he brought over with him had as you suppose the greatest share of all the Lands in England they would have been too powerful a body of Men to be thus made Slaves at his pleasure but indeed his own Laws shew the contrary for in that very Law it appears otherwise Whereby all the Freemen of the Kingdom were to hold their Lands and Possessions free from all unjust Exactions and Taillage and that nothing should be exacted of them but their free service which they were bound to do according as it is appointed them by the K. and it is granted them by an Hereditary Right for ever by the Common Council of the whole Kingdom whereby you may see that they had their Lands and Liberties granted them for an Hereditary Right not only by the K. but by the Common Council of the Kingdom and that the K. could not alter K. Edward's Laws without their consent the Charter of K. Henry I. says expresly Legem Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater eam emendavit Concilio Baronum suorum Therefore as for that Authority you have brought out of H. Huntington that upon this Kings return from Normandy he imposed a heavy Taxe upon the English this is either to be understood of such a Tax as they gave him voluntarily tho' perhaps they durst not do otherwise as the States of Provence and Languâ—doc are fain to do to the K. of France at this day when he requires it and yet he does not claim those Countries by right of Conquest or if K. William imposed this Tribute without their consents it was not only contrary to the Law just now mentioned but also to his own Coronation Oath whereby he swore to prohibit all unjust Rapines and that he should behave himself equitably towards his Subjects with which certainly his taking away their Money without their consents would by no means consist but to answer that part of the Coronation Oath which you think makes most for you that whereby he swore only to make Right Laws which must have supposed the Power to have been in himself because the Parliament might have hindered him from doing otherwise this is but a cavil for it is already proved that he was to make Laws and raise Taxes by the Common Council of the Kingdom and therefore these words may very well bear another sense and do only give the K. a Negative voice of passing such Laws as the great Council should offer to him or else such as he might propose to them for their consent and I suppose you will not deny but that it is very possible that either the K. or the Parliament may propose such Laws as may not seem equitable or Just and then certainly both the one and the other have a negative vote and ought not to give their consents to them But to answer your last instance whereby you would prove that this King as a Conqueror imposed what Taxes and Services he pleased not only upon the Laity but the Clergy too by making the Bishopricks and greater Abbies liable to Knights Service which you suppose to have been done by his own sole Authority without any consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom this is only gratis Dictâ—m and is indeed altogether improbable for if the K had done this by his sole Power he would have imposed this Service upon all the Abbies in England whose Lands might have been as well reduced to Knights Fees as those that were put under that service and so might have been forced to find as many Souldiers as they had Fees as well as the Bishopricks and greater Abbies but indeed the Clergy were too powerful a body to be thus Arbitrarily imposed upon and they would soon have complained to the Pope against the K. for this new servitude he had imposed upon them and therefore I think we may with much more safety conclude with Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour that this imposition of Knights Service upon the Bishopricks and Abbies was done by the Common Council of the Kingdom It being too great a matter to be done without it for it appears by Eadmerus that the K. held a Council this very year tho' the Laws and Proceedings of it are all lost and this is the more likely to be so because this imposition was not laid upon all the Abbies in England but only upon the Bishopricks and such Abbies as were of Royal Foundation and held immediately of the King before your Conquest and were only such as enjoyed whole Baronies as Mat. Paris there tells us I shall now come to your last head whereby you would prove that your Conqueror by his sole power altered the Course of Tryals and introduced the custom of Duel or single Combat in Civil as well as Criminal Causes the chief argument you have for this is that there is no mention made of this tryal by Duel in our English Saxon Laws before the Conquest which is but a negative argument at the best and you can shew me no Ancient Author that says expresly that K. William introduced it and tho' I grant it is first mentioned in his Laws yet does it not therefore prove that it was not here before since it was certainly in use among the Francs and Longobards who were German Nations as well as the Saxons but admit it were first introduced by the Conqueror this was no badge of Conquest for the Normans as well as the English were subject to this Tryal which was in use in France and Normandy long before this King 's coming in so that admit he first establisht it here it might not have been done by his sole Power but by some Law made in the great Council of the Kingdom tho' it be now lost as we have very few of the Laws that were made by this K. now left us besides those which are called the Laws of K. Edward with this Kings alteration of them all which was certainly done in the Common Council the like I may say concerning the alteration of Punishment for Deer stealing and other crimes which were either Punishable by Pecuniary Mulcâ—s or else by death before the coming in of the Normans since those alterations might be also made by the consent of the great Council but that the same Forest Laws were in use before the Conquest as after you may see in the Forest Laws of King Knute as you will find in Sir H. Spelman's Glossary Title Foresta only the Punishments are there Pecuniary or else loss of liberty which after your Conquest was changed into the loss of Eyes and Members But as for other lesser matters as his disarming the English and forbidding Night Meetings if these things were done as I do not find any express Law for them for there is no such thing mentioned in the Law de nocturnis Custodiis they were either practised by this K. for his own security after the English had by their frequent
quit his Fathers Family and joyning himself to his Wife may set up another of his own But as for the Children that were begotten between them tho' I grant they might be intended both for the comfort and assistance of him and her yet I have already proved that the Parents are more chiefly intended for their Childrens Propagation and Preservation than the Children are for their Interest and Happyness Your fouth consideration is only a supposition of the question which is yet to be pâ—oved that Eve was under an absolute subjection to Adam after the Fall I have already proved this supposition not to be true and therefore the consequence as to the Children is false likewise Your fifth is rather an interrogation than an Argument whether Children ought not to be and have not always been subject to their Parents all over the World In answer to which I grant that it is true that they have ever been so tho' not in your sense For I hold this subjection neither to be servile or absolute nor yet perpetual as long as they live but in reply to this limitation of the Power of Parents over their Children both in its extent and duration you tell me this is purely owing to the Civil Laws of Nations and not to the Laws of Nature and for a proof of this you produce Gods own people the Jews for an example that the power of the Father over his Son was not determined but by his Death But your self confesses that he could not exercise this Power of Life and Death but in the presence of the Magistrate the circumstances of which if they be considered will rather make against you for first the Father could not have this rebellioâ—s Son put to Death till he had accus'd him before the Elders of the City that is the Judges who were establisht in every Precinct who upon a solemn hearing were to sentence such a rebellious Son to be stoned to Death by all the People of the City where you may observe that the Father had no power to put him to Death himself and therefore acted in this case as an accuser or a witness not as a Judge But if you 'l believe Maimonides one of the most Learned of the Jewish Rabbins he will tell you that by the Municipal Law of the Jews this power of the Father did scarce extend beyond the thirteenth year of the Son's Age after which the Son was reckoned Adult and Emancipated from his Fathers Powers and could not after that incur this punishment of a Stubborn and Rebellious Son and a Father who did but strike his Son after he was Adult incurr'd Excommunication for that he offended against the Law And tho' I grant that the Nations you mention did exercise a Power of Life and Death over their Wives and Children yet will not the Practice of some particular Nations tho' never so much civiliz'd amount to a proof of a Law of Nature which is only to be made out from evident Rules of Right Reason and the great end of this Law the common good of Mankind and especially when against the Examples of those Nations which you produce I can likewise set those of many more Nations where this Custum was not allowed after once Civil Government was establisht And as for the Romans themselves amongst whom the greatest Examples of this kind are to be found they will not all of them amount to above three or four in six or seven hundred years and then tho' there might be very good cause for it yet the People of Rome never so much esteemed or loved such Fathers after they had put their Sons to Death as they did before but counted them too severe and cruel for so doing And you read in Valerius Maximus and Seneca that they killed Erixiin a Roman Gentleman for whipping his Son to Death like a Slave so much did they abhor all such Cruelty of Parents towards their Children and afterwards when by the General Corruption of Manners amongst the Romans Fathers grew more cruel to their Children and often put them to Death without cause Those of your Faculty suppose that some of the Roman Emperous tho' it is uncertain who took away this Power from Fathers and made it as it is now among us Murder for a Father to put his Son to Death tho' others since there are no particular Edicts to be found concerning this matter do suppose this Law to be changed by degrees and to be left off by common consent of the Romans themselves for it seems dangerous to grant to a private person the cognizance of any crime which might belong to publick Authority and they thought it better to strengthen both the Paternal and Marital Power by other Laws than putting to Death And therefore Simplecius upon Epictetus his Enchiridion says that the Romans allowed Fathers this Power because they thought they might very well trust their Natural Affection to their Children for the exercise of that Power of selling them or putting them to Death which 't was supposed they would rarely use unless compelled by extream necessity or unpardonable crimes and therefore if a Father would put his Son to death he was to do it with his own hands that he might suffer as well as his Son but when this render affection â—oo failed it was no wonder that the Roman Emperors did not think it for the common good of their People to trust Fathers with this Power any longer which they had hitherto exercised not so properly by right of Fatherhood as that of the Master of a Family who governed his Servants and his Sons by a like Authority To conclude I cannot but observe how slyly you wave my objection against the Divine Institution of Monarchy for tho' you seem loth expresly to condemn all other Governments as unlawful yet the consequence will be the same upon your principles For if it be a good argument which some make use of for the Government of the Church by Bishops because that Government being supposed by them to have been instituted by the Apostles by Divine Precept therefore that no other Government but Episcopacy can be lawful or any true Church where that Government is not in use so the same argument will likewise hold in Civil Governments that all others must be unlawful if Monarchy alone were ordained by God and that all other forms whatsoever began from Rebellion or the Fancies of Men. M. To answer what you have said in the first place I cannot so slightly pass over this argument of the Law of Nations by which I supposed the Power of Fathers over the Persons of their Children is sufficiently established and from whence also it appears that among the Iews as well as Romans the Children were lookt upon as part of the substance of their Father and consequently that they had a perpetual right in their Persons as long as they lived that the Romans had the power of selling their Children
our ancient Tenures and manner of holding and enjoying our Lands and Estates as will appear by comparing our Antient Tenures with theirs F. I shall not deny but that a great part of the matter of Fact is true as you have now put it yet tho' I grant that the Bishop Abbots Chancellors Chief Justices and other great Officers of the Crown were all or the greatest part of them Normans during the Reigns of the two first Kings of the Norman Race it doâ—s not therefore follow that these Men must have made a change in the very substance of our Laws tho' in matters of form of pleading or judicial proceedings they might have introduced great alterations for as to the Civil or Municipal Laws of this Kingdom concerning the Descent and Conveyance of Estates they continued the same after the coming in of the Normans and Lands held by Knights Service descended to the Eldest Son and Lands in free Soccage and Gavel-kind to all the Sons alike so likewise there were Estates In tail and Fee simple as now and there were also the like Customs of the Courtesie of England Burrough English c. as there are also at this day as I can prove to you by several passages out of our English Saxon Laws so likewise for Conveyance of Estates those of the better sort of People called Bookland were conveyed by Deeds with Livery and Seisin either with or without warranty as they are now but that which was called Folâ—land held by the meaner sort were only by Livery and Seisin without any Writing And tho' I grant that the custom of sealing of Deeds is derived from the Normans yet that is an alteration only in matter of forn and as for Goods and Money they were bequeathable by a Man's last Will as well after as before your Conquest And if you can have the opportunity to peruse a Manuscript Treatise of Sir Roger Owen's upon this Subject you will find it there sufficiently proved That Livery of Seisin Licenses or Fines for Alienation Daughters to Inherit Trials by Juries Abjurations Utlaries Coroners disposing of Lands by Will Escheats Gaols Writs Wrecks Warranties Felons Goods and many other parts of our Law were here in being long before the time of King William this being so as to the common Law let us see what alterations there were in the Criminal or Crown part of the Law first as to Treason and wilful Murther they were punished with Death in the Saxon times as well as after as were also Robery and Burglary in the night time but as for lesser ofâ—ences such as Batteries Maims Robberies and other breaches of the Peace they were punished by Fine as well before the Conquest as after but as for the Law of Englisherie which was that if a Man were found Murthered it should be presumed he was an Alien or Frenchman and the Town thereupon where the Body was found was to be fined unless Englisherie was proved i. e. that the person was an Englishman this Custom tho' it lasted to the Reign of Edward the Third when it was taken away by a Statute made on purpose tho it may seem a badge of the Norman Conquest yet was it indeed a Law introduced by King Knute in behalf of his Danes who being often found killed and none could tell by whom he obtained this Law to be made to prevent it as you will see at large in Bracton and the Mirrour of Justices But as for trial of all offences it was either by Juries Fire or Water ordinal by Dewel or Battle or else by Witnesses or Compurgators upon Oath as well before as after King William's entrance so that I can find nothing material as to the alterations of the Laws either in matters Criminal or Civil from what they were in the Saxons time and this being so it is easily answered how the Judges and Officers might be Normans and yet the Laws continue English still for first it is certain that for four or five years in the beginning of K. William's Reign he made no great alteration in the Judges and other great Officers of the Kingdom and by that time those whom he was afterwards pleased to imploy in the Rooms of such as either died or were turned out might very well come to understand the Laws of England as far as they distered from those of Normandy which was not in many particulars since as your self very well observed the Saxons and Normans being both Northern People had many of the same Laws and Customs common to both and the same persons might in three or four years time have very well learned English enough to have under stood the Evidence that the Witnesses gave before them without any Interpreter But say you all the Pleadings and Judgments were in French and therefore the Lawyers and Pleaders must be Frenchmen which is likewise a false consequence for Pray tell me why might not the English Lawyers have learnt French enough to Plead in three or four years time which must necessarily be required before so great an alteration could be made or Lawyers enough he brought out of Normandy and sufficiently instructed in our Laws and Customs could be fitted for their employments again supposing all Pleadings and other Proceedings to have been in French it does not follow that this practice could have obtained in all the Courts of England for tho' I grant that in the Kings Court at Westminster where the Judges as you say were for the most part Frenchmen or Normans yet this could only have some effect either in that great Court or Curia Regis where the King often sat in person together with his Chief Justiciary and other Justices or else in the Court of Common Pleas which followed the Kings Court till it was ordained otherwise by Magna Charta or else the Court of Exchequer where in those days only matters concerning the Kings Debts Lands and Revenues were chiefly heard and dispatched but as for the Court of Chancery it was not then used as a Court of Equity nor long after till the Reign of Henry the IV V and VI. when it arose by degrees as you will find in Sir William Dugdale's Origines Iuridiciales So that granting all the proceedings in these Supream Courts to have been in French because the King himself who sat there with the chief Justice and the rest of the Judges were either Normans or Frenchmen yet was this of no great importance in comparison of the Suits and Causes which were first begun and try'd in the Inferiour Courts in the Country before ever they could be brought up to London by Writ of Errour or Appeal which could only be in Causes of great Moment or between the Kings Tenants in Capite So that now to let you see that what say I say is true we will Survey all the inferiour Courâ—s of that time beginning with the lowest and going up to the highest of them The first Court we find of this kind
Wales though it is true he is carried out of England ought to have been immediately declar'd King as was done in the Case of Edward the 3 d. who was so declar'd upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Edward the 2 d. F. Though I grant ever since the Crown has been claim'd by Descent the Law has gone as you have cited it and that Finches Law lays it down for a Maxim I shall not deny but that from the beginning or original of Kingly Government whether we look before or after you Conquest it will appear that the Throne was often vacant till such time as the Common Council of the Kingdom had agreed who should fill it and to shew you I do not speak without good Authority pray tell me if this Maxim had then obtain'd why after the Death of William the First his Eldest Son Robert Duke of Normandy did not immediately take upon him the Title of King of England or at least had done it after the Death of William Rufus who you know was placed on the Throne â—not by Right of Inheritance but by his Fathers Testament confirm'd and approv'd of according to the Antient English-Saxon Custom of Succession by the common Consent of the great Council of the whole Kingdom and yet notwithstanding after the Death of this William Henry his younger Brother succeeded him by the free Election and Consent of the same Common Council and yet that Duke Robert should never in all his Life-time take upon him the Title of King Pray tell me likewise if this Maxim had been then known why Maud the Empress immediately upon the Death of her Father King Henry the First did not take nor yet her Husband the Duke of Anjou in her Right the Title of King and Queen of England though she had had Homage paid her and Fealty sworn to her in the Life-time of her Father as the immediate Successor to the Crown and yet notwithstanding the utmost Title she could assume was that of Domina Anglorum Lady or Mistress not Queen of the English whilst Stephen who had no other Title but the Election of the great Council of the Nation held both the Crown and Title of King as long as he lived As also why Arthur Duke of Britain who according to the now received Rules of Succession was the next Heir to the Crown upon the Death of King Richard the First never took upon him the Title of King unless it were that he very well knew that his Uncle King Iohn had been placed in the Throne by the Common Consent and Election of the great Council of the Kingdom So likewise after the Death of King Iohn why Henry his Son was not immediately proclaim'd King till such time as the great Council of the Clergy Nobility and People had met and agreed to send back Prince Lewis whom they had chosen for their King though not being Crowned he never took upon himself that Title and so chose Henry the Third then an Infant for their King Lastly Why all these Princes viz. Henry the Second Richard the First and Henry the Third who according to your notions were undoubted Heirs of the Crown never took upon them the Title of Kings of England nor are so stiled by any of our Historians till after their Elections and Coronations if it had not been then received for Law that it was the Election of the People and Coronation subsequent thereunto that made them Kings and till this was performed though they might look upon themselves as never so lawful Successors the Throne was notwithstanding esteem'd in Law vacant Therefore as for your Iâ—stance of King Edward the Third 's immediately succeeding upon the Resignation of his Father if you please better to consider of it that makes against you for it is plain from Th. Walsingham and H. de Knyghton that Prince Edward succeeded not to the Crown by Succession but the Election of the great Council or Parliament the words are express Huic Electioni universus Populus consensit and this was also owned by Edward the Second himself who when the Commissioners of all the Estates of Parliament came in all their Names to renounce their Homage to him yet in the midst of all his sorrow he gave them thanks quod Filium suum Edwardum post se Regnaturum eligissent which plainly shews that the Parliament had then such a Notion of a Forfeiture proceeding from his Deposition for violating the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that the Eldest Son and Successor could pretend no other Right to it even in the Judgment of the late King himself but what proceeded from their Election M. I cannot deny but what you have now urged from matter of fact may appear very plausible to your self and those of your Notions yet if it be looked closer into I doubt not but the known Laws then receiv'd and the Notions the people had then of a Lineal Succession by Right Inheriâ—ance will prove directly contrary to the matter of fact For you know very well à facto ad Ius non valte consequentia but that all the Princes you mention'd except the three last were really Usurpers and not Lawful Kings I shall let you see by evident Authorities from the Historians of those Times For in the first place though I grant William Rufus succeeded to the Crown by his Fathers last Will which was certainly unlawful as being contrary to the receiv'd Laws of Succession in Normandy as well as England yet was it not by Election of the people as you suppose but by the kindness of Arch-Bishop Lanfranc his God-father and the favour of the greater part of the Norman Barons who came over with his Father as well as out of hatred to Duke Robert his Elder Brother that he was thus made King so that William Rufus claimed as a Testamentary Heir and by reason of that Claim was advanced to the Throne by the Assistance of Lanfranc's and the Bishop's Faction who then swayed the people but yet never owned any Election from them so that if you rightly consider this Story you cannot call it an Election but a Designation or Nomination by his Father William the Conqueror and consented to by the major part of the Bishops and Lords of the Kingdom but not by their Election or Decree as a Common Council as you suppose But that for all this Duke Robert his Brother being assisted by Odo Bishop of Bayenx and Earl of Kent his Uncle as also divers other Norman Lords who being satisfied of his Right raised a War in England against William and great mischief was done on both sides till at last a Peace was made between them upon these conditions among others as Matthew Westminster relates it that because of the manifest Right Duke Robert had to the Crown he should have a Yearly Pension of three thousand Marks out of the Revenue of England and he of the two Brothers that surviv'd the other if he died
the Chineses and the Inhabitants of Formosa at this day all which either did or now do destroy their Children as soon as they are brought forth or else in the Womb afore they are born if they please so to do And as for some of these Nations you have instanced in and particularly the Muscovites who can â—ell their Children but four times it is apparent it is only a Municipal Law for if the Property of the Father over the Sons Persons were by them looked upon as perpetual he might not only sell him four times but forty if it were possible But on the other side I have against this Custom of your Nâ—tions the Examples of divers altogether as Wise and Civiliz'd who did not permit Fathers to exercise this absolute Power over their Children and therefore against your Example of the Jews I set that of the Egyptians who did not Permit Parents to put their Children to Death nor yet to sell them unless in case of great necessity and when they could not otherwise maintain them and then I grant it may be necessary So likewise against your Roman Law I set that of all the Greek Nations none of whom permitted Fathers to put their Children to Death except the Spartans and that was only in one case and that was only in one case and that with the judgment and consent of the eldest Men of the Family yet when their new born Infants were so weak or ill shaped as to be thougt not worth the rearing So likewise against your examples of the Antient Gauls I set that of the Germans a Nation altogether as wise and civilized as the other to whom I could likewise add the Antient Britains Spaniards and divers others and to the more Modern examples of the Eastern Nations where this custom is permitted of selling or killing their Children I shall oppose the Turks and Persians amongst whom it is forbidden as also amongst all the Nations of Europe who believe Christianity and if we go over to America we shall find that they are there so indulgent to their Children that no fault whatsoever tho' never so great shall make them put them to Death And to let you see that this is most suitable to Reason the two greatest Philosophers amongst the Greeks Plato and Aristotle have condemned it The former in his Laws where he expresly forbids it supposing that in no case whatever a Father ought to put off all Piety and Humanity towards his Son and that a Son should be rather led by Nature than driven by force to obey his Father especially since his Power is sufficiently established by the Law and the appointing of publick Judges and Aristotle in his Morals to Nicomachus Lib. 8. cap. 12. accuses the Jus Patrium in use among the Persians as Tyrannical and Grotius tells you he makes use of these examples of the Romans and Persians only that we might distinguish Civil Rights from natural From whence it appears that the putting of Children to death by Parents was lookt upon as an odius thing amongst the wisest of the Antients and therefore neither the Lex Regia nor the Law of the XII Tables nor the Julian Law de Adulteriis all which left Fathers a Power over the Lives of their Sons and Daughters yet would extend this Power by Interpretation to the Grand Father towards his Grand-Son or Grand-Daughter M. Yet for all this I think all the wisest and most Civilized Nations were of my opinion and it is from them that we ought to take this Law of Nations rather than the others and therefore I think the Romans were a great deal wiser and better People than the Greeks and the Antient Gauls than the Germans Nor does your argument against this power of Life and Death in Fathers by the Law of Nature seem cogent that if it were so it could never be taken away or restrained by any Civil Law since this argument will make vâ— much against that power of Life and Death with which you invest your Fathers of Families in the state of Nature since if they have it by the Law of Nature it could no more he restrained or taken away by Civil Laws than any Paternal Power in the like case F. I pray Sir hold if this controversie is to be decided by the Wisdom and the Civility of Nations we shall never have done For in the first place who shall judge of this consent of the most Civilized People and that no account is to be made of those whom you call Barbarous for what Nation will acknowledge it self to be so or can arrogate so much to it self as that it may require all others to conform themselves to their Laws and Customs and that all Nations must be barbarous that act otherwise Antiently the arrogance of the Greeks made them look upon all other Nations as Barbarous and then the Romans succeeded in this foolish conceit of themselves and at this day we People of Europe who are but a few in comparison of the rest of the World do suppose our selves to exceed all others in Knowledge And yet on the other side there are diverse Nations who prefer themselves far before us and I have read that the Chineses have a saying that the Europeans see with one Eye themselves with two but that all the rest of the World are stark blind and yet this Nation maintains a Power of selling and exposing their Children which we Europeans abhor Now pray tell me if there is not some common rule to be drawn from reason or the common good of Mankind how shall we judge which is in the right So that notwithstanding all that hath been said on this subject I think I may safely conclude with the Judgment of the Learned Pufendorf in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where speaking of the Paternal Power he says thus But neither thâ— same Power as such seems to extend it self to that of Life and Death by reason of any fault but only to a moderate chastisement For since this authority is employed about an Age that iâ— weak and tender and in which such incorrigible crimes can hardly be committed which nothing but Life can expiate it is much better that a Father should turn out of Doors a Son who doth willfully refuse through obstinacy and wickedness all due correction So that Abdication and Disinheriting seems to be the utmost punishment which can be inflicted by a Father on a Son considered as such M. I see it is to no purpose to spend longer time about this question but since your self have all along allowed that the Father of a separate Family in the state of Nature hath a Power to put his Wife or Children to Death in case they have committed any heinous sins or offences against the Laws of God or Nature but you have not yet told me and I doubt cannot how Adam or any other Master of a Family could be endued with this Power of Life and Death unless
it were granted him by God F. I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question by and by but in the mean time pray let me make it a little more plain to you that this Power of Life and Death which may be exercised by Masters of separate Families over their Wives and Children in some cases is not by any Power they receive from God as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families may by proved by this instance suppose a Master of a Family independant on any other as in the Indies hath neither Wife nor Children yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves for such great offences as you have mentioned in case there be no superiour Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes And to make this yet plainer suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live together with them in the Family of such a Master as I have now described yet not aâ— a Servant but as an Inmate or Boarder and whilst he so continues his Wife Kills one of her Children or one of his Sons Murders his Brother who hath right to punish this offence but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate And this follows from your own supposed for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independant Government then all those that enter themselves as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governour of it Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument That if the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature it could never be restrain'd nor taken from them without their consent that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families since I must grant this is taken away by Civil Laws And why not the other To this I reply that you do not observe the strength of these words Without their consent For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers or Masters of Families in the state of Nature without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Common-wealth upon its first Institution whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force as by Conquest or Usurpation not only over those that are not at their own disposal as Children and Servants but over their Fathers and Masters too without their consents which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason M. I see you take it for granted that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families and not as Fathers in the State of Nature But as plain as you think it since you question the Power of Life and Death which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families since there is no reason in my Opinion which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children in case they deserve it For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind that great and enormous Crimes such as Murder and Adultery should be punished and that with Death Who is more fit to inflict these punishments or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Husband himself Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death however they may deserve it without very great reluctancy since he aâ— it were thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body And therefore I cannot see any Reason why such a Married man as you describe should by coming under another Man's Rooâ— only as an Inmate or Boarder and not as a Slave which I grant would alter the Case should lose that Power of Life and Death which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board And therefore as I do not deny but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death and also of making Peace and War with other such Masters of Families nay with Princes themselves if there be occasion as we read in Genesis Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth says he and let her be burnt Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone she not being his own Daughter and his Son being then dead but as the Master of a separate Family who hath I grant power of Life and Death as he is Lord over the persons of his Children aâ— Servants and consequently over their Wives also for if he hath power over his Son he hath certainly the like over all that belong to him as long as they continue members of his Family and that he hath not thought fit to manumit or set them free But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarchâ— could exercise all these markâ— of Soveraignty especially this great Power of Life and Death unless it were derived from God at first since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's So that not only this Power of the Patriarchs but also that of all Monarchs to this day must be derived from this Divine Original F. Well then I find you 're forced to quit the power of a Father as such by Generation since it plainly appears that this power of Life and Death which you affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature is not quatenus as a Father but Lord and Master over them which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her for if she is not his Slave as certainly she is not for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased I cannot see how she her self could convey by force of the contract any such Power over her Life tho I grant indeed if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children or other Person of the Family he may proceed against her as an Enemy but not as a Subject and if it be for Adultery it self I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony Divorce or putting her away and deserting the Child born in Adultery
by several places in Genesis by which it plainly appears that Adam and after him Noah were supernaturally endued with this Divine Power F. Tho â— am satisfied that this Hypothesis is extreamly absurd since if it were so only Christian or Jewish Soveraigns or Magistrates who acknowledg the Scriptures could lay any claim to or exercise this Divine Power whereas we find it practised by all those Nations with whom the memory of Adam and Noah is quite lost and therefore must claim this Prerogative not from any Revealed but Natural Law of God yet however since you think you have such clear Texts of Scripture on your side I desire you to produce them tho if they should make out what you say they would only serve to confirm by Divine Revelation that Prerogative of Life and Death which all Masters of Families as well as Civil Soveraigns enjoyed by the Law of Nature before ever the Bible was written M. As for my own part I am so well satisfied of this Supream Power of life and death granted at first by God to Adam and after to Noah that I cannot see that without the supposal of this any Supream power could lawfully be exercised by civil Soveraigns at this day And therefore I am of Mr. Selden 's opinion who in his most learned Treatise De Iure gentium apud Hebraeos maintains with the Iewish Rabbins That the Law of Nature can never be planly proved and made out by Reason without a Tradition of its Preceps as given by God to Adam and thence conveyed to Noah and his posterity Which Divine Laws or Commands are called by the Iews the Seven precepts of Noah which whatsoever Nation or People would observe they permitted them to live as Inhabitans among them though they did not embrace Circumcision or those other Rights and Ceremonies commanded by the Law of Moses Now amongst these Precepts that of instituting publick Judgments for capital Crimes is one of the first in pursuance of that Command which God gave Noah immediately after the Flood Gen. 9. v. 6. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made he man By which Text almost all Commentators understand that it is not any common man but the person of the civil Magistrate or Soveraign that is to be meant Since it would be both impracticable and also breed great confusion in civil Societies if by this word man every common person not endued by God with this Supream Power of Life and Death should be understood and therefore I do suppose with the most Learned Iews that this Power was first exercised by vertue of that Divine Charter that was given of it by God to Adam and then renewed again to Noah by the Text abovementioned Now that Adam had by Divine grant an absolute Dominion over the whole World and all Creatures therein contained will appear from Gen. 1. v. 27 28. here is the Bible I desire you would read it with me So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him male and female created he them And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowl of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth By which Grant or Donation from God of subduing the Earth and having dominion over the Creatures Adam was made the general Lord of all things with such a particular propriety to himself as did exclude his Children from having any share in it So that if Cain had his Fields for Corn or Abel his Flocks and Pasture for them it was only by Adam's Grant or Assignation none of his Children or Descendents having any property in Lands or Goods without his particular Grant or Permission F. You must pardon me Sir if I cannot be of your Opinion that all the Preceps of the Law of Nature must depend upon no firmer foundation than a Tradition of the Seven Preceps supposed by the Jewish Rabbins to be given to Adam and Noah and from them conveyed to all their Posterity since we find not the least mention of any such Precepts in the Scripture or in Josephus Philo Judaeus or any other ancient Writer but only in the Tâ—lmud Which though it pretends to a great Antiquity in its Traditions yet any judicious man that will but peruse it may easily see the falshood as well as absurdity of the pretended Tradition of these Precepts one of which is against eaâ—ing the Members of any living Creature which savours so strongly of a Jewish Superstition that if that were a true Precept or Law of Nature no man could eat a Dish of Lambstones or a Black pudding without sinning against the Law of Nature And it is very improâ—â—â— to suppose that all mankind except Jews Christians and Mahometans should be obliged to live or act by those Laws or Preceps they never heard of For it as you your self must grant the memory or tradition of these Precepts be quite lost amongst all Nations except the Jews it is all one as if they had acted without any Law at all and consequently if they have not some better grounds for their observation of the Law of Nature than these Preceps of Noah I doubt whether according to your Hypothesis all Civil Soveraigns that do not own the original of their Power of life and death to this Divine Charter granted to Adam and Noah must be no better than Murtherers since they take upon them to exercise this great Prerogative without any Divine Authority for so doing But I hope to shew you before we have concluded this conversation that not only the Power of Life and Death but also other Laws of Nature may easily be deduced by Reason to have been given by God to Mankind by the ordinary Course of his Providence without recurring to Divine Revelation which can only oblige those that have heard of it But since you lay so much stress upon those Texts of Scripture you have now cited I pray give me leave to examine whether they will bear that sense you put upon them As for the first of those Texts you quote Whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed c. Suppose I should take it in that sense you put upon it only to extend to Civil Soveraigns or Magistrates it will be so far from proving a Power of Life and Death to have been granted by God to Adam and from him conveyed to Noah that this place seems to imply the contrary for if it was a known Law before that Murther was to be punished with death by a Father or other Magistrate to what purpose was this Command now given to Noah Since if it were a Divine Law before the Flood wherefore is it here repeated And therefore all Expositors agree that this is the first Precept enjoyning Murther to
this point without better consideration but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam since no Man hath a Power over his own life as I said before and therefore cannot have it over that of others F. I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection when I had yielded to you that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives much less to take away those of others but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature in order to the procuring the great end of it viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind which I own could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in long subsist without such a Power Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World the consequence of which would be that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man but in such Kingdoms or Common-wealths who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah from which they must deride their Title to it Now I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Common-wealths there are in the World who ever heard of much less owned this Divine Charter this fine notion yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island But be it as it will the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life and therefore neither is your consequence for I suppose that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind of which my Religion or Countrey is a part I am likewise Master of my own and may lay it down or expose it when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State And in the first Book of Maccabees Chap. 6.43 which thâ— it be not Canonical Scripture yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches as containing Examples of good manners you may Read that Eleazar the younger Brother of Iudas Maccabeus is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted that he might thereby destroy him likewise tho he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian and divers Ecclesiastical Historians of whole Troops of Martyrs who tho unaccused yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom and farther Eusebius himself doth not condemn but rather commends some Primitive Christians that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses esteeming as he their tells us a certain Death as an advantage because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors I could likewise give you if it were not two tedious several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends or else of Christian Bishops whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful when he tells the Romans That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one dye yet per adventure for a good Man somâ— would even dare to dye that is a Man highly beneficial to others And the same Apostle in the last Chapter of this Epistle returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila not only on his own behalf but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks that is hazarded their lives to save his and where ever they might have thus exposed them surely they might have lost them too And therefore I think I may with reason affirm that in most Cases where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Countrey he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord without any such command the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superiour but from that zeal and affection which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country even beyond the preservation of his own Life M. Well I confess that this that you have now said carries some colour of reason with it and is more than I had considered before But pray resolve me one difficulty more which still lies upon my mind By what Authority less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture do Supream Powers take upon them to make Lawâ— And that under no less penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death such as Theft Counterfiting the publick Coyn with divers other offences needless here to be reckoned up And if a Father as you will not allow him hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power more than his Wife or any other of the Family and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder to be in any that will take it upon them and therefore you see Cain said whoever meets me will slay me And God tells Noah whoever sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it F. This Objection is easily answered if you please to consider what you your self did a good whâ—â—â— since urge to me that God endowed Adam with so much Authority as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived which I readily granted you and I only differed in the manner of its derivation you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God and I maintaining that both he and every other Master of a separate Family derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law which if it be well proved such Masters of Families as also all Civil Powers whom I suppose to be endued
the sole Will of the first Princes in which the People had no hand for in the most Antient Monarchies there was a time when the People of all Countreys were Governed by the Sole Wills of their Princes which by degrees came to be so well known in several instances that inferior Magistrates needed not resort to them in those cases and the People being for a considerable time accustomed to such Usages they grew easie and Familiar to them and so were retained tho the Memory of those Princes who first introduced them was lost and after Kings finding it better to continue what was so received than to run the hazard and trouble of changing them were for their own ease and the good of their Subjects contented they should be still from Age to Age so continued Which custom may hold as well in Laws about Succession as other things And therefore we find that even in those Monarchies where the People have nothing to do in making Laws Women are excluded which could proceed at first from nothing else but the declared Will or Law of the first Monarchs So likewise the Original of the Salique Law is wholly ascribed to Pharamond the first French King and Mariana whom you lately cited tells us that Alphonso King of Arragon made a Law that where Heirs Male were wanting the Sons of a Daughter should be preferred before the Aunt which Law is wholly attributed to the King for he adds presently after Sic saepe ad Regum arbitrium jura regnandi commutantur F. Granting all this true that you have said you cannot but confess that the Laws of God and Nature have established nothing in this matter or else it could not be in the Power of Kings to make or alter Laws concerning the succession as your last Quotation intimates they may yet even in the most absolute Monarchies the Laws about the Succession of the Crown must wholly depend upon the Consent of the People who are to see them observed or else every Monarch might alter these Laws of Succession at his pleasure and the Great Turk or King of France now the Assembly of Estates is lost might leave the Crown to a Daughter if either of them pleased and disinherit the next Heir Male. But as for the Original of this â—alique Law in France you 'l find your self much mistaken if you suppose that that Law was made by the Sole Authority of Pharamond for the Antient French Histories tell us that the Body of Salique Laws which are now extant were made by the Common Consent of the whole Nation of the Francs who committed the drawing of them up to three Judges or Commissioners and which Laws Pharamond did only confirm and any one that will but consult those Histories may see that Kings were so far from having the Sole Legislative Power in their own hand that they were frequently Elected by the Estates nor is it truer that you suppose from Mariana that the Kings of Arragon had Power alone to make Laws it appears quite contrary from the Constitutions of that Kingdom where the King could do nothing of this kind without the Consent of the Estates and was not admitted to the Crown without taking an Oath to the Chief Justice in the name of the People that he would observe the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom otherwise that they would not be obliged to obey him But at once to let you see that about the Succession of the Sons or Descendants by Daughters the Cases are much more nice and intricate and that when such Cases happen in limited Monarchies where there is an Assembly of Estates they are the Sole Iudges of such differences may appear by two famous examples in modern History The first is in Scotland about four hundred years ago when after the Death of King Alexander III who died without Issue when two or three several competitors claim'd a Right to the Crown as descended from several Daughters of David Earl of Huntington great Uncle to the last King the Chief of which being Iohn Bayliol and Robert Bâ—uâ—â— the Estates of the Kingdom not being able to decide it they agreed to refer it to Edward I. King of England who adjudged the Crown to Bayliol yet did not this put an end to this great controversie for not long after Bayliol being deposed Bruce revived his Title and the States of Scotland declared him King whose Posterity enjoy it at this day A like Case happened in the last Age in Portugal after the Death of Henry surnamed the Cardinal without Issue when no less than four Eminent Competitors put in their Claim some claiming from the Daughters of Don Durate youngest Brother to the last King Henry But the King of Spain and other Princes as Sons to the Sisters of the said King Henry dying without Issue left ten Governours over the Kingdom to decide together with the Estates the Differences about the Succession who quarrelling among themselves as also with the Estates before it was decided Philip the second King of Spain raised an Army and soon conquered Portugal And yet we have seen in his Grand son's time that the Estates of Portugal declared this Title void and the Crown was settled in the Posterity of the Duke of Braganza who still enjoy it And how much even Kings themselves have attributed to the Authority of the Estates in this matter appears by the League made between Philip the Long King of France and David King of Scots wherein this condition was exprest That if there should happen any Difference about the Succession in either of these Realms he of the two Kings which remained alive should not suffer any to place himself on the Throne but him who should have the Judgment of the Estates on his side and then he should with all his Power oppose him who would after this contest the Crown To conclude I cannot see any means how if such Differences as these had arisen in the first Generation after Adam I say how they could ever have been decided without a Civil War or else leaving the Judgment thereof to the Heads or Fathers of Families that were then in being Which how much it would have differed from the Judgment or Declaration of the States of a Kingdom at this day I leave it to your self to judge M. I shall not trouble my self to determine how far Princes may tye up their own hands in this matter of the Succession and leave it to the States of the Kingdom to limit or determine of it but from the beginning it was not so and therefore give me leave to trace this Paternal Government a little farther For tho' I grant that when Iacob and his twelve Sons went into Egypt together with their Families they exercised a Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction which was intermitted because they were in Subjection to a stronger Prince Yet after the return of these Israelites out of Bondage God from a special
are they likewise obliged to maintain this Property when it is once Instituted and the People have as much Right to it as any King can have to his Crown viz. the Civil Law of that Country or Consent of the whole Nation And therefore if according to King Iames the First his Rule a King of a Setled or limited Kingdom will break all the Laws thereof and Degenerate into a Tyrant unless such Tyrant be the Ordinance of God he may certainly be so far Opposed for what can Pirates or Robbers do more than his Officers and Guards by his Commission The former can but Murder Men Ravish their Wives burn their Houses and take away their Estates and if the latter may do so too pray where is the Difference Or what satisfaction is it to me that I am Ruined by one Man having the King's Commission or by another that Ruins me without it Since I am sure God hath given the one no more Authority to do it than the other if then this unlimited Power be neither conferred by God nor Man upon the Civil Magistrates I would fain know any Reason why Thieves and Pirates may be Resisted but their Instruments may not that do the same things And why when Civil Authority exceeds its utmost Bounds the State of Nature or Self-defence may not take place Since the Civil Government is as much Dissolved by such Violent Actions as if a Forreign Enemy had broke in and Conquered the Country But to Answer your Query whether I think a Civil Government may not be where there is no Setled Property in Estates and whether the Eastern Monarchies are not Civil Governments To this I answer that I have Aristotle on my Side who not without Reason Affirms that the Government of one Man where there is no Civil Property and where all Men are Slaves is not Civil Government but that of a Master of a Great Family over his Slaves And tho' I grant that they may have some shew of Civil Government among them as in a Plantation where one of the Slaves may complain to the Master against another for any Injury or Wrong done him yet is not this Property Civil Government any more than that of the Master of a Separate Family who looks upon himself as Absolute Lord over all his Slaves and they allowed him by God only for his Benefit and Grandeur and not he instituted as all Civil Powers are for the Good and Preservation of the Subjects M. But methinks you seem herein to Condemn the Government of Gods own People the Iews which no doubt was an Absolute Monarchy And that restrained by no Laws except what God had expresly prescribed them And yet you see notwithstanding Samuel told them that their Kings should take away their Fields and their Vineyards and give them to his Servants and take their Sons and Daughters to be his Servants or Slaves Yet God leaves them no Power to Resist them for so doing But all the Remedy left them is that they should Cry out in that day because of the King which they had chosen and the Lord would not hear them that is there was no Remedy left them but Patience F. I have already given you my Sense of that Place and I shall speak more particularly to it when you shall come to those Texts of Scripture that you said you would produce for Absolute Subjâ—ction and Non-Resistance And therefore at present I shall only here shew you what the Earl of Clarendon in the above mentioned Survey of the Leviathan cap. 19. hath very prudently as well as honestly said concerning this Text They who will deduce the extent of the absolute and illimited Power of Kings from that Declaration by Samuel which indeed seems to leave neither Property nor Liberty to their Subjects and could be only intended by Samuel to terrifie them from that Mutinous and Seditious Clamor as it hath no Foundation from any other part of Scripture nor was ever practised or exercised by any Good King who succeeded over them and was blessed and approved by God So when those State Empiricks of what degree or Quality soever will take upon them to prescribe a new Dyet and Exercise to Soveraign Princes and invite them to assume new Powers and Prerogatives over the People by the Precepts Warrants and Prescriptions of the Scriptures they should not presume to make the Sacred Writ Subject to their own private Fancies So likewise in a Leaf or two before he speaks much to the same Purpose That what Samuel had said was rather to terrifie them from pursuing their foolish Demands than to Constitute such a Prerogative as the Kings should use whom God would appoint to go in and out before them which methinks is very manifest in that the worst Kings that ever reigned over them never challenged or assumed those Prerogatives Nor did the People conceive themselves liable to those impositions as appears by the application they made to Rehoboam upon the Death of Solomon that he would abate some of that Rigor his Father had exercised towards them the rough Rejection oâ— which request contrary to the Advice of his Wiâ—est Counsellours cost him the greater part of his Dominions And when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduc'd them to Obedience God would not suffer him because he had been in the fault himself From whence you may conclude that this Great Man did not think all Resistance unlawful in Case of General and Intolerable Oppressions M. I shall give you my Opinion farther of what you have now said when you have told me more plainly in what Cases you allow Resistance of the Supream Powers and in what not For till you have been more clear in this matter I cannot tell what Judgment to make of your Tenets F. I thank you for putting me upon so fair a Method And therefore that you may not mistake me and suppose that I would go about to allow Subjects to Resist and take up Arms against the Supream Power upon any less Occasion than an Absoluâ—â— Necessity and apparent Danger of being Destroyed and Ruined in their Lives Liberties and Estates first therefore considering that the Corruption of Humane Nature is such that no sort of Government whatsoever can continue long without some Inconveniences and Mischiefs to particular Men not that any Man either Prince or â—ubject was ever Master of such perfect Wisdom and Goodness as always to peform his Duty so exactly as never to Offend I do in the first place grant that it would be both Undutâ—ful as well as Unjust for Subjects to Rebell aâ—ainst their Prince for his Personal Failings or Vices Undutiful Since the Prince may be often times an ill Man in his private Capacity and yet a good Governour in respect of the Publick and also Unjust since neither do we our selves exactly perform our Duties toward the Supream Powers or to one another as we ought And therefore it is highly reasonable for Subjects to
must confess I am somewhat staggered with those Reasons and Arguments you have now given me against those Principles which as I have always and must still esteem as sacred till I am convinced I am in an Errour and perhaps if I were to consult my own 〈◊〉 Reason and natural Inclinations I should come over to your opinion But since it hath pleased God to lay much higher restraints and stricter Rules of Obedience and Subjection on us by his Revealed Will in the Scripture beyond what can be discovered by the Light of Nature and that under the highest Penalty viz. Damnation I can see no reason why God Almighty may not grant Eternal Life upon what Conditions he pleases tho' never so hard and uneasie for Flesh and Blood to perform So that if our Saviour Iesus Christ hath commanded us to take up his Cross and follow him that is to suffer all sorts of Injuries and Afflictions nay Death it self as he himself did rather than to Resist the Supream Powers under which He lived I cannot see any Reason why he should not Propose his own Example for our Imitation And as he hath enjoined and expects from us greater Degrees of Chastity Charity and Humility than ever he did from the Iews or Pagans so I see no reason why he may not likewise exact from us a greater and more perfect Obedience and Submission without any Resistance to all Soveraign Princes and States than ever he did either by the Law of Moses or that of Nature not but that there are sufficient Proofs in the Old Testament for the absolute Power of Princes against all Rebellion or Resistance in Subjects Tho' I confess this Doctrine is more plainly proved by the Example of our Saviour and the Precepts of his Apostles in the New Testament as also from the Example of the Primitive Christians in Obedience thereunto F. I perceive you begin to distrust your Arguments drawn from Natural Reason and the Laws of Nature and when you are pressed with the absurdity of this Doctrine of yours you fly from Gods Natural to his Revealed Will and take refuge under the Covert of the Holy Scripture to impose an Opinion contrary to the Common sense and Natural Notions of Mankind not corrupted with the Prejudices of Education and therefore give me leave at present to tell you that I think I shall be able to prove that the Passive Obedience as you call it of the Primitive Christians and their sufferings for the Name of Christs will not at all contradict that Natural Right which I suppose all Freemen to have as well under Civil Government as in the State of Nature for the defence of their Lives Liberties and Properties unless where the Common good and Peace of the whole or Major part of the People require the contrary And therefore the same Reasons which oblige particular private Persons to be quiet and not to disturb the publick Peace of the whole Society for their own private Safety and Advantage when the whole Body of the People or the Major part of them is thus violently assaulted in their Lives Liberties and Estates the same considerations of the Publick good of their Country whereof every Man is a Member doth then as strongly persuade I may say enjoyn them to take up Arms and defend themselves for the Preservation of the whole People or Community whose Natural and Civil Rights being now attack't can no otherwise be restored to the same State they were in before but by that last Remedy that can be used in this Case viz. Kim vi â—topellere M. I confess that of all Commonwealth-hypotheses yours is most reasonable being coherent with it self and also most likely to be swallowed by the People because it flatters our corrupt Natures to which this Christian Doctrine of Passive Obedience is so directly opposite as also because it gives them a full Liberty I mean not only the Representative Body but the Major part of them to reassume that Power which you pretend they never parted with and so consequently all necessity of suffering except when they please to think they have justly deserved it is taken away and the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians will be rendered only a tame Madness and that St. Paul was very much overseen to enjoin this Subjection to the Romans under the Government of one of the most cruel Tyrants that ever sway'd that Scepter but we have not so learned Christs And therefore I am firmly persuaded that we ought to be strictly obedient without any Resistance to those Civil Governours that God hath been pleased to set over us let them abuse their Power never so Tyrannically F. I am beholden to you for your plain dealing with me in this matter and pleased to find that you have an Inclination to my Principles were it not for some Texts of Scripture and Citations out of the Fathers and Church History which give you a Prejudice against them which I hope when they come to be closely examined will signifie no more than the former But for the dispatching this Important Controversie I pray give me leave to propose this easie method first that you would be pleased to lay down your Authorities out of Scripture in order as they lie And afterwards to shew me that the Ancient Fathers and Primitive Church always understood those Texts in the same Sense that you do viz. that No Resistance of the Supream Powers is Lawful to be exercised in any Case whatsoever M. I approve of your Proposal and therefore I will first begin with those proofs which are expresly against all Rebellion or Resistance in the Old Testament The first Governour that God set over the Children of Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt was Moses and I think I need not prove how sacred and irresistible his Authority was This is sufficiently evident in the Rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram against Moses and Aaron when God caused the Earth to open her Mouth and swallow them up And lest this should be thought an extraordinary Case Moses and Aaron being extraordinary Persons immediately appointed by God and governed by his Immediate direction the Apostle St. Iude alledges this example against those in his days who were Turbulent and Factious who despised Dominions and spake evil of Dignities that they should Perish in the gainsaying of Core which he could not have done had not this Example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary Cases had it not been a lasting Testimony of Gods displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against Soveraign Powers But Moses was not always to rule over them and therefore God expresly provides for a succession of Soveraign Powers to which they must all submit The ordinary Soveraign Power of the Iewish Nation after Moses's Death was devolv'd either on the High-Priest or those extraordinary Persons whom God was pleas'd to raise up such as Ioshua and the several Iuâ—ges till in
Samuels Days it setled in their Kings For as for the Iewish Sanhedrim whose Power is so much extolled by the Iewish Writers who are all a late Date many years since the Destruction of Ierusalem and therefore no competent Witnesses of what was done so many Ages before it does not appear from any Testimony of Scripture that there was such a Court of Iudicature till after their Return from the Babylonish Captivity But yet God took care to secure the Peace and good Government of the Nation by appointing such a Power as should receive the last Appeals and whose sentence in all Controversies should be final uncontroulâ—ble as you may see in Deuteronomy Chap. 17. There were indeed inferiour Magistrates and Iudges appointed in their several Tribes and Cities which Moses did by the advice of Iethro his Father in Law and by the Approbation of God But as the Supream Power was still reserv'd in the hands of Moses while he liv'd so it is here secured to the High-Priest or Iudges after his Death for it is expresly appointed that if those inferiour Iudges could not determine the Controversie they should come unto the Priests the Levites that is the Priests of the Tribe of Levi who by the 12. v. appear only to be the High-Priest and to the Iudge that shall be in those days that is if it shall be at such a time when there is an extraordinary Judge raised by God for there were not always such Iudges in Israel as is evident to anyone who reads the Book of Iudges they should enquire of them and they shall shew the sentence of Iudgement and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall Chuse shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee And what the Authority of the Chief-Priest or of the Iudge when there was one was in those days appears from v. 12. And the Man that will do presumptuously and wilâ— not hearken â—o the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that Man shall dye and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel This is as absolute an Authority as the most absolute Monarch in the World can challenge that disobedience to their Last and final Determination whatever the Cause be shall be punish'd with Death and what place can there be for Resistance in such a Constitution of Government as this It is said indeed v. 11. And according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the Iudgment that they shall tell thee thou shalt do And hence some conclude that they were not bound to abide by their sentence nor were punishable if they did not but only in such Cases when they gave sentence according to the Law of God But these Men do not consider that the Matter in Controversie is supposed to be doubtful and such as could not be determin'd by the inferiour Courts and therefore is submitted to the Decision of the Supream Iudge and as he determin'd so they must do no Man under the Penalty of Death must presume to do otherwise which takes away all Liberty of Iudging from Private Persons tho' this Supream Judge might possibly mistake in his Judgment as all Humane Iudicatures are liable to mistakes but it seems God Almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final Iudgment from whence there should be no Appeal notwithstanding the Possibility of a mistake in it So likewise when God had appointed Ioshua to succeed Moses and had conferrd upon him all that Power that Moses had before and that he came to give his Orders to the two Tribes and an half before their Passage over Iordan you 'l find that they not only promis'd him perfect Obedience as they had before pay'd to Moses but farther also assure him That whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy Commandment and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou Commandest him he shall be put to Death So that there was a Supream and Soveraign that is an unaccountable and irresistible Power in the Iewish Nation appointed by God himself for indeed it is not possible that the Publick Peace and Security of any Nation should be preserved without it F. You have Sir methinks taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at all Deny but rather joyn with you to assâ—rt that Stubbornness and Disobedience to Gods Commands is a very great Sin and the Rebellion thereunto is likened to the Sin of Witchcraft as Samuel shews to no less a Man than King Saul himself when he had Rebelled against that is disobeyed God in not destroying the King of the Amalâ—kites and therefore it is no wonder that in a Government where God himself was the Head and had appointed Moses and Aaron as his Lieutenants or Substitutes under him the one in Civil and the other in Ecclesiastical matters that God should punish their Murmuring and Rebellion against them as done to himself not that I deny but that St. Iude does likewise denounce this Judgment of perishing in the gainsaying of Core against those wicked Hereticks the Gnosticks who thought themselves set free from all Civil subjection and therefore despised Dominions and spake evil of Dignities that is not the Men invested with them but Civil Magistracy it self which they look'd upon as inconsistent with their Christian Liberty But yet for all this and that I grant God denounced no less than the Sentence of Death against any Man that refused to Hearken to the Priest or unto the Iudge in those matters that should be brought before them by way of Appeal and also that whoever would not obey Ioshua but should Rebel against his Commandments should be put to Death yet can I not think that there was any Irresistible Power plac'd by God in the Persons of Moses Ioshua or the Iudges or that it was not possible for the Publick Peace or security of the Nation to be preserved without that But indeed all these Persons above nam'd being to be Obeyed as Gods Substitutes or Lieutenants as he was King of the Children of Israel so likewise their Commands or Dictates were only so far to be observ'd as they perform'd this Commission and if they had swerved from it I doubt not but they might not only have been disobeyed but also resisted by them And therefore pray tell me suppose this Rebellion of Core had happened because Moses making himself a distinct party amongst the mixt multitude of strangers that came up with them out of the Land of Egypt and others of his own Tribe or whom he could bring over to his Faction under colour of this Soveraign Power which God had given him had instead of leading and governing the People committed to his charge taken upon him to have rob'd them of all those Goods and Riches which
all Israel saw that the King hearkened not unto them the People answered the King saying What Portion have we in David Neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse To your tents O Israel Now see to thine own House David So Israel dâ—parted unto their Tents And it is farther said So Israel rebelled against the House of David unto this day Nor is this action at all blamed or disapproved by the Scripture or rebuked by any Prophet at that time for tho' the Word is here translated they rebelled yet in the Hebrew it signifies no more than fell away from or Revolted and it is said before that the King hearkened not to the People For the 〈◊〉 which may be also translated REVOLUTION was from the Lord that he might perform his saying which he spake by Ahijah thâ— Sâ—ilonite unto Jeroboam when in the Chapter before the Prophet promis'd him the Kingdom of the Tâ—n Tribes and that God would rend them out of the hand of Solomon i. e. his Posterity and give them unto him who thereupon had a Right to them and that upon his being made King by the People he had also a Right to their Obedience is as evident Since to continue in a State of Rebellion towards one King and an Obligation to obey another are absolutely inconsistent in the same Subject as I have already proved at our second Conference And therefore I cannot but here take notice of that rational Account which the Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of the Leviathan which you before quoted gives of this Revolution Nor did the People viz. of Israel conceive themselves liable to those impositions as appears by the Application they made to Rehoboam upon the death of Solomon that he would abate some of that rigour his Father had exercised towards them the rough Rejection of which contrary to the advice of his wisest Counâ—ellours cost him the greatest part of his Dominions and when Rehoboam would by Arms have reduced them to obedience God would not suffer him because he had been in the fault himself M. After this extravagant way of Arguing when ever the Subjects of any Nation shall think themselves too much oppress'd with Taxes or other Grievances above what they are able to bear if they are not eas'd by the King or Supream Magistrates upon the first Petition they may presently cast off that Power they were under and set up another that would govern them upon Cheaper Terms for if the People of Israel had this Right why may not all other Nations claim the same and this Doctrine however comfortable it might be to the People I am sure it would be very Mischievous to all the Monarchies and Commonwealths in the World and it is likely that the Subjects of the French King nay States of Holland and other Princes would quickly take the first opportunity either to make their Princes and States to â—ax them no more than they please themselves or else they may presently cry with the Israelites To thy Tents O Israel nor can I see how the King and Parliament in England would be in a much better Conâ—ition in Relation to the People they represent should they impose greater Taxes than they thought they could afford to pay and this Priviledge you give the Israelites seems to be clean contrary to what you laid down at our last Conference wherein you excepted great Taxes and Tributes to Princes or States as no just Cause of Resistance or taking up Arms And therefore I think I may very well maintain the old Doctrine about this Matter and that tho' God did rend the Kingdom from Rehoboam and bestow it upon the Son of Nebat whom also when the People had made him King they were obliged to obey because it was Gods will it should be so who gives and takes away Kingdoms from whomsoever he pleases Yet doth not this at all justifie the Rebellion of the Israelites or Iereboam's â—suâ—pation of his Masters Kingdom since God oftentimes makes use of this Rebellion of the People to execute his Iudgment upon a sinful Prince and Nation And therefore it is very remarkable that after this Rebellion of the Israelites from the house of David they never prospered but by their Kings still falling one after another into the same Idolatry till God at last was so highly provoked against them that he suffered them to be carried away Captives into a strange Land near two hundred Years before the Tribes of Iudah and Benjamin underwent the same fate for the like Crime F. I hope you will not be in a Passion because I have brought this Instance of the Israelites Defection from Rehoboam as an Example of the Right that Subjects may have in those Cases I have put to resist or cast off those Supream Powers that God had once set over them For I do confess Divines and other Authors are much divided about this Action of the Israelites some maintaining it to be well done and in Pursuance to God's Will and others holding it to be Down-right Rebellion And therefore I shall not positively assert either the one or the other much less that Subjects may rebel whensoever they conceive themselves overtax't but thus much I think I may safely affirm that if the Israelites had no Right upon any score whatsoever to resist I cannot see why Rehoboam might not have made them if he had pleas'd as Arrant Slaves as ever their Ancestors were in Egypt and what he else meant by saying instead of Whips to chastise them with Scorpions which were a sort of thorny rods with which the Iews corrected their Slaves and Malefactors I cannot understand and as for Taxes tho I confess there is no setting any positive measure to them since no man can positively define what the Exigences of a State may require and I think no good Subjects ought to deny to contribute as much as ever they are able to afford to maintain the Government they live under as long as they receive the Protection of it So on the other side should the Supream Power of any Nation where the People are not meer Slaves under the Pretence of laying necessary Taxes for the Maintenance or Preservation of the Government be constantly exacting from the People more than they were able to pay as if for Example they should out of every Mans Estate take Nineteen parts and leave but the Twentieth for the Subsistance of those that own it I do not think in that Case the People were obliged in Conscience to pay it and might in such Case Lawfully resist those Officers that should come to levy it by force M. I could have argued farther against what you have now said concerning this Right of the People of resisting in case of extravagant or intolerable Taxes but since it is not to the Subject in hand I shall refer it to another time And therefore to return where I left off I shall in the next place shew you how sacred
about to make himself King of the Iews in Opposition to Caesar and therefore whilst they lay under this Mistake they were under as high an Obligation as an Erroneous Conscience could lay upon them of Seizing him and bringing him before the High-Priest and the Governour For if they had believed him to be the true Messiah and consequently the King of their Nation it had been impossible that they should ever have gone about to put him to Death Which likewise our Saviour himself acknowledges when Praying for them that Crucified him he said Father forgive them for they know not what they do I speak not this to excuse the Priests or Sanâ—edrim for condemning our Saviour to Death or for using all the Power they had with Pilate to have him executed Since I grant their Ignorance being in great part Wilful at least not Invincible they had no just excuse not to believe on him after so many Miracles he had wrought in the sight of all the World But only to prove that which I suppose you will not deny i. e. that Magistrates even whilst they Act unjustly are not to be resisted in the Execution of Publick Iustice no not to rescue an Innocent Man by force from the Hand of Iustice after he is Condemned Since the false or unjust Sentences of Iudges against particular Persons are to be taken for just in common Acceptation till they be Repealed according to that Maxime in your Civil Law Proetor dum iniquum decernit Ius dicit and therefore our Saviour coming to fulfil all Righteousness and to be the exact Patern of Divine and Moral Actions could not do less than rebuke St. Peter for making use of the Sword against a Lawful Authority but what is this to the Cases that I have put of the Resistance of whole Nations or Bodies of Men against an unjust force and destructive Violence upon their Persons and Estates by those who pretend to Act as the Supream Powers tho contrary to all Laws Natural and Divine and who have no Pretence to Act as they do but only their unjust and Arbitrary Wills back't by Power Aâ—d that there is a great difference in these two I will clearly shew you from your own Concession that no man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him that hath no Authority to take it away and therefore I suppose St. Paul might only with the Help of those that were with Him not only have defended his Life against those whom we find in the 25 th of the Acts who were by Order of the High-Priest and Chief of the Iews to have lain â—n wait to kill Paul by the way but also against any that Festus the Governour himself should have sent for the same End Since He there decâ—ares That it is not the manner i. e. Law of the Romans to deliver any Man to dye before that he that is accused have the Accuâ—â—rs face to face and have License to Answer for himself concerning the Crime laid against him And therefore as Caesar could give Festus no Commission to Murder Men so neither did God bestow on the Emperour any Authority to commit murder or to Authorise others to do it and if a single Person might do this certainly much more a whole Nation Country or City may justifie such a Resistance where their Lives Liberties and Estates lye at Stake from the Violence or Tyranny of the Supream Powers and therefore I do not see but that I may very well grant the Instance you have put to be conclusive against this Resistance made by St. Peter on our Saviours behalf so that your Instance doth not reach the Case in hand that all Resistance of Supream Powers is unlawful And you your self have already granted as much as I can in Reason desire that no Man wants Authority to defend his Life against Him who hath no Authority to take it away So that unless Princes and their Inferiour Officers receive Authority from God to commit Murders every Man may defend himself against them when they go about to take away their Lives by Violence contrary to Law And therefore I see no Reason from any thing that you have hitherto said to believe that Christ did not allow this Distinction between the Person and Authority of the Prince to be good in some Cases or that tho' his Person should be sacred yet that his Ministers who Act not by his Regal Authority but his Personal and Tyrannical Will may be opposed nor can I find any Consequence from what you say that he is a Mock Prince whose Authority is confined to his own Person who can do nothing more than what he can do with his own Hands Since no Man in his Wits asserts any such thing for I grant that an Absolute Prince hath Power to make Laws and to Command them to be put in Execution which do not contradict the Laws of God and Nature and a Limited Prince hath likewise a Right to Command in all things that do not expresly contradict Gods Natural and reveal'd Laws and also those Positive Laws of his Country which he is not the sole maker of that do not contradict the former and if he can do this I think he is endued with an Authority sufficient to Answer all the Ends of Government without supposing that he must needs have an irresistible Power and without which he cannot Answer those Ends to Murder and Enslave whomsoever he will I grant indeed a Prince is not meerly a Natural but a Political Person but certainly his Personal Authority as King doth not reach as far as his Commission or that he who resists those who Act by his Commission may be said in all Cases to resist his Regal Authority Since at this rate the poor Protestants in Ireland at the beginning of the last Irish Rebellion had been in a very woful Condition if it had happened which was not impossible that King Charles the first should really have granted a Commission to Sir Phelim Onâ—al to destroy them which no man could then certainly tell but that he had since Sir Phelim publickly shewed such a Commission and still asserted the Truth of it till he came upon the Gallows but this is only by the by and in answer to what you have now said to this Matter So that there is no need of supposing what our Saviour thought one way or other in this matter Since he did not rebuke St. Peter for resisting the Inferiour Officers because they offered an unjust and illegal Violence but because he resisted those who acted by a true and Legal Commission from the High-Priest and Sanhedrim who supposed our Saviour to be a false Prophet M. If this Distinction of yours were true it would render the Example of Christ's suffering in obedience to the Supream Powers tho' unjustly yet without Resistance of no effect to us whereas I am firmly perswaded that Christ took such a mean and suffering a Person upon him
being forbidden by the Laws of our Country I shall answer that when you urge those Laws to me M. I hope I shall be able to prove that by and by but in the mean time give me leave to observe that it seems very strange to me that you should own Christ hath obliged his Disciples to submit without any resistance in some Cases to the Supreme Powers when they persecute them and put them to death for Religion and that they might not take up Arms in their own defence and that of their Religion which is the greatest concern that men ought to have in this World and yet that they might do it for much less considerable Matters viz. their Lives Liberties or Estates which sure ought to be of much less importance than the Glory of God which is chiefly maintained by his true Worship but I see you have found a Salvo for this and will not allow Princes the irresistible Power of Persecution when the Religion is once setled by Law that is when the Christians were strong enough to resist which certainly would be no thanks at all for their Submission since Men who are weak and unable to resist must needs obey and suffer which were matter of force and not of Duty whereas we find by Tertullian and all the Ecclesiastical Historians that though the Christians were strong and numerous enough in the Roman Empire yet they chose rather to dye than to resist as I shall shew you more particularly anon when I come to those Quotations but I will if you please now proceed to the two last Texts I have to cite to you out of St. Paul and St. Peter F. That we may not confound things one with another I pray give me leave now to answer what you have objected against what I said last before you proceed to any fresh places of Scripture for though in the first place I doubt whether the Non-Resistance which Tertullian and other Primitive Fathers so strictly preached up was sounded upon any express Command of our Saviour or his Apostles yet granting at present that Christ and his Apostles enjoyn'd it both by their Example and Precept yet this does not reach the case now before us for there may be very good Reasons why our Saviour might enjoyn an absolute Submission to the 〈◊〉 Powers without any Resistance though they persecute us nay put us to 〈◊〉 for Matters of Religion and yet he may allow us greater Liberty for the defence of our Lives Liberties and Estates when assaulted by the unjust violence of the supreme Powers For First our Saviour ordaineth his Religion to be suitable to his Person viz. a meek humble Suffering Messiah to be an Example of a meek and suffering Religion Secondly Religion is a thing that no Power in the World can take from us Persecution indeed may encrease it and render it more fervent but can never diminish it if it be real And God hath expresly promis'd so great a Reward in another Life for our sufferings for it in this that it will infinitely outweigh all that ever we can suffer on that Account and Lastly our Saviour Christ was pleased to ordain his Doctrine to be propagated by Miracles and Sufferings to distinguish it from all the false Religions that had been in the World before his or that should be set up in opposition to it afterwards since neither the Pagan nor Mahometan Superstitions nor yet the Iewish Religion can shew the like to subsist nay encrease for above three hundred years under such great and cruel Persecutions nor yet is the Glory of God at all diminish'd but rather encreas'd under Persecution since none are then firm to it but such as are really perswaded of its Truth and that they ought to suffer the worst that can befall them rather than forsake it And certainly nothing can tend more to the Glory of God than to see it subsist and encrease under a cruel and bloody Persecution nor is it the same reason that we should suffer Persecution after Religion is become the setled Constitution of a Nation because then every man hath the same Right to it as he hath to his Property or Freedom And though a man may part with either the one or the other yet is he not obliged to give them up by force and whether he will or no so likewise neither that Right which he hath to enjoy his Religion according to the Laws of his Country And therefore I do not resolve the Obligation to Non-Resistance in matters of Religion into the being the major party in a Kingdom as you suppose for if the Government of England were Popish that is the Legislative part of it and the Major part of the Common People were Protestants perhaps in that Case they were under all the Obligations of enduring Persecution without resistance as they were under the Heathen Emperours but indeed the Primitive Christians were obliged to Non-resistance because they lived under a Government in which Christianity was forbid and Paganism established by Law And though it is true Constantine made several Laws enjoyning the free Exercise of the Christian Religion and forbidding the Heathen Sacrifices and that the Pagan Temples should be shut up yet was not the Christian Religion for all that the sole Religion of the State the Senators of Rome and the Major part of the Common People continuing Pagans still So that it seems the Christian Religion was all this while rather established together with Heathenism than that this was wholly forbid since all Civil Offices and Preferments were equally conferred upon Pagans as well as Christians if they deserved them and therefore it was no hard matter for Iulian the Apostate to revoke so many of those Edicts his Uncle had made in Favour of Christianity and to abrogate those which had been publish't against the publick Sacrifices to the Heathen Gods and shutting up their Temples so that no wonder if they were now again under the same Obligations to suffer as they were before Constantine's Time since the Christian Religion was never the only One establish't by Law so as to exclude the open Profession of any other till the Time of Theodosius after which as also before according as the Christian Religion encreas'd and as they got greater Priviledges from the Emperours so were they more stout and bold in standing up for and defending the just Rights of their Religion when ever they thought them invaded by the Arian or other Heretical Emperours as I shall shew you by several Instances out of Church-History when we come to it but you may now if you please proceed to the rest of those places of Scripture which you have to produce against this Doctrine of Resistance in those Cases I have put M. I have many things still to object against your last Discourse but since it grows late I shall now continue my self to the Doctrine of the Apostles concerning Non-resistance not as if the Authority and Example of
a farther end than this to bless and reward a virtuous Nation or to punish a loose and degenerate Age and there cannot be a greater Blessing than a Wise and Virtuous Prince nor a greater Plague than a merciless Tyrant And therefore the Providence of God is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any People as in rewarding or punishing them Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the Rod of his Anger whom he raised up for the punishment of an hypocritical Nation Secondly I have already proved that by the Powers in this Text the Apostle means the Persons of Soveraign Princes and therefore according to his Doctrine those Princes who were then in Being that is the Roman Emperours were advanced by God the Powers that be that is the Princes and Emperours who now govern the World are ordained and appointed by God and that thus it is God himself tells us I have made the Earth and given it to whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these Lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my Servant This was also the Belief of the Primitive Christians under Heathen and persecuting Emperours Tertullian who wrote his Apology under Severuâ— asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a Peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperour by their God So likewise St. Augustine de Civitate Dei speaks to this purpose as I remember God giveth Happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven to the Godly alone But this Earthly Kingdom both to the Godly and Ungodly as it pleases him He that gave the Government to Marius gave it also to Caesar He who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Neroâ—â— He who gave it to the Vespasians Father and Son most beloved Emperours gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and not to recount the rest of them He who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to the Apostate Iulian. These things without doubt the only True God governed as he pleased by Causes tho' hidden yet not unjust So likewise almost all the rest of the Fathers do own that Wicked and Tyrannical Princes are given as Punishments to the People for their Sins and so upon this account are to be endured and not resisted since it is God's Will to have it so But as for Usurpers I think I can give you a very satisfactory Answer for the most prosperous Rebel is not the higher Power while our natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore tho' such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who Resisteth them doth not Resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of Men. Whereas in Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of a King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood And therefore he who Rebelleth against the Father and murders him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there the Possession of Power seems to give a Right Thus many of the Roman Emperours came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were then the higher Powers For the Empire did not descend by Inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes of the Army and sometimes by Force and Power which always draws a Consent and Submission after it And therefore the Apostle doth not direct the Christians to inquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns but commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands For the Possession of the Supream and Soveraign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose against it for then we must presume that God gives him the Irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an Irresistible Power which is the only means whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another There are two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first is in the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes had divided from the Tribe of Iudah and the Family of David where God had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family For after Ieroboam the first King it is plain by the Story in the Books of Kings and Chronicles that for some Successions there was nothing but Rebellion and the Murder of one King by another so that the Kingdom rarely descended from the Father to the Son and in the whole Succession of these Kings it only remained in the House of Ieâ—u for four Generations and then it returned to its former uncertainty as you may see in the 15 th Chap. of the 2 d. of Kings All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession to a Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King who yet cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the Guilt of Treason And this was the Case of the Roman Empire at the Writing of this Epistle And therefore the Apostle might then very well say that the Powers that be are ordained of God and that whoever had the Supream Power in his hands was the Supream Power that might not be resisted But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah which God himself had entailed on David's Family as appears from the Examples of Ioash and Athaliah which we discoursed of at our last meeting but one which Examples plainly shew that no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural or Hereditary Prince such Usurpers tho' they have the Possession of the Supream Power yet they have no Right to it and tho' God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet whilst his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too But to prove more plainly that no Resistance is to be made against the Persons or Authorities of the Supream Powers let them be never so Cruel and Tyrannical as it is evident not only from what St. Paul hath here written but I shall crave leave to insist farther on that Text of St. Peter before cited in his 1 st Epistle 2 d. Chap. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of Evil Doers and for the Praise of them that do well where by Ordinance of Man whether we understand as some do every Human Law or with others more justly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every human Creature as it is in the Original that is every man endued with Supream Power it comes all to the same sense and the King as the
them Life is the only state of Happiness in this World and without which nothing can be enjoyed It is therefore better for you to be made Slaves than to venture a Battel for in the Fight God knows how many of you may be destroyed whereas if you quietly submit we promise to hurt none of you we will only carry you away and sell you for Slaves and sure Slavery is better than Death for even Slaves enjoy a great many Comforts of life tho' with some hardships and you may be redeemed again or make your escape but life once lost can never be recovered The same Argument a Tyrant may use for the exercise of his Arbitrary Power over mens lives that he will not nay cannot destroy the whole Nation but only use them as Butchers 〈◊〉 their Sheep cull out the fattest and let the poor ones live thrive and grow fat till they are likewise ready for the Knife This perhaps may be a proper life for those Beasts that cannot live without Man's protection but what man of any courage or sense would be willing to live under a Government where his Poverty was to be his only Protection who would not venture his life in one brisk Battel rather than live in such a vile and slavish Condition and who would not rather argue thus It is great odds if among so many Thousands I am the person ordained for Death or if I am I may perhaps purchase Victory for my Countrymen and Liberty for my Posterity but let the worst happen I venture my life for the publick good and it is better once to die than always to live in fear But if the Calculation of the number of mens lives that may be lost in the recovery or maintaining any right whatever should be the only rule to render War either reasonable or lawful I doubt whether most of the Wars Princes make for small Territories or Punctilio's of Honour as lowering the Flag for example nay even for the recovery of their Crowns when unjustly detained or taken from them can upon your principle ever justifie either Princes in Conscience to make such Wars or oblige Subjects in prudence according to your Rule of the publick good to fight in such quarrels since none of them but often cost more Lives to defend or regain them if lost than the things are worth that the Princes of the World usually make War about against each other But if you tell me that men are bound by the Law of God and of their Country to assist their Prince in any Wars he shall Command them without inquiring into the Consequences of it and let what will happen as to the loss of mens Lives Estates or Liberties that we are likewise to obey and submit to lawful Princes because let them tyrannize enslave or destroy us never so much yet God has put us into their hands and we are safe in God's hands whilst we are in theirs This is all a meer fallacy for what is this to your main Argument from the destruction of Mankind for if so many men are to lose their lives in the War what difference is it as to them whether the War be made by a lawful or unlawful Power it is still upon this Principle unlawful to be made and consequently unlawful to be fought for and if you once grant that Princes may tyrannize without resistance kill or enslave any of their Subjects what difference is it as to the people that are to suffer it whether he be a lawful Prince or a Tyrant or Usurper that does it for as for being delivered by God into the hands of a lawful Prince to be dealt withal as he shall think good it is all meer Jargon pray prove to me if you can that whil'st a Prince thus tyrannizes oppresses and enslaves his people that God ever thus deliver'd the people into his hand for that design or that whil'st he does so he acts as God's Minister This I have urged you to prove at our 4th meeting but since you could not do it I take the case for desperate But to answer your Comparisons of the Sun and Sea to which you compare lawful Princes that turn Tyrants they are as easily retorted upon you if the rays of the Sun are too hot we may resist them and put on thicker Cloaths or set up shelters to defend our selves from them the like we may say of his malignant Influences or Effects upon mens Bodies could there be any means found out as easily to avoid them So likewise for the Sea suppose the breaking in of it upon any Country to be sent by God for their Sins you will not say it is unlawful for the people to make Banks or Dikes or use any other natural means to keep it out or to drain it away and the case is the same as to Tyranny for if resistance be as natural a means against it as these I have mentioned are against the too violent heat of the Sun or breaking in of the Sea I cannot see why we may not as lawfully exercise it But since we are â—alking of Waters this puts me in mind of the place you have now cited out of Proverbs That the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord which without doubt is a great truth but then you should have added what immediately follows as the Rivers of Waters he turneth it whithersoever he will now how does God turn Rivers of waters it is not by any super-natural means but either by a strong VVind or else by the hands of Men. So likewise that Solomon's Comparison of God's turning the Hearts of Kings like Waters is but an allusion to the Custom of those Eastern Countries that as a Gardiner draws the streams of water through the trenches he cuts into what part of the Garden he thinks good so doth God turn the Hearts of Princes to act or do quite contrary to their first intentions nay to what they have actually done before but how is this performed it is only as he makes use of the Gardiner to turn the streams of Water it is wholy by Humane means such as Advice of good and wise Counsellors and a prudent Consideration upon it to which also may be added the Resistance of their Subjects when after all Remonstrances and Intreaties to the contrary Princes still go on outragiously to oppress them when they see they will no longer bear it and find themselves engaged in a troublesom War with them they then see their Errour and send to their Subjects and offer them terms of Peace Thus divers of our Kings hearts were turned when they saw the Nation would all as one Man resist their tyrannical Arbitrary Proceedings they came to Terms with them and granted them Magna Charta and other good Laws for the security of their just Rights and Liberties But as for what you say of our being safe in the hands of Tyrants as being in God's hands I grant we are
ever since the Crown became Elective as much as ever it was before Lastly I think I have sufficiently made out that King Iames hath violated the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom in those several Instances I have already given and am also ready farther to make it out if you require it so that this being the case I can see no reason to the contrary why the Crown or Legal Authority should not become forfeited to the People who at first conferr'd this Power on the first King of the West Saxons M. I must confess you have done your indeavour to prove those Assertions you have now laid down but I am not yet satisfied that you truly have done it But however not to run into unneccessary disputes and repetition of what has been already argued and which I see you are too obstinate to recede from I shall now only oppose what you last asserted concerning the Crown 's being forfeited to the People upon the King 's pretended Breach of the Original Contract for besides the absurdity of making the Crown forfeitable to the People who are and ever were Subjects and not Princes or Governours whereas all forfeitures still supposed a Right in the persons who are to take it as superior to the party forfeiting there is also a greater error and mistake in your supposing all Civil and Legal Power to be deriv'd from the People and by them conferr'd upon their Kings or Governours whereas the Scriptures plainly affirm and all Divines so interpret them that all Civil Power and Authority is wholly from God and not from the people who even in Elective Kingdoms though they may name and design the Person whom they will have to be their King yet is the Power wholly from God who alone hath right to Govern Mankind and therefore as the people do not confer the Power so neither can it be forfeitable to them from whom it was never derived and so much I told you at the Conclusion of our last Meeting though I had not then time fully to urge this Argument as now I have and this will press the more upon you because you your self have already granted at several Meetings that all Civil and Regal power is deriv'd from God and not from the people and therefore your notion of a Prince or Monarchs forfeiting to them is wholly false and precarious F. If this be all that you have to object against our Assertion of the King 's forfeiting his Royal Authority to the people I think I can easily answer those Objections for as to the first absurdity which you lay to our charge how an Authority can be forfeited by a King or Superior to his Subjects or Vassals the absurdity lies on your side for I do not suppose this forfeiture to be made to the people as Subjects but to them consider'd as a Community of Masters of Families and Freemen who as the Descendants and Representatives of those who made the first King upon a certain Contract or Condition upon the non-performance of this Original Contract do thereupon cease to be Subjects as a Servant ceases to be so and becomes again sui furis upon his Masters non-performance of the bargain made between them and so this Authority thus forfeited returns to the Community of Masters of Families and Freemen who once conferr'd it upon the first King nor needs this forfeiture any more suppose a Superiority in the persons who are to take it over the Prince that commits it than when by the Law of England Tenant for Life aliens in Fee He in reversion may immediately enter upon the Estate as forfeited to him though the person that held it was perhaps his own Father M. But is not this then to recede from your former concession whereby you grant that Civil Authority is deriv'd from God and not from the people at all whereas you now suppose them the only Original or Fountain of Civil Authority and from them to be deriv'd to all Princes and Monarchs F. This difficulty wholly proceeds from your not rightly understanding the manner of God's conferring Civil Power or Authority upon those that exercise it For the better clearing of which difficulty pray let me ask you two or three Questions First pray tell me whether you are still of the Opâ—â—ion that Monarchy is so much of Divine Institution as that no Government but that may be lawfully Instituted by Men M. I will not now affirm that Monarchy is of Divine Right but this much I may safely over by what we can find in Scripture that God instituted no sort of Government but that and he did not make Saul or David to be only like those Equivocal Kings who might be deposable at the will of the Estates but conferr'd part of his own Divine Power upon them without any conditions or limitations whatsoever but as for those Governments call'd Common-wealths though without doubt they are not of Divine Institution yet certainly the power of Life and Death which they exercise is wholly from God since as I have already said a Man not having power over his own life cannot confer that upon another which he had not in himself F. Well I am glad we are so far agreed that Common-wealths are endued with real Authority or Majesty as well as Monarchs and that from no less Author than from God himself so that whatever you have said concerning God's Institution of no other Government than Monarchy is either not true or not to the matter in hand for in the first place I have already prov'd at our thiâ—d Meeting that the first Government God Instituted among the Jews was an Aristocraâ—y under Moses Ioshua and the Judges reserving the Kingly Power over them to himself And though it is likewise true that God divested himself of great part of this Kingly Power when he anointed Saul King yet God's Institution of Monarchy among the Jews do's not render it unlawful for other Nations to institute such other sorts of Government as may best suit with the Geâ—ius of the people and the publick good and safety of the whole Community But as for your Argument whereby you would prove the necessity of all Civil Powers being deriv'd from God because otherwise they could not be endu'd with the power of life and death over their Subjects I have sufficiently taken off that difficulty at our second Meeting and shewn you that a Man in the state of Nature has not only power over another Man's life but also over his own not only to hazard it but also to lay down or lose it for some greater publick benefit to Mankind which is also acknowledged by the Apostle Paul himself For a good man some would even dare to die But further to shew you the absurdity of this Principle let me put you this case suppose that a Kingdom or Common-wealth were so instituted at the first that no Subject or Freeman should suffer death for any Crime how great soever which that
I do not suppose as a thing impossible it was for divers Ages exercised in the Roman Common-wealth wherein no Civil Magistrate could lay any greater punishment upon a Roman Citizen than banishment or deportation And if that Copy we have of the Laws of King William the first be authentick it is by the 67th Law in his Charter ordain'd That no English or French Subject should suffer death for any Crime whatsoever but only be punisht either by pecuniary Fines Imprisonment or else by loss of Ryes Hands Feet or Members which Law though I do not say was ever observ'd yet it shews it was then supposed to be both possible and lawful Now if this could be so there would be no necessity of supposing the Authority of the Common-wealth of Rome or of King William I. to have been deriv'd from God since they had renounced and refused the great Character thereof viz. the inflicting capital punishments but if for all that they still conâ—inued to be Lawful Civil Governments then it is evident that this power of life and death is not that which alone constitutes a Civil Power and makes it owe its Original to God But to return to what your notion concerning this power of life and death hath made me digress from pray let me â—sk you another Question After the Expulsion of King Tarquin and before the Common-wealth of Rome was form'd where was the Supream Authority lodged M. Why in the same Body it was afterwards the people of Rome comprehended under the Patritions and Plebtians that is the Nobility and Commons who yet retained the power of life and death over those of their own Children and Slaves though they communicated a great part of their power to the Senate and Consuls F. Very well Was this Authority they so conferr'd on the Senate and Consuls the same which they themselves could have exercised or was it any new Authority immediately deriv'd from God and created for that purpose M. I do not think it was any new created Authority but only a part of their former power which they so made over to the Senate and Consuls since they reserv'd one great part of it viz. the Legislative Power wholly in themselves but however this power which the Fathers of Families and Freemen among the Romans had over the lives of their Children and Slaves as also over others who were declar'd publick Enemies was deriv'd wholly from God yet there arose likewise a new power which these Fathers of Families were not invested with before viz. that of making Laws as also of War and Peace all which powers were deriv'd from God for the common good and defence of the whole People or Community F. Herein I also agree with you but then mark what follows it then plainly appears that the natural Subject of Civil Authority was the Fathers of Families and Freemen of Rome and that what share thereof was committed to the Senate and Consuls it was wholly personal and as their Representatives this being so pray answer me another Question when the Senate and People of Rome did afterwards confer their whole power upon the Roman Emperors by that Law mention'd in your Institutions Lex Regi was there then created or produc'd any new Authority from God to the first Emperor or was it the same Authority or Majesty which the Senate and People were endued with before for either it must be the same or else God must create a new parcel of this Royal Majesty or Authority wherewith to endue this first Emperor which if you suppose I can shew you a great many difficulties and absurdities that will follow from this Opinion for then I might ask you whether this Royal Majesty be like the Stoicks Anima mundi whose parts are distributed among all the Kings in the World or whether each King has his particular Majesty to himself or whether the King dying his Majesty also dies with him or whether it exist without him as the Soul do's when separated from the Body and by a certain kind of Metempsychosis is transferr'd to the new Monarch M. I shall not flick at present to affirm that this Authority or Majesty of the Roman Emperors was originally deriv'd from God though not immediately but by the mediation of the people of Rome as his Instruments especially ordain'd for the derivation of this Imperial power F. Well then I see you and I are at last agreed for I suppose all Civil power to be so deriv'd from God to the people and by them as an Instrumental Cause convey'd to the person whom they agree to make their King But if this were so in the Roman Common-wealth why are not all the rest of the Nations of the World indued with the like priviledge so that no man may justly make himself King over them without their Election or Recognition at least M. Perhaps in those Nations where the people have from the first Institution of the Government retain'd the whole Civil power in themselves or else by the Extinction of the Royal Family they became possest of it this power â—â—y afterwards by them be transferr'd or made over to one single person or more but this can by no means hold in divers other cases where God immediately bestows a Civil Power or Authority without the consent of the people as it is in the case of Kingdoms acquired by a Conquest in a Just War for as to Unjust Wars or Conquests I freely own they confer no Right at all but since you will not I suppose deny that such a Rightful Conquest confers an Absolute power on the Conqueror over the Lives and Estates of the Conquered as also an Obligation in them to submit to and obey the Conqueror hence must arise a new Civil power without any consent of the people intervening which Authority since no man can confer it upon himself must necessarily be immediately conferr'd by God since as I said before the people are only passive and have no hand at all in the conveying of it and this is the more remarkable because I suppose you will not deny but that where one Kingdom or Empire has owed its beginning to the Election or Consent of the people I could name ten that have begun from Conquest So that it is evident the people are very rarely the Efficient Causes of Civil power F. Though this Question concerning Conquest do's not immediately concern our Kings who as I have already proved do not owe their Regal Authority to Conquest but to the consent of the People Yet since the Title to a great part of our Kings Dominions begun at first from Conquest I shall now say something of it First then you grant that only Conquest in a just War can confer a Right to the Peoples obedience And therefore since the greatest part of the Governments have commenced from unjust Conquests it will therefore follow that the Right of such Princes to those Kingdoms Territories so unjustly acquired could not owe
without Children should be Heir to the Deceased And so far were they from thinking this Agreement stood in need of Ratification of a great Council that there was but twelve of the Principal Men on each side sworn to see it duly observed But if we come to consider the next putting by of Duke Robert from his Right to the Crown you will find it to have been done with a far less colour of Right than the former for he being then absent in the Holy Land at the time of Rufus's death Henry his Younger Brother laid hold of the opportunity and assembling divers of the great Men of the Kingdom he promised them to make a full Restitution of all their Antient Laws and Liberties and confirm them by his Charter and abrogate such severe ones as his Father had made thereupon they did unanimously consent to Crown him King Now I cannot see how this managed with so much Artifice corruption can properly be call'd an Election since that ought to be a deliberate sedate Action and at which all the persons concern'd ought to be present but this could not possibly be for King William was kill'd on the second of August and buried the next day and the day after that being Sunday this pretended Election was made and the Saxon Chronicle tells us That those great Men who were near at hand chose his Brother Henry King So that this looks more like the Combination of a Faction of Bishops Lords and great Men than the free Election of a King since it was impossible for all that were or ought to be present from all parts of the Kingdom to have notice to assemble and dispatch that great Business in two days time But to let you see that Duke Robert did not fit down contented with this Usurpation upon his Right for as soon as ever he came from the Holy Land he straight made War upon his Brother and many great Men of the Normans took his part and this War was eagerly carried on for some time and Duke Robert Landing in England with an Army K. Henry marcht against him with all his Forces but as the Saxon Chronicle also tells us some principal Men going between them brought them to an Agreement upon conditions that K. Henry should pay Duke Robert 3000 Marks Pension yearly and that he of the Brothers who surviv'd the other should be Heir of all England and Normandy unless the party deceas'd should have Children of his own so that though I grant King Henry recites in his Charter in Matthew Paris that he was Crowned King by the Common Council of the Barons of England yet his saying so could not give him a Right and he must say this or nothing for no other pretence or Title he could have and there never was any other Usurper in his circumstances but must say that or some such thing to make out a Title and therefore to answer your Question why Duke Robert took not upon himself the Title of King neither upon the death of his Father nor after that of his Elder Brother I think this may serve for an Answer that he parting with his Right to both his Brothers successively he then lookt upon it as needless to take the Title of King upon him as not looking upon himself then to be so F. I confess you have from your Dr. together with some assistance of your own made a very cunning gloss upon these two great Instances of Vacancy and Election to evade if it were possible that Right which the Common Council of the Kingdom then challeng'd to themselves and therefore I shall make bold strictly to examine what you have now said In the first place as to the Title of King William Rufus though I grant it was founded upon his Fathers Testament yet you see that this was not good alone without the consent and approbation of the Common Council of the Kingdom I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our last Meeting but one when we discourst of the Force of the like Testament made by King Edward the Confessor to King William the First which according to the English Saxon Law that â—as still observed was never valid until confirm'd by the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Great Council and he that had both these whether next Heir by Blood or not was always esteem'd as lawful King as I have also proved from the Testament of King Alfred and though you will take no notice of it yet was this Testament of King William I. then produced and read in the Common-Council of the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom as appears by all the Antient Historians who treat of this matter I shall only give you a taste of them Matthew Paris expresly relates the circumstances of it in these words Optimates frequenteâ— â—d Westmonasterium in concilium convenere ubi loci post long am consultationem Gulielmum Rusum Regem fecere and Abbot Brompton tells us that it was done in a full Council Convocatis Terrae magnatibus so that here was nothing wanting to a full Election or Confirmation at least of King William's Title and till this was done it is plain the Throne was Vacant But as for the claim that Duke Robert made to the Crown though I do not deny but he might think himself to have a just Title to it by a received custom among divers Nations by which the eldest Son is looked upon to have a right before the younger yet that this is no Law of Nature or Reason and consequently not Divine I think I have sufficiently prov'd at our second meeting But that this right of Succession of the eldest Son to be no fundamental Law of this Kingdom I think I can sufficiently prove from our English Saxon Histories as well as Laws and as for what you say concerning those Norman Lords and Bishops who joyn'd with Duke Robert after his Brother was Crown'd King it is call'd no better than Treason by all the Writers of those times for Florence of Worcester and Sim of Durham both tell us that the King thereupon call'd together the English and open'd unto them the Treason of the Normans and the Saxon Chronicleâ— who seem'd to have lived about that time compares the Treason of Bishop Odo to that of Iudas Iscariot against our Lord and though I grant King William might make such an agreement with his Brother Duke Robert as you mention yet as for the 3000 Marks Pension which you say he was to pay him I very much doubt it since no Historian but Matthew of Westminster who lived between two and three hundred years after makes mention of it and therefore I think it is to be referr'd to the following agreement betwixt this Duke and his Brother King Henry which the Saxon Chronicle expresly mentions Having now examin'd and clear'd the Title of King William Rufus I come next to justifie that of King Henry I. to the Crown
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
of France had made his Procurator to treat with the Popes Legat about his coming over hither where when he had recited that King Iohn had been condemn'd by his Peers for the Death of his Nephew Arthur and that he had been also for his great cruelties and other wickedness Deposed by the Barons of England and farther reciting that the said King without the assent of his Nobility had resign'd his Kingdom to the Pope to hold it of him at an Annual Tribute of a thousand marks the rest I will give you in Latine because you your self shall translate it etsi Coronam Angliae sine Baronibus alicui dare non potuit potuit tamen dimittere tam quam statim cum resignaverit Rex esse desiit Regnum sine Rege vacavit vacans itaque Regnum sine Baronibus ordinari non debuit c. so that you may see that by the order of Prince Lewis and the allowance of the King of France himself every one of our opinions are maintain'd for good first That King Iohn was before the resignation of his Crown to the Pope true and lawful King Secondly That by that resignation to the Pope he did dismiss or abdicate his Right to it for so I suppose the word demittere Regnum is here to be render'd Thirdly That upon this dismission of the Crown the Throne became Vacant Fourthly That upon this Vacancy the Kingdom could not be conferr'd without the consent of the Barons that is the great Council of the Kingdom But let King Iohn's Right to the Crown have been what it would it is certain that he could not take it upon him until such time as this Great Council had both heard and allow'd his Title and that this was in the nature of an Election notwithstanding his Brothers Will appears by that account which Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris have given us of it which though Hoveden and other Writers have omitted yet doth it not therefore follow that this was all the pure invention of Roger of Wendover or Matthew Pariâ— since the former he living near that time might write from the relation of â—oâ—e that were then present and as for the latter I look upon him though a Monk as a man of too great integrity to invent any thing of his own Head and though I confess the account that Arch-bishop Hubert gives why he put King Iohn's Title rather upon Election than Succession looks very suspicious since the Arch-bishop must thereby have made himself a Knave and a Hypocrite and seems also to contradict what Matthew Paris had before said viz. That all those that heard his Speech dares not so much as doubt of these things knowing that the Arch-bishop had not thâ—s judged of this matter without cause and therefore I grant that this part of the relation concerning the Arch-bishops vindicating of himself for thus giving his Judgment might be a Story commonly taken up and being told to this Authour was by him inserted in his History at a time when I grant the Crown of England began to be thought successive by reason that King Henry the III. had succeeded as the eldest Son of his Father though he was noâ— for all that admitted without Election as I shall prove by and by but that King Iohn was made King by Election though he claim'd it from his Brother by successiâ—n likewise appears from his own Charter still to be seen at this day in the Arch-bishops Archives at Lambeth wherein he recites that he came to the Crown Iure hereditario mediante tam Cleri quam populi unanimi consensu favore where you see plainly that he derives his Title from the consent and favour of the Clergy and People as well as his own Hereditary Right M. Notwithstanding what you have now said I cannot agree with you that by these words you have now cited from this Charter is to be understood any formal Election of the Clergy and People but that this unanimous consent mention'd in it was rather their acknowledgment of his Title and submission to him than any thing else for according to Hoveden's relation of his coming to the Crown which I think the most exact extant the whole Nation submitted and swore Fealty to him against all men before he came over into England But as for his Son Henry the III. it is much more plain that he succeeded by Succession and not by Election as being the Eldest Son of the Late King his Father as appears by the relation of his Coronation in Matthew Westminster who tells us thus Henricus Iohannis primogenitus in Regem inunctus solemniter Coronatus est and tho from the Speech which was made to the Clergy and Nobility that was then at Gloucester by the Earl Mareshall 't is pretended that Henry was Elected yet I dare say if any one do but impartially consider the tenour of it he will find that the design of it was rather to persuade all those then present to return to their duty and acknowledge Him for their King whom God and Nature had designed for that great charge for the Earl begins his discourse to 'em thus as it is in Knighton Ecce Rex Vester which certainly could not then be true if an Election was necessary to make him such but amongst the rest of his Arguments he urges this Hunc igitur libeat regem dicere cui ipsum Regnum debetur you ought to chuse him to whom the Kingdom is due which surely it can be to none if it be not Hereditary and what puts all out of doubt that the Kingdom was not then and if not then I am sure never since Elective is the answer of Hubert de Burgh to Lewis when he summon'd him to deliver up Dover Castle to him since his Master for whose use and service he held it was dead but see his answer If my old Master say's he he dead he has left behind him Sons and Daughters to succeed him A thing he never would have asserted had he not thought there had been a Divine Right somewhere else than in the People F. Before I speak any thing to King Henry the III ds Election give me leave to reply to what you have said against the express words of King Iohns Charter for if Favor and Consensus does not signifie somewhat more than a bare acknowledgement and submission I understand neither English nor Latine Nor is this any answer to the express testimony of Roger of Wendover and Mat. Paris to the contrary And as for Roger Hoveden he does not say he was not Elected but only omits the manner of it as divers other Historians do So that at the best this is but a negative Argument And yet that Hoveden himself did not look upon him as King even after the whole Nation had sworn Fealty to him before his Coronation may appear from this passage a little before his coming over Wâ—â—ielmus Rex Scotorum misit
ordered and disposed of all publick Affairs conferr'd Offices and Bishopricks as if they were lawful Kings before your pretended Election or the ceremony of their Coronation and also had Ambassadors sent to them from Foreign Princes as appears from your own Quotation out of Hoveden Of those that were sent by the King of Scots to King Iohn before he was crowned though it is true he there stiles him no more than Duke of Normandy And this also may further appear by that passage I have cited out of the same Author that King Richard had Fealty Sworn to him as King of England by all the Freemen of England before he was Crown'd and you your self acknowledge the same Oath to be taken by the same persons to King Iohn before he came over to take the Crown And Lastly To make it yet plainer that there was no Vacancy or Inter-regnum in all these Successions you have mention'd consult what Chronologer you please or look into the most ancient Tables of the Succession of our Kings of England or into our old Printed Statutes or Law Books and you will still find the Reign of the Suceeding Prince to commence from the Death of his next Predecessor without any Vacancy or Inter-regnum between And these I think to be a great deal surer marks of their succeeding to their Royal Dignity by a pretence at least of a right of Inheritance from their Father or Brother rather thau this fancy of yours that you lay so much stress upon That because of their not being stiled Kings by our Historians till their pretended Election and Coronation was over they were not so indeed And I hope this may serve to satisfie this mighty Objection F. I must beg your pardon if I still declare my self not satisfied with your answers for though I grant that if this Argument of the Historians not stiling them Kings had stood single without any thing else to support it that your answers might have signified something But if you please better to consider it you will find that of these Princes taking in William your Conqueror claimed as your self must acknowledge not by any Hereditary right but by the Testament of the deceased Predecessor and if so where was your setled right of Succession by right of Blood Secondly It is likewise as plain that these four were never admitted or acted in England as lawful Kings till those Testaments were confirmed by the Election of the Great Council before whom they declar'd their Rights And till this was done how the Throne could be otherwise than Vacant I cannot for my Life conceive But as for two of them whom you call downright Usurpers viz. Henry the I and King Stephen it is certain they could have no colour of a Title till their Elections and if not till then and that neither your next Heir of the Crown nor yet they themselves took upon them the Title of Kings Was not this a Vacancy of the Throne in the mean time Suppose that time to have been but for the space of three or four days as it was after the death of King William Rufus In the next place pray consider that upon the death of every one of these Princes we do not find the Great Council of the Kingdom which still assembled to Elect the Successor was ever call'd in their names but met by their own Inherent Authority for how could they be summon'd by the King before he took that Title upon him which as your self are forced to acknowledge he never did till after his Coronation Lastly Pray remember farther that whoever was thus Elected and Confirm'd by the Great Council whether he was next Heir by Blood or not was always looked upon as Lawful King and has always passed for such in all our Chronicles and Laws and not those that claimed as the right Heirs by Blood and if this be not sufficient to prove that these Princes had no true and compleat right to the Crown till this Election was past I desire you would shew me my mistake These things premis'd I think it will be very easie to reply to every one of those answers you pretend to have made to my Query Therefore as to your First That they were really Kings before their Election or Coronation because they order'd and dispos'd of all publick affairs I do not deny but that some of them who Succeeded either as Heirs by Testament or by right of Blood might do many publick Acts by reason that they looked upon themselves as Heirs Apparent to the Kingdom and whom the Great Council I grant could not without high Injustice set aside and upon this account they might also receive Ambassadors from Foreign Princes in Affairs relating to Peace or War that they might know how to deal with them or what to expect from them after they were setled in the Throne yet that they sent not to them by the Title of Kings appears by that passage I cited out of Hoveden but I defie you to shew me any one instance that any of these Princes above mention'd ever took upon them to exercise any of those Prerogatives of Sovereign Power such as making War or Peace Enacting Laws Coining of Money before their Election and Coronation which though in some of them was done both at once yet in others it appears plainly to have been at different times and not upon the same day as it happen'd in the case of Henry I. whose Election was at Winchester upon Saturday and his Coronation was not till the next day as also that of Henry the 3 d. whose Election was upon St. Simon and Iude's Day but his Coronation not till the day after But as for your next reply which I grant to have been the strongest you have made that King Richard I. and King Iohn had both of them Homage and Fealty sworn to them as Kings by all the Freemen of England before they were Crowned this were a material argument if it were made out as I think it cannot for in the first place the bare swearing of Homage and Fealty to a Prince doth not make him immediately King though I grant it might give him in that Age a right to be looked upon as Heir Apparent to the Crown thus Henry the I. made all the Lords and Great Men of England to swear Homage and Fealty to Prince William his Son and so after his being drown'd to the Empress Maud his Daughter which was the true reason why she looked upon her self afterwards as Heiress to the Crown so likewise King Stephen a little before his Death at the great Council I have mention'd caus'd all the great men of the Kingdom to Swear Homage and Fealty to Henry Duke of Anjou as his immediate Successour so that you see this swearing of Fealty was in those days often perform'd â—efore the persons that received it were Kings indeed and so I believe it was done in both those instances you now give me for though I
permit his Son to Reign in his stead which though with some reluctance he at last agreed to and thereupon Prince Edward took the Crown not by Election as you set forth but by the cession and resignation of his said Father as appears by the account which this King gave of it to the Sheriffs of all the Counties of England within a few days after his taking upon him the Crown which Writ or Letter is still to be seen among the Roll's in the Tower and is also published in Walsingham as a Proclamation which because it will give very great light in this matter I pray now read it at length Rex vicecom Ebor. Salutem quia Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae pater noster de communi confilio assensu praelatorum Com. Baron Alior Magnat necnon Communitat totius Regni praedict spontanea voluntate se amovit a Regimine dicti Regni volens concedens quod nos tanquam ipsius primogenitus haeres Regni gubernationem regimen assumamus nosque ipsius patris nostri bene placito in hac parte de consitio avisamento Praelator Com. Baron Magnat Communitat predict onnuenâ—es pubernacula suscepimus dicti Regni fidelitates Homagia ipsorum Praelitor Magnat recepimuâ— ut est moris teste Rege apud Westmonast 29. Ian. So that you here see this King takes no notice of the deposition of his Father or the Election of himself but only that by the Common Council and Assent of the Prelates Earls Barons c. The King his Father had by his own free Will removed himself from the Government of the Kingdom and that therefore he had by the good Will of his said Father and by Council and Advice of the said Prelates Earls c. taken the Government of the said Kingdom upon him But King Edward the 3 d. being dead his Grandson Richard the 2 d succeeded him having been before recognized by Act of Parliament as Heir Apparent to the Crown in his Grandfather's Life Time immediately upon the Death of his Father Edward the black Prince so that he succeeded to the Crown though an Infant and having great and powerful Uncles then alive and though by his ruling too Arbitrarily and being too much govern'd by Flatterers be became hated of his Subjects and thereupon gave occasion to Henry Duke of Lancaster whom he had before banished to come over and take the Kingdom from him without striking a stroak and having taken the King Prisoner call'd a Parliament in his name who took upon them most unjustly to Depose King Richard tho' 't is true he also made a solemn resignation of it by his own seeming consent but it is certain it was forced from him for fear of worse usage if he refused it F. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said before you proceed farther in this History of the Succession In the first place I shall not deny but that from the Reign of King Edward I. the Crown has been always claim'd tho' not constantly enjoy'd by right of Blood yet that the custom was otherwise before I think the Instances I have given from the time of your Conquest are more than sufficient it is likewise as certain that this Succession by right of Blood was never setled by any positive Law and therefore must be purely derived from that Tacit consent of the People called Custom Secondly That the two Houses of Parliament have often notwithstanding this claim placed or fixed the Crown upon the Heads of those Princes whom they very well knew could have no Hereditary Right to it Thirdly That such Princes have been always obeyed and taken for lawful Kings all their Laws standing good as this day without any confirmation by their Successors tho' they pretended to a better Title Now if I prove every one of these three propositions I think the case will be very plain that though the Crown has been claim'd and often enjoy'd by right of blood yet hath it been held near as often otherwise since that time so that the Succession to it hath been still declar'd under the direction and limitation of the Present King and Parliament This being premis'd I shall proceed in the next place to answer what you have said concerning King Edward the first 's being only Recogniz'd and not Elected King by the Parliament it is plain from this History that the Great Council still maintain'd their anâ—ient right of assembling upon the death of the King and of Judging who should be his Successor and that without any summons from him which will serve to justifie as do all the other instances aforegoing that the late Convention meeting and setling the Crown without any Writs or Authority derived from King Iames was no new thing but that they have therein done no more than what hath been antiently practised in like cases and tho' 't is true the words in Walsingham is recognoverunt yet there is also other words which seem to intimate that it was then in the power of the Great Council whom to declare for lawful Successor the words are Paternique Successorem honoris ordinaverunt that is they ordain'd or decreed him Successor of his Fathers Dignity which sure is somewhat more than a bare Declaration of an undoubted precedent Right and what power the Great Council was then looked upon to have in the ordering of this Kingdom appears by that Writ of Dedimus for all mens taking the Oaths of Allegiance in the Country which is still to be seen in the close Rolls and begins thus Quia defuncto jam celebris memoriae Domino Henrico patre nostro ad nos Regni Gubernaculum successione Haereditaria Procerum Regni voluntate fidelitate nobis praestita sit devolutum c. where besides the Hereditary Succession the good Will and Fidelity of the Great Men is reckon'd as one of the means by which the Kingdom came to him and that this course was also observed upon the accession of his Son Edward the 2 d. to the Crown seems likewise as evident from the same Author who tells us in the beginning of the Life of this Prince that he succeeded his Father King Edward non tam jure Hereditario quam unanimi consensu Procerum Magnatum which observation had been altogether needless had an unalterable Hereditary Right to the Crown been the setled But as to what you say of King Edward the 3 ds Right whilst his Father was Living to have been wholly due to his resignation tho' the place I cited out of Walsingham be express in this point yet against this you urge a Writ or Declaration as also a Proclamation of this Kings wherein he thus sets forth his Title viz. That by the Voluntary resignation of King Edward his Father and by the Council and Advice of the Prelats Earls and Barons c. he had taken upon him the Government of the Kingdom and consequently that
Crown yet the pretended hereditary right of blood was the main ground of his Establishment But as for King Henry the VII th tho' he could claim the Crown by no true Right of Inheritance yet would he never own it to be an Election by Parliament for as soon as King Richard was slain in the Battle of Bosworth the Lord Stanley put his Crown upon Henry's head who immediately stiling himself King as well by right of Conquest as by being sole Heir Male of the House of Lancaster He as such caused himself to be Crowned King and though he afterwards call'd a Parliament in which he procured his Title to be recognised yet as my Lord Bacon very well observes he was afraid to take the Crown by his only true Title in right of the Lady Elizabeth his Queen for fear he should only be King by Courtesie and must upon the Queens death have resign'd it again and should he take it by Election he knew there was a very great difference between a King that holdeth his Crown by a Civil Act of the Estates and one mind that that holdeth it originally by the Law of Nature and descent of Blood and therefore upon these Considerations he resolved to rest upon the Title of the House of Lancaster as his main Right and thereupon he caus'd an Act of Parliament to pass wherein his Title was acknowledged as my Lord Bacon there tells us not by way of Declaration or Recognition of Right as on the other side he avoided to have it by a new Law of Ordinance but chose rather a kind of a middle way by way of establishment and that under covert and indifferent words that the inheritance of the Crown should rest remain and abide in the King c. which words might be equally applied that the Crown should continue to him but whether as having former right to it which was doubtful or having it then in fact or possession which no Man denied was left fair to interpretation either way I speak not this to justifie all his actions but to let you see that he chiefly insisted upon his right of inheritance and absolutely disown'd any Title by Election from the People F. I cannot deny the matter of fact concerning King Richard the III ds Deposing his Nephew and Usurping the Crown to have been very wicked and contrary to the received Law of England concerning the Succession at that time and likewise that by Bastardizing his Brother the late King's Issue without due course of Law and by attainting the blood of his other Brother the Duke of Clarence he would have made the World believe that he was Lawful Heir by right of blood yet you will not deny but that for all this he was so sensible of the weakness of his Title that though it is true his right by blood is declar'd in the first place in that Act of Recognition yet it is plain he would not rely upon that alone and therefore you see the Parliament there also insists upon his right by Election and Coronation which they would never have done had it not been that they looked upon it for good Law that whoever was Crowned King and call'd a Parliament and had his Title therein Recognized and Confirmed was thenceforth true and lawful King to all intents and purposes therefore though you have omitted it I shall proceed to shew you what this Statute also farther declares For after they had declar'd the said King's Title as grounded upon the Antient Laws and Laudable Customs of the Realm according to the Judgement of all such Persons as were learned in them they proceed thus Yet nevertheless for as much as it is consider'd that the most part of the People is not sufficiently learned in the aforesaid Laws and Customs whereby truth and right in his behalf of likelihood may be had and not clearly known to all People and thereupon put in doubt and question and over this how that the Court of Parliament is of such Authority that a Declaration made by the three Estates and by the Authority of the same maketh before all other things most faithful and certain quieting of Mens Minds and removeth the occasion of doubts and seditious Language therefore they also declare that he was the undoubted King Whence 't is evident that the reason of this Law supposeth that the Subjects in general are not capable of understanding the Laws and Customs upon which the Titles of our Kings depend and that the best satisfaction that the generality of the People can possibly have in those high Matters was to rest on the judgment and determination of the Kingdom declared by Act and Authority of Parliament and therein to acquiesce for the preventing Sedition so much as in Language therefore what I said before in the Case of King Stephen is also true in this quod fieri non debuit factum valet and all the Acts made in the Reign of this King Richard though â— horrid Usurper were never repeal'd but stand good at this day As to what you say concerning the manner of King Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown is also true but as for his Title to it by right of Succession that was certainly false for his Mother the Countess of Richmond was then alive by whom he Claim'd the Crown and liv'd divers years after he was King so that though I grant that it is recited in the Parliament Roll that he claim'd the Crown in Parliament tam per justum titulum haereditantiae quam per verum Dei judicium in tribuendo sibi victoriam de Inimico suo in campo tho' the latter of these Titles may be true Viz. the Conquest of King Richard especially when once he was confirm'd and recognized in Parliament yet that the former could not be so is plain from what I have now said so that it is certain that King Henry the VII ths best Title was neither by Inheritance nor Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth but by the Act of Parliament as appears by the unprinted Statute it self still upon the Roll which since you did not repeat I will the Title is Titulus Regis and it runs in these words To the Pleasure of Almighty God the Wealth Prosperity and Surety of this Realm of England to the singular comfort of all the Kings Subjects of the same and in avoiding of all ambiguities and questions be it Ordained Established and Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament that the inheritance of the Crowns of the Realms of England and of France with all the preeminence and dignity Royal to the same pertaining and all other Seignouries to the King belonging beyond the Sea with th' Appurtenances thereto in any wise due or pertaining be rest remain and abide in the Most Royal Person of our now Sovereign Lord King Henry the VII th and in the Heirs of his Body lawfully coming perpetually with the grace of God so to endure and in none