to England to be prov'd at large T. Does not Bishop Bilson expresly condemn the Papists for saying the People may punish the Prince Farther yet does he not say that God has reserv'd the Magistrate to be punished by himself W. Very true and yet says that which justifies resisting a King of England in some cases T. If you may resist him you punish him but he says God has reserv'd the punishment to himself W. What is done for necessary defence of the Constitution tho in consequence it may be a punishment is not so directly and I am sure Bishop Bilson says Bilson of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 279. If a Prince shall go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the form of the Commonwealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establisht by common consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels T. However he speaks not a word of a Compact here in England W. He supposes that in all Governments the People have a power for preserving the foundation P. 280. freedom and form of their Commonwealth which says he they fore-prized when they first consented to have a King T. Bishop Bilson I find did not understand the consequence of admitting that Princes can have their Crowns from any consent or election of the People W. Is not that better than to have no Title at all but pray what is the consequence of supposing an Election T. The late Bishop of Winchester Hist of Passive Obedience ad part p. 147. in his Sermon at the Coronation of King Charles the Second says As Monarchy by Usurpation is res fine titulo so Monarchy by Election is titulus fine re W. Admirable chime but how does he prove it T. For says he Elective Kings are but Conditional Kings and Conditional Kings are no Kings W. I must confess I did not apprehend that Conditional Kings should be no Kings even while they performed the Conditions T. But what say you to the late Historian's Proofs That the Doctrine of the Church of England is absolutely against resisting Princes in any case whatsoever W. I am of the same mind that no King while such or till he ceases to be King is to be resisted But I must confess I am to seek what he means by the Church of England what by a King of England T. By the Church of England he means the Church-men W. I hope though he contracts the Church in this he does not take in Romish Churchmen to make up the number T. Yes but he does and with very good grounds for as Infallibility attends St. Peter's Chair in relation to the Government of the Church whoever comes into it so they that come into the Preferments of the Church of England succeed to their Doctrines in Government though as to other matters they have a latitude of dissenting Thus the bloody Romish Bishop Bonner though at one time he retracted what he had declar'd at another is an Authority when he spake right because says our Historian P. 4. he spake not his own sense but the sense of the whole Church of England W. I thank you for explaining his Notion of the Church of England but if we take in the Romish Clergy I should think that famous Bishop of Lincoln Grosthead who said Vid. Matth. Par. Hist that all who died on the side of the Barons in the War against H. 3. were Martyrs was as much of the Church of England and as great an ornament to it as Bishop Bonner But I am yet to learn what your Historian means by a King of England does he mean a King only with Title or in possession any way T. No he shews out of Bishop Sanderson P. 133. that we are no otherwise to comply with the Persons of a prevailing usurped Power than I may submit unto Comply with or make use of a High-way Thief or Robber when I am fallen into his hands and lie at his mercy W. Ye are a very wise sort of People to publish and cry up such Books now when at the same time while ye would be thought true and faithful to King William ye deny that he is King by Right But I must needs say I do not well know of any Foundation of Right setled by your Historian but what is in the Clouds or in Obeyance till the right Heir from Adam start up with his Pedigree about his Heels T. He had no occasion to prove wherein a Princes Right consists 't is enough that he shews Instances of Passive-Obedience in all Reigns W. Yes indeed he brings Instances of it where himself owns that the Law had damn'd the Title but does not consider that he carries it further than your Passive-Obedience-Men would have him and brings a Confessor Bishop Coverdale to shew that Bodies Goods and Lives are to be at the Commandment of the Prince who is not Rightful by the Law of England T. You mistake him I am sure for he speaks that in Queen Mary's Reign W. I grant it P. 22. but then he tells us That Queen Mary had been Disinherited by Act of Parliament a Bill of Exclusion pass'd into the formality of a Law and that for Illegitimacy as it is there declared T. What is that to the purpose She had a Divine Right of Succession which no Law could alter W. By what Law did She succeed to E. 6. T. By the Divine Law and that contrary to the Law of England P. 26. for the Historian shews that both the Sisters were declared illegitimate and that by Act of Parliament and were they not so yet being but of the Half-blood to the King by the Law they could not succeed W. As he admits their Title contrary to Law I fear he leaves nothing but the Consent or Choice of the People for the late King joyn'd with his being of the Blood Royal. T. I cannot apprehend your consequence W. Indeed few Tories can see three consequences off but if James I. had no Title by Law what had James II. in the third Descent from him T. The Historian I am sure says nothing against the Title of James I. W. But he shews that by the same Law of England no Foreigner could succeed and James I. was a Foreigner T. You still drive at your Commonwealth-Principle as if Kings could have any right from the Choice of the People W. You I am sure are either against all Right by Law or for placing it where it is by Law determined T. I 'll warrant it you will go about to prove that King James by laying aside his Political Power to exercise his Imperial Law ceas'd to be King of England when in this he did but put on his Royal Robes W. Tho I know of
obnoxious to Judgment W. If you are strong enough then that you may prudenly venture for your King de jure you do but your Duty T. Very true W. I fear by the sense which you put upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you give all Subjects the like liberty even against a King of Right T. No Pag. 45. they shall receive Damnation who resist the present Powers which by the Law are such however they demean themselves in the Government W. Before you are aware you will make the Powers the Apostle speaks of to relate only to them that are Lawful and if they are unlawful either in the exercise or acquisition it seems the Apostle takes no care of them But by what Rule do you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Damnation when applied to resisting a King of Right and only Temporal Judgment when applied to the other tho' he acts beyond the Power which God or Man had entrusted him with T. Because one is by Law and the other not W. You mean one had some Power by Law the other none but still that Power which he exercised beyond the Law was none in the Eye of the Law and either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is threatned only against resisters of a lawful Power or whether the Power be lawful or unlawful resistance is in all cases damnable T. I am sure 't is at least Damnation to resist him that has the Right W. Yes to that Power which he exercises But by what Law will you judge which has the Right or what that Right is T. By God's Law for this is a Divine Right W. Do you mean that God has ascertain'd not only the Rights of Princes but appointed the very Persons T. I mean as Dr. Hicks means Preface to Jovian p. 54. who tells us God hath given the Crown to the Royal Family for a perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birth-right and proximity of Blood W. If the Doctor had considered the broken Succession he would never have argued thus from Providence for if as it will appear upon an exact enquiry more have come to the Throne out of the course than according to proximity of Blood Then all that can be inferr'd from this rectified by the true History is that God has in his Providence given it to a Family but not tied it to the next in Blood and by consequence King William and Queen Mary are our Rightful King and Queen T. You don't consider what Prejudice you do His Majesty by detaining me so long W. I should hope to do King William good Service if I could bring you to a due sense of the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to him and since Dr. W. is a Judge which you have chosen I must refer you to his Preface for what may give you full satisfaction T. I am for the Book rather than the Preface for as the Preface to his Second Part of the Brotestant Reconciler was written after he had smarted for his Officiousness perhaps the last was written when some prosperous Accident to King William made him lay aside those Niceties with which men were to pretend to merit on both sides and perhaps he may be of the same mind with those prudent Divines of the North who were going in a full body to take the Oath of Allegiance but made an halt upon a Report of Major-General Mackay's being defeated in Scotland W. That may be but in his Preface he says Pâ—eface to Consid He does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the imposed Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justifie the title of our present Governours And is so modest to own that he has not knowledge enough in the Law to pass an exact Judgment in that matter T. Then it seems he turns us off to the Lawyers and makes no determination in the point W. Tho' he pretends not to Law Preface to Consid he produces Evidences out of History to shew that VVilliam I. was received upon an Election and Compact that the keeping St. Edward's Laws was part of the Bargain that this became part of the Coronation-Oath of our Kings And that our Learned King James the First declared in a Speech to his Parliament That he was bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereto And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Law T. King James you know was a timorous Prince and full of Dissimulation no doubt he thought to wheadle his people into something which might insensibly give him that power which he disclaimed But for Dr. W. I doubt he is of Republican Principles he would never else talk of a Compact between Prince and People W. What if you should find the same thing in the Author of the History of Passive Obedience T. That is impossible W. Does he not excuse Bishop Bilson for justifying the Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain Hist of Passive Obedience First Part p. 27. upon supposition that the Government in the Low-Countries was founded in Compact This you cannot but remember that he does and therein admits that some Governments may be so founded T. But the Second part of that History shews Second Part p. 72. that Bishop Bilson is wilfully mistaken and that what he says relates only to such Republicks and States in which upon the Invasion of Subject's Priviledges they are allowed by fundamental written known Compact as in Germany by the Bulla Aurea to resist as if that were applicable to Free Monarchies and particularly England contrary to his own express Assertion That the Subjects of England have not that warrant to draw their Sword without consent of their Prince Bilson p. 518 519. where he says he proves it at large W. I am satisfied no Prince will consent it should be drawn against himself but I take St. Edward's Law which shews that a King of England may cease to be King upon his violating his Coronation Oath of which the maintaining that is part to be as full a Compact as the Golden Bull. And Jasper Main one of the Historian's Authors admits that the Instances of the Cases of E. 2. and R. 2. may be proper if any Original Compact can be produced where 't is agreed that where the King ceases to govern according to Law he shall for such misgovernment cease to be King Besides if Bishop Bilson lays down any general Rule for resisting in all Monarchies not absolutely despotick 't will be hard for you to prove that England is to be excepted till you produce Bishop Bilson's own words without taking that Historian's Judgment who refers you to Passages where he will have his Assertion in relation
Potestas designativa Person◠cannot pretend that here was a Choice or Designation made by their Representatives for the Convention had not taken the Oaths which should qualify them to act as their Representatives W. That is to say you would have them swear to be true and faithful to the late King when they believ'd that he ceas'd to be King and the Contract between him and the People was broken If it were broken then no doubt but they might do all that was necessary for subjecting themselves to King William and Queen Mary without regard to the Obligations enter'd into to the other as he was King of England T. I thought I should draw you into an Ambuscade Last part of the Magistracy c. p. 8. If you urge the Vacancy as the Author of the last part of the Magistracy and Government vindicated has smartly argued you must grant that the Government was dissolv'd every thing reduc'd to its primitive state of Nature all Power resolv'd into Individuals and the Particulars only to provide for themselves by a new Contract W. To use your Friend Dr. Brady's Expression yours is but an aiery Ambuscade suitable to the Judgment of your wordy Author according to whom our Common and Statute-Laws have had many an interruption But the great Civilian Pusendorf would tell him that no Nation can be presum'd so sottish to intend at the first setting up of a King that their Laws should determin with their Prince's Life or Title T. You still talk of the People's Choice when it is contrary to the Maxims of our Law that there should be any instant of time wherein we are without a King W. You mean when the course of Descents goes on but have there never been Interruptions T. Yes but not of right W. But had the Laws no force while they who you suppose to have had the right were out of possession T. That may deserve consideration but I am sure the Right could never be lost for it was first acquired by Conquest and it is not to be presum'd that a Conqueror would have his Right depend upon any Condition W. Not to trouble you with too many things at once I shall put you to prove four things 1. That W. I. was a Conqueror 2. That his Conquest was absolute without any manner of Terms 3. That he gain'd a Right for himself and his Heirs by proximity of Blood 4. That the Rule to judg who was his Heir is not the Law of the Land but something more sacred for as your own Historian has shewn J. I. History of passive Obedience sup had no right by the Law of the Land Prior to the Peoples Choice more than any body else of the Blood-royal and consequently according to your Advocate the People have been without any Government ever since the death of Queen Elizabeth Nay the Consequence will strike off both the Protestant and the Catholick Queen T. I never trouble my head with Consequences at such a distance But nothing in the English Government except what is done by the Monarch can be justified unless a Precedent can be shewn for it And I am sure no Precedent can be found where ever any English Parliament declared any one to be lawful and rightful King while one who had the Right remain'd alive W. I will grant it while the Right remain'd but they have transferr'd the Right from one to another and declared the Right to be in one who excepting that he was of the Blood-royal had no Right but from their Declaration as to go no backwarder appears in the Case of H. VII T. He had it in right of his Wife W. What think you if I shew this before he married T. The People of that time were better Catholicks than to be guilty of such an Injury to the next Heir W. To convince you of this I will shew you the form of such a Parliamentary Declaration before his Marriage which follows in these words Enry par le grace de Dieu Roy Dengletere de France In that Parliament he was desir'd to marry Seigneur Dirland au Parlement tenuz à Westminster le septisme jour de November l'an du Reigne du Roy Henry le septisme puis le Conquest primer au plesir de Dieu tout puissant bien publique prosperite suertie di cést Realm d'Engletere à la singular comfort de toutz les Subjects du Roy del mesme en remoevement de toutz ambiguitez questions del assent des seigneurs Espirituels Temporels à la request des Communes il est ordeigne establie enact par auctorite du dit Parliament Que les inheritaunces des Corones des Realms d'Engletere de Fraunce ove toutz Preemynence Dignite Royal a yeest appurtenant Et toutz autres Seigneuries au Roy regardantz oultre le mere ovesque les appurtenaunces a queaux en ascun manere duez ou perteignauntz soient estoient remaignent en le tresnoble Person nostre Soveraign Seigneur le Roy Henry le Septisme en les Heirs de son Corps leialment issantz perpetualment ovesque le Grace de Dieu ensy d'endurer in nulls-auters Henry by the Grace of God King of England and France and Lord of Ireland at a Parliament held at Westminster the 7th day of November in the First year of the Reign of King Henry VII since the Conquest For the pleasure of God Almighty the publick Good the Prosperity and Safety of this Realm of England to the singular comfort of the Subjects of the said King and for removing all ambiguities and questions of the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the request of the Commons it is ordained established and enacted by authority of the said Parliament That the Inheritances of the Crowns of the Realms of England and France with all the Preheminence and Dignity Royal to the same appertaining And all other Seignories belonging to the King beyond Sea with the appurtenances in any manner due to them or appertaining be stand and remain in the most Noble Person of our said Sovereign Lord K. H. 7. and in the Heirs of his body lawfully issuing for ever with the Grace of God there to endure and in no other persons This is to be found in the beginning of the Statutes of H. 7. and was sent to the Sheriffs of the several Counties of England to be proclaimed T. I listened to hear the words Lawful and Rightful W. I take the Recognition in the time of H. 7. to be more full for tho the declaring that King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen and that the Royal Power is entirely vested in them as the Bill of Rights and the last act of Recognition declare strongly implies that King James has no Right Yet it is not so express as the other which places it in H. 7. and the Heirs of his Body and renounces the