Alas Good King what would you have him do Or whom could he relye on When some of his near Relations and divers of those whom he had raised almost from nothing had deserted him How could he then trust an Army of Mercenaries who being most of them but the Dregs of the People would it is likely rather have delivered him up to the Prince than have ventured their Lives for him F. What you have said concerning his Majesties Relations and Confidents deserting him makes rather against than for the King's Cause since it cannot be supposed they would have left a Prince to whom they were so much obliged to joyn themselves with his Enemy from whom they had no reason to expect greater Advantages than they had already unless they had been satisfied in their Conscienceâ— that the Protestant Religion Establisht in these Nations and also our Civil Rights and Liberties were in imminent danger of being utterly lost and destroyed and tho' I grant that some of the King's Officers and Souldiers went over to the Prince yet considering how few they were that did so not being as I am credibly informed above seven or eight hundred Men at the most and what great numbers of Men he had left with him he might methings have turned out those Officers he suspected and put others in their Rooms who would have Engaged to Live and Die with him and if this would â—ot have done he might have sent those Regiments he most suspected back to London And then reckoning the Scotch and Irish Forces that came lately over besides the Papists he had in his Army and those who having more Courage than Conscience could never expect to Fight for a Prince who would pay them better I am confident if this had been done he migh after the going over of those few Troups have made up as good if not a better Army than the Princes and so need not have scampored last Week from Salisbury in that haste he did whilst the Enemy was near fifty Miles off But as it is I am very well satisfied with all that hath happen'd in this great Revolution and convinced of the Truth of that old saying Ques perdora vult Iupiter demantat priâ—â— M. So far I go along with you that God doth often make use of the Wickedness and Treachery of Men to bring his great Designs about But whether God hath ordained this great Revolution as you call it for a Deliverance or Punishment to this Nation I am yet in doubt for if you please to consider how much those two Causes have contributed to this turn of Affairs I suppose if you argue according to my Principles we must own that tho' this Change hath happened by Gods permissive Providence as all things else tho' never so ill yet whether he doth approve of â—ll that hath been done to procure it I much doubt since if divers of our Nobility with some of our Clergy had not quitted their Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance so long owned by the Church of England this Revoluion could not have happened at all or at least not so suddenly as it did So that indeed I must confess I am not only grieved at his Majesties hard Fortune but also stand amazed and cannot but reflect with wonder on the strange Vicissitude of Worldly Affairs to see a Great King who but last Week commanded a Powerful Army of more than Forty Thousand Men forced out of his Throne and made to fly his Kingdom by a Prince that did not bring half that Number into the Field And who can sufficiently Bewail the King's Misfortunes who hath been at once betrayed by the ill Advice of his Counsellors the Treachery of his Friends and tho
so many Years until he finds that instead of a Son he proves an Enemy to his Family or hath so laid wait against his Life that as long as he lives he cannot be safe or else commits some of those heinous crimes which by the Laws of God and Nature do justly deserve no less punishment than Death in short when he ceases any longer to deserve the name of a Son Yet this Authority holds no longer than whilst the Son remains part of his Fathers Family and so Subject to his Power and this I take to be the reason why we do not read that Adam took any notice of Cains's murdering his Brother because he was before freed from his Power by setting up another Family which certainly had been Adam's duty to have done had he been then under his jurisdiction Murder being as great a crime before the Flood as aâ—ter tho' the punishment of in by Death were not positively enjoin'd by God till then But I shall prove this point more particularly by and by as also that Adam's Children might enjoy or enclose some part of the Earth without any grant or assent from Adam to whom you suppose tho' without any proof as yet that the whole Earth was given by God To conclude I doubt you mistook me when you say I at first affirmed that all Civil Government was ordained by God for the benefit or advantage of the the Subjects rather than that of the Governours and therefore you undertake to shew me that in the first and most natural Government viz. that of a Family Children who are subjects in the state of Nature are ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who are their Princes or Masters as their Parents for them in which assertion you fall in to more than on mistake for I do not assert that in Civil Government the benefit or advantage of the Subject is only to be considered For I shall easily grant that Princes may very well challenge a very great share in the honour and other advantages that may be reapt by their Government and yet for all that when the happiness and preservation of the Subjects is incompatible with that of the Prince the former is to be preferred and Bishop Sanderson is of this opinion when he tells us in his Lecture De Iuramento That the end of Civil Government and the obedience that is due to it is the safety and tranquillity of humane society and therefore the end is certainly to be preferred before the means when they cannot both consist together but this is no argument for the preferring the benefit or advantages of Parents before that of their Children since Paternal Government is not Civil Government nor are Fathers absolute Princes or Masters over their Children as you suppose and yet I think I may safely affirm that even in this Paternal Government tho' it be granted that Children are ordained for the benefit or help of their Parents yet when their happiness and preservation is inconsistent with that of their Children it may be a great doubt which is to be prefer'd since Gods chief intention in Parents was for the Preservation and Propagation of Mankind and therefore I cannot see how it could ever be any part of the Paternal Power for a Father to make his Child a Slave or to sell him to others at his pleasure as you suppose This being no part or end of the design or duty of a Father And whereas you lay to my charge my mistaking the true sense of those Civil Law Maxims you have quoted I think I can easily prove that the miâ—â—ake lyes on your side and that you have misapplied them to make them serve your purpose For as to your first Maxim Partus sequitur Ventrem from which you infer that the Child ought to be of the same condition with the Mother this rule in your Civil Law relates only to Bastards and not Legitimate Children who follow the condition of the Father according to your Digest Qui ex uxore mea nascitur filius mariti est habendus so likewise in your Code Cum legitimae nuptiae factae sunt patrem liberi sequuntur vulgo quaesitus matrem sequitur Nor is your second Maxim more true for tho' I grant according to your Roman Law the Father might have absolute power over his Wife and Children yet I cannot see how this word and nascitur can be extended beyond those that are born of a man and his Wife and therefore can never concern Grand-children much less any more remote Descendants and this very Law that a Son or Daughter might be killed by a Father seem'd so cruel and odious even to the Antient Romans themselves that neither the Law of the Twelve Tables nor the Iulian Law of Adulteries which were provided against Fathers Sons and Daughters ever extended it to the Grand-Father Grand-son or Grand-daughter by Interpretation or argument à casâ—â— consimili Nor do these words in Potestate mea est prove more than that all Children are born under the Power of their Parents tho' whether they shall always continue so as long as they live is not to be proved from this Maxim nor if it were doth that make it a Law of Nature For I must needs observe this of divers of you Civilians that what ever Maxim you find in your Civil Law Books that will make for your Notions you presently adopt them for Laws of Nature without ever enquiring by the strict Rules of Reason and the Good of Mankind by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tryed whether they are so or no. I shall not trouble my self to confute those false Conclusions you have brought from those weak Promises for if I have destroyed your Foundation I think your Superstructure cannot stand and therefore you must pardon me if I cannot find this Original Charter of Government and of all Civil Power to be derived from Adam by any Argument that yet you have brought either from Scripture or Reason only give me leave to observe thus much upon what you have said That if not only the Constitution of Civil Power in general but the special Limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy be the Ordinance of God I cannot see how any other Government but that can be lawfully set up or obeyed by Men since no Government can challenge this Priviledge against Divine Institution M. Since this Hypothesis doth not please you I shall be glad if you can shew me any better Original either of Adam's Paternal Power or of Civil Government than this that God gave Adam over Eve who indeed was as at the first Subject so the Representative of all that followed and it reaches not only to all her Daughters in relation to their Husbands but to all of them in relation to their Fathers and to her Sons too in relation to both their Father and their Eldest Brother after his Decease if no body
also for their own advantage and in hopes of having a share in what Goods of Estates they may leave behind them when they dye But if when they come to years of discretion they can better their condition by marrying and leaving their Fathers Family their Parents are bound in conscience to let tehm go since it is their duty to better the condition of their Children and not to make it worse Always provided that such Children either take care of their Parents themselves or else hire others to do it for them in case they want their assistance by reason of their old age Poverty or Sickness but if children may not quit their Fathers Families thô they are never so hardly or severly dealt with the consequence will be that Fathers may keep their children as Slaves as long as they live thô it were a hundred years or else may sell them to others to be used worse if possible the absurdity of which assertions and how contrary to the common good of Mankind I might leave to any indifferent Person to judge of Therefore I think I may very well according to the learned Grotius divide the lives of children into three Periods of ages The first is the Period of Infancy or imperfect Judgment before the child comes to be able to exercise his reason The Second is the Period of perfect Judgment or discretior yet whilst the child continues still part of his Fathers Family The third is after he has left his Fathers and entered into another Family or sets up a Family himself In the First Period all the actions of children are under the absolute Government of their Parents For since they have not the use of reason nor are able to judge what is good or bad for themselves they could not grow up nor bâ— preserv'd unless their Parents judged for them what means best conduced to this end yet this power is still to be directed to the principal end viz. The good and preservation of the Child In the second Period when they are of Mature Judgment yet continue part of their Fathers Family they are still under their Fathers Command and ought to be obedient to it in all actions which tend to the good of their Fathers Family and concerns And in both these Ages I allow the Father has a Right to make his Children work as well â—â— enable them to get their own living as also to recompence himself for the pains and care he has taken and the charge he may have been at in their Education and also to correct them in case they refuse to work or obey his Commands But in other actions the Children have a Power of acting freely yet still with a respect of gratifying and pleasing their Parents to whom they are obliged for their being and Education Since without their care they could not have attain'd to that age But this duty being not by force of any absolute subjection but only of Piety Gratitude and Observance it does not make void any act thô done contrary to their duty The third and last Period is when the Son being of years of discretion either by marriage or otherwise is seperated from his Fathers Family In which Case he is in all actions free and at his own disposal thô still with respect to those duties of Piety and Observance which such a Son must always owe his Father the cause thereof being perpetual M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your opinion notwithstanding all you have said in this long discourse since I cannot conceive how in any Case Children can naturally have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please them and thô by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of discretion have a power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by positive and humane Laws only which are made by the Supream Fatherly Power of Princes who can regulate limite or assume the Authority of inferiour Fathers for the publick benefit of the Common-wealth So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceases by any seperations thô by the permission of the transcendant Fatherly power of the Supream Prince Children may be dispens'd with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents F. And I must beg your pardon Sir if I cannot alter my opinion in this matter for all that you have now said since you can give me no better Reasons than what you did at first and thô you say you cannot conceive how Children can ever in any case have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave yet they may have such power in many cases whether you can conceive it or no. For thô I do grant that Children are always bound to study to please their parents yet doth not this duty of gratitude or complacency include a full and perfect Dominion of Fathers in the state of Nature over the persons of their Children and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever so that the Children can have no right to consult their own good or preservation however it may be endangered by their Fathers passion or ill nature since a Wife is always obliged to this duty of complacency to her Husband yet is not this so absolute but that in a State of Nature she may quit his Family in those Cases I have already mentioned and against which you had nothing to object and I deny your position that Children when they attain to years of discretion derive that power and liberty they use it many actions from positive Humane Laws only or that the power which Parents naturally have over their Children can never cease by any seperation but only by the permission of the Father For as for Bodin and divers others that have written on this Subject they do no more than follw others who have asserted this absolute power of Fathers upon no better grounds than the Civil or Roman Municipal-Laws without ever troubling themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection according to the Laws of Reason or Nature And most Treatises of this Subject being commonly writ by Fathers no wonder if they have been very exact in setting forth their own power over their Children but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the State of Nature and therefore I shall farther let you see that this duty of Children even of pleasing or obeying their Parents can only extend to such things as they may reasonably or Lawfully command For suppose that Adam had commanded some of his Sons or Daughters never to Marry you cannot deny but this command had been void that being the only means then appointed to propagate Mankind for when there then lay a higher obligation upon them to encrease and multiply than there is
now they might then certainly have chosen Wives for themselves when they were of years of dicretion and capable of Marriage And farther to shew you that Children may in some Cases seperate themselves from their Fathers Family and Subjection without their Fathers consent is apparent as to the Daughters who if they were at first obliged by this precept to Marry might likewise do it whether he would or not and were to be obedient to their Husbands when they were Married the obedience which they before owed to their Father being now transferred to their Husband or also they must serve two Masters which is against our Saviours Rule by which it appears that the subjection of Daughters in the State of Nature is not perpetual And to prove that Sons have a like Right to separate from their Fathers Family let us suppose that Adam had been so cruel and unnatural as some Fathers are that being only sensible of the profit he received from his Sons labours he would never have permitted them to leave his Family nor to enjoy any thing of their own but would have kept them like Slaves as long as they lived if you affirm that he might have done so if he had pleased and that the Sons had no Lawful means to help themselves since he only was Judge whether ever he thought fit to set them free or not You your self have already granted the contrary when you affirmed that a Father had no Right to sell his Child as a Slave and then sure he can have as little Right to use him so himself But as for what you say against that natural equality of Children to their Parents considered as Men you might easily have understood it if your thoughts were not so wholly taken up with this transcendant imaginary Empire of Fathers in the State of Nature as if they were some what more than Men. For pray tell me are they not equal who have the same Right from God to the same things For if Fathers have a Right to live and be preserved so likewise have the Children and if they have a Right to the end they have likewise the same to the means necessary thereunto such as are food rayment freedom from Slavery c. And if they are thus equal they must likewise when they attain to years of discretion be endued with a Power of judging for themselves concerning what things are necessary to their happiness and perservation and what tends to their misery or destruction and consequently may very well judge whether their Fathers treat them kindly or cruelly for if the Father in the State of Nature in the sole Judge of the means that conduce to his Sons happiness and preservation without his consent he may determine that Poverty Slavery and Torment shall be fit means and conducing to this end which is against sense and reason and tho I grant that Sons may sometime be mistaken in the true means that may lead to these great ends of life yet doth not this take away their Right of judging for themselves any more than it doth the same Right from their Fathers who as Men are also lyable to the like mistakes Neither did any Slave or Subject ever give up his will so totally to his Master or Monarch as absolutely to renounce all Right to happiness and self preservation or to the means that may conduce thereunto But I think we have sufficiently debated this great point of the Natural Power of Fathers over their Children and therefore Let us in the next place consider whether Children may not upon these Principles in some Cases make use also of self defence even against their Fathers if they cannot otherwise avoid certain ruine and destruction therefore I will first ask you what you think of this Case A Son in the State of Nature being separated from his Father's Family and having Children and House of his own what shall he doe in Case his Father by the evil suggestions of a Step-mother or other wicked Persons be so far incensed against his Son as to send Men to burn his House plunder him of his Goods and destroy his Plantation M. If the Son be absolutely set free from his Fathers Family and Power with his consent I do not deny but that such a Son may resist those Persons his Father sends to ruine him and his Family and may repel their violence by force but I do not allow the Son the same power to resist the Person of the Father if he should come himself thus to destroy him F. Why so Do you think a Father by being so hath any greater Right to destroy his Son and ruine his Family then a Stranger M. No but because the Person of a Father ought always to be esteemed by the Son as Sacred as his Natural Prince and if he should have a Right to resist his Father by force he might happen to kill him in the scuffle which would be a sin against Nature F. Well suppose the worst would this be more a sin against Nature than to suffer himself Wife and Innocent Children to be turned out of all they have and left to perish by hunger and cold St. Paul says That he that doth not provide for his Family is worse than an Infidel and I think so would the Son be if for fear of hurting his Fathers Person he should permit all his Family to be exposed to certain beggery and ruine M. This precept of St. Paul obliges only when a Man may provide for his Family by Lawful means but not when it cannot be procured but by doing what is unlawful as I take this resistance of the Person of the Father to be F. I grant indeed that a Father acting as such is not to be resisted even when he corrects his Son but I suppose you will not say that in the Case I put he acts as a Father but an Enemy when he goeth about without any just occasion to kill or ruine him unless you can suppose that the will to preserve and destroy can consist together in the same Subject neither can you affirm that the Father hath any right to deal thus wickedly and violently towards his Son and his innocent Family By what Law then must the Son be obliged to Sacrifice his own life and that of Wife and Children and all that he hath to this imaginary Duty M. There seems to me two good reasons for it The first is that gratitude which the Son must always owe his Father for his Being and Educaâ—ion and therefore if he give up his Wife Children and all that he hath to his Will it would scarce be a sufficient requital for all the Benefits he hath received from him The second is because no circumstances whatsoever can take off or obliterate this Relation and thô 't is true your Father whilst acting thus doth not deal with you as a Father but an Enemy yet he is still your Father and you are and will be always his
his Death but should have his Portion presently and be gone And Farther we read Gen. 25.5 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac but unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had Abraham gave Gifts and sent them away from Isaac his Son while he yet lived that is Abraham having given Portions to all his other Sons and sent them away that which he had reserved being the greatest part of his Substance Isaac as Heir possessed after his Death but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren For if he had why should Sarah desire to rob him of one of his Subjects or Slaves by desiring to have him sent away So likewise if you look into the first of Chron. chap. 5. v. 12. you will find a place that plainly confirms this Interpretation where it is said Reuben was the First-born but for as much as he defiled his Fathers Bed his Birth-right was given unto the Sons of Joseph the Son of Israel and the Genealogy is not to be reckoned after the Birth-right for Judah prevailed above his Brethren and of him came the Chief Ruler but the Birth-right was Joseph's tho' he was the Youngest Son and that this Birth right was Iacob's Blessing on Ioseph Gen. 58.28 tells us in these words Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Brethren which I took out of the hand of the Amorites with my Sword ' and with my Bow Whereby it is not only plain that the Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion but the Text in Chronicles is expresly against your Opinion and shews that Dominion was no part of the Birth-right for it tells us That Joseph had the Birth-right but Judah the Dominion So that unless you were very fond of this word Birth-right without considering in what sense it is to be taken you would never bring this Instance of Iacob and Esau to prove that Dominion belongs to the Eldest Son over his Brethren For if this Blessing of Isaac upon Iacob signifies any thing more than this it could not relate to his own Person who never Ruled over his Brother at all and therefore it is at most no more than a Prophecy shewing that the Jews as being descended from Iacob should in after-times Rule over the Edomites or Posterity of Esau according to what Rebekah had been foretold from God Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels and the one People shaâ—l be stronger than the other People and the Elder shall serve the Younger And so Iacob blessed Iudah and gave him tho' not in his own Person but in his Posterity the Scepter and Dominion From whence you might have argued as well that the Dominion belonged to the Third Son over his Brethren as well as from this Blessing of Isaac that it belonged to Iacob they being both but Predictions of what should long after happen to their Posterities and not declaring any Hereditary Right of Dominion in either Iacob or Iudah M. I will not rigorously insist that Primogeniture is such a Divine Right as cannot be altered by any Humane Act or Constitution but yet I take it to be such a Right that without the Father orders it otherwise in his life-time or that the Elder Brother doth of his own accord depart from his Right he will have a good Title to his Fathers Government or Kingdom and consequently to Command over the rest of his Brethren and therefore Grotius makes a great deal of difference between Hereditary and Patrimonial Kingdoms the former being to descend to the Eldest Son only but the latter are divisible amongst all the Sons if the Father please And hence I suppose it was that as Mankind encreased one petty Kingdom grew out of another Thus the Land of Canaan which was Peopled by six Sons of Canaan and Philistim the Son of Mizraim had eight or nine Kings in the time of Abraham and above thirty Kings in Ioshua's time which could proceed from no other Cause but the Fathers dividing their Kingdoms in their life-times or at their Death amongst their Sons and Descendants for we hear not of one Tittle of Popular Elections in those early days And I have proofs enough of this in Scripture Since thus we find it to have been among the Sons of Ishmael and Esau as appears by Gen. 25 and 26. where it is said These are the Sons of Ishmael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns c. Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their Families and their Places by their Nations And hence it is that in after Ages Princes did often divide their Kingdoms amongst their Children of which you may see divers Examples in Grotius de I. B. L. II Cap. 7. which Divisions when made and submitted to by the Eldest Son I doubt not but were good Yet I think it cannot be denied for all this that by the Law of Nature or Nations where there is no Will of the Father declared to the contrary the Eldest Son ought to inherit And this is the Judgment not only of Christian but Heathen Writers Thus Herodotus the most Antient Greek Historian lays it down for a general Custom of all People or Nations that the Eldest Son should enjoy the Empire and the Romans were likewise of this Opinion and therefore Livy when he speaks of two Brothers of the Allâ—broges contending for the Kingdom says The Younger was more strong in Force than Right And in another place he calls this Right of the Eldest Son the Right of Age and Nature as also doth Trogus Pompaeius in his Epitome of Iustine when he calls it the Right of Nations and in another place a Right of Nature when he says that Artabazanes the Eldest Son of the King of Persia challenged the Kingdom himself which the Order of his Birth and Nature it self appointed amongst Nations I could give you many other Authorities from more Modern Authors but I rather chuse to give you these because you cannot except against them as Writers prepossest by either Jewish or Christian Principles So that if this Right of Primogeniture be not absolutely Divine yet it is at least most Natural and Reasonable F. I see you are convinced that this Divine Right of Primogeniture is not to be proved out of Scripture and therefore you are contented to fall a Peg lower and to take up with the Right of Eldership by the Law of Nature or Nations which howsoever you are pleased to confound them are for all that two distinct things for if the Succession of the Eldest Son were by the Law of Nature it were no more to be altered by the Will of a Father than the Law of God it self and therefore notwithstanding all your Quotations your Right of Primogeniture amounts to no more than this
House of Israel did chuse to be their King himself yet did he Govern them at that time by his Vice-Roy Samuel and his Sons And therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but me that I should not reign over them It seems they did not like a King by Deputation but desired one by Succession like all the Nations All Nations belike had Kings then and those by Inheritance not by Election for we do not find the Israelites Prayed that they themselves might chuse their own King they dreamt of no such Liberty and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together If other Nations had elected their own Kings no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated other Nations as well in the electing as in the having a King And therefore I am sure there is nothing to be found in Scripture that Countenances your Notion of the Peoples having a Right to Elect their own King But this only by the by But to prosecute the matter in Hand when God gave the Israelites Kings he re-establisht the Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently in the person of the Father altho' the Father only was named in the Grant Which Lineal Right of Succession continued in the Family of David until such time as his Successors by their Idolatry so far provoked Gods anger as to deliver them up to the King of Babylon under whose and his Successors Power they and their Posterity continued Subjects for many Ages F. I shall not dispute any farther with you since I see it is to no purpose concerning the Government of the Israelites whether it was Monarchical or Aristocratical before the Reign of Saul nor yet shall I positively assert that Abimelech or Jephthah and other of the Judges were Rulers of some particular Tribes only Yet very Learned Men are of this Opinion since they can find no other way but by a Synchronism in the times of the Judges as also of the years of Rest and Servitude as may appear from Iudg. 10. v. 6 8. compared with Iudg. 13.1 to reconcile that great Difference that will be found in the Sacred Chronology from the time of the Children of Israel's coming out of Egypt to the fourth year of Solomon in which the Temple was begun to be built which doth amount to four hundred and eighty years whereas if you please to take the pains to cast up the years from the Children of Israel's coming out of Egypt to the beginning of Saul's Reign according to the common Account of the years of the Judges reckoned with the Reigns of Saul and David to that time c. it will amount to 600 years which is more by 120 years than all the time from the said Epocha to the fourth year of Solomon taken altogether But as for the several Tribes alone consulting and ordering their own affairs it is so plain from the Examples of the People and Princes of Gilead as also from that of the Danites that you have nothing to object against it And so likewise in the Instance of all the Children of Israel meeting and consulting what to do with the Benjamites where since you cannot deny the matter of Fact you have no way to evade it but by supposing I know not what Kingly Authority in the Fathers of particular Families whom you do suppose to have then bore the only sway because it is said in that Chapter you quoted that in the consultation after this War the Elders of the Congregation proposed it to them saying How shall we do for Wives for them that remain seeing the Women are destroyed out of Benjamin And then follows the result of the Congregation in the next verse And they said viz. all the Congregation agreed that there must be an Inheritance for them that be escaped out of Benjamin c. all which amounts to no more than what I granted at first that the Heads or Elders of the Tribes presided in this Assembly and put the question to them Which is so necessary in all great Assemblies that without such Officers they cannot come to any resolution and therefore you should do well to prove the Monarchical Power of these Elders by some better Authority than this Text. But if the Judges had Monarchical Power as you suppose notwithstanding all you have said against the Peoples Electing them it plainly appears by the Examples of Abimelech and Iephthah that the People did often Elect a Judge or Captain over them without any Nomination by or Inspiration from God But to return to that which is most material your supposed Restauration of Patriarchal Government under Moses and Ioshua after the Israelites returned from the Egyptian Bondage I cannot but here by the way take notice that the Truth will sometimes slip from you before you are aware for if it be true what you at first asserted at our last meeting That a Servant or Slave and a Subject were all one at the first and also that all Monarchs are endued with Fatherly Power then if Pharaoh was a Monarch the Children of Israel were not according to your Principle brought into Bondage by Pharaoh but they were only Adopted into another Fatherly Power But you should have done well to have shewn more clearly than you have hitherto done that this Patriarchal Iurisdiction was exercised by Abraham Isaac or Iacob before the Descent into Egypt since all the Instances you have yet given of such a Power have proved very unlucky For tho' I read in St. Stephen's Speech in the Acts that the Patriarchs moved with Envy sold Joseph into Egypt yet is it no where mentioned nor I believe will you your self affirm that these Patriarchs ever had a Monarchical Power For till Iacob went into Egypt that Power was solely in him according to your Principles and after that in Pharaoh as King of Egypt So that tho' I can find the word Patriarch but once in Scripture yet I can see no ground for your Patriarchal Authority or Iurisdiction and therefore that could suffer no intermission which never had any beginning in Nature But after this you tell me that God chose Moses and Ioshua successively to Govern as Princes in the place of those Supreme Fathers or Patriarchs which is easily I confess affirmed only it wants proof For tho' you endeavour to prove that all Paternal Power was Regal yet it still remains unproved that all Regal Power is Paternal It is true that God did appoint Moses and Ioshua to be the Rulers of his People under him but that doth not at all make out that they succeeded in the stead of Supreme Fathers much less that they succeeded as Heirs or Successors to the Patriarchal Power of Adam For Moses and Ioshua being chosen by God to be Rulers of
extended beyond this is accountable to him alone so that Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children with Mercy and Lenity as far as they are capable of it and not as their Brutes And granting that Subjects and Servants or Slaves were at first all one yet I think even they ought to be treated only as Younger Children yet as Children still Nay even conquered People that are in some Countries treated as Slaves and but a little better than brutes have certainly a very good appeal to the Tribunal of God against their Princes who will undoubtedly right them in another World if they suffer patiently in this If it be the Character of a good Man that he is merciful to his Beast I doubt not but the very Brutes have a Right to be Governed with mercy and Justice and that God who is their Creator as well as ours will punish cruel men if they Tyrannize over them and much more if any man shall exercise Cruelty on another man who is of the same not only Nature but Blood Whereas all other Hypotheses leave the Prince at Liberty to make his Bargain with his Subjects as well as he can and if they be brought by force or fraud to an entire Submission at Discretion they may then be treated accordingly and must stand to their Compact be the terms never so unequal and then the Case of a Man and a Brute may differ very little and if the Subject may resist the Prince may take care to prevent it and the War may be just on both sides which is impossible I could likewise shew you many other Benefits that would accrew both to Princes and Subjects were this Hypothesis but once generally taught and believed by both of them F. I pray Sir spare the giving your self that trouble for I will not dispute how honestly this Hypothesis may be designed or what mighty Feaâ—s it might do were it once universally received But this neither you nor I can ever expect will come to pass because neither Princes nor People will ever believe it to be true For in the first place the People will never be convinced of it it being above a vulgar understanding that their Princes whom they are very well assured are not their Fathers nor yet right Heirs to Adam or Noah should notwithstanding lay claim to a Paternal Authority over them In the next place Princes can never believe that they are Fathers of their People for the same Reason I grant indeed that they may be very willing to believe one half of your Hypothesis that they are Absolute Lords and Masters over them and so would be willing upon that account to use their Subjects like Slaves but that they should look upon themselves as Fathers of their People and the Heirs or Assigns of Adam or Noah I think no Prince in Christendom can be so vain to believe So that whatever Power Adam or Noah or any other Father might be intrusted with by God because of that Natural Affection which they were supposed to bear toward their Children yet sure Princes at this day can lay no claim to it since none but true Fathers can be endued with this Paternal Affection And whereas you suppose that Princes ought to treat their Subjects nay even those that are conquered like Children and not like Slaves or Brutes This can have very little effect upon them who can as little believe it as the People for if Monarchical Power is not Paternal as I think I have clearly made out then there can lye no obligation upon Monarchs to treat their Subjects like Children and therefore Since the Despotical or Masterly Power only remains which is ordained Principally for the good and Benefit of the Master and not of the Servant or Slave Who can blame Princes if they exact the utmost of their due Prerogatives and so treat their Subjects like Slaves whenever it serves their humour or interest so to do nor are they any more to be blamed for thus exerting their Power than a Master of Negroes in the West-Indies is for making the best of the Service of those Slaves whom he hath bought with his Mony or are born in his House Whom tho I grant he is not to use like Brute Beasts for the Reasons you have given Yet doth it not therefore follow that he is obliged to use them like his Younger Children for then sure he could not have a Right to keep them for Slaves as long as they lived to let them enjoy nothing but a bare miserable Subsistance and there is very good reason for this for almost every Planter in Barbadoes knows very well the difference between the Relations of a Father a Master and a Prince and that the one is not the other and it is from your jumbling together these three different Relations of a Son a Slave and a Subject that hath led you into all these mistakes For tho' it should be granted that the right of a Master over his Slaves may be acquired by Conquest or assigned to or usurped by another yet certainly the Authority or Relation of a Father and the Monarchical or Civil Power of a Monarch can never be acquired by Conquest nor yet usurped without the Consent and Submission of the Children and Subjects And therefore to conclude I do not think your Hypothesis one jot the better by your founding it upon an Imaginary Paternal Power rather than upon Compact which I am sure can never be made upon so unequal termâ— as to render the Case of a Man and a Brute very little different since it would be to no purpose for any Subject to make a Bargain with their Monarch or Conqueror and yet to leave themselves in as bad or worse condition than they were in the State of Nature So that however convenient your Hypothesis may be either for Prince or People it signifies no more than the Popish Hypothesis of the Infallibility of the Pope and General Council which because they suppose necessary and is indeed very beneficial for the Church therefore God hath conferred it upon them But how false a way of reasoning this is hath been sufficiently demonstrated The Application of this Comparison is so obvious that I leave it to you to make M. I cannot but think for all you have yet said that God hath endued all Princes with a Paternal Authority and for this I have the Church of England on my side which in its Catechism in the Explanation of the Duties contained in the 5th Commandment Honour thy Father c. doth comprehend under that Head not only to Honour and Succour our Fathers and Mothers but also to Honour and Obey the King and all them that are put in Authority under him as if all Power were originally in the Father So that this Command gives him the Right to Govern and makes the Form of Government Monarchical And if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law and
Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Human Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men As we see the Power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the Power of the Magistrate And that this is not the Doctrine of Christianity alone but was also believed by the best Moralists amongst the Heathen may appear by this remarkable passage out of Seneca de Clementia which is so put to this purpose that I took the pains to translate it into English in my Common-place-book Some of which I will now read to you What is the Duty of a Prince That of kind Parents who use to chide their Children sometimes sweetly and at other times with more sharpness and sometimes correct them with blows And after having shewn that a good Father will not proceed to disinherit his Son or inflict any more severe punishments upon him till he is past all hopes of amendment He proceeds thus No Parent proceeds to Extirpation till he hath in vain spent all other Remedies That which becomes a Parent becomes a Prince who is stiled without flattery The Father of his Country in all our other Titles we consult their i. e. the Emperours Honour We have called them the Great the Happy the August and heaped upon ambitious Majesty all the Titles we could invent in giving thâ—se to them But we have stiled him The Father of his Country that the Prince might consider the Power of a Father was given him Which is the most temperate of all Powers consulting the Welfare of the Children and preferring their Good before its own And as for your Objection why Princes should not be loved and reverenced as if they were our Fathers because not being our Natural Fathers they may possibly want that Natural and Fatherly Affection to their Subjects and consequently may Tyrannize over them I think this is easily answered For First God who is and ever was the True Disposer of Kingdoms hath in his hands the hearts of all Princes and endows them with such Affections as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general but towards each particular person And therefore as he was the Author of all Government and is still the Preserver of it so no inconvenience can happen but he is able to redress it 2. That there was as great or rather greater Inconveniencies which sprung at first from the too great Lenity of these Natural Princes for want of Power or Will to punish the Disorders of their Subject Children as have ever sprung since from the Tyranny and Cruelty of the worst Princes And I believe to this was owing that excessive wickedness which forced as it were God Almighty to put an end to the first World by that time it had stood about 1600 years And we see afterwards Eli and Samuel good men and severe Judges towards others were yet too indulgent to their own Children which shews the weakness of your Reasons and the greatness of the Wisdom of God in making all Government to spring from Paternal Power which is the mildest of all Powers and to descend by degrees to Hereditary Monarchies which are the Divinest the most Natural and the best of all Governments and in which the People have the least hand F. I see plainly that you think the Laws of Nature or Reason are not on your side and therefore you are forced to recur not to the express words of Scripture but to the Paraphrase or Explanation of them in our Church Catechism which certainly never was intended to have that consequence drawn from it which you have made for tho you are pleased to omit one part of the Commandment with an c. Yet the Words are as you your self must acknowledge Honour thy Father and thy Mother and if from Honour thy Father you will gather that all Power was Originally in the Father it will follow by the same Argument that it must have been as Originally in the Mother too Father and Mother or Parents being mentioned together in all Precepts in the Old and New Testament where Honour or Obedience is enjoyned on Children And if these Words Honour thy Father must give a right to Government and make the form also Monarchical 〈◊〉 if by these Words must be meant Obedience to the Political Power of the Supream Magistrate it concerns not any Duty we owe to our Natural Fathers who are Subjects Because they by your Doctrine are divested of all that Power it being placed wholy in the Prince and so being equally Subjects and Slaves with their Children can have no Right by that Title to any such Honour or Obedience as contains in it Civil Subjection But if Honour thy Father and thy Mother Signifies the Duty we owe our Natural Parents as by our Saviours interpretation Matth. 15.4 and all the other places 't is plain it doth then it cannot concern Political Obâ—dienâ—â— but a Duâ—y that is owing to Persons who have no Title to Soveraignty noâ— any Political Authority as Monarchs over Subjects For Obedience to a Private Father and that Civil Obedience which is due to a Monarch aâ—â— quite different and many times contradictory and inconsistent with each other And therefore this Command which necessarily comprehends the persons of our Natural Fathers and Mothers must mean a Duty we owe them distinct from our Obedience to the Magistrate and from which the most absolute Power of Princes cannot absolve us And to make this yet plainer suppose upon your Hypothesis that Seth as Eldest Son of Adam was Heir of all his Patriarchal Power how could all his Brethren and Sisters Honour that is Obey Eve their Mother at the same time supposing Seth and her to have commanded them things contradictory at the same timeâ— So that tho' I grant the Compilers of our Church Catechism did intend in this Explanation to comprehend all the great Duties towards our Governours Yet it is plain they never dreamed of this far-fetched inference that you have drawn from their Explanation of it for tho under this Command of Honour thy Father and thy Mother they do indeed comprehend Obedience and Honour to be due to the King c. this no more proves that they believed all Kingly Power to be Paternal than that because they likewise there Infer from this Command a Submission to be due to all Governours Teachers Spiritual Pastors and Masters that therefore all these Parties here named do likewise derive their Authority from Adam's Fatherhood or that because under the Command against bearing False-Witness we are taught to refrain our Tongues from Evil Speaking Lying and Slandering that therefore all Lyes and Evil Speaking whatsoever is down-right bearing False-Witness against our Neighbour Since nothing is more certain than that a man may commit either of the formerr without being guilty of the latter And to Answer your Query if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law
and Subjection to Princes but by a Humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to those of Men I can easily reply that the Power of a Father over his Child gives place and is Subordinate to the Supream Powers because they are both ordained so by God in the Law of Nature it being highly reasonable that the good of a private Family should give place to the common good of the Common-Wealth which is a sufficient reason and extends to all Nations which never so much as heard of the Ten Commandments But to come to your Quotation out of Seneca I think this hath a great deal less weight in it than your Argument from the Fifth Commandment For tho' this Philosopher writ to the Emperour to perswade him to Clemency yet this I am sure of that as he never dreamt of this Notion of Adam's Soveraignty or believed that every Prince was endued with Paternal Authority because amongst other Titles he was stiled Pater Patriae And therefore what this Author here says is to be looked upon only as a Rhetorical flourish or at the most to be understood but in a Metaphorical sense the Arguments of this Author not being to be always taken strictly as a Logician but only as an Orator who was to make use of all appearances of Reason to perswade a young Prince to Mercy and Clemency and yet all this was not sufficient as Seneca himself found before he died by woful experience And Seneca very well knew that Tully was stiled Pater Patriae by the Senate tho' he was never endued with your Imperial or Paternal Authority But to reply a little to your Answer against my last Argument that Princes not being our Natural Fathers must often want that Natural and Fatherly Affection towards their Subjects and therefore may Tyrannize oveâ— them I think the first part of your Reply will make nothing in confutation of what I have said For tho' I will not deny but God who hath the hearts of Princes in his hands may sometimes endue them with such Affections as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general but towards each particular person yet this may be as well evil as good Affections As God is said in Iudg. 9. To have sent an evil Spirit between Abimelech one of your usurping Monarchs and the Men of Sichem his Subjects And therefore God may as well send the one for the punishment as the other for the benefit of a Nation And that God is more likely to incline the hearts of Princes to such evil than good Affections towards their Subjects may appear from Mankinds more often deserving God's Anger for their evil deeds than Favours for their good ones And I desire you would shew me in how many Absolute Monarchies now in the World God Almighty is pleased to declare this wonderful Operation of these Fatherly Affections towards their People I pray deal ingenuously and tell me is it to be found in our European Monarchies where most Princes do not only miserably harass and oppress their Subjects by intolerable Taxes and standing Armies till they reduce them to the Lowest condition of Beggary and Desperation and where for the least differences in Religion they take away their Subjects lives by that Cruel Tribunal of the Inquisition without any Fair or Legal Tryal or else where notwithstanding all Edicts Oaths and Vows to the contrary they seize upon and spoil their Subjects of their Estates and imprison and torment their persons by those Booted Apostles the Dragoons because Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks or else in another Country where the Prince took upon him a Prerogative to dispense with all Laws at his pleasure and to imprison and turn men out of their Freeholds contrary to the known Laws of the Kingdom Or to conclude must we look for these Divine Operations amongst the Eastern Monarchy where they treat their Subjects like Slaves and allow them no Property either in Lands or Goods farther than they think sit and to have their persons and lives wholy at their mercy to be castrated made Slaves of or killed as often as it shall please their humour or passion And I doubt if you will but read Antient as well as Modern Histories and also survey the State of Mankind in all the Absolute Monarchies between France and Iapan you will find more frequent Examples of the evil than good Affections of these your Artificial Fathers towards their Adopted Children M. I cannot deny but you have given a very Tragical Account of the Tyranny and Oppressions under divers Absolute Monarchies now in the World yet this is not the fault of the Government but of the Evil Principles bâ—d Education or Temper of those Monarchs as also often times from the unquiet and rebellious disposition of their Subjects from the distrusting of which they place all their security in standing Armies and Guards so that I must grant that all those Governments that are maintained by Armies too strong for the Subjects in general are 〈◊〉 and degenerate into Despotick Monarchies and are unsafe both to the Princâ— and People And to let you see that it is not my intention 〈◊〉 maintain or defend Oppression or Tyranny I must freely assert with Sir R. F. whose Principles I here take upon me to maintain that all Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children and that it is contrary to the Nature of Mankind to make their Off-spring Slaves and that all Kings nay Conquerors too are bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law 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 But yet you have not done fairly not to take notice of the great Oppressions that are exercised in some Common-wealths likewise towards their Subjects which if you would please to consider and weigh the fewness of these against the great number of Monarchies now in the World I believe you will have good cause to confess that there are many more good Monarchs than Equal Common-wealths and I do believe there was as much Tyranny exercised in these Three Kingdoms during our late Civil Wars and afterwards under the Government of the Rump and Cromwell till the return of the late King Charles as in all the Absolute Monarchies between France and China or from the North to the South Pole And it is very remarkable that when Oliver Cromwell set up the most Absolute and Tyrannical Government that ever was in this Island there was yet no noise of any Fears or Jealousies of it in all his times F. I am very well pleased to find you so heartily agree with me in condemning of Tyranny and oppression in all sorts of Governments whatever and I do assure you I do as little approve of it if
it be any where exercised in Common-Wealths as you can do in Monarchies only I must needs tell you I am not at all of your Opinion that the Oppressions or abuses committed by the Magistrates in Common-Wealths are to be compared with the Tyrannies and Cruelties exercised by absolute Monarchs and their Subordinate Ministers For tho' I grant they often lay very severe Taxes and impositions upon their Subjects especially such as they have acquired by Conquest and so act like absolute Monarchs over them Yet are these oppressions not at all to be compared to those under Arbitrary Monarchies for tho' perhaps divers Common-Wealths may impose greater Taxes upon their Subjects than some Neighbouring Monarchs yet doth it not follow that their Government is more severe for all that since the People having an opportunity by free Trade Liberty of Conscience in such Common-Wealths to acquire a greater share of Riches are also thereby enabled to Contribute more to the maintenance of the Government by which they reap so great Benefits Thus we see a Citizen of Amsterdam is able to pay six times the Taxes of one of Antwerp and Therefore I dare for all that appeal to any Common Subject tho' a Papist of the United Provinces whether he had not rather live under the States of Holland than under the French King or to any Subject of the Common Wealths of Venice Genoa or Luca whether he doth not prefer his Condition as bad as it is to that of any of the Subjects of the Pope Duke of Florence or any other Italian Prince not to go over into Turkey and those other Eastern Monarchies where the Yoke of Slavery lyes yet more heavy upon the Subjects than in Europe And as for what you say in the comparing of those Illegal Arbitrary Proceedings that were exercised in England during the late Civil Wars and afterwards till the Kings coming in I must beg your pardon if besides the great Hyperbole in your expressions on that occasion which I am sure are very far from Truth I impute those Miscarriages not as the fault of this or that â—ort of Government but rather to a Powerful Faction Backt by a Standing Army which was more like a Tyranny or corrupt Oligarchy than any Settled Government Nor is what you say concerning Oliver's Government more true than the former for all men except his own Faction were not only afraid but really sensible of the loâ—s of their Liberties under his Tyrannical Usurpation Tho' indeed there was a very good reason why there should be fewer fears or Jealousies of it than in his late Majesties time when his Government began to grow uneasie through the Peoples fear of Popery and Arbitrary Government which the former People had no Jealousie of in Cromwel's time and as for the latter they had no occasion to fear that which was already happened But that you may not mistake me for a Common-Wealths Man I must so far agree with you that to condemn Monarchy as such were to repine at the Government of God himself so that I also grant that the fault lies not in the form of Government but in the Frail Nature of Men which can rarely administer that great Trust committed unto them as becomes what they take upon them to be God's Vicegerents upon Earth And I must own that I esteem Monarchy limited by known Laws as the best and most Equal Government in the World and under which both Prince and People may live most happily and easily if each of them will be but contented with their due share But I beg your pardon for this digression and to come to a conclusion I must freely tell you it is not a Straw matter what yours or Sr R. F's Principles are concerning the Fatherly Power of Princes for as long as there is no ground for it in Scripture or Nature you cannot expect that either Princes or People will ever believe you neither is it true that Princes as Fathers are bound to treat their Subjects in all things like their Children for then Princes ought to maintain their Subjects and not Subjects their Princes since it is the Apostles Rule That Children ought not to lay up for the Parents but the Parents for the Children And tho' you pretend not to plead for Tyranny or Arbitrary Government yet I cannot at all understand why if it were not for this end you should assert not long since in your answer to me that God thought fit to change Paternal Government into Hereditary Monarchy because of the excessive Wickedness of Mankind before the Flood proceeding from tho too great Lenity of those Patriarchal Princes in not punishing the disorders of their Subject Children which is a very bold assertion Since you know no more than I what that wickedness was in particular for which God drowned the World much less what was the occasion of it And therefore if God thought fit to change Paternal Power into Hereditary Monarchies which as I have proved do not at all proceed from Paternal Power it will also follow that the Government of your Patriarchs was not sufficient for the well-being and happiness of Mankind or else God would never have thought fit to have altered it for a more Cruel and severe way of Government But as for what you say concerning those Princes that place all their security in Guards and Armies too strong for the Subjects that they are uneasie and degenerate into Despotick Monarchies you might better have said Tyrannies and that they are unsafe both for Prince and People is very true and I altogether agree with you in it But those of your Principles have no reason to find fault with Princes for so doing for since they do but use their just Prerogative over their Slaves or Vassals it is but fit that they should be made to undergo that Yoke whether they will or no which they would not bear willingly and as long as Princes look upon themselves to be what they really are upon your Principles the Masters and not the Fathers of their People as they suppose the Goods and Estates of their Subjects to be wholly at their disposal So can they never command them as they please without the Assistance of Standing Armies nor have you any reason to complain of those Princes for keeping them too strong for the Subjects since upon your Principles be they Strong or Weak the Subjects are not to resist them but if Princes without your extraordinary fondness of using their People like Children would but always use them like Subjects with ordinary Justice and Moderation and not oppress them with excessive Taxes and unnecessary Penal Laws about Religion you would find there would be no need of Standing Armies to keep the People in awe who would themselves be the best defence not only against Domestick but Forreign Enemies and this I 'll assure you is a much better receipt against Rebellion than all your new Recipe's of Paternal Power in Monarchs which
is not only without all ground of reason but above common apprehensions M. You have made a long Speech in answer to my Hypothesis which since you are not satisfied with I can likewise shew you another very good reason why the People should love and reverence their Princes and that is those great Liberties and Concessions that all the Monarchs of Europe have granted their Subjects which are now past into the settled Laws and Customs of those Kingdoms with which the People ought to be very well contented nor ought they to rebel or resist tho' they may sometimes out of wantonness and necessity infringe or intrench upon those Priviledges which they or their Ancestors have conferred upon them since they can never forseit that Power they have originally over them F. I do not very well understand what you mean for I have hitherto supposed that all Subjects have a Property in their Estates and a Freedom for their Persons by the Laws of Nature and which no Civil Power whatever could deprive them of without their Consent And therefore I desire you would shew me that if Children Subjects and Slaves were all one at the first how we in this side of the World came to be in a better condition than those in Asia and Africa Or that we English-men can claim a Property in our Estates and a Right to our Lives which the Prince cannot take away but according to some known Laws M. I think I can easily do this not only in Relation to England but any other Kingdom which is now governed by known Laws and that upon Sir R. F's Hypothesis which I shall do as near as I can remember in the words of that excellent person the late Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of Mr. Hobbs Leviathan who supposeâ— according to this Hypothesis That some one of Noah 's Descendants was an Absolute Monarch at first over all his Posterity which might continue in his Line for some Ages till at last their Relation by Blood to their Subjects was removed at so great a distance that the Account of their Kindred or Relation to each other was scarce remembred whereby they who had the Soveraign Power still exprest less Paternal Affection in their Government looking upon those they Governed as meer Subjects and not as their Kinsmen or Allies till by degrees according to the Custom of Exorbitant Power they considering only the extent of their own Iurisdiction and what they might rather than what they should do treated them who were under them not as Subjects but as Slaves who having no Right to any thing but what they permitted them they would allow them to possess nothing but what they had no occasion to take away Estates they had none that they could call their own because when their Prince called for them they were his their Persons were at his command when he had either occasion or appetite to make use of them and their Children inherited nothing but their Fathers Subjection so that they were happy or miserable as he who had the Power over them pleased to exercise it with more or less Rigour or Indulgence yet they submitted alike to both acknowledging his Dominion to be naturally as absolute as their Subjection and Obedience These Princes might for some Ages have pleased themselves with this Exorbitant Exercise of their Power which tho' it had been always the same yet the exercise of it had been very moderate whilst there remained the tenderness or memory of any Relation But these Princes began at lest to discern and be convinced that the great strength they seemed to be possest of would in a short time degenerate into weakness and the Riches they seemed to enjoy would end in want and necessity as well in themselves as in their Subjects since no Man would build a good House that his Children could not inherit nor cultivate their Land with any good husbandry and expence since the profit thereof might be given to another Man And that if the Subjects did not enjoy the Conveniences of Life they could not be sure of their help and affection whenever they should have War with another Prince as absolute as themselves but they would rather chuse to be subject to him under whose Government they might live with greater Liberty and Satisfaction And lastly That if they ingrost all the Wealth and Power into their own hands they should find none who would defend them in the possession of it And that there was a great difference between that Subjection which Love and Duty pays and that which results only from Fear and Force since Despair often puts an End to that Duty which Reason and it may be Conscience would otherwise have perswaded them still to continue And therefore that it was necessary that their Subjects should find ease and profit in Obeying as well as Kings pleasure in Commanding these wise and wholesom Reflections might prevail with Princes for their own as well as Subjects benefit to restrain their Power and to make it less absolute that it might be more useful and to give their Subjects such a Property in their Goods and Lands as should not be invaded but in such cases and on such occasions as the necessities of the Government really required But as they found the benefit arising from these Condescensions highly tend to the Improvement of the Riches and Civillity of their Subjects with all those additions of pleasure and industry which render Man's Life as well as the Government easie and pleasant they still in several Generations enlarged these Graces and Concessions to their Subjects yet reserving all in themselves that they did not part with by their voluntary Grants or Concessions And if we take a View of the several Kingdoms of the World we shall see another face of things both of Power and Riches in those Governments where these Condâ—scensions and Concessions have been best observed than in those Kingdoms where the Soveraigns either retain or resume to themselves all those Rights or Prerogatives which are invested in them from the Original Nature of Government so that there still remains enough in the Princes hands to be made use of for the preservation of his own Power and the defence of his Subjects for whose benefit it was intrusted with him by God So far the late great Chancellor And these Priviledges and Condescensions being once past into constant and standing â—aws by the Princes that gave them and also solemnly sworn to by their Coronation Oaths do for the future bind not only those Princes that granted them but also their Successors to their observation And I then look upon them bound under pain of Damnation not to break or infringe them without very great necessity But however if they shall happen so to do since they were matters of meer Grace and Favour at the first and not of Right the Princes that thus transgress them are only accountable to God and punishable by him and not by
their Subjects for any Breaches or Infringements of such Liberties and Immunities And this may serve against the Fancies of all those who think Princes have nothing but what the People have given them and likewise against such as Mr. Hobbs who maintain so much is conferred on them that they have a Right to leave no body else any thing to enjoy that they have a mind to take from them And this I take to be a much better Security for the Peoples Liberties to leave it to the Honour and Conscience of their Princes and that Fear they ought to have of the Divine Vengeance in case they oppress their Subjects contrary to Law than your heady and violent Methods of Resistance for the Oppression or Tyranny of Princes which would but give the common people a pretence of taking Arms and Rebelling against their Princes upon every slight provocation F. You have made a very plausible Discourse whether of your own or from the Author you quote is not much material for I doubt when it comes to be examined it will appear much more like a Romance than a true History And therefore granting at present your Principles to be true tho' they are not I desire you to shew me how you can make it out either from Sacred or Prophane History that any Limited Kingdom now in the World ever had its Original from those gracious Condescensions or Concessions of Princes as you here mention For by all that ever I can read or observe either from our own or Foreign History all the Liberties and Priviledges which Subjects enjoy at this day proceeded at first either from the Original Contracts Customs or Constitutions of those Kingdoms or Nations at the first Institution of their Government or else were forced from Princes by their Subjects who would no longer endure the severity of their Yoke or else were granted by some of them who believing they had worse Titles than their Competitors to the Crown were willing to engage the People to their side by granting them greater Priviledges than they before enjoyed And tho' I grant the Reflections you make upon the exercise of Arbitrary Power and the Miseries it brings both upon the Prince and People are very true Yet I am sure the practice of most Absolute Monarchs throughout the whole World hath run quite contrary to your suppositions For Princes are so far by what I ever read or observed from being willing to part with any of their Power that they have still endeavoured by degrees to enlarge it and render it more absolute than it was left them as you may observe in the Government of France Spain Denmark and Sweden in this last Age and what Encroachments were made in this Kingdom by the Prerogative upon the Peoples Liberties during the Reigns of our last Princes he is a stranger to the History of the Country that hath not read of if he do not remember them And how much higher they would have been carried if this strange and sudden Revolution had not put a stop to it I had rather you and I should understand in Idea than by Experience But if such grave Reflections as these of yours were able to work upon the first Monarchs I desire to know the reason why those of Turkey Persia Russia and the African Emperors of Morocco and of the Abissines who sure have been as wise as any you can name should not in so many Ages as they have Governed see these Inconveniences you mention and restrain their Exorbitant Power within some moderate Limits Nay to the contrary one of the most ambitious and aspiring Monarchs in Europe is making what haste he can to reduce his Kingdom into the same Model And what do you think would the Princes and Councellors of these Empires say to such a one as you or I who should offer to preach this strange Doctrine to them That they ought under pain of Damnation to use their Subjects as their Children and not as Slaves or meer Vassals I doubt they would make us pay dear for publishing such false Doctrine in their Dominions or at least would despise us for half-witted fellows without any true Notions in Politicks since they believe that the true Security and Glory of a King consists in vast Standing Armies Great Fleets and a power to take from their Subjects and Neighbours whatever they please thereby to enjoy their own pleasures and humours in all their hearts can desire and to extend their Empires per fas nefas as far as ever their Conquering Swords will give them leave And if you should tell them that their Subjects could not love them nor live happily nor contentedly under such a Government I suppose their Answer would be if they could speak Latine Oderint dum metuant or in the Language of their own Country that they would rather trust a Standing Army than the Affections of their People and that it is better to take from their Subjects what they have a mind to than to leave it to their good will what they will give them These are all the Antient and Modern Politicks that I can observe in most Absolute Monarchies or in those Kingdoms where Kings have taken upon them so to Govern their Subjects at this day But I defie you to shew me any one Kingdom in the World where the People owe all their Liberties and Priviledges meerly to the good will and favour of their Princes who granted them only out of those wise considerations you have now mentioned But as for the Expedient at the latter end of your Speech that these Priviledges and Condescensions when once granted by Kings to their Subjâ—cts and past into constant and standing Laws and also solemnly sworn to by Princes at their Coronation do not only bind those Princes that granted them but also their Successors under pain of Damnation I so far agree with you tho' I must beg your pardon if I cannot think this a sufficient Security for several Reasons I can give you at a more convenient time when I shall when you please more fully discuss this point M. I must freely tell you Sir I am not yet satisfied neither with the Instances you have brought nor yet with your replies to my answers and I think I can shew you as to this Kingdom that they are false in matter of Fact For if that the first and most ancient Kingdoms and Monarchies began by Conquest at first and that perhaps for the most part by Wars unjustly made as I may also Instance in England if this were a proper season for it so that indeed the greatest Liberty in the World if it be duely considered is for a People to live under a Paternal Monarchy It is the Magna Charta of this Kingdom all other shews or Pretexts of Liberty are but several degrees of Slavery and a Liberty only to destroy Liberty So that I think I may very well keep my first opinion that Paternal Government is the
Foundation of all other and I have ever thought God's Love and Kindness to Mankind did never appear in any thing more except in Man's Redemption than in Creating only one Man and out of him only one Woman So that Adam was a kind of a Father to his Wife That Marital as well as all other Power might be founded in Paternal Iurisdiction That all Princes might look upon the meanest of their Subjects as their Children And all Subjects upon their Prince as their Common Father And upon each other as the Children of one Man that Mankind might not only be United in one common Nature but also be of one Blood of one Family and be habituated to the best of Governments from the very Infancy of the World Were this well considered as there could be no Tyrants so neither would there be any Traitors and Rebels But both Prince and People would strive to outdo each other in the offices of Love and Duty And now do you or any Man living read Sir R. F's Patriarcha or other works and see if either he or I have ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which will not Naturally Spring from this Supream-Paternal Power So that upon the whole I think reason it self would conclude that this way of Solving the first Rise of Government is true and that it is the Duty of all who by the Blessing of God are under Paternal Monarchies to be very thankful for the favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit that best form of Government to their Children after them And surely there is no Nation under Heaven hath more reason for this than the English who are under a Paternal Monarchy which has taken the best care that can be to secure them not only from oppression and wrong but from the very fear of it F. Since you lay the chief stress of your assertion upon the Original of most of the Kingdoms and Monarchies now in the World and of our own in particular I think I may safely joyn issue with you on both points and in the first place affirm that an unjust Conquest gives the Conquerour no right to the Subjects Obedience much less over their Lives or Estates and if our Norman William and his Successours had no more right to the Crown of England than meer conquest I doubt whether they might have been driven out after the same manner they came in But I believe you will find upon second thoughts that Unjust Conquests and Usurpations of Crowns be no firm Titles for Princes to relye on lest the Old English Proverb be turned upon you viz. That which is Sauce for a Goose is Sauce for a Gander but I Shall defer this discourse concerning Titles by Conquest and in particular that of our Kings to this Kingdom to some other time when I doubt not but to shew that it is not only false in matter of fact but also that it will not prove that for which it is brought And therefore what you say in your conclusion in exaltation of God's Love and Kindness to Mankind in Creating one Man and out of him only one Woman that Adam might be a kind of Father to his Wife is a very pretty and indeed singular Notion and you would do very well to move the Convocation next time it sits that this explanation may be added to the fifth Commandment that Women may be taught in the Catechism that Obedience to Husbands is due by the Precept of Honour thy Father and thy Mother And therefore I need give no other Answer to all the rest you have said however Specious the Hypothesis may seem as you have drest it up for Princes and People yet till you have proved that all Paternal Power is Monarchical and that all Monarchical Power is derived from Fatherhood it signifies nothing Nor can these Piae Fraudes do any more good in Politicks than Religion For as Superstition can never serve to advance the True Worship of God but by creating false Notions of the Divine Nature in Meâ—s Minds which doth not render it as it ought to be the Object of their Love and Reverence but Servile Fear So I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Despotical Power in all Monarchs and such an entire Subjection as Sir R. F. and you your self exact from Subjects can produce nothing but a flavish Dread without that esteem and affection for their Prince's Person and Government which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes and which they may always have whilst they think themselves obliged in Conscience and Honour to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and Oppression according to the just and known Laws of the Kingdom and not to dispense with them in great and Essential Points without the Consent of those who have a hand in the making of them And all false Notions of this Supreme Power as derived from I know not what Fatherly but indeed Despotick Power are so far from settling in Peoples Minds a sober and rational Obedience to Government that they rather make them desperate and careless who is their Master since let what Change will come they can expect no better than to be Slaves Nor are Subjects put in a better condition by this Doctrine of Absolute Non Resistance since all Princes are not of so generous a Nature as not to Tyrannize and Insult the more over those whom they suppose will not or else dare not resist them and therefore I cannot see how such a submission can soften the hearts of the most Cruel Princes in the World as you suppose much less how Resistance in some cases can inrage the mildest Princes to their Peoples Ruine since all Resistance of such mild and merciful Princes I grant to be utterly unlawful nor do I hold Resistance ever to be practised but where the People are already ruined in their Liberties and Fortunes or are just at the brink of it and have no other means left but that to avoid it To conclude I so far agree with you that I think it is the Duty of all that are born under a Kingly Government Limited by Laws to be very thankful to God for the Favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit this best Form of Government to their Children after them without maintaining such unintelligible Fictions as a Paternal Monarchy derived from Adam or Noah And tho' I own that some of our former Kings have taken the best care they could to secure this Nation from Popery and Arbitrary Power yet whether the Method of our three last Kings have been the readiest way to secure us from the fears of it I leave it to your own Conscience if you are a Protestant to judge But since you defie me to shew you out of Sir R. F's Patriarcha that he hath ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which doth not naturally arise from a Supreme Paternal Power and that this is
no Exorbitant heighth I think I am able to prove from many passages in his Patriarcha as well as other Works that no Author hath made bolder Assertions to render all Mankind Slaves instead of Subjects and all Princes Tyrants instead of Kings and that his Principles are so far from being safe that if they are duly lookt into and weighed they will prove destructive as well to the Rights of Princes as to the Liberties of the People M. I should be very glad to see that proved for I must always believe till you shew me to the contrary that this Excellent Author lays it down for a Ground that Princes being as Fathers to their People are bound to treat their Subjects as Children and not as Slaves and therefore waving this last Controversie which we have argued as far as it will go pray make out what you say from his own words and I will give up the Cause F. I wonder how you can be so partially blind as not to see this since you your self have already made use not only of a great deal of his Doctrins but also of his very words And therefore pray see his Obedience to Government in doubtful times as also in his Preface to the Observations upon Aristotle's Politicks where you will find he asserts That Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first The Father had power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants Whence we find that at the first reckoning of Goods in Scripture the Man-servant and the Maid-servant are number'd among the Possessions and Substance of the Owner as other Goods were So that then if the Power of a Father and of a Monarch be all one and that all Monarchical Power is Despotical the Consequence is also as evident that all Subjects are also naturally Slaves unless their Princes shall please to lay an easier Yoke upon them M. Perhaps Sir R. F. may have carried this matter a little too far yet if you please to look into his Patriarcha Chap. 3. Par. 1. you will find that he hath this passage which plainly speaks the contrary The Father of a Family Governs by no other Law than by his own Will not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons and Servants There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed and yet for all this every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground That the Safety of his Kingdom be his Chief Law Whence you may observe that tho' he takes away all Remedy from Children against their Parents for being ill Governed yet doth he not set the Father free from all Obligation to preserve the Good of his Family of which sure a Man's Children are a principal part And if you please to look back to the second Chapter Par. 3. you will find these words To answer in particular to the first Text it may be said the sense of these words By the Law of Nature all Men are born free must needs mean a Freedom only that is opposite to such a Subjection as is between Father and Son This is made manifest by the Text of the Law For Ulpian in this place speaketh only of Manumission which is a setting at Liberty of Servants from Servitude and not of Emancipation which is the freeing of Children from the Fathers Tuition Servitude as the Law teacheth is a Constitution of the Law of Nations by which a Man is subject to the Dominion of any other Man against Nature So not every Subjection is Servitude but Subjection contrary to the Law of Nature Yet every Man is born subject to the Power of a Father This the Law it self saith In Potestate nostra Liberi nostri sunt So that you see here be maketh a difference between Servitude and that Subjection that is due to Fathers F. Give me leave to answer these two Instances before you proceed any farther and I shall in the first place make bold to answer your last Instance first because I shall be much shorter upon it But pray take notice by the way that this Author is very high and rigorous for the Absolute Power of Life and Death in all Fathers over their Children in the State of Nature and that they may exercise it for very slight Offences and therefore in this Chapter you have last quoted he seems very well satisfied with the Example of Cassius who threw his Son out of the Consistory for publishing the Agrarian Law for the Division of Lands and I think this was no such great Crime for which a Father might justifie the putting his Son to Death And in the Section before this he justifieth the Power of Fathers amongst the Romans as being ratified and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables enabling Parents to sell their Children two or three times over So that these things considered I cannot see how this Distinction of Sir R. F. out of the Civil Law will do him any service For tho' I grant indeed that Manumission and Emancipation are two different words yet do they both signifie the same thing and tho' for the greater respect which they would shew to the Condition of Children above that of Slaves they were pleased to make use of different expressions yet whoever will look more closely into the Nature of the Subjection that Children were in under their Parents by the Roman Law will find that the Condition of Children was no better than that of Slaves For First The Father had such an Absolute Power over the Person of the Son that he could sell him three times whereas he could sell a Slave but once Secondly He had such an Absolute Power over his Life that he could take it away whenever he pleased Lastly A Son could have no Property in any Goods without his Fathers Consent till he was emancipated or made free So that if his Father were harsh and ill natured the Condition of a Son was worse than that of a Slave as long as his Father lived And therefore I am still of the Opinion of the Antient Civil Lawyers which assert the Natural Freedom of Mankind according to the Maxim you have now cited And they acknowledge that the Servitude or Absolute-Subjection of Children to their Fathers was not by the Law of Nature but by the Civil or Roman Law peculiar to themselves as I have already proved at our last meeting But to come to your first Quotation whereby you would justifie Sir R. F. for maintaining any unjust Severity in Fathers or Tyranny in Princes because they are both to endeavour the Common Good of the Family and Kingdom t is very true he says so but of this Common Good they themselves are the sole Iudges So that if
endure and pass by the personal Faults or Failings of Princes in consiâ—eration of that Protection and Security in their Lives and Fortunes which they do enjoy under them since it hath been found by experience with how great a Slaughter of People and how great a confusion and danger of the whole Common-Wealth Evil Princes have been resisted or turn'd out of their Thrones And therefore I grant the Private Injuries of Princes are to be past over in consideration of that great Charge they undergo and for those greater Benefits we receive from their Government but chiefly for the publick Peace of the Common Wealth or Civil Society And therefore I own it is very well said by that Master in Politicks Tacitus That the ill Humours or Dispositions of Kings are to be born withal and that often Mutations of Governments are of dangerous Consequence And he wisely introduces Ceriales speaking to this purpose to the Rebellious Treveri That they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers as they do with immoderate showers and other unnatural Evils since there will be Vices whilst there are Men yet neither are these continual but are often recompensed by the Intervention of better But I will now particularize those Cases wherein I do absolutely disallow and disclaim all Resistance in Subjects against the Supream Powers 1. I deny all Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Supream Magistrates in all such Actions or Prerogatives which are absolutely necessary to the Exercise of their Supream Power viz. of Protecting and Defending their People as also against those who are Commission'd by them for the Execution of such Powers 2. I Condemn all Rebellion against Princes or States meerly on the Score of Religion or because they are not of the Religion of their People or Subjects if there be no positive Law Extant Disabling or Forbidding Princes or other Magistrates of different Religions than that of their People from being admitted to the Throne or Government 3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People Tumultuously to rise up in Arms to alter or reform the Religion of the Nation or Kingdom already established by Law without the Consent of the Legislators 4. I Disclaim all Resistance or Self-defence in Subjects upon the account that the free or publick Exercise of that Religion they profess is not allowed them by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom or Nation provided that such Supream Powers do not forbid or hinder the People professing such a different Religion to Sell or Transport their Estates and Persons into any other Country where they please 5. I Deny Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Governours upon Pretence of any Personal Vices as because they are wicked Atheistiâ—al Cruel Lustful or Debauched provided they generally Protect their Subjects in their Lives Liberties and Properties 6. I Deny this Right of Resistance to any particular person less than the whâ—le Body or Major part of the People or at least such a considerable Portion of a Nation as are able when Assaulted or Oppressed in their Lives Liberties or Estates to constitute a distinct and entire Kingdom or Common-Wealth of themselves 7. I look upon it as Wicked and Rebellious for any private Subjects to Assassinate Murder or Imprison their Monarch or other Supream Governour since no private Person whatever ought to lay Violent Hands upon his Prince whose person ought to be Sacred and in no wise to be Violated unless he put off the Character of a Prince and Actually make War upon his People But if in this Case he happen to be Resisted and Perish in the Attempt he falls not as a Prince but as a Common Enemy by breaking the Original Compact with his People and entring into a State of War against them As a Father who unjustly makes War upon his Children may be as I have already proved at our first conference Resisted by them in the State of Nature But as for all other Grievances or Oppressions if they are of that Nature as may Ruine the whole Common-Wealth yet not suddenly but after some time and often Repeated I cannot allow such Grievances or Oppressions as a Sufficient Cause of Resistance For as on the one hand there is no Inconvenience so small but in process of time it may turn to the Ruine of the Common-Wealth if it be often Repeated and excessively Multiplieâ— so on the other side length of time produces so great Changes that the Nature of these Encroachments or Injuries are not sufficient to justifie Resistance and the Breach of that Peace and Unity in a Common Wealth which must necessarily follow by entering into a State of War To conclude I do not in any Case whatever allow of Resistance but only in these three necessary ones When the Lives Liberties or Estates of the whole People of the greatest part of them are either actually Invaded or else taken away and when they are Reduced into so bad a Condition that a State of War is to be preferred before such a Peace aâ—d when the End of Civil Government being no longer to be obtained by it the Common-Wealth may be look't upon as Dissolved M. Tho' you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter yet I did not think it Tedious since I confess you have given me honestly enough and so far I agree with you all those Cases wherein you say it is Uâ—lawful for Subjects to take up Arms or Resist the Supream Powers But I wonder you have not added one Case more which Diverse Authors that are high enough against Non-Resistance in other things do yet allow to be a sufficieâ—s Cause of taking up Arms and Resisting their Prince And that is when he Actually hath or goeth about to Alieâ—ate or make over his Dominion and Subjects to some Forreign Prince or State F. I am not ignorant of what you say but I thought it not worth speaking ot because in absolute Monarchies which we are now treating of if such Kingdoms are Patrimonial and that the Monarch hath such an absolute Dominion over his Subjects as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Persons nor Properties in their Estates but at his Pleasure I cannot see any reason why such a Prince may not alienate his Dominion over such a Kingdom and People as well as any private-Man may his Property in his Estate Nor have the People any Cause to be concerned at it since they can then likewise be but Slaves and enjoy nothing but at their Princes Pleasure as they did before so that whether He or a Stranger govern them it is all one as to their Circumstances But yet under such Governments as are absolute where the People enjoy their personal Lib rites and Properties in their Estates the Case may be much otherwise since they may not be sure that the Foreign Prince to whom their own Monarch or other Supream Powers hath assigned them will maintain their Liberties and Properties as the former did And
made against King Vzziah when he would have burnt Incense in the Temple pray turn with me to the Place and read what is there said And they viz. the Priests withstood Uzziah the King and said unto him It appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn Incense go out of the Sanctuary for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine Honour c. And when he persisted therein and took the Censer in his hand to Burn Incense and that thereupon the Leprosy arose in his Forehead the Priests thrust him out of the Temple The LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they resisted him Iosephus says they drove him out in haste so that you see they went somewhat farther than Solomons Question Who may say to a King what doest thou And which is more remarkable they withstood him before the Leprosy rose upon his Forehead and no doubt but they would have done the same to him whether that Judgment had happened or not since he went about to Vsurp the Priests Office it not being so much as Lawful for him that was no Priest to set his foot within the Temple But if you look into the History of the Kings of Israel after their Division from Iudah they are so far from teaching us these Lessons of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance that you will scarce find any other manner of Succession amongst them but the Killing of one King and the setting up another and Iehu for Rebelling against and destroying the house of Ahab had the Crown entailed by Gods Promise to his Posterity unto the fourth Generation And tho' I do not produce any of these Examples as fit for our Imitation at this day since what Iehu did was done by Gods express Warrant and Command yet I think they are sufficient Evidences that neither the Person or Power of the Kings of Iudah or Israel were always look'd upon as so Sacred and Irresistible by their Subjects as you suppose M. I am glad you are so ingenuous to confess that most of these Examples you have brought of the Resistance and Murders committed by the Iews and Israelites upon their Kings were not Lawful or can be proposed for the Imitation of Christian Subjects and if so pray make what other use of them you please since à facto ad Ius non valet Consequentia I cannnot deny but that the Succession of the Kings of Israel after Nadab the Son of Ieroboam was very confused God stirring up some or other to Rebel against them and make them away as a Punishment for their former Rebellion and Idolatry Thus Baasha killed Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and for this and his other Sins God threatned Evil against Baasha and against his House Zimri slew Elah the Son of Baasha but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had Vsurped by Treason and Murder for he Reigning but seven days in Tirza which being Besieged and taken by Omri he went to the Palace and burned the Kings House over him with fire and died This Example Iezebel threatned Iehu with Had Zimri Peace who slew his Master And yet Nadab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes And if that would Justifie Treason and Murder both Baasha and Zimri had been very Innocent but as for the example of Iehu's killing his Master King Ioram you say it was by the particular Command of God and is no more to be produced as an Example for Rebellion and the murder of Princes by the General of their Armies than that because the Children of Israel had a Power given them by God to extirpate and destroy those seven Nations whose Countreys God had given them to Inherit therefore they had a like Right to destroy all other Nations whatsoever that lay near them And therefore those Actions in Scripture which are sometimes Commanded by God for the bringing about the great Designs of his Providence by those Human means that may seem unjust to us are not to be produced for Authorities nor alledged as Examples F. I so far agree with you and I do by no means allow that particular Private Men of what condition soever they are should disturb the Common Wealth and Murder their Lawful Princes tho' wicked or Idolatrous only to satisfy their own private Zeal or Ambition and to set up themselves who perhaps are altogether as oâ—d or worse than him they depose or make away But yet I think I might very well produce these to convince you that there were no better Examples for Loyalty or Passive Obedience among the Iews than other Nations And therefore that your Examples out of the Scripture do hitherto prove insignificant Yet I cannot but take notice of one passage wherein by following the ordinary English translation you fall into a great mistake where you make Baasha to be slain by Zimri because he killed Nadab which as it is there rendered in the English is false for the Words in 〈◊〉 Translation are because he killed him viz. Ieroboam to whom it there immediatelâ— relates which is false for Baasha did not kill Ieroboam but Nadab his Son Neither was it suitable to Gods Justice to destroy Baasha for that which he himself had ordained him to do For God by Iehu the Prophet said to Baasha for as much as I exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam and hast made my People Israel to Sin to provoke me to anger by their Sins And therefore the Text concludes this Narration with there words that the Word of the Lord came against Baasha and against his House even for all the Evil which he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to anger with the work of his Hands in being like the Housâ— of Jeroboam but the words which immediately follow and because he killed him i. e. Ieroboam cannot be truly rendred in our English Translation for the Reason already given and therefore the best Criticks upon this place Translate it thus leaving out and therefore He viz. the Lord smote him i. e. Nadab by the hand of Baasha Whereas our Translation makes the Scripture to contradict it self I have no more to observe from this History of the Kings and Chron. and therefore I pray proceed to what other Testimonies you have to produce M. Well I think I can make it much more plain from other Examples and Precepts out of Scripture that the Iews were not only under high Obligations to be Subject to the Higher Powers after they were carried Captives to Babylon but also not to resist them tho' they went about to exercise their Power never so cruelly and Tyrannically even to the Destruction of the whole Nation Now the Prophet Ieremiah had given them an express Command Seek the Peace
Fourth Dialogue AUthors made use of in this Dialogue and how denoted in the Margin 1. Dr. Sherlocks Case of Resistance of the Supream Powers S. C. R. 2. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Patriarcha B. P. P. 3. Mr. Dudley Digge's Unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Soveraigns Ed. 1643. U. S. A. S. 4. The History of Passive Obedience H. P. O. THE Fourth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. YOur Servant Sir I see you are better than your Word since you come somewhat before the time appointed F. I do not deserve any great Commendation for it for this Evening being a time of leisure I had nothing else to do but to wait on you and indeed I was impatient `till I was with you since I desire nothing more than to receive satisfaction in this weighty controversie since I know how great a Master you are both in Divine as well as Civil Knowledge and therefore I beseech you to proceed in the Method I at first proposed by giving me these places of Scripture out of the New Testament which you suppose prove your Doctrine and in the next place shew me that they were always undersâ—ood by the ancient Fathers as well as the Practice of the whole Primitive Church in that Sense M. I very well approve of your Method and therefore to go on where we left off I shall in the first place lay down some plain and easie Propositions as the Grounds of our future Discourse which I suppose you will have no Reason to deny First Therefore I suppose that our Saviours Kingdom not being of this World he came not to alter the Civil Government or Polity of it as you have already asserted And therefore did not alter any of those Rights of Soveraign Powers and those measures of Obedience and Subjection which were before fixed and determined by God himself Neither hath given the People either considered as particular men or as a collective Body any Power or Right to resist or rebel against such Supream Magistrates tho' they never so much abuse their Power by their Tyrannical Government either by persecuting the true Religion or by any other Violences and Oppressions whatsoever And our Saviour himself tells us That be came not to destroy 〈◊〉 Law and the Prophets but to fulfil it that is to fulfil the Ancient Types and Prophecies in his own Person to perfect an External and Ceremonial by a Real and Evangelical Righteousness to perfect the Moral Laws with new Instances and Degrees of Vertue and Obedience but he abrogated no Moral Law and therefore not the Laws of Obedience and Subjection to Princes which have always been reduced to the fifth Commandment Pray tell me how you approve of this Doctrine F. I do readily agree to the greatest part of it but yet as our Saviour hath not been pleased expresly to enjoyn us to resist the Supream Powers when they manifestly break and transgress all the Ends of Civil Government and consequently dissolve it so on the other side he came not to destroy those Natural Rights which Mankind enjoyed before his coming of defending themselves and providing for their own Happiness and Security when their Civil Governours either could not or would not protect them And as I grant that our Saviour made no Alteration in Civil Government by abridging the Rights of Soveraign Power so likewise hath he not conferred upon them any new Rights or Prerogatives of destroying or ensâ—â—â—â— their Subjects without any Contradiction or Resistance and consequently hath altered nothing in those Natural Rights or means which the People had before his Coming of hindering the Supream Powers from perverting those main Ends of Government the Happiness and Preservation of the People And that this Liberty doth not any way destroy those Rights or Prerogatives which are necessary for their own Security and the Well-governing of theâ— People I have I think sufficiently proved in our last Conversation So that unless you can now shew me by such express Authorities as that I can have no reasonable ground to deny it I hope you 'll pardon me if I cannot believe that Christ by his coming into the World has taken away or abridged that Natural Right which Mankind before enjoyed even after the Institution of Civil Government of Resistance or Self-defence in Cases of Extremâ—ty against those who exercise nothing of that Supream Power with which God hath invested them but the meer Title For had the intent of our Saviours coming been for this End he had instead of freeing us from the Yoâ—â— of the Law laid a much heavier upon our Necks if the Doctrines of Passâ—â— Obedience and Non-resistance are to be taken in that large Sense and â—â—â—mited extent that their Asserters have been pleased to give them So that tho' I grant our Saviour came to perfect and not to abrogate the Moral Law with new Instances of Vertue and Obedience and therefore hath not abrogated any Laws of Obedience and Subjection to Princes so hath he neither abrogated the great Law of Nature of Self-defence in the People whâ—â— they are universally assaulted or oppress 't in their Lives Liberties or Properties And tho' I grant Obedience to Princes hath been reduced to the fifth Commandment yet neither doth that by commanding us to Honour our Father â—nd Mother forbid all Resistance of Children to the Violent and unreasonable â—ctions of their Parents much less of those whom they may command or â—et on to kill or ruine us as I have I think sufficiently proved at our first Conference And therefore I pray proceed to your Proofs themselves and shew me that they prove as much as you have affirmed M. Before I come to my Proofs I pray give me leave to observe it â—ou by way of â—ntroduction that as our Saviour hath left the Government of the World as he found it So he hath besides all this given such admirable Laws as will both teach Princes to Govern and Subjects to Obey better which is the most effectual way to secure the publick Peace and Happiness to prevent the Oppression of Subjects and Rebellion against Princes But he has not interposed in new modelling the Governments of the World which is not of such consequence as some Men imagine It is not the External form of Government but the Fatherly Care and Prudence and Justice of Governours and the dutiful Obedience of Subjects which can make any People Happy If Princes and Subjects be good Christians they may be happy under most forms of Government if they be not they can be so under none Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to Resist to Depose to Murder Tyrannical Princes he had done them no kindness at all For to give Liberty to Subjects to Resist is only to proclaim an universal License to Factions and Seditions and Civil Wars and if any Man can think this such a mighty Blessing to the World yet methinks it is not
since according to your doctrine the bare endeavouring it would be nothing and after he had once brought it to pass it would be then too late to retrieve it But that the King did really endeavour thus to subvert the fundamental constitution appears not only by his closeting and threatning Members to turn them out of their places if they would not submit to his Will in taking off the Penal Laws about Religion whereby all freedom of Voting would have been quite taken away But when the King saw this would not do he then fell a new modelling of Corporations and by bringing Quo Warranto's against their Charters to get it into his own power to nominate or approve of all Mayors Aldermen and Common Council men who in those Corporations having the sole Elections of Parliament men he would thereby have had the naming of them also in his power your next exception is against their declaring him to have broke the Original Contract between the King and the People for that you are not yet persuaded there was any such thing because we cannot shew it you in any Common Law or Statute Book written in express words as for the Statute Law I grant that there is no such express Contract to be found in any Statute yet doth it not therefore follow that there is no such Contract by the Antient Common Law of the Kingdom Now that our Fundamental Laws are not all to be found in writing is no wonder since it is a maxime of our Common Law that it was not a Law because it was Written but it was Written because it was a Law for it was a Law when it was only in the Breast and Heads of the King and People of this Nation without any writing at all and you your self must grant that if the Hereditary Succession to the Crown be a Fundamental Constitution it is notwithstanding no where to be found in Writings as I know of but the contrary asserted by divers Acts of Parliament but that there is such a thing as an Original Contract I shall prove from such a necessary consequence as I think cannot be denied for as that Statute of King Iames. I. sets forth which I have now cited and your self have already acknowledged there are such things as Fundamental Laws that is Laws that are as antient as the constitution of the Government there must have been also an implicit Fundamental Covenant or Contract on the Kings part that he would maintain them without any violation and this is that we mean by an Original Contract and if it were not so it had been the most foolish and unreasonable thing in the World to require every King to swear before he was Crown'd that he would maintain the Rights of the Church and the Antient Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and that this was Antiently looked upon as a renewal of this Original Contract appears by all our antient Historians who till the Reign of King Ed. I. never give the next Heir the Title of King but of Duke of Normandy till he was actually Crown'd and had taken his Coronation Oath and for this I desire you would consult all our antient Histoâ—ians since your Conquest beginning with Inguâ—â— and Eadmerus ending with Thom. Walsingham But as for your exception against his violating of the Fundamental Laws is yet more trivial for you cannot deny that there are such things and if so surely a King may violate them if he pleases and therefore your excuse for the Kings breach of them because they are not to be found together in any one place but are to be pick'd up here and there from Magna Charta and other Statutes makes nothing against the validity or the possibility of his knowing them for as before they were reduced to Writing by those Statutes which only declare and confirm the Antient Common Laws and Liberties of England they existed as I said but now in the Heads and Hearts of the King and People so when divers Kings of England by their Tyrannical and Illegal practices had made divers violations of these Fundamental Rights and Priviledges there then grew a necessity of new granting and confirming those Liberties and consequently of reducing them into Writing which there was not before and that is the true reason why Magna Charta and other Statutes made in the time of Henry the III. Ed. the I. and divers others of their Successors were made either for their explanation or ratification according as occasion requir'd and as several Princes had more or less violated these fundamental Laws of the Government for before they had so done there was no need of the Parliaments making or declaring any law about it But if the King would have but read and considered the Articles exhibited in Parliament against Edward and Richard the II. he might easily have seen the Laws altogether that will make a Prince to be declared by his Subjects to have forfeited his Crown But that King Iames had before his desertion endeavour'd to extirpate the Protestant Religion the Laws and Liberties of the Nation appears by those several Articles the Convention has given us in their late Declaration which they presented to King William upon their declaring him and his Princess K. and Queen of England to which I shall refer you since it is commonly to be had you know it consists in the recital of divers things the violation of which has been always counted in all Kings Reigns a breach of the Original Contract I come now to the last Clause save one you except against viz. That having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom hath Abdicated the Government Now your main argument against it is that the Kings desertion of the Government being only for fear of his life or of being depos'd from his Royal Dignity could not by his going away be said to Abdicate or renounce the Crown since he went away with an intention to return and repossess it as soon as with safety he might to which before I make any answer I must freely own that were this the case as you have put it I think there would be no great dispute in it since I grant that a King who is thus forc'd to fly for fear of his life ought not to have any such injustice put upon him but if you please better to consider it the case was quite otherwise for I have already proved that when King Iames I. went away he had then an Army about him was free and in his own Pallace and was at that time in actual Treaty with the Prince nor had London nor any considerable strong place in England then surrender'd it self to the Prince so that if there was any necessity for his departure but what he had brought upon himself by his refusing to call a Parliament burning the Writs and sending away the Queen and Child together with the main instrument of Government the Great Seal of England this must certainly be looked upon
those Affairs But not to be partial to one Opinion I have faithfully recited all those Authorities and Arguments made use of by the Author of the Treatise Intituled The Hereditary Succession discuss'd as also by the Learned Dr. Brady in his exact History of the Succession of the Crown wherein those Authors endeavour to prove that the Crown of England is and hath always been Hereditary from the very beginning of our Monarchy notwithstanding the many and various Breaches that have been made upon it which Authorities and Arguments whether they prove the Matter in debate I shall leave to your better Iudgment but hope those Gentlemen will not take it ill if I cannot let all they write pass for clear Demonstration and therefore have taken upon me to cite all those Arguments and Authorities that either have been or as far as I know of may be made use of by those of the contrary Opinion in the performance of which if I have not dealt candidly with both Parties in fairly representing the utmost that they had to say I shall be obliged if any Friend to Truth will shew me my failings But tho it is true I have not gone higher in this History than the coming in of K. William I. yet I hope I may be excused looking farther back for these Reasons First because an Examination of the Succession before that time would not only be tedious by swelling this Discourse to an unreasonable Bulk but would also be superfluous since the Gentleman whom I suppose Freeman here Argues against makes K. William I. to have been an absolute Conqueror and to have altered all the former Laws in the Saxon Times and if so sure then those concerning the Succession of the Crown And I desire them to shew me any Reason if he and his Descendants held the Kingdom as Absolute Monarchs by Conquest why they might not bequeath or make it over as is justifiable in Patrimonial Kingdoms to which of their Sons Kindred or Relations they should think fit and if so what will then become of this Fundamental Right of a Lineal Hereditary Succession And besides all this it is needless upon another Account since I have already proved in the Tenth Dialogue from no less Authority than K. Alfred's Will that before the Conquest the Crown was partly Testamentary and partly Elective sometimes wholly Elective as in K. Edward the Confessor and whoever doubts of this I shall only desire them to read impartially Dr. Brady's above-mentioned History of the Succession and then I shall leave it to them to consider whether he does not grant in effect what he takes upon him to Confute viz. That there was no Lineal Descent of the Crown known or setled in those Times but what was Alterable by the Testament of those Kings But since the rest of this Discourse besides the enquiry into bare Matter of Fact is chiefly the applying those Precedents I have here made use of to the Case of their present Majesties I hope neither they nor any that wish well to their Government will resent it if I have not gone in the common Road of former Writers in supposing the Titular Prince of Wales to be an Impostor without any other proof than those bare Suspitions that have been publish'd in the Printed Pamphlets yet since however they may incline a Man to doubt they cannot make a Child Illegitimate whom his Father and Mother have hitherto bred up and owned for theirs and therefore I have rather chosen to suppose him at present to be the Lawful Son of King James and Queen Mary and yet that what the late Convention have done in passing him by without taking any notice of his Title was all that they could or were obliged to do his present Circumstances considered But if it be here made out that King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of this Realm no Man can doubt whether Allegiance may be sworn too them or not and perhaps there was no need of writing any thing farther yet since I find a great many of the Clergy as well as Laity of this Nation could not go higher than their swearing Allegiance to them as King and Queen de facto and that even this has been violently opposed by the sâ—iff Asserters of K. James's Right I have thought fit to add in the next Discourse which I promise shall be the last on this Subject all that hath been said Pro and 〈◊〉 upon that Question and to make it of the same Bulk with the rest I have for the satisfaction of those of the Church of England as well as Royal Interest endeavour'd to shew the great difference between this late Revolution and that fatal Civil War that ended with the Deposition and Murder of King Charles the First These two Questions together with an Index to all the Dialogues being dispatch'd as I hope they will be shortly shall be the last I shall trouble the World with upon these Subjects since I know nothing more that can be well added to what I shall there set down THE Twelfth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. I Am glad Sir you are come for I was wishing for you pray sit down and let us begin where we left off you may remember you promised me when we last parted that the next time I saw you you would make out to me from undeniable proofs and precedents from our Antient Histories and Laws that the present Convention had done nothing in Voting the Throne vacant and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein but what may be justified by the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom for I must still believe till I am better instructed that there can be no Inter Regnum in England but that it hath been from the first Institution of the Government an Hereditary Monarchy where the next Heir by Right of Blood unless in some manifest Usurpations has always succeeded to the last Predecessor as also our best Lawyers with one consent maintain in their Books of Reports and the Learned Finch in his description of the Common Law lays it down as an undoubted Maxim That the King never dies and therefore it seems altogether new and unheard of before for the Convention thus to declare the Throne vacant for admitting that King Iames had never so justly Forfeited or Abdicated the Kingdom term it which you please yet certainly there could be no Vacancy of the Throne since the next Heir by Blood ought immediately to have been declared King or Queen and so placed therein whereas we heard in the Countrey that there was almost ten days time before the Lords and Commons could agree whether the Crown should be declar'd vacant or not and when it was so declar'd it took up almost a weeks time more before they could agree who should be placed therein whereas it was a difficulty only of their own making for sure the Prince of
notwithstanding all you have alledg'd against it which yet is no more than what you said before that Duke Robert had an Hereditary Right and therefore he could not be put by which is to beg the Question for you cannot prove to me that he had this Right either by the Law of Nature the Law of England or the Law of Normandy not by the two former as I have already prov'd for your Conqueror himself being a Bastard had no better Title to the Dutchy of Normandy than his Father's last Will before he went to the Holy Land which was not good without the consents of the Nobility of that Dutchy as appears by the Historians of that time so that the greatest Objection you have to make against King Henry's being elected in a true Common-Council of all England is this that the time was so short between the Death of William Rufus and his Election that it was impossible for all the Parties that had Votes to be there present which is a very bold assertion for how can you or your Doctor tell that at the time when King William was kill'd he might not then have held a great Council at Winchester where he then Lay who might immediately upon his Death chuse his Brother Henry for their King for it is certain the Election was there the Day before his Coronation at London and therefore it is very rashly done to affirm that this Election was not in a Common-Council of the Kingdom when all the Historians and particularly W. Malmesbury tells us the manner of it and the Disputes there were about it viz. that Henry was elected King as soon as King William's Funerals were over Aliquantis tamen ante controversiis inter proceres agitatis c. and H. de Knyghton reciting the cause why Duke Robert was set aside viz. because he had been always contrary and unnatural to the Barons of England therefore quod plenario consensu consilio totius Communitatis Regni ipsum refutaverunt pro Rege omnino recusavâ—â—â—nt Henricum fratrem in Regem erexerunt which plainly shews that it was the opinion of all the Antient Writers out of whom Knyghton took this passage that this election was made by the free consent and in a full Council of all the whole Community of the Kingdom nor does the after claim of Duke Robert to the Crown at all alter the case for the reasons already given as also because the agreement that was made between them that he that surviv'd should succeed the other was never confirm'd or agreed to by the great Council of the Kingdom and therefore those Norman Lords that join'd with Duke Robert here in England are justly taxed by William of Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicle with Infidelity and Rebellion and though I grant that Mat. Paris or rather Roger of Wendover whom he transcribes seems to condemn King Henry's taking the Crown as unjust and contrary to Right and that he therefore feared the Justice of God eò quod fratri suo primogenito cui jus Regni manifestè competebat temere usurpando injustè nimis abstulcrat yet this author writing about the middle of the Reign of King Henry III. who had succeeded his Father by a pretended right of Inheritance as well as Election it is no wonder if He who writ near a hundred years after this transaction should give his judgment in this matter according to the common opinion and prejudice of that age and must certainly speak by guess for how could he otherwise affirm unless he had been acquainted with that Kings thoughts as he doth in the same place that he felt conscientiam suam in obtentu Regni cauteriatam since no other Writer either of that time or after it does thus blame King Henry for taking the Crown But as for the account you give why Duke Robert never took upon him the Title of King if the Throne had not then been looked upon as vacant because of the agreement which he made with his Brothers by which he parted with his Right for a Pension during his Life is not at all satisfactory for in the first place neither of these agreements were made till above a year after his pretended Title did acrue to him by the Death of his Father and Brother and therefore he ought if he had look'd upon himself as true King to have immediately taken the Title upon him which he never did so likewise the agreement it self makes wholly against your notion of any hereditary succession to the Crown to be then setled since the main clause in both these agreements is that the survivor should be heir to him that died first unless he left Children of his own to succeed him which plainly shews that in the opinion of both those Princes and of the great men that swore on either side to see it observed they knew of no such setled Right of Succession in their Heirs which they themselves could not part with or else this Clause had been wholly in vain since both King William and King Henry's Children were to have succeeded to the Crown of England by vertue of both these agreements before the Sons of Duke Robert had his Son William who was only Earl of Flanders survived him But now if you please you may proceed with your other exceptions against the rest of the Instances I have here given you of the Vacancy of the Throne till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed whom to place therein M. As to what you have said in defence of the Vacancy of the Throne after the death of King Henry I. carries less shew of Reason than what you urged in the former Cases since all Writers agree that this was a manifest Usurpation in Stephen who could pretend no sort of Title to the Crown himself as well as Perjury in the Bishops Lords and great Men of England who having sworn Fealty to King Henry's Daughter Maud in his life-time made Stephen Earl of Blois their King therefore William of Malmsbury and all the Writers of those Times do accuse Stephen of down-right Perjury and Usurpation and likewise relate that he was advanced to the Crown through the power of the Londoners and Citizens of Winchester but yet all these Endeavours had been in vain unless he had been assisted by his Brother Henry Bishop of that City and then the Popes Legate in England and favoured by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Crowned him and yet for all this there was but a very small Faction of the Bishops and Lords who were for his Croonation for W. Malmsbury tells us Coronatus est ergo in Regem Angliae Stephanus tribus Episcopis praesentibus nullis Abbatibus paucissimis Optimatibus And many of the Nobility and great Men of England were so sensible of this that being headed by Robert Earl of Gloucester the Empresses base Brother they raised a War against Stephen which after her coming over hither was
grant that Hoveden as you cite him relates that Homage to be made and Fealty sworn to Richard the I. by the Title of King yet is it very much to be doubted whether this was not only by a Prolepsis or perhaps a slip of the Pen in this Author since he writ this History long aâ—ter King Richard's Death and therefore without we had the very words of this Oath there is no certain conclusion to be drawn from thence and I think we may as well credit the Chronicle of Abbot Brompton who likewise lived about the same time and recites all this affair almost in the same words with those in Hoveden but there the Oath does not run exactly in the same words as in this Author but thus quod unusquesque liberorum hominum totius regni Iuraret quod sidem portaret Domino Richardo Domino Angliae filio Domini Regis Henrici c. ficut legio Domino suo contra omnes mortales where you see the Oath is not made to King Richard as King but only as Lord of England and that there is a great deal of difference between those two Titles not only in name but in Substance I have already prov'd when I spoke of the Empress Maud's stiling her self Domina and not Regina Anglorum tho' she had Homage rendred and Fealty sworn to her not only in her Fathers Life time but also after her coming over again into England in the Reign of King Stephen by all that own'd her Title and that Hoveden himself meant no more than this appears by that passage I have already taken notice of viz. that Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William the Earl Marshal being sent over to keep the Peace made all the men of the Kingdom as well of Cities as Burroughs with the Earls Barons and Free-holders Iurare fidelitatem pacem Iohanni Normanorum duci filio Henrici regis filii Matildis Imperatricis contra omnes homines where you see the Oath is taken to him only as Duke of Normandy and not as King at all and therefore you are mistaken to say that Hoveden mentions the like Oath to be taken to Duke Iohn as it was before to King Richard But I come now to answer your last argument whereby you would prove that there was no Vacancy or inter-regnum in this Age which is because that our Chronicles and Tables of Successions do still begin the Reigns of each King from the day of the Decease of his Predecessors without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between them to which I reply That none of our antient Chronicles or Historians reckon thus as I know of but rather acknowledge a Vacancy of the Throne to have been between each Succession and as for the Tables of the Succession of our Kings when you can shew me one more antient than the time from which I grant the Crown of England began to be looked upon as a Successive and not an Elective Kingdom I shall be of your opinion but admit it were so since the Succession to the Crown has been for the most part mixt partly Elective and partly Hereditary our Kings might to maintain the honour of their Title still reckon their coming to the Crown immediately from the death of the last Predecessor tho' there has been oftentimes some days and weeks between the one and the other as I have now proved and shall prove farther by and by which being but small fractions of time are not taken notice of in the whole account which may be notwithstanding very agreeable to Law for both my Lords Dyer and Anderson in their Reports do agree That the King who is Heir or Successor may Write and begin his Reign the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor dies M. It will be to no purpose to dispute this point with you any longer since I must confess that there were so many Usurpations in the Succession of most of those first Kings after the Conquest that it is a difficult matter to prove any setled rule of Succession to have been then observed in England and therefore I only desire you to take notice that though it is true King Henry the 3 d was an Usurper for the first Twenty five years of his Reign yet for all the rest of it which was near Thirty more he was a true and lawful Prince for Elianor his Cousin being dead in Prison without issue and there being no more of that Line left her Right wholly devolved upon King Henry and he and his Children are to be from henceforth reckon'd to have a true Hereditary Right to the Crown without any Competitors And that this was so will plainly appear from the Testament of King Henry the 3 d. a Copy of which I have by me where tho' he Bequeaths a great many of his Jewels to the Queen and a great deal of Money to charitable uses yet for this Kingdom and other Territories in France and Ireland he makes no Bequest of them at all either to Prince Edward his Eldest or to Edmund his youngest Son tho' his Father King Iohn had bequeathed the Kingdom to him by his Will as you have already shewed and what could be the reason of this But that there being now no Title left to contest with his Son there was no need of it and therefore tho' Prince Edward was absent in the Holy Land when his Father Died yet a great Council being call'd in his Name at London he was there only recognized and acknowledged to be their natural Leige Lord and Lawful Successor to his Fathers Throne pray read the words as they are in Walsingham's Life of this King Edwardum absentem Dominum suum Leigium recognoverunt paternique successorem honoris ordinaverunt we meet not here with any thing like Election which no doubt we should not fail to do if there had been any such thing practised So likewise upon this King's death his Son King Edward the 2 d. by the like Right succeeded as Heir to his Father and tho' this Prince by suffering himself to be too much guided by his Minions fell at length into such Arbitrary and Irregular courses as procured him the hatred and ill will of his Subjects to that Degree that by the Disloyal and Ambitious practices of his Lascivious Queen he being made Prisoner a Parliament was call'd in his name who took upon them to Depose him for his misgovernment contrary to all Law and Right and though his Son Prince Edward had hitherto join'd with his Mother against his Father yet is he herein so far to be commended that tho' the Crown was offered him by Election of the Great Council yet the same Author tells us he swore that without his Father's consent he would never accept it whereupon divers Messengers or Delegates being dispatched from the Parliament to the King then Prisoner at Kenel-worth Castle who told him what had been done and concluded of at London required him to resign his Crown and
the power of the two Houses of Parliament I am very well satisfied that such a Declaration must be void in it self since I have sufficiently proved that there was no such Law of Succession ever setled by any general Custom or Common Law since it hath been near as often broken as observed and as for any positive or Statute-Law enacting any hereditary right of Succession you do not so much as pretend to show it so that I think I have sufficiently proved the three Propositions I laid down viz. That ever since the time of Edward the First though the Crown has been claim'd by right of blood yet has it not been very often enjoy'd by Princes who had no just pretence to that Title Secondly that the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding that claim placed or at least fixed the Crown upon the heads of those Princes who they very well knew could have no hereditary right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good at this day without any Confirmation by their Successours M. I did not think that you who were so great an admirer of the two Houses of Parliament should now be so much against their power in joyning with the King to declare what the true right of Succession to the Crown is and hath ever been from time beyond memory But I see Acts or Declarations of Parliament signifie nothing with you if they are against your Hypothesis or else you would never go about thus to expose those Acts of Parliament of King Edward the IVth and King Iames the Ist. Whereby they are declared both by the Law of God and Man undoubted Heirs of the Crown And the last Act I cited viz. That of King Iames the Ist. doth sufficiently confute your Notion of a Vacancy of the Throne Where it is expresly declared That immediately upon the decease of Queen Elizabeth the Crown of England with all the Dominions belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and Undoubted Succession descend and come to his Majesty King Iames. So that if there then were no Vacancy of the Throne I cannot see how there could be any such thing now the next Heir to the Crown be He who they will being certainly not so far removed from King Iames the Ist. as himself was from King Henry the VIIth under whom he claimed F. I must still confess my self to have a great veneration for the solemn Declarations of King and Parliament made by any Statute yet not so as to Idolize them or to look upon all their Declarations as infallible I grant indeed that whosoever is by them Declared and Recognized for King or Queen of England is to be acknowledged and obeyed as such by all the Subjects of this Kingdom without farther questioning his Title But if not content with this they will also take upon them to declare that such Kings or Queens have an undoubted Hereditary Right by the Laws of God and Nature When I plainly find from the Holy Scriptures as well as the History of matter of Fact and the knowledge of our Laws that they have no other Tiâ—le than what the Laws of the Land have conferred upon them and therefore you your self cannot deny but that it was gross flattery in the two Houses of Parliament to declare that Richard the IIId for-example had a true and undoubted Right to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and also by the Laws and Customs of this Realm when you know he was a notorious Usurper upon the Rights of his Brother King Edward's Children now how can I be assur'd that the like Declaration made to Kâ—ng Iames the I. was not lâ—kewise a piece of Courtship of the Representative of the Kingdom to this King then newly setled in his Throne since we find the People of this Nation when they are in a kind fit never think they can say or do too much for their Princes and therefore I must freely tell you that it is not the bare Declaration of a Parliament that this or that has been always the Law or Custom of this Realm when we can find from History that it has never been so held for above four hundred years at least and therefore not beyond the memory of Man as you suppose since that must be before the Reign of Richard the First as I have already proved to you at our Eighth Meeting But to answer your Objection against the vacancy of the Throne I do freely grant that aâ— often â—s the Crown descends by lineal Succession there can be no vacancy of the Throne as it did in the Case of King Iames the First yet doth it not therefore follow that there can never be any such Vacancy in any Case whatsoever since certainly it may so happen that all the Heirs Male of the Blood-Royal may fail as it happen'd in the Case of Scotland when Iohn Balioll and Robert Bruce contended for the Crown which not being to be decided by the Estates of the Kingdom they were forced to referr it to our King Edward the First and as also happen'd in France when Philip of Valois and our Edward the III d both claim'd the Crown which was decided by a great Assembly of the Estates of France in the favour of the former who claim'd as Heir of the Male Line against King Edward who was descended by a Woman and if King Iames's Abdication or Forfeiture call it which you will is good pray give me a sufficient Reason why the Convention of the Estates of England should not have as much Authority as those of France or Scotland this being as much or more a limited Kingdom thau either of the other ever were M. I do not deny that but pray shew me any sufficient Reason why the Convention should now Vote a Vacancy of the Throne since there was certainly an Heir Apparent not long since in England and I hope is now safe in France who ought to fill it or at least there should have been some sufficient cause alledged against him to prove that he was not true Son either of the King or Queen and till this was done they could not with any Right or good Conscience place any other Relation of his in the Throne since every Person ought to be esteem'd the Son of that Father and Mother that publickly own him for such for it is a Maxim in our as well as your Law Filiatio non potest probari F. How this could be performed without first declaring the Throne vacant I cannot apprehend for you your self must grant that there have been great doubts and suspitions of the Realty of this Prince of Wales and therefore that being one great reason of the Prince of Orange's coming over The truth of this Child whether he was really born of the of the body of the Q. is first to be examin'd and determin'd before he can be declar'd K. of England in the
if you say such a way of Election is now impossible I shall do so too but however it plainly shews the absurdity of supposing a King could ever now be fairly Elected were all the Blood-Royal totally extinct As for what you say concerning that Cession which the Princess of Denmark made of her Right to the Crown I never heard any thing of it before but admit it were so this could only serve in relation to her self and she could not give up the Right of her Brother the Prince of Wales no nor that of her own Children if God shall give her any F. This Objection concerning the total Dissolution of the Government proceeds from a wanâ— of your consideration of what the antient Government of England was not only before but a good while after your pretended Conquest which was not a setled Hereditary Monarchy but a Testamentary or Elective Kingdom where the Kings being often recommended by the Testament of the precedent King were chosen out of the Royal Family though not according to the Ruler of Succession now in use and therefore in all such Governments it is very well known that there was at the first institution of Kingly Government among them a great Council or Assembly of Estates of the whole Kingdom appointed who upon the death of the last King and vacancy of the Throne were still to meet of course to appoint a Successor which was commonly one of the Sons of the last King or at least some other Prince of the Royal Blood Thus it was till of late years in Denmark and Sweâ—den and so it was antiently in France during the Succession of the first Race as also in Spain during the Government of the Vandals and so it likewise was in England during the whole Succession of our English Saxon Kings and so I have also proved it continued till Edward the First And though since his time that the Crown hath been claim'd by right of Inheritance yet in all times precedent it is apparent that the great Council of the Kingdom upon the deaâ—h of every King Assembled by their own inherent Authority to consider whom they should place in the Throne which they then looked upon as vacant And therefore though I grant in the case of Edward the First the Parliament did not only ordain him Successor to his Father but also recogniz'd his â—ight by Blood yet for all this they still remain'd their anâ—ient Power of meeting without Summons from the King he being in the Holy Land and they not knowing whether he was alive or dead so that it is a false assertion to affirm that there can be no Government without a King since in all those vacancies of the Throne it is plain the Government devolved of course upon the geat Council of the Nation And though it is true there can be now no Parliament without a King according to the present notion and acceptation of that Term yet before that word was ever in use which is no older than about the middle of the Reign of Henry the Third it is plain that our great Councils often met by their own inherent Authority without any King and preserved the Peâ—ce of the Kingdom till a new King was either chosen or declared And though 't is true the Crown hath been long enjoy'd by those who have claim'd by Inheritance yet there is no reason for all that if the like cases should fall out as have done in former times why the Government should devolve to the mix'd Multitude now any more than it did then since it may be as well suppos'd that the same tacit Contract still continues of maintaining the Original constitution of great Councils which I have proved to be as Antient as Kingly Government it self And though perhaps the Form of chusing or sending thâ—se Representatives of the Nation may have been alter'd in divers particulars by for â—er Laws or received Customs yet this is nothing to the purpose as long as the thing it self remains the same in Substance as it was before for it can never be thought to have been the intent of the People who Established this form of Government that upon the extinction of the Royal Family the Government should be so quite dissolved as that it should be left to the confused Multitude to chuse what form of Government they should think fit Therefore to conclude I wish you would be perswaded to own this Government as it is now Established and to take 〈◊〉 Oath of Allegiance which is enjoyn'd by the Declaration of the Convention who are the only proper and legal Judges we can now have of conferring the Rights of those to whom our Allegiance is due And if in case a Dispute about the right Heir of the Crown the People of this Nation were not all bound to the decision of this Assembly we must necessarily fall together by the ears and fight it out as they do in the East-Indies where upon the death or deposition of a King he has still the Right who can Conquer his Competitors in Battel M. Well I wish there were not something very like it practised here of late for I think you will grant that if the Prince of Orange's Party had not prevail'd over the King 's the Convention would never have placed the Crown upon his head But I must beg your pardon if I cannot agree to your Proposals of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary since I have already taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to King Iames and I do not believe that any Power on earth can disengage me from that Oath as long as he and his Son the Prince of Wales are alive For as to your Doctrine of Abdication or Forfeiture they are too hard for my Reason to understand or for my Conscience to comply with and therefore it is all one to me whom your Convention places on the Throne since I am very well satisfied that none but the King can have a Right to it F. I wish I could see some better reasons for this opinion of yours than those you have already given for if you could convince that me the Nation hath done any thing in this Revolution which cannot well be justified by the Antient Customs and Constitution of the Kingdom I should come over to your opinion But if King Iames has truly Abdicated or Forfeited the Crown as I hope I have sufficiently made out and that your suppos'd Prince of Wales either is not really or else cannot now be proved to be the true Son of the Queen by reason of those Obstacles and Impediments I have shewn you I cannot see any thing to the contrary why you should not be wholly free and discharged from your former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so that King William and Queen Mary being now placed on the Throne your Allegiance to King Iames and the suppos'd Prince of Wales is lawfully determined pray tell me therefore
from the constant practice of those times that the King de facto was always own'd as Lawful Sovereign and had Allegiance still paid him by all the People of this Kingdom except those who being the heads of one or the other Party were either attainted or else forced to â—lye the Kingdom But as for all others though different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were impos'd upon the People sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other of those Kings according as they got possession of the Throne yet I can no where find that ever any body suffer'd for barely swearing Allegiance to the King then in Being for it was always taken for Law that Allegiance was due to the King de facto since ordinary Subjects are not suppos'd to understand the legal right or justice of the Kings Title M. I must still say that there was some colour for the Peoples thus acting as you say they did during the contest for the Crown between the two Families of Yorke and Lancaster when I grant it was somewhat a difficult matter to judge which of the two had the best right to the Crown by reason that the House of Lancaster had held it for three descents as also from the speciousness of their Title since it was founded upon a pretended claim by right of blood upon supposing that Edmund Sirnamed Cronch-back who was one of the Ancestors of this House of Lancaster was the Eldest Son to Henry the Third which had it been true would have given Henry the Fourth a good right to the Crown not only against Richard the Second but his own Grandfather Edward the Third likewise had he been then alive and this descent falling out long before the memory of any man then living who could confute the falsity of this pretended Pedigree The People of England might very well be excus'd for owning an Usurper and paying Allegiance to him since they did not know but his claim might have been right especially since it was approv'd of in full Parliament without any contradiction as I have already shewn you at our last Meeting But what is all this to the matter now in debate between us when the Lineal Succession of the Crown has been so often declared to be the only means of acquiring a just Title to it and every one knows very well who was own'd for lawful King of England within these three Months and also who was pray'd for in all our Churches as his Son and Heir apparent and therefore I must still tell you that your parallel between those Kings de facto of the House of Lancaster and those Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne does not at all agree since every Subject of this Kingdom who has but sence enough to go to Market can very well tell if they will deal sincerely to whom their Allegiance is due F. As to what you have now said it is no more than a repetition of what you have already urged to evade the force of these clear Authorities but indeed it was all one when a Prince had been once recognized for Lawful King by Act of Parliament whether the People knew his Title not to be good by right of blood or not And this I have plainly proved to you from the instance of Richard the Third who though both his Elder Brothers Children were then alive and the Eldest of them had been Proclaim'd King and also own'd for such by himself and whose Title he had also sworn to maintain in his Brother King Edwards life time as appears by the Clause Roll of the 11th of Edward the Fourth yet when he had once depos'd him and had call'd a Parliament which recognized his Title his Acts and Judicial Proceedings stand good at this day and though he himself was attained and declar'd a Tyrant and an Usurper yet all the Subjects who acted under his Authority and had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him never needed an Act of Indemnity for so doing whereas those that came over with Henry the VIIth were sain to have an Act of Pardon past to Indemnifie them for fighting against Richard the Third as I have now show'd you And though this Parliament of the first of Henry the Seventh agreed to repeal divers Acts which the King found fault with yet as for all other Statutes made in the Reign of King Richard the Third which have not been since repealed they are still in force without any confirmation likewise when Henry the Seventh had prevail'd over Richard the Third and that he was slain in the Field though all the Nation very well knew that Henry the Seventh could not be Heir of the House of Lancaster because his Mother was then alive and had never formally given up her right if she had any as certainly she could have none as being descended from Iohn Earl of Somerset who was base Son to Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by Catherine Swinford whilst his Wife was alive and though I grant after his Marriage with the said Catherine the Children born of that Bed were made legitimate by Act of Parliament in the 20th of Richard the Second yet that legitimation only respects such private Priviledges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or succeed to as Subjects and not in respect of the Crown the Succession of which they were expresly declared uncapable of by that very Act of Legitimation still to be seen upon the Parliament Roll. But for all this when Henry the Seventh had called a Parliament and was therein recogniz'd for their Lawful Sovereign and that the Crown was setled by Statute on the King and Heirs of his Body without any mention of the Princess Elizabeth who ought to have been Queen by right of blood yet none of the Subjects of this Kingdom as I can find ever scrupled to swear Allegiance to him before ever he married that Princess though they as well knew that he could have no right by blood as you can suppose that the People at this day can know whether King Iames has abdicated or forfeited the Crown or not or whether your Prince of Wales be his true and lawful Son for since they are both nice and difficult Points and having been determined by the Convention the Supream Judges in this Case in favour of their present Majesties and that they also recognized their Title after they became a Parliament I can see no manner of reason why all the Subjects of this Kingdom may not as well justifie their taking this new Oath of Allegiance to them notwithstanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames and his Right Heirs as well as the People of England could justifie their taking an Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh notwithstanding their former Oath to Edward the Fourth and his Right Heirs before ever Henry the Seventh had Married the Princess Elizabeth the Heiress of the Crown especially since this Act of the 11th of Henry the
it But as for King Iames himself I desire to know of you what trust there can be put in him or what assurance he can give us for the maintenance of our Religion and Civil Liberty more than the renewing of those Promises and that Oath which he has already broken this being most likely to be the consequence of things if King Iames prevail I shall leave it to your self or any indifferent person to judge if what I have undertaken to prove be not as clearly made out as future things are capable of and are sufficient to deter any Man that loves his Religion or Country from joyning in such pernicious Designs M. I confess you have made a long and tragical Narration of the dreadful consequences that may follow both upon our Religion and Civil Liberties if the King prevail by the present assistance of the French or Irish Arms and were I sure of all this I should so far agree with you as to this point as never so joyn with them for the Kings return and yet for all that I can never look upon my self as freed from that Allegiance I owe the King as well by being born his Subject as from the Oath I have already taken to him and his Heirs as long as they are in being for I think I have already prov'd as well from Law as Reason That first the Bond of Allegiance whether sworn or not sworn is in the nature of it perpetual and indispensable Secondly that it is so inseparable from the relation of a Subject that although the exercise of it may be suspended by reason of a prevailing force whilst the Subject is under such force viz. where it cannot be imagined how the endeavour of exercising it can be effectually serviceable to restore the Sovereign power to the right owner for the establishment of that publick Justice and Peace wherein the happiness of Common-wealths consists yet no outward force can so absolutely take it away or remove it but that still it remaineth vertually in the Subject and obligeth to a vigorous endeavour whenever the force that hindereth it is over to the actual exercise of it for the advantage of the party to whom of right it is due and the advancement of the common good thereby upon all fit occasions Thirdly That no Subject of England that either hath by taking the Oaths of Supremacy or Allegiance acknowledged or that not having taken either Oath yet otherwise knoweth or believeth that the true Sovereign power in England to whom natural Allegiance is due is the King his Heirs and Lawful Successors can without sinning against his Conscience take any new Oath or do any other act whereby to transfer his Allegiance from the King or his Heirs to any other party who have no right to it and thereby put himself into an incapacity of performing the Duties of his bounden Allegiance to his Lawful Sovereign when it may appear to be useful and serviceable to him This is the express Opinion of the Learned Bishop Sanderson in his case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of taking the Engagement which though he did not think absolutely unlawful because it might be interpreted in a dubious and qualified sence without abjuring the Kings lawful right to the Crown yet cannot this new Oath be taken in the like doubtful sence because as I have already prov'd the words in the Oath being to bear true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary would be indeed a transferring of our Allegiance from our lawful Prince to others which is absolutely unlawful F. I am somewhat pleas'd to see you are so far come off from your bigotry as not to think your self bound to assist for the restoring King Iames as long as it is no otherwise to be done but by the evident destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties but yet you say you cannot take the Oath because it is Bishop Sandersons Opinion as well as that of our best Lawyers that Allegiance is perpetual and untransferrable to another whilst the King or his Heirs are in being Which let me tell you speaking as a Lawyer since it may well be proved from this Statute as from the constant practice before that time that Allegiance was due to the King de facto and that by the judgement of all the Judges in the Reign of Edward the IVth but to speak of this matter either as a Civilian or a Divine I think we are freed from the former Oath both by the Law of Nations as well as the Law of God For as for natural Allegiance by which you suppose a man is indispensably Subject to the King in whose Territories he is born and that as long as he lives I can by â—o means understand that being born in a Country makes one a Subject for all his life to the Government of that Country or why being when born in a Country it should make one become a Subject more than being in the same Countrey at another time Besides common experience shews this to be false because whoever is born in a Country where his Parents are Foreigners may as it is allow'd by all leave that Country when he pleaseth but perhaps iâ— may be said he is a Subject to that Prince where his Parents were born but what if they were born under the same Circumstances or suppose his Parents are of different Countries as if a Dutch Woman and an English Man have a Child in France since France does not pretend to him which of the Nations can claim him for their Subject or must he be divided So that I can see nothing at all in this notion of natural Allegiance that can oblige any body in Conscience to observe it M. If then Natural Allegiance signifies nothing pâ—â—y tell me is no body oblig'd to obey the King or not to plot against him until he has taken an Oath of Allegiance to the contrary this would make mad work indeed and upon these Principles no man were bound to obey the King or his Laws and not to conspire against his Person or Government untill he had taken the Oath of Allegiance so that three parts of four of the Kingdom would be absolutely free from this great duty F. No Sir you are very much mistaken since I think I can found Allegiance to the King and Government upon a much firmer foundation than that of being born his Subject that I am so far from supposing that our obligation commences from our taking the Oath of Allegiance that though I think it may serve to inforce our former obligation to our King and Country yet does it not super-induce any new obligation thereunto for indeed our obligation to any particular Government may be made out from much surer Principles viz. That every person though he be born free yet is he for the sake of his own safety obliged to part with his liberty and put himself under the protection of some Government nor can he be
cited it to you at the beginning of this Evenings Conversation so that I confess I much wonder considering what he has there said how he can so positively maintain as he doth in the place you have also quoted that Allegiance is due to the King de Facto and not to Him de Iure whilst the former is possest of the Crown since it seems a flat contradiction to me how a Subject is to pay Allegiance as long as he lives to the King and his Heirs of life and member that is until the letting out of the last drop of our dearest Hearts-blood and that in all places whatsoever And yet that this Obligation should last no longer then whilst the King de Iure is in actual Possession of the Throne and therefore I think I have still very good reason to maintain that we are still oblig'd by our former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so as not to take a new one to any other King unless we had been constrain'd to it by an absolute Conquest which you your self will not maintain to be our present Case F. I confess you have now argued this point very stifly and I confess what you have said carries with it the greatest appearance both of Law and Reason of any thing you have yet urged upon this Subject and therefore if I can fairly answer it I hope you will come over to my Opinion and take the Oath which is now required of you In the first place therefore I cannot deny that all you have said concerning a natural Allegiance due by Birth to the King is true according to our Laws and I do my self allow the thing viz. That Allegiance is due to him though not for the Reasons upon which our Lawyers have founded it but upon those I have already given and therefore though granting it was held to be Law in the Case of Dr. Story that his Plea of his becoming a Subject to the King of Spain was over-rul'd by the Judges and he refusing make any other Plea was condemned upon a Nihil Dicit Yet this being only a Penal Law I think obliges the Subject to the penalty if he be taken but does not oblige him in Conscience never to change his Prince or the Government he was born under without their consent let his Circumstances become never so uneasie under it and that this is so I need go no further then the late Case of the French Refugees who thought they are strictly commanded by their King not to stir out of France whatsoever persecution they may suffer yet I think no Man of Sense can blame them if being persecuted there they remove themselves into other Countries and become perfectly Naturaliz'd Subjects or Denisons at least in that Government whereunto they remove and this is so known a thing that no Casuist as I know of thinks it a sin in such Subjects of England as finding it for their advantage go over into another Country to settle and make their Fortunes or are there Naturaliz'd or made free Denisom in those Kingdoms or Common-wealths whereunto they remove nor are such Persons oblig'd in Conscience to return Home upon the Command or Summons of that Prince to whom you suppose them to be Subjects by Birth nor is your Argument at all convincing that because a Mans owes a duty to his Parents by the law of Nature and by being Born their Child that therefore the subjection to the Prince under whose Government he is Born must be alike perpetual since the ground upon which you found this Consequence is altogether false since I have already prov'd at the first meeting we had to discourse of these matters that a Man's being Begotten and bred up by his Parents does not make him become their Subject or Servant in the state of Nature as long as he lives so that he may never withdraw himself from their subjection without their leave But in the next place I think I am as little mistaken in my Notion of Allegiance which I suppose every Person who is a true and perfect Subject of the Government owes to the King or Sovereign Power thereof for tho' I grant there is a great deal of difference between that imperfect Allegiance or bare Submission which every Foreigner owes the King or Government under which he resides and that more perfect Allegiance which every Subject owes the King who enjoys all the Rights and Previledges of a true English Man yet to let you see that this distinction proceeds not from the bare protection of his Person and Goods by the Government under which he lives but by his being Naturaliz'd and becoming thereby a perfect Member of this Civil Society is plain from your own showing and therefore whosoever not only enjoys the common protection of an Inhabitant but also all the Rights and Priviledges of a true English Subject is bound to swear Allegiance if requir'd to the King or Queen de facto without enquiring into their Right or Title for if they are strangers or have never taken any Oath of Allegiance before they cannot be under any former Oath and as for natural Allegiance I have already prov'd it to be a meer legal Notion and this Allegiance I have also prov'd to to be due to the King and Queen de facto not only from the Opinion of the Judges in Bagots's Case but also from my Lord Cokes interpretation of the Statute of Treason which though you suppose to be contradictory to what he had before laid down in Calvins's Case yet if you please better to consider of it you will find it not to be so for though it is true the Judges do there assert That the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance is indefinite and without Limitation as being made to the King and his right Heirs and also that it extends to the venturing of life and members and to the letting out of the last drop of our Blood yet is this still to be understood only of such a one and his Heirs who still continues to be King in a legal Sense which can be only he who is King for the time being as he is stil'd in this Statute of the 11 th of Henry the 7 th and only during the time that he continues in actual Possession of the Throne And therefore the word King or Majesty being indefinite and without having any respect to his Title whether by descent of Blood or else by his being Crown'd and Recogniz'd by Parliament it is no contradiction to suppose this Allegiance is only due to the King in this limited Sence according to this Statute of Henry the 7 th where pray take Notice that I have made this Allegiance to be only due to Kings and Queens de facto because they only are within intent and letter of this Statute as also of that of Treason according to the legal Government of this Nation by the Fundamental Laws thereof and can no ways be extended to any other
be not observed D. 10. p. 699. The form of the Oath since the Conquest Ib. p. 711. Oath of Allegiance its interpretation D. 5. p. 350. Oaths in the Acts for the Militia of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the Second their true intent and meaning considered D. 9. p. 631. to 635.659 New Oath of Allegiance W. it may be taken to their present Majesties as King and Queen de facto without acknowledgment of their right D. 13. p. 903. to 909. How far it obliges the takers Ibid. p. 907.908 W. Due to the King in Possession by reason of his protection Ib. p. 949. to 954. Promissory Oaths W. lawful or not Ib. 954. to 956. W. Any other stricter Oath be necessary Ib. p. 957. to 963. Obedience Passive W. it be not a Bull D. 1. p. 41. The necessary consequences of that Doctrine Ib. p. 4. to 9. Officers and Souldiers who deserted King James W. justifiable in so doing D. 11. p. 785 to 787. Omnes de Regno mentioned in Magna Charta W. only Tenants in Capite D. 7. p. 490 to 494. W. The Oppressions of Princes or the Ambition Rebellion of Subjects have caused the greater disturbances D. 3. p. 182 183. Optimates its ancient signification in Histories discussed D. 6. p. 372 to 376. W. It ever signifies meer Commoners 397. Orange W. that Princes making War upon King James was justifiable D. 11. p. 781. to 789. W. All his other carriage towards the said King were as it ought to be Ib. p. 789. to 798. Original Contract W. there were ever any such thing and where to be â—ound D. 10. p. 704 705. D. 11. p. 813.814 W. Broken by King James Ib. 809 810.813.814 P Pares Baronum or Alii Magnates who they anciently were D. 7. p. 509.511 Parliaments or Great Councils W. they are as ancient as the Government or owe their Original to some Kings favour D. 5. p. 358 to 365. How often anciently held D. 9 p. 668 D. 5.363 It s power when met Ib. 364. No Laws to be made or Taxes to be raised without it D. 9. p 668. To have freedom of speech and not to be bribed or awed Ibid. Paternal Power not to be acquired by Conquest c. D. 2. p. 105 106. Patriarchs before the flood W. Lords of all Mankind or or Masters of their own Families D. 2. p. 70. to 72. St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans when written D. 4. p. 248 to 250. Peers their Power in Parliament W. derived from he King or the institution of the Government D. 5. p. 366. to the end Persons of Princes W. they may be resisted without resisting their Authority D. 4. p. 240. to 244. Whether so in England D. 10.653 to 657. People W. the Original of Civil Power asserted by Fortescue D. 11. p. 779. Power Râ—gal W. Paternal D. 2. p. 101. to 104. People W. they can judge when their fundamental Rights are invaded D. 9. p. 669 670. W. If they may judge they may also resist D. 11. p. 780 781. What numbers required to justifie this resistance D. 9. p. 669. to 671. Power Oeconomical W. of the same kind with Civil Ibid. p. 59.62.64 Power over mens lives whence derived D. 1. p. 35. to 39.61 Power Civil whence derived W. immediately from God or from the People D. 11. p. 773. to 780. Power Legislative W. in the King and Parliament D. 5. p. 312 313. Power of dispencing with Penal Laws W. it be an inherent Prerogative of the Kings D. 11. p. 816. to 830. Supream Powers W. irresistable because ordain'd by God D. 4. p. 452. to 460. Plebs and Populus what those words anciently signified D. 6. p. 386. to 391. D. 8. p. 359. to 364. Primitive Christians W. Men are now obliged to the same strict Rules of Non-Resistance as they were in the Primitive Times D. 4. p. 272 to 277. Divers of their resistances of the Roman and Greek Emperours instanced 280 to 282. Primogeniture as a Power over Brethren W. of Divine Right D. 2. p. 81. to 83. Princes W. bound to treat their Subjects like their Children D. 2. p. 105. to 110. Princepes Regni its signification anciently D. 6. p. 372.377.395.396 W. All the Priviledges and Liberties English Subjects now enjoy were owing to the favour of our former Kings D. 2. p. 112. D. 5. p. 320 to 322.356.361 362. Prelates and Peers claim their places in Parliaments by Prescription D. 8. p. 559 to 564. Prescription beyond time of memory how high it goes Ibid. 583 to 593. Proceres Regni its ancient signification D. 6. p. 376. W. the Commons were not often comprehended under that Title Ib. 395 396. D. 8. p. 572. Protection of the Government how far it may require Allegiance to it D. 13. p. 946 to 952. Civil Property W. derived from Adam or Noah D. 2. p. 133. to 136. Provincia its ancient signification W. a Province or a County Ibid. 565 to 569. Punishments for Offences W. alter'd and new ones ordained by King William the First D. 10. p. 759. Q Queens often present in English Saxon Councils D. 6. p. 393. R Rebels W. bound to make their lawful Prince amends by restoring him to the Throne D. 13. p. 939. to 944. Records in the Tower and elsewhere cited in these Dialogues Rot. cart 5 Iohan. D. 6. p. 386. Rot. clause 17. Edw. II. ibid. 396. Rot. Parl. 7 Rich. II. ibid. 397. Rot. claus 24 26 of Hen. III. ib. 432. Rot. claus 19 Hen. III. D. 7. p. 445. Inter Com. brevia Mich. 42. Hen. III. ib. 446. Rot. Pat. 15. H. III. Rot. claus 4. H. III. ib. 447. Rot. Pat. 15. Iohan. ibid. 449. Rot. cl 42. H. III. ibid. 449. Rot. cl 28. H. III. ibid. 454. Rot. cl 26. H. III. ibid. 461. Rot. Pat. 42. H. III. p. 472. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. Rot. cl 49. H. III. Rot. Pat. 51. H. III. ibid. 475. Rot. cl 28. Edw. I. ibid. 477. Rot. Par. 12. Edw. 2. p. 478. Rot. Par. 1. Edw. III. Rot. Parl. 12. Rich. II. ib. 478. Rot. Pat. 30th Edw. 1. Rot. Fin. 20. Edw. III. ib. p. 420. Rot. cl 34. Edw. 1. ib. p. 483. Rot. cl 19. H. III. Rot. Pat. 48. H. 3. ibid. p. 491. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. ibid. p. 493. Rot. cl 16. H. III. ib. p. 494. Rot. cl 19. H. III. 495. Rot. cl 11. H. III. Rot. cl 33. H. III. Rot. cl 52. H. III. ib. p. 496. Rot. Pat. 3 Edw. I. Rot. Pat. 20. E. 1. ib. p. 501. Rot. Pat. 17 18. Ed. I. ib. p. 50â— Rot. cl 6. Iohan. 26. H. III. 38. H. III. ib. p. 516. Rot. Pat. 48. H. III. Rot cl 49. H. III. ib. 519. Rot. cl 24. Edw. I. ib. p. 526. Rot. cl 3. Ed. III. Rot. cl 49. H. III. ibid. p. 527. Bundel Brev. 18 Edw. I. p. 530 531. Rot. cl 23. E. 1. ib. 53. Rot. cl 28. E. I. Rot. cl 45. Ed. III. ib. 537. Rot. Stat. 25. E. 1. D. 8. p. 552. Rot. cl 23.
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
Leader in this Dispersion who had a Patriarchal Authority over their Posterity for by what else can you suppose they could have made their Children and Descendants to have followed them as far as the utmost Isles of the Gentiles F. I confess there are many difficulties as well in the time as manner of this Dispersion according to our Common Chronology for if you suppose that the Building of the Tower of Babel fell out within two hundred years after the Flood as most of our Chronologers who follow the Hebrew account do then it is certain that Noah and his Sons were still alive who lived till above four hundred years after the Flood so that either Noah and his Sons did not travel with the rest of their Descendants into the Plain of Shinar where they built the Tower of Babel which yet seems contrary to the Text which says All Mankind being of one Language they travelled c. And if these Children and Grand-children left their Ancestors at home what become of their Monarchical Authority when their Subjects were gone you your self do assert that none of Noah's Posterity divided from him as long as he lived so on the other side if you suppose that Noah and his Sons marched along with them in this Expedition you must make them either to have quitted their Authority over their Descendants or else to have joyned with them in this wicked and foolish Enterprize of Building a Tower whose top should reach to Heaven which is very hard to conceive of Noah a Preacher of Righteousness or his Sons whom the Scripture no where mentions or blames for having a hand in this Attempt But if you will lay the fault of Building this Tower upon Nimrod as Iosephus doth who makes him a great Tyrant and a wicked Man this will make against your own Hypothesis which supposes no Rebellion or Usurpation to have been during the Life of Noah So that to avoid these Absurdities and Difficulties that will follow by the placing the Building of the Tower of Babel within two hundred years after the Flood as you must do if you follow the present Hebrew Account I think it were much better to embrace the Account of the LXX which by adding a hundred years to the Lives of each Patriarch between Noah and Abraham makes the Confusion of Tongues to have happened not till about five hundred years after the Flood which takes away those Absurdities I mentioned of making Noah and his Sons to have had a hand in the Building of the Tower of Babel or else that Nimrod did it whether they would or not which is likewise as hard to suppose all which Difficulties according to this Account may very well be taken away since then Noah and his Sons were dead before ever this Tower began to be built And for the further proof of this I refer you to the Learned Isaac Vossius his Vindication of the Translation of the LXX and his Chronology accommodated to that account as most agreeable to the Antient Hebrew Original but this is only by the by M. I thank you Sir for your solution of this great Difficulty which I am satisfied cannot be better solved than by this Account of the LXX Version But I pray answer my Argument which in my Opinion clearly makes out the Divine Institution as well as necessity of Patriarchal Power F. I was just coming to it and therefore in the first place I must tell you that I cannot imagine how you can prove from this Text concerning the Dispersion of Nations and their following certain Leaders of their own Family and Language when otherwise they could not have conversed together that therefore God must be careful in all this transaction to preserve your Imaginary Patriarchal Power entire of which the Scripture is altogether silent and you might as well tell me that because in Hannibal's or Darius's Army there were whole Squadrons of different Languages who were ranged under Captains of their own Language or Countrey that therefore Fathers or Grand-fathers were Leaders of each Squadron or that Darius or Hannibal were careful to preserve Paternal Authority But suppose I grant you the utmost you can ask yet since God thought fit at this Confusion of Tongues that all those of one Tribe should speak the same Language which was not understood by any other it is likewise very reasonable to suppose that they could not travel so far as the utmost parts of Asia without chusing and following some Captain Leaders to be their Guides and Commanders in so long a Journey and whom could the People sooner chuse to follow for this purpose than their Fathers or Grand-fathers to whose natural Affection Wisdom and long Experience they had from their very Infancy always paid a great respect and submission Yet doth it not therefore follow that such Fathers or Grand-fathers thus led or commanded their Children and Posterity now grown up to be Men and Women by any Natural or Divine Right or that they followed them otherwise than as an Army of Volunteers or than as a Caravan in the Desarts of Arabia doth a Captain of its own chusing But if you will suppose any thing beyond this you will find your self involved in greater Difficulties and Absurdities For pray tell me what great Care was there to preserve a Patriarchal Authority in this Confusion and Dispersion by breaking it into so many parts Indeed I am so blind I cannot see it For as I will not deny but it was God's Will to confound the Language and disperse the Families of Mankind both for a Punishment and also for the better Peopling of the World So am I not convinced that God in acting thus was at all careful to preserve the Patriarchal Authority deriv'd from Adam For you cannot deny but that at the same time he destroyed the true Supreme Fatherhood of the Natural Monarch or Heir of Adam who could be but one Person as you your self have already asserted or can it be any reason to say that God for the preservation of Paternal Authority let so many several new Governments with their Governours start up who must all enjoy this Authority And is it not more reasonable to say that God was careful to destroy this Paternal Authority when he suffered those of Noah's Sons or Descendants then actually in Possession of it to have their Monarchy torn in pieces and shared by so many of their Subjects And would it not be an excellent Argument for Monarchical Government to say when any Monarchy was shattered to pieces and divided amongst many revolted Subjects that God was only careful to preserve Monarchical Power by rending a great settled Empire into a multitude of little Governments So that it is altogether irrational to conceive that if any three or more Right Heirs of Noah had Paternal Authority or Soveraignty by Right of Fatherhood over Mankind at Babel that the next moment all they yet living seventy two others should have
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