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
him not only Gratitude and Respect as a Parent but also Obedience in all indifferent things Yet I deny that this Power or Supâ—â—iority of Adam over his Wife and Children was at all a Despotical or Civil Power but meerly Oeconomical for the Good and Convenience of Adam and the well ordering and preservation of his Family which you will easily grant if you please to consider what are the Essential Differences of Civil Government from Oeconomical Now the Essential Properties of Civil Government consist in preserving and defending the Subjects both in War and Peace from Forreign Enemies and Intestine Injurieâ— and Invasions of Mens Persons or Properties and in revenging and punishing all such Transgressions by Death or other Punishments and consequently in making Laws concerning Property and for restraining all Robberies Murders and the like Now in the state of Innocency there could be no need of any of these Essential Functions of Civil Power for your self must grant that Man was then not apt to Sin and immortal so that all Laws about Peach or War Punishments of Offences publick Judgments concerning Meum Tuum and all Injuries were absolutely needless and had never been in Nature if Adam had not sinned and then how you can call this Authority or Superiority which I grant Adam had over his Wife and Children Civil Power I can by no means understand But I do utterly deny that even after the Fall Adam was a Monarch or Sole and Absolute Lord over the whole Earth and all Creatures therein contained and desire you to give me such plain proofs of it either from Reason or Scripture that I need no more doubt of it than your self M. I shall first of all give you an Argument drawn from the Reason of the thing and in the next place the Authority of Scripture for my Opinion and first I think it is evident that every Man that is Born is so â—at from being Free that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject of him that begets him and even Grotiâ—â— hâ—mself acknowledges that Generatione â—us acquiritur in liberos And indeed the Act of Begetting being that which makes a Man a Father his Right of a Father over his Children can Naturally arise from nothing else and the same Author in another plâ—ce hath these words upon the Fourth Commandment Parentum nomine qui naturales luns Magistraus etiam alios Rectores par est iutelligi quorum authoritas Sociâ—tatem humanam continet And if Parents be natural Magistrates Children must needs he Born Natural Subjects So that not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Fatherhood Regal Authority over their Children as may 〈◊〉 by divers Testimonies out of Scrâ—pture and therefore at is very reasonable that all Fathers should have a Power over the Lives of their Children since it is to them that they owe their Life Being and Education and I think that even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood F. Before you come to Scripture give me leave in the first place to examine your first Argument which you deduced from the Law of Nature or Reason For I doubt if you please better to consider of it you will and that so light and Transitory an Action as that of Generation cannoâ— give any Man an absolute Property and Dominion over the Person and â—â—fe of those whom he Begets since sew Men do principally intend the giving of a Being to another so much as they do their own pleasure in that Action nor do we owe our Lives properly speaking to our Parents but to God who is the true and original Cause of our Being though it is true he makes use of our Parents as Physical though not as Moral Means or Instruments for that end since it doth not lye in their power to hinder their Generating of Children if they perform the Acts necessary thereunto so that both the antecedent and the consequent are altogether false viz. That Parents give their Children Life and Being and that therefore they have and absolute power over their Lives and Persons which if it were true would give the Mother an equal Title to the Lives of the Children as the Father seeing they owe their Lives as much to the one as the other Which power in the Mother I am sure you will not admit of But as for what you say concerning the power of Fathers arising from Education though I confess that is a much better Title than the other Yet doth it not follow that because by reason of my Parents care of me before I was able to help my self I owe my preservation and well being to them that therefore they are to be perpetual and absolule Lords over my Person and Life Since by thus breeding me up they only perform'd that Duty and Trust which God had laid upon them for the good and preservation of Manking and which they could not without committing a Sin either refuse or decline and therefore their Authority or Power over my Person being only for my well-being can extend no farther tan whilst I am not of years of discretion to understand the true means of my own good and preservation And though I grant that I am bound in gratitude to return this Care and Kindness by all Acts of Duty and Piety towards them as long I live yet doth it not therefore follow thar they are Masters of my Life and of all that I have since this were to take away more than they themselves ever gave and though I should grant you that even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood yet this Fatherhood is such as utterly excludes all pretence of Title in Earthly Parents for he is our King because he is indeed maker of us all which no Natural Parents can pretend to be of their Children but if you please more closely to consider your own Argument you will find that he will quite destroy your Hypothesis For if all Fathers have an absolute power over their Children by Generations then Adam could only have power over his own Children which he begat and none at all over his Grand-Children since their Fathers by this Argument of Generation ought to have had the same power over their Children which Adam had over them for the same reason So that this Monarchical Power of Adam as a Father could extend no farther than one Generation M. I shall not further urge this Argument of Generation since I see you are not satisfied with it but this much I think I can clearly prove from Scripture that Adam was Lord over the Persons and Lives of his Wife and Children by vertue of that command which God gave Eve Gen. 3. v. 16. Unto the Woman he said I will greatly mutilply thy sorrow and thy Conception In sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children and thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee From which words it
happen sometimes to abuse yet I suppose no person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the Execution of it much less to call him to an account or punish him for the Male-administration of his Power And you have granted that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a power of life and death over his Wife if she murthers her Children or commits any other abominable sin against Nature and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family and punish'd as an Enemy to Mankind and so certainly may his Children too But what need I say any more of this Subject when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments concerning the absoluteness and perpetuiry of this Conjugal Subjection and that which will likewise follow from it the constant service and subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature Therefore pray Sir let us return again to that Head and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it F. I beg your pardon Sir if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done but you may thank your self for it who brought me off from what I was going farther to say on that Head by your discourse of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death conferred by God on Adam as a Husband and a Father But first give me leave farther to prove that this subjection of the Wife is neither absolute nor irrevocable For proof of which I shall lay down these Principles 1. That the Wife in the State of Nature when she submits her self to the power of her Husband does it to live as happily as she did before oâ— rather to enjoy more of the comforts of life than in a single State 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own happiness or Self-preservation 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judg of the means that may conduce to these ends for if this were so let him use her never so cruelly or severely she could have no cause to censure him or complain in the least against him 4. If she have not so absolutely given up her Will to his she is still Judge when she is well used by him or else so cruelly that it is no longer to be endured And therefore if such a Husband will not allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment and other necessaries or that he uses her cruelly by beating or other punishments or hath endeavoured to take away her Life in all these cases in the State of Nature and where there is no Superior Power to complain or appeal to she may certainly quit him and I think she is not bound to return to co-habit with him again until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her and is resolved to make amends for the future But whether this Repentance be real or not she only can be Judge since she can only Judge of her own happiness and the means of her preservation And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness and help to each other if he have broke his part of the Compact she is then so far discharged from hers and consequently in the meer state of Nature which is that we are now talking of the Vinculum Matrimonii as you Civilians term it will be likewise dissolved So likewise such a Husband for no just cause or crime in the Wife but only to be rid of her should endeavour to take away her life as suppose to strangle her in her sleep or the like no doubt but she may notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection resist him by force and save her life until she can call in her Children or Family for her rescue and assistance who sure may also notwithstanding this absolute Daspotick Power you place in their Father or Master rescure her from his rage and malice whether he will or not Nay they are bound to do it unless they will be Accessaries to her Murther M. These are doubtful Cases at best and do very seldom happen and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked as to hate and destroy his own Flesh and therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen F. Rarely happen I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bayly nor at our Countrey Assizes where if you please to come you may often hear of Cases of this Nature and I wonder you that are a Civilian and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts brought by Wives for Separation propter Saevitiam c. Should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so ill that it is not to be endured But if the Wife have these Privileges pray tell me why the Children shall not have the same according to your own Maxime of partus Sequitur Ventrem since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles of the same natere with that of the Mother and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of M. Yet I hope you will not affirm but that Children are under higher obligations of Duty and Obedience to their Father than a Wife is to her Husband with whom perhaps she may in some cases be upon equal terms but Children can never be so in respect of their Father to whom they are always inferior and ought to be absolutely Subject in the state of Nature that is before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power F. I thank you Sir for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to and I agree with you in your other Maxim of Quicquid ex me â—xore mea nascitur in potestate mea est yet not in your sense For iâ— I should grant that the Father's Power over the Child commences from his Power over the Mother by her becoming his Wife and submitting her self and consequently all the issue that should be begotten of her to her Husband's Power yet as I have proved already in case of the Wife so I think I may affirm the same in that of the Children That they are not deliver'd by God so absolutely to the Father's Will or disposal as that they have no Right when they attain to years of Discretion to seek their own happiness and preservation in another place in case the Father uses them as Slaves or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause since when Children are at those years I think they are by the Laws of Nature sufficient Judges of their own happiness or misery that is whether they are well or ill used and whether their Lives are in danger or not by their Father's Cruelty For tho' I grant that Children considered as such are always inferior to their Parents yet I must likewise affirm that in another respect as they are men and
thou hast the knack to wheadle or persuade him Would not this have been a mighty matter for God Almighty to have appeared to Cain about and an excellent Argument to comfort him and to appease his Wrath against his Brother So that it seems apparent by this Law given by God to Cain and Abel that this Regal and Paternal Authority was not to dye with him nor â—o be equally divided amongst all his Children at his Death or that from thenceforth no man should have a Right by Birth of commanding another for this command to Abel could not be supposed to take place in the Life of Adam for then Adam was Lord over all his Children and so none of them without his permission could rule over the rest and if it were otherwise by Adam's appointment then Adam was the Soveraign still and the Son or Grand-Son so exercising this Power was but his Deputy but after Adam's decease then it became a real Soveraignty in his Eldest Son as having none but God Superior to it F. I hope you will judge more charitably of me than to believe that the sense that I have put upon these words tho' different from yours is out of any love of Anarchy or confusion much less out of any design to pervert or wrest this place of Scripture and if I should be so severe as you are perhaps I might with more reason lay this charge at your Door for in the first place I am not satisfied with your Argument that these words could not be meant personally or concerning Abel only because the same words when spoken of Eve do likewise concern her Posterity and therefore when spoken concerning Abel they must likewise relate to all Younger Brothers in Hereditary Monarchies which consequence I may with very good reason deny for whatsoever subjection may be due by vertue of the like words from Eve and her Posterity to Adam and all other Husbands is to be supposed to have been enjoyned because all Women are descended from Eve and so were represented by her as their first Parent Thus St. Paul supposes all men to be in a state of Sin and Death as represented by Adam their Ancestor by whose disobedience all have sinned But no man will affirm that all the Elder Brothers or Monarchs in the World were represented by Cain and all younger Brothers by Abel no man at this day being as appears in Scripture descended from either of them and I cannot but take notice that the better to strengthen your Notion you again foist in out of the margin of our English Bible His desire shall be subject to thee whereas in the Hebrew it is no more than His or its desire shall be to thee And that the words Rule over are to be interpreted according to the subject and do not always mean a ruling by force or command appears by the same Hebrew words made use of in the first of Genesis concerning the two great Lights that God set in the Firmament to give Light upon the Earth to rule over the Day and over the Night which cannot signifie a ruling by force or command but only by a natural influence or preheminence of the Sun and Moon above the Stars or Planets And tho' you are pleased to ridicule this explanation of mine yet I think I may with as much reason treat yours with the like contempt for since your self grant that this Power of Cain over Abel was not to commence till after the Death of Adam and that this Murder of Abel was committed above a hundred years after Adams Creation appears by the time of the Birth of Seth who was born sometime after Abel's Death would not this thing have been a mighty comfort to Cain when he was in his dogged humor if God had bid him chear up for the time should come that if he behaved himself well about eight hundred years hence when his Father Adam should die he should then Lord it over his Brother and be revenged of him for the affront he had received in having his Sacrifice preferred before his own So that this interpretation of yours is so absurd that I do much rather agree with divers learned commentators as well Jews as Christians who make not only a quite different interpretation but also a different version of these words from the Hebrew Text and if you have the Learned Jesuit Menochius his Notes upon the Bible I pray let me see them Here pray observe what he says upon this place Seâ— sub te erit appetitus ejus in Hebraeo apud LXX est ad te conversio ejus sensus est Peccatum ejusque appetitus concupiscentia te sollicitabit ad consensum sed ita ut ad te converti a te conseusum petere impetrare debeat id noster interpres ad sensum clare vertit sub te erit appetitus ejus by all which he means no more than that sin should tempt or sollicit him to offend but that he should rule over it that is had a power so to do if he would use it as he ought So likewise Mr. Ainsworth upon this place as you may see in Pool's Criticks puts a liâ—e sense upon the following words referring the whole sentence to the sin in these words Peccatum ponitur pro poena Peccati juxta Hebraeos ita accipitur Gen. 19.15 Lev. 20. 9. 1 Rep. 7.9 sinsus est prope te punitio peccati ad te desiderum ejus i. e. cupit te poena peccati tui ut solet post peccatum admissum Sed tu si vis dominaberis illi i. e. potes declinare peccatum q. d. poena haec sicut canis est qui ad ostium cubat cupiens ingredi sed in potestate Domini est vel claudere ostium ne ingrediatur vel aperire ut intret Probatur hic sensus 1. Prius membrum de praemio lâ—quitur reportabis scil praemium ergo posterius loquitur de poena peccatum jam inerat ipsi punitio vero nondum sed ad fores erat So that according to these learned Comentators this place is to be thus turned out of Hebrew If thou dost not well sin lyeth at the door and to thee is its desire but thou mayst or shalt rule over it which seems to me to be a much more Genuin and Rational Interpretation than that of our English or Latin Bibles so that I think I may justly except against the Authority of so doubtful and obscure a place as sufficient to found your Monarchical Power of Elder Brothers in the State of Nature M. Well Sir since you are no better satisfied with this Testimony oâ—â— of Genesis for the Divine Right of Primogeniture I will no longer insist upon it tho' I am not yet convinced but that my Interpretation of this place is truer than yours since I have likewise great Authorities on my side both Antient and Modern besides our common versions to authorize it and
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
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
themselves in Caves and Mountains and yet this was the only defensive War which David made with all his Men about him nay all that he would make and all that he could make according to his Professed Principles that it was not Lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed And when these Men are pursued as David was by an enraged and Jealous Prince I will not charge them of Rebellion tho' they fly before him by thousands in a Company Yet there was sufficient Reason why David should entertain these Men who voluntarily resorted to him tho' he never intended to use them against Saul for some of them served for Spies to watch Sauls Motions that he might not be surprised by him but have timely notice to make his Escape And the very presence of such a number of Men about him without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls hands And he being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death this was the first step to his Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to the Throne more easie and discouraged any Oppositions which might otherwise have been made against him as we see it proved in the event and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very End It is certain that Gad the Prophet and Abiathar the Priest who was the only Man who escaped the Fury of Saul when he destroyed the Priests of the Lord were in Davidâ— Retinue and that David enterpriz'd nothing without first asking Counsel of God But he who had Anointed him to be King now draws Forces after him which after Saul's Death should facilitate his Advancement to the Kingdom F. I cannot think your Answer to this Objection satisfactory for first it is evident that when David was at the Cave of Adullam his Brethren and all his Fathers House as soon as they heard it went down thither to him and tho' it be not expresly said that he sent for any to come to his Assistance yet it is plain he refused none that came and to what purpose should he make use of so many as 400 or 600 Men unless it were to defend himself against those Men that Saul might send against him since half a score or twenty Persons had been enough to have served for Spies and if he had thought himself obliged only to run away three or four Servants had been enough in conscience to have Waired on him in any Neighbouring Country but that David thought it no Sin to defend himself from the Violence of those which Saul should send to Kill him is plain from what he says to Abiathar upon his flight unto him after the Death of his Father Abide thou with me fear not for he that seeketh my Life seeketh thy Life but with me thou shalt be in safeguard And if David had not meant by these Words to have defended Abiathar's as well as his own Life if assaulted and without a Possibility of escaping it had been very cold comfort for David to have only assur'd him that he should be in safe-guard with him till the first assault that should be made upon them but that then he should shift for himself for as for his own part he would rather permit his Throat to be cut by the Kings Officers or Souldiers than resist them And therefore tho' I own that it was not Lawful for him to stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed Since I do not allow any Private Subject to Kill even Tyrants unless a in State of actual War or Battle wherein they are Aggressors nor then neither if it can possibly be avoided Yet do I not find it at all unlawful for David or any other private Man to defend his own Life against such Assassinates as his Prince may send against him So it may be done without a Civil War or endangering the Peace of the Common-Wealth And so much you your self tho' Coldly seem to yield when you say that the very Presence of such a number of Men about David without any Hostile Act preserved him from being seiz'd on by some Officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Sauls Hands For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of keeping so many Men only for shew and a Terrour to those Officious Persons you mention without resisting of them if there had been occasion And tho' you tell me that his being Anointed by Samuel to be King after Sauls Death was the first step to the Kingdom to have such a Retinue of Valiant Men about him which made his Advancement to thoâ—punc Throne so much the â—aster and discouraged any Opposition which might have been made against him and that we see it proved so in the Event and therefore have Reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God to that very End I must take the Liberty so far to differ from you For first I desire to know by what Authority David could List 600 or 700 Men in Arms in Sauls Territories and whether according to your Doctrine they were not Rebels for joyning themselves with one who was declared a Traytor by the King And tho' you say it was thus ordered by God I grant indeed it was yet doth it not appear that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan or Abiathar but only by the Ordinary Course of his Providence like other things in the World and therefore it is no fair way of Arguing for you to affirm that what ever David did in the matter of his own Defence contrary to your Principles he must needs do it by express order from God of which the Scripture is wholy silent much less doth it appear from the Story that these Men whom David kept with him were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom as you affirm since the Scripture mentions no such thing only that after Saul's Death he went up by Gods Command to Hehron with the Men that were with him and thither the Men of Iudah came and there they Anointed David King over the House of Judah but 't is no where mention'd that these Men were of any use to David for the Obtaining of the Crown since the Tribe of Iudah would have made him King tho' these Men had not been with him for what could 600 or 1000 Men do against so vast a Multitude as the whole Tribe of Iudah And therefore it is evident that these Forces were for no other End than his own defence And tho' you make very light of this State of War in which David was in relation to Saul yet pray tell me supposing that the Duke of Monmouth had really been as he Pretended the Legitimate Son of King Charles the II. but by some Particular Disgust of his Father or by the Intrigues of his Competitor the Duke of York had
and to render Obedience to Governours altho' they be wicked and wrong doers and in no Case to resist and stand against them Subjects are bound to obey them i. e. Governours as Gods Ministers altho' they be evil not only for fear but also for Conscience sake and here good People let us mark diligently that it is not Lawful for Inferiours and Subjects in any Case to resist and stand against the Superiour Powers for St. Paul's words are plain that whoso withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation Our Saviour Christ and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the unfaithful and wicked men in Authority yet we never read that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority we read often that they patiently suffered all Troubles Vexations Slanders Pangs Pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistance Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore it is not Lawful for their Subjects to withstand them altho' they abuse their Power Let us believe undoubtedly good Christian People that we may not obey Kings if they command us any thing contrary to Gods Commandments in such a Case we ought to say as the Apostle We must rather obey God than Man but nevertheless in that Case we must not in any wise withstand violently or Rebâ—l against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his appointed Officers but we must in such a Case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God And see part the third of the same Homily Ye have heard before of this Sermon of good order and Obedience manifestly proved both by Scriptures and Examples That all Subjects are bound to obey their Magistrates and for no cause to resist or withstand or rebel or make any Sedition against them yea altho' they be wicked men I could find many more such places in our Homilies but I shall trouble you but with one other Passage out of the second Book of Homilies compiled in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in which Book the Homily against Willful Rebellion is full to this Purpose In reading the Holy Scriptures we shall find in very many and almost infinite places as well of the Old Testament as of the New that Kings and Princes as well the Evil as the Good do Reign by Gods Ordinance and that Subjects are bound to obey them The farther and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government the greater Plague he is of Gods Wrath and Punishment by God's Justice unto the Country and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governour What shall Subjects do then What a perillous thing were it to commit to Subject 〈◊〉 Iudgment which Prince is wise and Godly and his Govern◠〈◊〉 good and which otherwise as tho' the Foot must judge of the â—ead a◠〈◊〉 very heinous and which must needs breed Rebâ—â—â—â—â—â— and is not â—â—â—â—llion the greatest of all miscâ—iefâ— A Rebel is worse than the 〈◊〉 Princepunc and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been If we will have an Evil Prince when God shall send one taken away and a good one in his Place let us take away our wickedness which provoketh God to place such a one over us Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved Punishment to give them an undiscreet and Evil Prince and also Râ—bel against him and withal against God who for the Punishment of their Sins did give them such a Prince And this Doctrine is more strictly inforced in the second part of that Homily from the Example of King David in his Carriage towards Saul from which it will appear that they did not suppose David to have used so much as defensive Arms against him as you may see by this Passage in it That when for his most painful true and faithful Service King Saul yet rewarded him not only with great unkindness but also sought his Destruction and Death by all means possible David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by flight and hiding himself from the Kings sight From all which Passages out of the Homilies I think we may draw these plain Conclusions 1. That as well Evil as Good Governours are to be obeyed as God's Ordinance 2. That therefore they are not to be resisted for any cause tho' they abuse their Power never so Tyrannically 3. That the People are not to judge when the Prince thus abuses this Power so as thereby to make any disturbance 4. That not only Offensive but also Defensive Arms if made use of against him are utterly unlawful and also against God's express Command F. I grant these Homilies seem to be very strictly penned against all Resistance and ought to be like all discourses of this Nature Positive and General and perhaps if I were to preach a Sermon to the Common People on this Subject it should be much to the same Purpose and yet for all that I might not believe that it was absolutely unlawful for a whole Nation to defend themselves in Case of such extream Violence or Oppression as I have already supposed for when Preachers speak to Vulgar Auditors they are not bound like Casuists to tell them all the reserved Cases in which they may be dispensed with in their Duty lest they might use this Christian Liberty for a Clos't of Maliciousnâ—ss as the Apostle tells us Thus if a good Preacher makes a Sermon against Stealing or Murder he may very justly tell the People aâ— the Authors of these Homilies do that they ought not in any wise or for any Cause to commit Theft or Murder without telling them all those Cases of meer Necessity in which it may be Lawful to make use of the Goods of another and also to commit Homicide as when a Man is forced to take Victuals tho' without the owners consent for meer Preservation of Life or to kill a Thief or any other Man that assaults him to save his own Life So tho' the Authors of these Books of Homilies do say that we may not in any wise and for no Cause withstand Violently or Resist the Supream Powâ—rs but that we must suffer patiently all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Iudgment only to God yet since they have not particularly put the Case as I have now done viz. what is to be done in Case a whole Nation or People are about to be destroyed ruined or enslaved and made Heathens or Papists by the unjust nay illegal Violence of the Supream Powâ—rs we may rationally suppose that since they were good Men and never intended to urge these things further than what the Scripture and Fathers have already done that they never really intended that a
Constitution to have bin in all the Neighbouring Kingdoms in Europe which have bin raised according to the Gothic Model of Government upon the Ruins of the Roman Empire now let us look into Scotland and there we shall find this Institution as Ancient as any History or Record they have If we pass into France we shall find their Assembly of Estates or Great Council to have bin as Ancient as their first Kings and to have had as much Power as any where else in Europe Since they not only frequently Elected but also Deposed their Kings of the first Race and disposed of the Succession of the Crown as they thought fit If we look into Spain we shall find in the two greatest and most Considerable Kingdoms viz. Castile and Arragon the like Assemblies the Power of which was so great in the latter that they could even Depose the King himself if he Tyranniz'd over or Oppress 't them If we go more Northward we shall find in the Ancient Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden and Norway that their Assembly of Estates or Dyets Elected their Kings and could likewise Depose them till those Kingdoms became Hereditary which was but of modern times I shall omit Poland because perhaps you may dispute whether it is a Kingdom or a Commonwealth But if we pass into Hungary which was Instituted by the Huns a Nation of Gothic Original we shall find not only the like Assembly of Estates as in the other Kingdoms but also that they had a Magistrate called the Palatine who was as it were the Conservator of the People's Liberties and who could Resist even the King himself if he invaded them and which is also very remarkable in all these Kingdoms except Denmark the Representatives of the Cities or Principal Towns which constituted the third Estate or Commons in those Kingdoms had always a place in those Great Councils So that to conclude it is almost impossible to conceive how these Kingdoms I have now mentioned could all agree to fall into the same sort of Government about the same time unless it had proceeded from the particular temper and Genius of the Germane and Gothick Nations from which they were derived Or who can believe that all these Nations and their Kings finding the like Conveniences from these Great Councils and Inconveniences by the want of them should all Conspire to set them up in each of these particular Kingdoms M. I will not deny but that the Institution of Great Councils or Assemblies of the Estates might be as Ancient as the Government it self in several of those Kingdoms you mention which were at first Elective but what is that to England where our Monarchy hath bin by Succession from the first Institution of it and not Elective as you suppose Nor do I much value the Authority of the Mirrour as to the Great Antiquity he Ascribes to this Assembly of Counts or Comites as Bracton calls them and in which by the way no Commons are mentioned And tho I grant the Iudicial Power of the House of Peers is very Ancient Yet that it wholy proceeded at first from the Indulgence of our Kings appears from hence that there was always a necessity of the King's Presence in Parliaments which is very well proved by Sir Robert Cotton in a Learned Treatise written on that Subject wherein he proves that in all Consultations of State and Decisions of private Plaints it is clear from all times the King was not only present to Advise but also to Determine And whensoever the King is present all Power of Iudging which is derived from his ceaseth the Votes of the Lords may serve for matter of Advice the Final Iudgment is only the Kings But indeed of late years Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth by reason of their Sex being not so fit for publick Assemblies have brought it out of use by which means it is come to pass that many things which were in former times acted by Kings themselves have of late bin left to the Iudgment of the Peers who in quality of Iudges Extraordinary are permitted for the Ease of the King and in his Absence to determine such matters as were Anciently brought before the King himself sitting in Person attended by his Great Council of Prelates and Peers And the Ordinances that are made there receive their Establishment either from the King's Presence in Parliament where his Chair of State is constantly placed or at least from his Confirmation of them who in all Courts and in all Causes is Supream Iudge All Judgments are by or under him and cannot be without much less against his Approbation The King only and none but He if He were able should judge all Causes saith Bracton so that nothing seems plainer to me than that the Iurisdiction which the House of Peers have hitherto exercised for the Hearing and Determining all Causes as well Civil as Criminal by way of Appeal not only between Subjects but also in all Accusations against the Lords themselves proceeds wholy from the Kings which may appear by an Ancient Precedent mentioned by Abbot Brampton in his History It is the Case between King Edw. the Confessor and Godwin Earl of Kent whom the King accused for the Death of his Brother Prince Alfred before the House of Peers and there you will find that after the Earl had put himself upon the Iudgment of the Kings Court the King thereupon said You Noble Lords Earls and Barons i. e. Thanes of the Land who are my Liege-Men now gathered here together and have heard my Appeal and Godwin's Answer I will that in this Appeal between us ye Decree Right Iudgment and do true Iustice And upon their Judgment that the Earl should make the King sufficient Satisfaction in Gold and Silver for the Death of his Brother the King being thereof informed and not willing to contradict it the Historian there sayeth He ratified all they had judged I could give you many other Precedents of latter Date were it not too tedious But this is sufficient to shew that what the Pâ—ers acted in this matter was by the King 's Sole Will and Permission I shall only conclude with one Precedent more in Case of some what alike Nature It is that of Hen. Spencer Bishop of Norwich 7 Rich. 2d who was accused foâ— joyning with the French The Bishop complained what was done against him did not pass by the Assent and Knowledge of the Peers whereupon it was said in Parliament that the Cognisance and Punishment of his Offence did of Câ—mmon Right and Ancient Custom of the Realm of England solely and wholy belong to our Lord the King and no other From all which I infer that the Iudicial Power exercised by the House of Peers is meerly derivative from and Subservient to the Supream Power resiâ—â—ing in the King From whence it also follows that if the Peers have no Power nor Honour but what proceeds from the Prince and that the Commons
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
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
was a man and better acquainted with England and having the Interest of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and most of the great men were of his party and yet for all that Hoveden who was alive at this time speaks not a word of his being Elected but only that upon his coming into England he was received by the Nobility and Crown'd by Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury so that there is not one word there of any Election by but only a submission from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to King Iohn and a recognition that he was their King nor indeed could he need it if it be true what the same Author tells us That when King Richard despar'd of Life he devised to Iohn his Brother the Kingdom of England and all his other Lands and caus'd all those that were present to do him Fealty and this is related by Hoveden in all probability an Eye Witness of these transactions So that the first Author we find to mention any thing of the particulars of this pretended Election is Mâ—tthew Paris who has given us the Speech which the Arch-bishop made at this supposed Election and also reciting the Arch-bishops Bishops Earls and Barons and all others who ought to be at his Coronation the Arch-bishop standing in the middle of them said thus Hear all of you your Discretion shall know that no man hath right to succeed in this Kingdom unless after seeking God he be unanimously chosen by the University of the Kingdom that is those that are here said to meet at London the rest of the Speech needs no repeating only he lays it down for Law which I think was never heard of before That if any of the Progeny of the dead King did excel others they ought more readily to consent to the Election of him and so upon this Speech made in behalf of Earl Iohn and full of a great deal of fulsom slattery he was declar'd King But to let you see what a sort of Man this Arch bishop Hubert was here see what the same Author tells us in the same place that being asked afterward why he said these things answer'd That he guested and was thought ascertained by certain Prophecies that Iohn would bring the Kingdom and Crown into great Confusion and therefore lest he he might have too much liberty in doing he affirmed he ought to come in by Election and not by Hereditary Succession Now though this Learned Doctrine of the Arch bishop asserts a right of Election in the Convention of Bishops Earls Barons c. yet by his own answer when he was asked why he said these things it clearly discovers it to be only a design and artifice in the Archbishop to cause them to set up and make Iohn King and in which also he denies any such right of Election but since Hoveden nor any other of our antient historians make mention of this Election but only of his Coronation and the Bishops Earls and Barons assisting at it not giving their consents to it it may very well be that that story of an Election and this Speech of Arch bishop Hubert might be only an invention of Matthew Paris or rather of Roger of Wendover from whom he took most of his History but that this doctrine of the Arch-bishop concerning the Election of our Kings if meant according to the modern understanding of it was then new Gervase a Monk of Canterbury in the year 1122. who also speaking of the Coronation of Henry the First says it was manifest and known almost to all men that the King 's of England were only obliged and bound to God for the possession of the Kingdom and to the Church of Canterbury for their Coronation manifestum est autem omnibus fire notum Reges Angliae soli Deo obligari teneri ex ipsius regni adeptione Ecclesiae Cantuariensi ex Coronatione But that King Iohn was looked upon as an Usurper is very certain since besides some of the honest English Nobility that took Duke Arthurs part the King of France did also make War upon King Iohn upon his Nephews account because he looked upon him as true Heir to the Crown and therefore when K. Iohn had privately made away his said Nephew in prison the K. of France summon'd him as Duke of Normandy and Peer of France to answer for the Murther in an Assembly of the Peers of France at Paris where for his refusing to appear he was condemn'd to death and his Dukedom of Normandy declar'd forâ—eited to the King of France F. I confess you have said as much as can be to prove that King Iohn had no Hereditary Right to the Crown nor was so solemnly Elected to it as Matthew Paris relates but yet for all this I think I may very justly oppose all that you have now said upon this Head for in the first place it was then very much disputed as it hath been also since that time if an Elder Brother died and left a Son a Mâ—nor whether his Younger Brother or the Son should succeed for though the People of Anjou and those of Guienne own'd Duke Arthur for their Prince yet the States of Normandy were of another mind and as well by vertue of King Richard's Testament he was immediately after his Death invested with that Dukedom nor was he then at all opposed in it by the King of France though Supreaâ— Lord of the Fee and as for England besides his Brothers Testament whereby he left him Heir of all his Territories it was also then generally held in England as most consonant to the Antient English Saxon Law of Succession that the Uncle should succeed to the Crown before the Nephew therefore it is no wonder if Duke Arthur found so small a party here not any Bishop Earl or Baron as I read of owning his Title and as for the King of France it is also as certain that he did at first own King Iohn for lawful King of England and Duke of Normandy and entred into a Treaty of Peace and made a League with him as such though it is true that afterwards when he had a mind to pick a quarrel with that King he then set up Duke Arthur's Title And though this Duke was made away in the beginning of King Iohn's Reign yet did not the King or Peers of France ever take any notice of it till about twelve or thirteen years after when he had now unjustly Conquered all Normandy and almost all that Kings other Territories in France and then wanting a Title to keep them he began this Prosecution you mention against him and upon his non appearance he was condemned unheard but that the King of France himself and all the great men of that Kingdom did look upon him to have been lawful King of England appears by that Speech which Matthew Paris relates to have been made after King Iohn's Deposition by the Barons of England by a Knight whom Prince Lewis
of Succession yet even that will not hold in respect of the present settlement thereof by the Convention upon the Prince and Princess of Orange for their two Lives since you cannot but know that no Parliament yet was ever so presumptuous as to take upon them to settle or limit the Succession of the Crown without the consent of the King or Queen then in being Whereas the present Settlement was first made by the Convention upon the making of the Prince and Princess King and Queen tho' I grant it was afterwards confirmed by another pretended Act whereby all Princes that are or shall be Roman Catholicks when the Crown shall descend unto them are debarred from their right of Succession This though I grant to be made after the Prince and Princess of Orange took upon them the Title of King and Queen yet since that Statute was not made in a Parliament call'd by the King's Writs but in a Convention who owe their Meeting wholly to the Prince of Orange's Letters it is not only void in respect of the subject matter but also in the manner of making it and therefore I cannot believe that the Throne was ever vacant And I have as little reason to be satisfied that the Prince and Princess could be lawfully placed therein or that all Roman Catholick Princes can ever be barred from their right of Succession when ever it may fall to them F. If this be all you have farther to object I think I can easily answer it for in the first place I have already told you that the Convention did not take upon them to create or make any new form of Succession to the Crown but only to declare that the Prince and Princess of Orange are Rightful and Lawful King and Queen of England for upon supposition of King Iames's Abdication of the Crown and that the Prince of Wales cannot be taken for the lawful Son of the King 'till he can be brought over and that his Legitimacy be duly proved it must 'till then certainly be their right and no others and as for King William's holding the Crown during his own Life I have already told you it was not done without the tacit consent of the Princess of Denmark her self though I doubt not but it may also very well be justified upon those suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest the Prince of Orange made over him which are sufficient in themselves to barr any legal claim of those that either are or may pretend to be right Heirs But as for the other part of your Objection whereby you would prove that Popish Princes cannot be excluded from the Succession because the Act was made not in a Parliament but a Convention this wholly proceeds from your want of Consideration that at the first institution of the Government and long after whilst the Kingdom continued Elective there was no difference between a Great Council or Convention and a Parliament for pray call to mind the four first Great Councils after your Conquest reckoning that for one wherein King William I. was Elected or declared King whether it was possible for those Councils to be summon'd in the Kings Name before any body had taken upon themselves the Title of King the like I may say in the case of King Iohn and Henry the III d and that this continued after the Succession was setled in the next Heir by Blood appears by that Great Council that was summon'd after the death of Henry the Third which Recognized or Ordain'd his Son Prince Edward to be his Successor So likewise the Parliament that deposed King Edward the Second sate both before and after his deposition and resignation and elected his Son Edward the Third to be King and appointed his Reign to begin from the time of their Election and not of his Fathers resignation of the Crown so also upon the deposition of King Richard the Second the same Parliament that deposed him placed Henry the Fourth in the Throne and though the Writs of Summons were in the name of King Richard and they were never re-summon'd or new Elected in the Reign of Henry the Fourth yet did they still continue to sit and made divers new Acts and repealed several old ones all which hold good to this day And that the Parliament are the only proper Judges of the right of Succession even without the King you your self must grant or else how could they declare in the Thirty Ninth of Henry the VI th that the claim which Richard Duke of York made to the Crown could no way be defeated and certainly if that unfortunate Prince King Henry the Sixth had had sufficient Power or Interest in that Parliament they might and would have adjudged the Duke of York's Claim to have been groundless and contrary to Law and then I believe it would scarce have ever been heard of again But to make it out beyond exception that a Convention may become a Lawful Parliament though never call'd by the King's Writs when the King's Authority and Presence come once to be added to and joined with it appears by the first Parliament of King Charles the Second which though Summon'd in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England yet nevertheless continued to Sit and make several Acts which hold good to this day and I doubt not but they might have made the like limitations of the Crown in respect of Roman-Catholick Princes as the Convention have now done and that it would have held good at this day since it is so much for the security of our Religion Liberties and Properties that it should be so since we have found by a dear bought experience in the Reigns of the four last Kings of the Scotch Line that still as they began to favour the Popish Religion and Interest in this Kingdom so did the Protestant and true English Interest in respect of our Religion Liberties and Properties still decline 'till at last they were like to be totally ruin'd and extirpated for that restless and dangerous Faction very well know that there is no means possible for them to re-establish their Superstition among us by due and legal Methods but only by introducing Arbitrary Power taking away Parliaments or else making them wholly to depend upon the King's Will as we see was labour'd and almost effected in the Reigns of the two last Kings and therefore I cannot but believe that the present Parliament has not only acted wisely but also legally to enact that for the future no Prince who is actually a Roman Catholick shall succeed to the Crown though he be next heir by blood M. I must still tell you I am as little satisfied with your suppositions of the forfeiture of the Crown by King Iames and the Conquest to the Prince of Orange as I am with your instances out of History concerning the power of the Great Councils meeting and chusing a King by their own inherent