Communion cannot depend upon the Canonical or Uncanonical deprivation of any Bishops in England I desire you to consider these things as a Canon-Lawyer and give me your answer if you can against the next time we meet and then tell me whether the causes of this threatned Schism be so just and apparent that it is like to involve so many of the Wisest and most Considerate of the Clergy and Laity into open separation from the Church as you suppose it will not but that I will grant there be many of the Clergy of this Opinion who as well out of Conscience as for their own interest will be contented to set up and encourage such a separation thereby to make themselves heads of separate Congregations when they shall be deprived of their present Benefices and Imployments upon their refusal of this Oath M. I must confess I never heard so much said upon this head before and if you could make out to me all the matters of fact you have now instanced in I know not but that I may come over to your Opinion tho' let me tell you this is the first time that ever you can shew me that any Bishops were deprived in England by the meer Lay Authority of the King and a Great Council or Convention of the Laity whilst they continued of the same Church-Communion with those Bishops for as to your instance of the Popish Bishops deprived by Parliament in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I doubt you will find it does not come up to the Point in question since the Queen and Parliament having then newly declared themselves Protestants did not own them for true and Orthodox Bishops and consequently thought they might justly depart from their Communion and upon the same account might deprive them and the Queen might then nominate others of their own Religion in their Places F. I cannot but differ from you in the matter of fack as you now relate it for Queen Elizabeth and the Parliament were when they made this Act so far from being separated from the outward Communion of the Church of Rome that Mass was then said and the Romish Priests still continued in all the Parishes and Churches of England and yet they still maintain'd an outward Communion though their Bishops were deprived by the Civil â—ower and others ordain'd in their stead So that it is plain the Papists themselves had then no notion of this new cause of Schism by reason of their Bishops being Uncanonically deprived nor indeed can we well vindicate the Honour or Legality of our Reformation if the Protestant Bishops who succeeded in the places of those who were thus deprived by Act of Parliament could not be Canonical because their Predecessors deprived by the Lay Power were still alive But admit this was the first time that ever it had been thus practiced yet if it were then reasonable and done upon good grounds I cannot see but when the necessity of the Church and State require it and that the Clergy in Convocation are so wilfull and wedded to some old false notions as not to consult the peace and safety of the Church and Kingdom why the King and Queen who are acknowledged to be Supream over Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Persons may not together with the two Houses of Parliament make the like Law now as was done in the first of Queen Elizabeth for a less matter for none of those Popish Bishops though they believed Queen Elizabeth to have no better than a Parliament Title to the Crown yet ever denied her to be their lawful and rightful Queen only they would not own her Supremacy in Spiritual Matters But leaving the farther discussion of this Point to those who better understand it I would gladly know of you what you intend to do and what you would have us do who are like to be made Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace for if as you your self allow there be a necessity that some Civil Government be maintain'd during King Iames's absence I desire to know of you how it can be managed and who shall manage it in case all the Gentlemen of England were of your Principle and should positively refuse the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties for if King Iames be never so much our lawful King it is not now possible for us to be Govern'd by him since he is goâ—e and God knows whether ever he may return again since then you cannot have him if you would and that there is a necessity we should be Govern'd by some body And since it is also as certain that those who actually Govern us will exact this or the like Oaths of Allegiance from us as were due to their Predecessors and that no man must expect to enjoy or execute any Place or Office not only of profit but of burthen and charge for the necessary execution of Justice and the maintenance of Civil Government without which we cannot live or subsist without taking this new Oath of Allegiance as the only means to qualifie them for it if then the end viz. Civil Government be absolutely necessary and the taking of this Oath is the only means allow'd of to qualifie men for it this seems as evident to me that taking of this Oath is not only justifiable by Law but by Reason and good Conscience since it is done for the highest and noblest end viz. the publick good of the whole Nation or Common wealth which you grant cannot subsist without some kind of Civil Government amongst us M. I will say something in answer to what you have now alledged concerning the necessity of taking of the Oath in order to the maintenance of some Civil Government without which I grant the Kings good Subjects cannot subsist till his return since I confess this is the strongest Argument you have yet brought all I can say to it at present it that if all your Country Gentlemen and all the Lawyers in England would be so firm in their Loyalty to his Majesty as unanimously to declare that they cannot take this Oath with a safe Conscience the consequence then would be that either the present Usurped Power must be forced to give up the Government to the right owner or else they must at least desist from pressing this Oath upon you F. You know well enough this is altogether a vain supposition since you cannot but be sensible that their Majesties have not only a sufficient force both of Native Englishmen and Foreigners on their side who can force those that should make any opposition to the taking it and that there are also many Fanaticks and Common-wealths Men who not looking upon themselves as at all oblig'd by your notions of Natural Allegiance and the obligations of any former Oath of Allegiance will get into all the Offices and Imployments of the Kingdom to the great prejudice and destruction not only of the Church but the Monarchy it self which is as yet preserv'd tho the Person
or Inadvertency have written on this matter and yet I can shew you a Passage out of Calvin's Institutions which expresly forbids Subjects or private Persons to take up Arms against the Supream Powers as you may see by his own words in the fourth Book cap. 20. Neque enim si ultio Domini est essraenata Dominationis correctio ideo protinus de mandatam nobis arbiâ—remur Quibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum de privatis Hominibus sempâ—r loquor and tho' I grant some Divines of our Church have allowed Resistance in some Cases where the People by the Laws and Constitutions of their Country might lawfully have made such a Defence of their Liberties yet have they denyed it in â—ll other Cases and particularly in our own Government which is sufficient to shew that what ever your Thoughts may be of it yet that they thought it absolutely Unlawful for the Subjects of this Realm to take up Arms against the King or those who acted by his Authority upon any Account whatsoever and therefore I must needs confess to you that I look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as the distinguishing Characters of the Church of England from all other Churches F. Tho' I do not much value the Opinion of Divines in matter of Politicks since most of them that I have met with have been very unhappy when they have undertaken to meddle with that Trade Yet I doubt not but I can shew you that some Learned Men of our Church have not thought all Resistance to be unlawful in case the main and Fundamental Constitutions of our Government shall happen to be assaulted or our selves in respect of our Liberties and Estates like to be reduced to absolute Vassalage and Slavery And therefore if your Divines will own Resistance where by the Constitution of the Government it is allowed to be Lawful I think I can also prove that it is not only lawful but necessary in some Cases in our own for the Preservation of the Original Constitution and if this should prove so I know not what your distinguishing Character of the Church of England will signifie unless you will make it necessary for particular Churches to have other distinguishing Characters than the Scripture requires or the Constitution of the Government will allow of and if so I doubt the Church of Englaâ—d would get as little Credit by such distinguishing Characters as the Calvinist Churches abroad do by making absolute Predestination one of the Terms of their Communions the Scriptures without their rigid Interpretation teaching no such Doctrine But as for your Quotation out of Calvin it amounts to no more than what I have all along granted That single private Subjects ought never to take up Arms or resist those in Power but when the good of the whole Common-wealth requires it And therefore he in the same Book places a Power of Resistance in Subordinate popular Magistrates whereby you may see he grants the thing lawful but will not leave the Power of judging only in the common People or Mobile and so far I confess he is in the Right tho I grant those Magistrates are in respect of the Monarch as much subject as the People M. I should be glad to know what Divines of our Church they are who have granted Resistance of the Subjects of this Kingdom to be in any Case Lawful for if there are any such I confess they are Authors unknown to me nor do I know any but one who was seemingly in the Communion of the Church of England who hath asserted this Doctrine in his Book of Iulian the Apostate But you see he was presently confuted by those learned Men of our own Church who undertook him and I think have so well performed it that I cannot tell whether it hath been more for their Eternal Glory or his Disgrace But as for what you say against making Passive Obedience the distinguishing Character of our Church I confess indeed it is very bad for a Church to hold evil or indifferent distinguishing Doctrines but it is as certain that it is very convenient for a Church to have distinguishing Doctrines provided they be good ones unless a Church can be obliged to Err for Company and to avoid distinction which will not very well agree with the Text that forbids us to follow a Multitude to do Evil nor with the Practice of the Primitive Christians when the Orthodox were so few in comparison that had there not been some Names of Note among them they would hardly have been reckoned a Number But it agrees admirably well with the Principles of Popery thus to avoid Distinction which hath its Numbers to boast of when nothing else is to be said But there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism and St. Paul reproves the Corinthians because one cryed he was of Paul and another of Apollos a third of Cephas and the fourth of Christ And must not then those that held one Lord one Faith one Baptism necessarily distinguish themselves from all that held more than one And if some would say they were of Paul and some of Apollos and some of Cephas might not others distinguish themselves from them by saying they were of Christ But by this Doctrine you pretend we distinguish our selves from all other Churches in the World and so from the Catholick Church and therefore you cannot comprehend why any one should value a Doctrine so much on that score but you may comprehend if you please that it was never pretended that this Doctrine is taught no where but in our Church And as I hope I have proved that it was taught in the Primitive Church and is taught in other Protestant Churches at this day But this is evident by fatal Experience that Passive Obedience is the distinguishing Character of the Church of England by Law Established whereby it is distinguished from the Separate Congregations among us both of Fanaticks and Papists and to justifie this Distinction we have the express Testimony of several of our Princes since the Reformation and of the Laws themselves too that are still in force which abundantly shew how dangerous the Principles of other Perswasions are to the State as well as to the Church â— Yet if other Churches have not so well preserved this Doctrine in its Purity as ours hath done as we would not provoke them to a comparison so we have no Reason to be ashamed of it But that many among them have taught this Doctrine might be proved from the Writings of many of the most Learned and Pious Foreign Divines and particularly from a Book of a French Protestant lately written who in the midst of Persecution writes in defence of Passive Obedience when he at the same time suffered what we have feared F. Tho' I confess at a time when it was made criminal for any Man publickly to maintain that it was lawful to Resist in case the King
Crown of France as ever they have been in former Times if ever our Kings should go about to revive their ancient pretentions to France or Normandy or make War upon some other Quarrel and thefore I think it will be more far the Interest of France to leave us our Laws Liberties and Priviledges as we now enjoy them nay to make an express Capitulation for them and when he has done to foment those Jealousies and Disputes that are still like to arise between the King and Us about them thereby to hinder us from joining against him then by rendring the King Absolute to take them quite away and put the sole power of the Purse as well as of the Sword wholly into his Hands To Conclude you do also very much misrepresent the matter in supposing that though the King cannot now be restor'd without falling into a new Civil War yet that does it not therefore follow that such a War is not to be desir'd for the Publick Good of the Nation since we shall thereby not only restore the Crown to its right Owner and the Succession of it to the lawfull Heir but also shall restore Episcopacy in Scotland and prevent the Church of England from falling into a dangerous Schism by depriving the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and as many other of the Bishops who are so Honest as not to take the new Oath for standing out against it by the Temporal Power of a pretended Parliament without the Judgment of a Lawfull Convocation who are the only proper and legal Judges You likewise as much mistake in supposing that this War can no ways be finisht but by so great a Concussion as shall so much weaken the Kingdom as to render it expos'd to the Invasionâ— of Foreign Enemies in which you may be very much deceived for who can tell but the hearts of this Nation may come to be so inclin'd to receive their lawful King and his right Heir and may be so weary of the present Usurpation as upon his first appearance in England with an Army sufficient to defend those who shall come into him so many of his Subjects will take this advantage as will be more than enough to restore him with as little Blood-shed as when he was driven out and then I think no indifferent Man but will acknowledge that such a War would prove for the best since it will not only setle the Government upon in ancient Foundation of a lineal Succession but will also extinguish those fatal causes of War not only from among our selves but also from Foreign Princes as long as the King and the Prince of Wales and his lawful Heirs shall continue in being which I hope will be much longer then those upon whom your Convention has setled the Crown either in Present or Reversion F. I doubt not but to show you that all you have now said is either built upon false Principles or else deduced by very uncertain Consequences for in the first place though you doubt my Principle that the People of this Nation are not bound to restore King Iames to the Throne if it cannot be done without the evident Destruction both of our Religion and Civil Liberties which certainly is true granting it to be never so much our duty to restore him when with safety we may for if the obligation of all Moral Duties whatsoever is only to be judged of according as they more or less conduce to the Happiness or Destruction of the common good of Mankind whereof this particular Nation makes a part it will necessarily follow that this Duty of restoring King Iames is not to be practised if it cannot be brought about without the Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties since it is only for the maintenance of those that even Kings themselves were first ordain'd in this Nation and it is evident that this Kingdom may be sufficiently Happy and subsist in the State it is now in though neither King Iames nor your Prince of Wales be ever restor'd to Reign over us So that then all the Difficulty that remains is That since his Restoration being not otherwise to be brought about without the assistance of great numbers of French or Irish Forces whether it be not only so small a hazard as you make it but twenty to one that his coming in upon these Terms will produce those dreadfull Effects which I say will certainly happen from it and though I grant that future things especially in the Revolutions of Government are not capable of Demonstration as Mathematical Propositions yet if all the circumstances of Time and the Temper and Disposition of the King himself and those who are to join with Him in bringing Him in again be considered it shall appear that Morally speaking nothing less then the evident Destruction of our Religion and Civil Liberties will follow I think I may still positively affirm that we are not oblig'd to restore Him till this Temper of Mind be alter'd and that he can be restor'd without these Fatal Consequences I now mention and if these cautions are not observ'd I deny that God hath any way promis'd to protect either our Religion or Civil Liberties or that he is bound to provide us a way to escape as you suppose if to perform this suppos'd Duty of Allegience thus unseasonably we slight the onely means God has ordained for our Preservation But as for the patience under those Sufferings that may then happen that is a very sorry reason to embrace them since God may give us that Grace if he pleases as the only Comfort we can have left us when by our own Folly and mistaken Notions of Duty we have brought all those Evils upon our selves I shall therefore now proceed to show you that these Evils I speak of must necessarily happen to us in Case King Iames be restor'd by the French or Irish Papists In the first place therefore it is very falsly suppos'd that this Alteration can be brought about without an entire Subduing or Conquest not only of their present Majesty's but the whole Nation is apparent since none but the Papists and some few of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry desire his Restoration and who if they were put altogether will not I believe amount to the hundredth Man who would be either willing or capable to come in to his Assistance with Men or Money and therefore it is a vain Supposition to believe as you do that this new Revolution can be brought about without any more Dificulty or Blood-shed then the last as long as the present King and Queen continue to Govern us according to the Declaration they subscrib'd upon their acceptance of the Crown and the Coronation Oath they have since taken which I hope they will always do since nothing but following King Iames's Example as well as to Religion as Civil Liberties can ever make this Nation willing to receive Him or your Prince of Wales with so little difficulty as you are
ADVERTISEMENT THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method Bibliotheca Politica OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the Chief Arguments as well against as for the late Revolution are impartially Represented and considered in Thirteen Dialogues Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First Second Tâ—ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelvth and Thirteenth Dialogues 1694. THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues WHETHER Monarchy be Iure Divino Dialogue the First Whether there can be made out from the Natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Dialogue the Second Whether Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation or People in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Dialogue the Third Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England Dialogue the Fourth Whether the King be the Sole Supream Legislative Power of the Kingdom and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments be a Fundamental Part of the Government or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings Dialogue the Fifth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Thâ— Second Parâ—â— Dialogue the Sevenâ—h A Continuation â—f tâ—e former Discourse concâ—rnâ—ng the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance The Third Part Dialogue the Eighth Whether by the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those Commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Dialogue the Ninth I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom II. Whether King William commonly stiled the Conquerour did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm for Himself and his Heirs as can never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Administration or Tyranny whatever Dialogue the Tenth I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Dialogue the Eleventh I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant can be justified from the Ancient Constitution and Customs of this Kingdom II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England may be justified by the said Constitution III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown was according to Law Dialogue the Twelfth I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks Dialogue the Thirteenth ADVERTISEMENT THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues if therefore any Person who having perused them is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments Answers or Authorities there made use of and supposes he could confute them or else put better in their stead if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject they may if they please send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues who will undertake to communicate them to the Author who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly without any Alterations or Additions together with his Answers or Replys to them if the Subject will admit it the Persons concerned may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term when if sent they shall be Publish'd Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER MONARCHY BE IVRE DIVINO Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the First LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms 1694. The Epistle Dedicatory To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility and Gentry HAving out of Curiosity for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution as well aâ— since for the satisfaction of my own Conscience carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original and Rights of Civil Government aâ— well of Monarchy aâ— the other kinds thereof as also of the Antient Government and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read and making a more certain Iudgment thereupon to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino as of those who only allow it to Government in general of those who hold an Absolute Subjection or Passive Obedience as their Phrase is as well as
of those who hold Resistance in some Cases necessary of those that maintain our Monarchy to have been limitted by the very constitution it self of those that suppose all our rights and Liberties 〈◊〉 the very Being of Parliaments themselves to owe their Original wholly to the gracious Concession and Favour of our former Kings Having made some impartial Collections of this Nature I showed them to some Friends who told me they thought they might prove of great use for the satisfying of some mens doubts and scruples concerning Lawful Obedience to the Government of their present Majesties as looking upon it as the best and most ingenious way of Conviction to propose the Arguments fairly on both sides without interposing my own Iudgment but to leave it to the intelligent and impartial Reader to embrace that side on which he found the most rational and convincing Arguments This task tho' troublesome enough I was prevail'd with to undertake not for Fame's sake since I do not desire to be known but meerly for the puplick good and happiness of my Country but being also satisfied that a Subject of this great important deserved more pains than what I had yet bestowed upon it and to be handled in a more Artificial Method than the old dry Schâ—lastick way of Objection and Solution I therefore thought that it would prove more pleasant as well as profitable for the Readers especially those of our young Nobility and Gentry for whom I principally design this undertaking to digest all that I had written on these Subjects into so many distinct Dialogues or Conversations supposed to be held between two intimate Friends who notwithstanding their different Principles and Opinions in Politicks had always maintained a strict and generous correspondency but I was the more inclined to this way of writing not only because I have observed that Controversial matters written by way of Dialogue according to the true Rules thereof have very well obtained among all intelligent Readers but also since the Subjects I treat of are of a nice nature and that the Collections I had made contained strict Inquiries into the Principles and Tenâ—â—s in the Writings of diverse persons of Reputation for Learning and Ingenuity I was sensible how invidicus a Tâ—â—k it must be to write on purpose against so many great men as also how troublesom and â—edious is would prove to my self as well as the Readers to pursue and confute the Opinions of any Author page by page since it must be chiefly imputed to that mannar of managing of Controversies that answers to Books prove so unacceptable to the World And though I grant that this way of writing hath also its difficulties and objections as being more diffuâ—ive and so taking up more time both to write and read Discourses Dialogue-wise where either one or other of the Disputants 〈◊〉 often apt to rove from the Subject yeâ— I must also affirm that this may be in great part prevented by the Writer who may if he pleaâ—â—â— take care to keep close to the Question and not start afresh Har◠〈◊〉 the old one is run down and aâ— for the diffusiveness of Dialogues above Polemical Discourses that is no considerable Objection since a man may either make or answer Objections in almost as few words this way as the other And thô it be granted that matter of â—een form in Dialogues the more tedious yet the Reader as well as Traveller will find that the 〈◊〉 of the Road often 〈…〉 for its 〈◊〉 somewhat 〈◊〉 But whether I have truly put 〈◊〉 the Rules of Dialogue in that 〈◊〉 the â—â—suing Discourses I intend to publish on these Subjects Tiâ—â—st 〈◊〉 to the Readers Iudgment but this much I think I may safely affirm that I have carefuly avoided all bitter reflecting language on either side since I designe these Discourses for common places of Arâ—giâ—â—â—â—ntâ—â— noâ— forms of 〈◊〉 And I have also declined showing my self a Party or giving my own opinion in any Question proposed and therefore I have 〈…〉 either 〈◊〉 my Disputants converting each other to his own Opinion since I know nothing is more easie in writing of Dialogues well as Romances than to make the Knight Efrane always beat the Gyant But it is fit I give you some account of this present Discourse as also of the rest that may follow it This first Dialogue then 〈◊〉 chiefly on this 〈◊〉 Whether any particular Specâ—es of Government is of Divine Right or Institution â— The next shall be Whether there can be made out from the natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right The third and fourth Whether Passive Obedience as it is called or an absolute Nonresistance of the Supream Powers in any case whatsoever be enjoyed by the Law of Nature and the holy Scriptures As also Whether this hath always been the Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England The fifth concerns the Original of Civil Authority in what sense it is derived from God and in what form the People and whether their Consent be always necessary to make any Government to be obeyed for Conscience sake The sixth shall treat of the Original and Fundamental Constitution of our English Government whether it was an absolute or limited Monarchy in its first Institution and whether the King is and hath been the sole Legislative Power of the Nation The seventh Whether the Parliament or great Counsel owe its Orignal to the meer Grace and Favour of our Kings or whether it is not as Antient as the Constitution it self The eighth and last Whether our late Revolution and the Conventions and present Parliament's Declaration and Recognition of their present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary be not Legal and according to the Antient Constitution and Fundamental Govâ—rnment of this Kingdom and consequently Whether the Oath of Allegiance may not be taken to them not only as King and Q. de facto but de Iure In all which Discourses I have considered and contracted the best Arguments that I could find made use of by the most considerable both Antient and Modern Authors either in Latine or English especially the Pamphlets that have been writ on either side since the late Revolution But as for those in our own Language when-ever any Author speaks so well and argues so closely that to put it into other words would make it worse I have still put the Arguments of either one or other of the Disputants in his own word thô because I would not be thought guilty of Plagiary I have truly quoted the book and page from whence I took it and I hope no Author will take it ill if I have made bold sometimes to contract their Arguments without altering their sense or words farther than by putting in or out a word or expression to make the style run the more smoothly and I desire they would not think I write on purpose to confute them since I freely declare my design is not to
P. 3. Anarchy of mixt or limited Monarchy F. A. M M. 4. Preface to the Observations on Aristotle F. P. O. 5. Directions for Obedience to Governours D. O. G. 2. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha B. P. P. His Conclusion to the same B. C. P. 3. Patriarcha non Monarcha P. N. M. 4. Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis G. I. B. 5. Pufendorf de Iure Naturae Gentium P. I. N. 6. Two Treatises of Government T. T. G. 7. Rushworth's Historical Collections R. H. C. 8. Bishop Sanderson's preface to the power of the Prince c. B. S. P. P. Adertisement I Desire always to be understood that when I make use of the word People I do not mean the vulgar or mixt multitude but in the state of Nature the whole Body of Free-men and women especially the Fathers and Masters of Families and in a Civil State all degrees of men as well the Nobility and Clergy as the Common People THE First Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civil Lawyer Supposed to be immediately upon the late KING IAMES's first Departure F. GOOD Morrow Sir what at your Study thus early this Morning M. That is no wonder if you were acquainted with my Hours But pray Sir may I not likewise ask you what extraordinary occasion brings you out of your Lodgings so much sooner than your ordinary time F. Why Sir I 'll tell you Being awake very early this Morning and not able to sleep for thinking on the great Change that might happen let either the King or Prince get the better and hearing some odd Rumours last Night of the King's Intentions to go away I was resolved to get up and go to the Coffee-house to hear what News where I had scarcâ— satâ— down before a Gentleman comes in from Whitehall and brings us a certain account that the King withdrew himself this Morning between three and four of the Clock no Body knows whither tho' most believe he is gone after the Queen into France which I thought would be so surpriâ—ing I will not say welcome to you that being so near your Lodgings I thought it would be worth while to step up and tell you of it and take your Thoughts of this great and I hope happy Change which so great a Revolution is likely to produce in this Nation M. I thank you Sir for your kindness tho' it is not half an Hour ago that one I employ in some Business relating to a Client of mine came hither and gave me the same account that you do tho' it was no great surprize to me for ever since Sunday that the King sent the Queen and Prince away I believ'd that he gave the Game for lost F. I must confess I was of another Mind and thought that when he had secured the Queen and Child he would have had one Brush with the Prince before he could have got to London and if he had the worst of iâ— he could have but gone away at last But to leap away on this Manner and to loose Three Kingdoms without ever striking one stroke it is not I confess sutable to that high Character his Admirer have always had of his Courage and Conduct M. Alas Good King what would you have him do Or whom could he relye on When some of his near Relations and divers of those whom he had raised almost from nothing had deserted him How could he then trust an Army of Mercenaries who being most of them but the Dregs of the People would it is likely rather have delivered him up to the Prince than have ventured their Lives for him F. What you have said concerning his Majesties Relations and Confidents deserting him makes rather against than for the King's Cause since it cannot be supposed they would have left a Prince to whom they were so much obliged to joyn themselves with his Enemy from whom they had no reason to expect greater Advantages than they had already unless they had been satisfied in their Conscienceâ— that the Protestant Religion Establisht in these Nations and also our Civil Rights and Liberties were in imminent danger of being utterly lost and destroyed and tho' I grant that some of the King's Officers and Souldiers went over to the Prince yet considering how few they were that did so not being as I am credibly informed above seven or eight hundred Men at the most and what great numbers of Men he had left with him he might methings have turned out those Officers he suspected and put others in their Rooms who would have Engaged to Live and Die with him and if this would â—ot have done he might have sent those Regiments he most suspected back to London And then reckoning the Scotch and Irish Forces that came lately over besides the Papists he had in his Army and those who having more Courage than Conscience could never expect to Fight for a Prince who would pay them better I am confident if this had been done he migh after the going over of those few Troups have made up as good if not a better Army than the Princes and so need not have scampored last Week from Salisbury in that haste he did whilst the Enemy was near fifty Miles off But as it is I am very well satisfied with all that hath happen'd in this great Revolution and convinced of the Truth of that old saying Ques perdora vult Iupiter demantat priâ—â— M. So far I go along with you that God doth often make use of the Wickedness and Treachery of Men to bring his great Designs about But whether God hath ordained this great Revolution as you call it for a Deliverance or Punishment to this Nation I am yet in doubt for if you please to consider how much those two Causes have contributed to this turn of Affairs I suppose if you argue according to my Principles we must own that tho' this Change hath happened by Gods permissive Providence as all things else tho' never so ill yet whether he doth approve of â—ll that hath been done to procure it I much doubt since if divers of our Nobility with some of our Clergy had not quitted their Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance so long owned by the Church of England this Revoluion could not have happened at all or at least not so suddenly as it did So that indeed I must confess I am not only grieved at his Majesties hard Fortune but also stand amazed and cannot but reflect with wonder on the strange Vicissitude of Worldly Affairs to see a Great King who but last Week commanded a Powerful Army of more than Forty Thousand Men forced out of his Throne and made to fly his Kingdom by a Prince that did not bring half that Number into the Field And who can sufficiently Bewail the King's Misfortunes who hath been at once betrayed by the ill Advice of his Counsellors the Treachery of his Friends and tho
Cowardice of his Souldiers F. Methinks Sir there is no such great cause of wonder much less of concern in all this For who can much admire that a Prince should be thus used who had not only provok'd a Powerful Enemy to invade him from Abroad but by industriously labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home had lost the Hearts of almost all except his Popish Subjects insomuch that many of his own Souldiers were so terrified with the Thoughts of being discarded like the Protestant Army in Ireland to make room for Irish and French Papists that they had very little Courage to Fight when they saw Casheering was the best Reward they could expect if they proved Victorious And who can much pity a Prince who would rather loose the Affections of his People than displease a few Priests and Jesuites So that if he suffers he may thank himself it not being Religion but Superstition which brought this Misfortune upon him Since the King having got a Prince of Wales and as it is highly suspected joined himself in a strict League with France for the Extirpation of Hereticks it laid an absolute necessity upon the Prince of Orange to come over that by the Assistance of the States of Holland he might not only relieve us but vindicate his own and her Royal Highness his Princessâ—s Right to the Succession and secure his Countrey from a dangerous and powerful invasion which it was threatned with both by Sea and Land whenever the Kings of France and England should be at leisure to joyn their Forces to make War upon them which you know all Europe hath expected for above these two Years last past M. These things were somewhat if they could be proved but indeed to deal freely with you I look upon this League and the Story of the Suppositious Birth of the Prince of Wales as meer Calumnies cast out of Wicked and Crafty Men to render the King more odious to his People F. Nay Sir you don't hear me positively affirm either the one or the other since I grant they are not yet made out but whatsoever will consider all the Circumstances of the Birth of this Child cannot but be strongly inclined to believe it an Imposture notwithstanding all the Depositions that are taken to the contrary And as for the French League you may be sure if there be any such thing it is kept very private and yet I must tell you there are very high and violent Presumptions to believe it true or else why should the King of France in a late Memorial to the Pope complain that his Holiness by Opposing his Interest in Europe had hindered him in those great Designs he had for the Extirpation of Heresie by which he must surely intend England or Holland Protestantism being sufficiently expelled out of his own Countrey already And he could not do it in either of the other without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother the King of England Or to what purpose should the King of England joyn with France to ruin Holland and his own Son in Law into the Bargain but to make a War meerly for Religion since neither the Dutch nor the Prince their Stadt-holder gave him till now any just Provocation M. Well however these are but bare suspitions and presumptions at most and not proofs and therefore in a doubtful matter as this is if we ought to judge favourably of the Actions of others much more of Princes whose Councils and Actions tho' private yet are still exposed to the Censure and Calumnies of their Enemies and therefore I hope you will not blame me if I freely confess that I am deeply concerned to see an innocent and Misled King forced to seek his Bread in a Forreign Land and the more since many of the Nobility Gentry and Common People have contributed so much to it by taking up Arms against him and that so great a part of his own Army and Officers should contrary to their Allegiance and Trust reposed in them run over to the Enemy Nay that some of our Bishops and Clergy-men should contrary to the so often acknowledged Doctrines of Passiveâ— Obedience and Non-Resistance not only Countenance but be likewise active in such desperate undertakings and this in-direct opposition to the known Laws of God and this Kingdom which must needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papists and a Shame and Reproach to all Protestant Churches abroad and render the people of England odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe F. Well Sir I see you are very warm and I hope more than the cause deserves You may Judge as favourably of the King's Proceedings and as hardly of the Actions of the Nobility Gentry Clergy and People in this matter as you please But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day that they have done nothing by joining in Arms with he Prince of Orange but what is justifiable by the Principles of Self preservation the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government and a just Zoal for their Religion and Civil Liberties as they stand secured by our Laws unless you would give the King a Power of making up Papists and Slaves whenever he pleased But as for your Doctrine of an Absolute Obedience without Reserve and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession you need not be much concerned whether the Papists laugh at you or no since there are very few of them if any who are such Fools themselves as to believe such futilous Opinions But indeed they have more reason to laugh at you whilst you maintain than when you quit them since as they have only rendered you a fit Object of their Scorn so they would have made you but a more casâ—â— Sacrifice to their Malice For what can Thieves desire more than that those they design to Rob should think it unlawful to resist them And what could the Papists have wisht for more than that our Hands being fotterred by this Doctrine of an indefinite Passive-Obedience our Lives Religion and Liberties should lye at their Mercy Which how long we should have enjoyed whenever they thought themselves â—â—rong enough to take them away the late cruel Persecutions and Extirpations of the Protestants in France Savey Hungary and other places have proved but too fatal Examples and therefore no wonder let your high-flown Church-men write or preach what they please if the Body of the Nobility Gentry and People of England could never be perswaded to swallow Doctrines so fatal to their Religion and destructive to their Civil Rights and Liberties both as Mon and Christians And as for the Antiquity of these Doctrines I think they are so far from being the Antient Tenets of the Church of England that they are neither to be found in its Chatechism Thirty Nine Articles or Book of Homilies taken in their true Sense and Meaning thô indeed there is something that may tend that way in some of the late Church-Canons about
fifty years ago but I do not look upon them as the Antient Establisht Doctrine of our Church because these Canons are not confirmed but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the publick Saction of the King and Nation Our Old Queen Elix Divines such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines nay teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary Noâ— was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection and Non-Resistance ever generally maintained until about the middle of King Iame's Reign when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over Mens Estates So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Commandâ— if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God as may appear by Dr. Harsâ—et then Bishop of Chichester his Sermon upon this Text Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's wherein he maintained That all the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's that is the Kings and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use which Sermon thô order'd by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman yet was so grateful to the Court that he was so far from being out of Favour for it that he was not long after Translated to Norwich and from thence to the Archbishoprick of York So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First Dr. Manwaring preached before him the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former viz. That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament and that when they were so imposed the Subjects were oblieged in Conscience and upon pain of Damnation to pay them which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion For which Sermon he was Impeacht by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living or Secular Office whatever and also to be Imprisoned and Fined a Thousand Pound Notwithstanding all which we find him presently after the Parliament was disolved not only at Liberty but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex and not long after made Bishop of St. Davids So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Asâ—ize Sermon at Northamtâ—n on Rom. 13.7 wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands but what is against the Law of God and Nature And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads But this much I have read that this Sermon was Licensed by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. Davids because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction which not long after happened But as for this Siothâ—rp tho he lived long after even till the Kings Return yet being as Archbishop Abbot describes him a man of but small Learning I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley and in Northamptonshire But I find a New Doctrine broach'd by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King Iames the first That Monarchy was of Divine Right or Institution at least so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine and which is worse That all Monarchs being Absolute they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths Laws or Contracts with their People farther than they themselves shall think fit or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives of which they only are to be the Sole Judges So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute and that few Divines or Common or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd in their Reigns to any considerable Place either in Church or State who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way if so many were carried away with it since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery if not to utter ruin to oppugn it All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary being branded with the odious Names of Puritans Common-wealths-men Whigs c. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned Fined nay Whipt for so doing So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws Religion and Properties proceeding from the Kings illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen Gentlemen and Clergy who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue did generously venture both their Lives and Estates to joyn their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings M. I do not doubt notwithstanding all you have said to prove before I have done these Doctrines of Non-Resistance and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and also to that of our Reformed Church of England Nor were those Divines you mention in K. Iames the First 's time the Authors or inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. Iames and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham besides a very fair Copy now to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth which if you please to peruse you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah and their Descendants as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Soveraign Powers without any resistance as claiming under those Original Charters These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted as the Doctrines of our Church So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines as also of Sir R. F. to
make them the first breachers of it whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation for many years before ever those Divines or that Gentleman began to Preach or write upon this subject Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines you so much condemn as any of that party you find fault with and have very well proved all resistance of the Supream Powers to be unlawful not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfie your self if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops viz. The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it as also the said Bishop's Treatise de Iura nouto written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford F. I must beg your pardon Sir if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention much less of the opinions therein contained since there is no mention made of their proceedings in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil as I know of But this much I am certain of That these Determinations or Decrees you mention call them which you please never received the Royal Assent much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament one of which if not both is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church of England otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament so that however even according to your own Principles you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent which you your self do not affirm they had for you very well know that as in Civil Laws no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men till they have received the confirmation of the King and the two Houses of Parliament or otherwise the consequence would be that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England of which the Convocation chiefly consists should nominate such men into those places which would agree with him to alter the present establisht Reformed Religion â—n Governmenâ— and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it or at least to submit without any contraditioâ— to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom this Kings choice of Bishops and Deans such as he thought most fit for his turn would have taught â—s when it had been too late M. You very must mistake me Sir if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons which I grant must have the Royal Assent but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament I very much question since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church and diverse Canons made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are good in Law at this day tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you to let you see that these Doctrines are more Antient than the time you prescribe and also that the Major part of the Bishops and â—lergy of the Church of England held these Doctrines which you so much condemn long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention medled with this controversie and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects as we do the French Helvetian or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony and not Authority I shall not contend any further about it but then let me tell you that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament do no further oblige in Conscience than as they are agreable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reuerence for the Judgments of so many Learned Men yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book I think notwithstanding that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason and express Testimonies of Scripture by either of which when I see you can convince me of the falshood of my Tenets I shall count my self happy to be beâ—â—er informed But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usâ—er and Bishop â—anderson which you now mentioned I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately writen and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government for the People when violently and intolerably opprest to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence or to join with any Foraign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention were very Pious and Learned men â—im â—hat I bear great reverence to their memories yet doth it not therefore follow that I must oâ—â— them to be Infallible or as great Polititians as they were Learned Divines or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers and perhaps there may be a great deal more said on their behalfe than can be for divers others who have since Wâ—â—een and Prâ—â— so much upon those subjects for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars which they supposed to be begâ—n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against King Charles the First and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high for the Prerogatives
three times your self do not deny that the Iews also had it in use among them appears first by the story of the poor Woman the Widdow of one of the Sons of the Prophets who complained to Elisha in the second of Kings telling him that her Husband is dead and the Creditor is come to take her two Sons to be Bond-men And so likewise in the New Testament our Saviour in St. Matthew supposes it as a thing commonly practised in those parts of the World where he lived For in the Parable of the King who would take account of his Servants amongst whom one owed him Ten thousand Talents But for as much as he had nothing to pay his Lord commanded him to be sold and his Wife and Children and all that he had and payment to be made Which was founded upon that Law amongst the Jews that Fathers might sell their Children for Bond-servants until the year of Iubilee as appears by Nehemiah Chap. 5. where he relates the Complaint of those poor Jews who had been forced for want to bring their Sons and their Daughters into Bondage Neither was it in their power to redeem them for other Men had their Lands and their Vineyards And amongst the Romans this Power of selling their Children continued till it was forbidden by the Emperour Iustinian And as for the Grecians Plutarch in his Life of Solon relates that till his time it was lawful amongst the Athenians for Fathers to sell their Children to pay their own Debts And I suppose it was upon this account that Cymon the Son of the great General Miltiades was kept in Prison by the Athenians till he had paid the Fine of ten Thousand Talents which his Father died indebted to the Common-wealth And Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius Thyanaus relates that it was common amongst the Phrygians to sell their own Sons And to come to more Modern Times a Son amongst the Muscovites may by sold four times but after the fourth Sale the Eather hath no longer a Right in him as the Baron of Heberâ—lein tells us in his Relation of Muscovy and it is not only in use amongst them but also amongst the Tartars East-Indians Chineses and the People of Japan not only to sell their Children themselves but also that they are liable to be sold by the Prince or his Officers for their Fathers Debts or Offences So that you see here is the Consent of most of the Civiliz'd Nations in the World who sure in this follow the Dictates of Nature and Reason in the exercise of a full and absolute Propriety and Dominion in and over the Persons of their Children so that if it be a received Custom or Law amongst most Nations it is also from Reason too since the Law of Nations is only that which receives its obligation from the Consent of many Nations as Grotius well observes And Aristotle lays it down as one of the strongest proofs when all men agree in any thing And Cicero tells us That the Consent of most Nations is to be looked upon as a Law of Nature and therefore these Customs are to be esteemed as obligatory amongst all Civiliz'd Nations where the Municipal Laws of those Countreys have not restrained or altered this Natural Power and Interest which Fathers had originally over the Persons of their Children But as for what you say that according to my Principles no other Government can be Lawful besides Monarchy I shall give you the same Answer that some of the most Moderate of our Divines have given to those who would make the like Objection against us of the Church of England thaâ— believe Episcopacy to be Iure Divinâ— viz. That God may for the necessity of some Ecclesiastical Order and Government in a Church allow that Form of Government to be Lawful which himself never Instituted Nay which perhaps was unlawful to have been set up in the Church at all and so likewise in Civil Governments I will not deny that those Forms may be lawfully obeyed as the Ordinance of God which he never Instituâ—ed but have wholly proceeded from the Rebellions or Inventions of Men. F. I must confess Sir I cannot see how any Law of Nations can be supposed to lay any Obligation upon Mankind different from the Law of Nature and Reason or the revealed Law of God in Scripture And tho' I confess there is some division amongst Learned Men about this matter yet I think it is far more rational to suppose that there are but two Law that can be Rules of Humane Actions the Natural Law and the Divine And of this Opinion is the Learned Grotius himself in the place you but now cited where he says he added the words many Nations because there can scarce be found any Natural Law which is also wont to be called the Law of Nations that is common to all Nations Yea that is often lookt upon as a Law of Nations in one Country which is not so any where else as says he we shall shew in its due place concerning Captivity and Postluminium And for a farther confirmation of this I will make bold to read to you in English some part of what thâ— Excellent Puâ—endof hath written upon this Subject in his Learned Work De Jure Naturae Gentium Lib. 2. Cap. 3. which you may here read with me The Law of Nature and the Law of Nations is accounted by many one and the same which only differ by an extrinsick denomination And form hence Hobbs De Cive C. 14. § 4. Divides the Law of Nature into the Natural Law of Men and the Natural Law of Common Wealths which is commonly called Jus Gentium And then adds that the Precepts of both are the same but because Common-Wealths when once instituted do put on the personal properties of Men that Law which speaking of the duty of particular men we call Natural being applied to all Common-Wealths or Nations is called Jus Gentium to which opinion we do likewise subscribe neither do we think there can be any other voluntary or positive Law of Nations which can have the power of a Law properly so called and which may oblige all Nations as proceeding from a Superiour But most of those things which amongst the Roman Civil Lawyers and others are referred to the Law of Nations as suppose about the manner of acquiring of Contracts and the like do either belong to the Law of Nature or else to the Civil Laws of particular Nations which agree together for the most part in these things yet from which nâ— new or distinct sort of Law is Rightly constituted because those Laws are common to Nations not from any Agreement or Mutual Obligation but in that they do by accident agree from the peculiar Will of the Law-givers in each particular Common-Wealth from whence the same things may be changed by one People or Nation without consulting the rest and often times are found to be so changed
Government commenced at first so that the People at first made Kings and not the Kings the People And further it is the duty of Fathers and Masters to provide for their Children and Servants but the People ought to provide for their Kings not only for their necessities but for their Magnificence and Grandure so that the Power of Fathers and Masters is Natural whereas that of Kings and Republicks is Political and Artificial as proceeding from compacts or the consents of divers Heads of Families or other Free-men And as Kingdoms and Families differ in the manner of their Intitution so do they likewise in their ends which is of a far larger extent in the latter than in the former the maine design of instituting Kingdoms and Common-wealths before not only to defend their Subjects from such injuries or violence that they may do each other but chiefly by their united Forces to Guard them from the violence and invasion of Foreign Enemies For thô I grant it may be sometimes happen that a Family may consist of so great a number of Children Servants or Slaves as may make a little Army such as Abraham's was when he made War againk the four Kings yet is this purely accidental and not at all essential to the being of a Family which is as perfect in all it s constituted parts if it consists of three or four Persons as of three or four hundred Whereas a Kingdom or Commonwealth cannot subsist unless it can either by its own Power or united Forces defend its Members from Foreign Force and Invasions So also in private Families in the State of Nature there can be no property acquired in Lands or goods by any Members of it without the Masters express will or permission But in all Civil Governments the very institution and preservation of Civil Property was one of its chiefest ends which may be easily proved by experience Since in all Nations where there is any property either in Lands â—or Goods there is a necessity of some Civil Government to maintain iâ— Whereas in divers parts of Africa and America where there is no distinct property in Land and where there are no other Riches than every Man's Cottage and Garden with their Hunting and Fishing Instruments there is no need of any Common or Civil Power over them higher than that of Masters or Fathers of Families who own no Superiority among themselves unless it be when they go to War and then they chuse out of their own numbers for their Captains or Leaders those whom they know to be stoutest and most experienced whose Power determines as soon as the War ceases But to make an end of this long Discourse suppose I should grant all you can desire the Oeconomical and Civil Government do not differ in kind but in largeness or extent yet will it not follow that therefore it must be in all Cases irresistable since I think I am able to prove that no Power whatever except that of God himself can be endued with this Prerogative if once it goes about to frustrate and destroy all the main ends of Government viz. the happiness and safty of the Subjects either by dowright destroying of them or else by reducing them to a condition of Slavery and Misery as the Great Turk uses his Christian Subjects But to let you see I would deal fairly with you I will discourse this point of Adam's Soveraignity no farther but will at present take it as the Lawyers say de bene esse or for granted and I desire you would shew me in the next place when Adam dyed by what Law either Divine or Natural Cain or Seth chose which you will could command over all the rest of his Brethren and their Descendants And then again if you could do this what benefit this Doctrine would yield to all Princes and States at this day or how you intend to deduce a Title for them from Adam or Noah or any of their Sons to their respective Kingdoms and consequently to an absolute Subjection of their Subjects without which all your Hypothesis will signifie nothing M. I must return you thanks Sir for your candid dealing and for the great pains you have taken to enlighten my understanding in this important question And thô I doubt you have laid down Principles not so suitable to Gods Will revealed in the Holy Scripture yet I will not imput it to any want of sincerity in your self who I hope are satisfied of the truth of what you have maintained so on the other side I desire you not to take it ill if I cannot leave my own opinion which I have always hitherto lookt upon as most suitable to the Doctrine of the Church of England and to the Practice of the Primitive Church and to the Laws of the Land and must continue therein till I am convinc'd I am in an Error But since I desire to have a further Conversation with you upon this important Subject pray let me know when we shall meet again that I may prove to you from Holy Scripture as well as those Authors I have perused that there is a Divine Right of Blood instituted by God for the Succession of Kingdoms which cannot without a kind of Sacriledge or the highest Injustice be taken away from the Right Heir F. I kindly accept your profer and if you please shall Discourse this important Question with you to Morrow in the Evening if your Occasions will give you leave M. I expect you between seven and eight and in the mean time am your Servant FINIS ADVERTISMENT STate Tracts Being a further Collection of several Choise Treatises relating to the Government from the Year 1660. to 1680. Now published in a Body to shew the Necessity and clear the Legality of the Late Revolution and Our present Happy Settlement under the Auspicious Reign of Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Printed for Richard Baldwin Bibliotheca Politica Or a DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER There can be made out from the Natural or Revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Second LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Dialogue 1692. The Subject of the Second Dialogue WHether Hereditary Succession to Crowns be by Divine Right or Institution or not Authors made use of in this Discourse and how denoted in the Margin 1. Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha F. P. Preface to his Political Observations F. P. O. Observations on Forms of Government F. O. G. Directions to Obedience F. D. O. 2. Patriarcha non Monarcha P. N. M. 3. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Sir R. Filmer's Patriarcha B. P. P. Conclusion to the same B. C. P. 4. Two Treatises of Government together T. T. G. 5. Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis G. I. P. 6. Bishop Sanderson's Preface to Arch-Bishop Usher's Power of the Prince
extended beyond this is accountable to him alone so that Princes are bound to treat their Subjects as their Children with Mercy and Lenity as far as they are capable of it and not as their Brutes And granting that Subjects and Servants or Slaves were at first all one yet I think even they ought to be treated only as Younger Children yet as Children still Nay even conquered People that are in some Countries treated as Slaves and but a little better than brutes have certainly a very good appeal to the Tribunal of God against their Princes who will undoubtedly right them in another World if they suffer patiently in this If it be the Character of a good Man that he is merciful to his Beast I doubt not but the very Brutes have a Right to be Governed with mercy and Justice and that God who is their Creator as well as ours will punish cruel men if they Tyrannize over them and much more if any man shall exercise Cruelty on another man who is of the same not only Nature but Blood Whereas all other Hypotheses leave the Prince at Liberty to make his Bargain with his Subjects as well as he can and if they be brought by force or fraud to an entire Submission at Discretion they may then be treated accordingly and must stand to their Compact be the terms never so unequal and then the Case of a Man and a Brute may differ very little and if the Subject may resist the Prince may take care to prevent it and the War may be just on both sides which is impossible I could likewise shew you many other Benefits that would accrew both to Princes and Subjects were this Hypothesis but once generally taught and believed by both of them F. I pray Sir spare the giving your self that trouble for I will not dispute how honestly this Hypothesis may be designed or what mighty Feaâ—s it might do were it once universally received But this neither you nor I can ever expect will come to pass because neither Princes nor People will ever believe it to be true For in the first place the People will never be convinced of it it being above a vulgar understanding that their Princes whom they are very well assured are not their Fathers nor yet right Heirs to Adam or Noah should notwithstanding lay claim to a Paternal Authority over them In the next place Princes can never believe that they are Fathers of their People for the same Reason I grant indeed that they may be very willing to believe one half of your Hypothesis that they are Absolute Lords and Masters over them and so would be willing upon that account to use their Subjects like Slaves but that they should look upon themselves as Fathers of their People and the Heirs or Assigns of Adam or Noah I think no Prince in Christendom can be so vain to believe So that whatever Power Adam or Noah or any other Father might be intrusted with by God because of that Natural Affection which they were supposed to bear toward their Children yet sure Princes at this day can lay no claim to it since none but true Fathers can be endued with this Paternal Affection And whereas you suppose that Princes ought to treat their Subjects nay even those that are conquered like Children and not like Slaves or Brutes This can have very little effect upon them who can as little believe it as the People for if Monarchical Power is not Paternal as I think I have clearly made out then there can lye no obligation upon Monarchs to treat their Subjects like Children and therefore Since the Despotical or Masterly Power only remains which is ordained Principally for the good and Benefit of the Master and not of the Servant or Slave Who can blame Princes if they exact the utmost of their due Prerogatives and so treat their Subjects like Slaves whenever it serves their humour or interest so to do nor are they any more to be blamed for thus exerting their Power than a Master of Negroes in the West-Indies is for making the best of the Service of those Slaves whom he hath bought with his Mony or are born in his House Whom tho I grant he is not to use like Brute Beasts for the Reasons you have given Yet doth it not therefore follow that he is obliged to use them like his Younger Children for then sure he could not have a Right to keep them for Slaves as long as they lived to let them enjoy nothing but a bare miserable Subsistance and there is very good reason for this for almost every Planter in Barbadoes knows very well the difference between the Relations of a Father a Master and a Prince and that the one is not the other and it is from your jumbling together these three different Relations of a Son a Slave and a Subject that hath led you into all these mistakes For tho' it should be granted that the right of a Master over his Slaves may be acquired by Conquest or assigned to or usurped by another yet certainly the Authority or Relation of a Father and the Monarchical or Civil Power of a Monarch can never be acquired by Conquest nor yet usurped without the Consent and Submission of the Children and Subjects And therefore to conclude I do not think your Hypothesis one jot the better by your founding it upon an Imaginary Paternal Power rather than upon Compact which I am sure can never be made upon so unequal termâ— as to render the Case of a Man and a Brute very little different since it would be to no purpose for any Subject to make a Bargain with their Monarch or Conqueror and yet to leave themselves in as bad or worse condition than they were in the State of Nature So that however convenient your Hypothesis may be either for Prince or People it signifies no more than the Popish Hypothesis of the Infallibility of the Pope and General Council which because they suppose necessary and is indeed very beneficial for the Church therefore God hath conferred it upon them But how false a way of reasoning this is hath been sufficiently demonstrated The Application of this Comparison is so obvious that I leave it to you to make M. I cannot but think for all you have yet said that God hath endued all Princes with a Paternal Authority and for this I have the Church of England on my side which in its Catechism in the Explanation of the Duties contained in the 5th Commandment Honour thy Father c. doth comprehend under that Head not only to Honour and Succour our Fathers and Mothers but also to Honour and Obey the King and all them that are put in Authority under him as if all Power were originally in the Father So that this Command gives him the Right to Govern and makes the Form of Government Monarchical And if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law and
the Father please to sell one or two of his Children whom he least loveth to provide Portions for the rest he may lawfully do it for any thing I see to the contrary So likewise immediately after he asserts the Superiority of all Princes above Laws because there were Kings long before there were any Laws And all the next Paragraph is wholy spent in proving the Unlimited Iurisdiction of Kings above Laws as it is described by Samuel when the Israelites desired a King So that it signifies little what Laws Princes make or what Priviledges they grant their Subjects since they may alter them or abrogate them when ever they please M. But pray take along with you what he says in the next Paragraph you quote where you may see these words It is â—here evidently shewed that the scope of Samuel was to teach the People a dutiful Obedience to their King even in those things which themselves did esteem Mischievous and Inconvenient For by telling them what a King would do he indeed instructs them what a Subject must suffer yet not so as that it is Right for Kings to do Injury but it is Right for them to go unpunished by the People if they do it So that in this point it is all one whether Samuel describe a King or a Tyrant for patient Obedience is due to both No Remedy in the Text against Tyrants but in crying and praying unto God in that day And that Sir R. F. is very far from justifying Kings in the unnecessary Breach of their Laws may farther appear by what he says Chap. 3. Par. 6. of this Treatise where pray see this passage Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King James teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King Governing in a Settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerateth into a Tyrant so soon as he leaves to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws rigorous or doubtful be may mitigate and interpret them So that you see here he leaves the King no Power or Prerogative above the Laws but what shall be directed and employed for the general Good of the Kingdom F. But pray Sir read on a little farther and see if he doth not again undo all that he hath before so speciously laid down and if you will not read it I will General Laws made in Parliament may upon known respects to the King by his Authority be mitigated or suspended upon Causes only known to him And altho' a King do frame all his Action to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weal doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positively Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the best or only means for the preservation of the Common-Wealth So that if the King have this Prerogative of mitigating interpreting and suspending all Laws in Cases only known to himself and that he is not bound to the Laws but at his own good will and for good example I desire to know what greater Prerogative a King can desire than to suspend the Execution of any Law as often as he shall think fit For tho' I grant the Suspension of a Law differs from the Abrogation of it because the former only takes away the force of it in this or that particular case whereas the latter wholy annuls the Law yet if this Suspension be general and in every case where the Law is to take effect it amounts to the same thing with an Abrogation of it as may be plainly seen in the late King 's Dispersing Power For tho' it be true he pretended to no more than to dispense with this or that Person who should undertake a publick Employment either Military or Civil without taking the Oaths and Tâ—st yet since he granted this Dispensation generally to all Papists and others that would transgress this law it amounted to the same thing during his pleasure as an Absolute Abrogation of it And therefore I do very much wonder why divers who are very zealous for the Church of England and the King's Prerogative should be so angry with him for erecting that Power which not only this Author but all others of his Principles have placed in him And if the King may suspend this and all other Laws upon Causes only known to him I do not see how he differs from being as Absolute and Arbitrary a Monarch as the Great Turk himself and may when he pleases notwithstanding all Laws to the contrary take away Men's Lives without any due Forms of Law and raise Taxes without Consent of Parliament M. But pray read on a little farther and you will find that he very much restrains this Absolute Power in these words By this mean are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerors bound to preserve the Laws Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects F. Were I a Monarch limited by Laws I would desire no greater a Power over them than this you have here brought out of this Author For he says Positive Laws do not bind the King but as they are the bâ—st or only means for the preservation of the Common Wealth In the next place you see that all Kings are bound to preserve the Lives and Estates of their Subjects not by any Municipal Law of the Land but by the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects Now this Paternal Power is large enough of all Conscience to discharge Princes from any Obligation to the Laws farther than they please For it before appears that the Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will and not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants therefore if the Power of the King be wholy Paternal he may alter this Will of his as often as he please Nor can his Subjects who are all one with Sons and Servants have any reason to find fault with it For he says There is no Nation that allows Children any Remedy for being unjustly Governed And tho' it be true that he restrains this Prerogative both in Fathers and Kings to the publick good of their Children and Subjects yet as long as he is left the sole and uncontroulable Judge of what is for the publick good all these fine Pretences will signifie nothing For he is bound to observe or ratifie no Laws or Acts of his Predecessors but what he is satisfied tend to this End So that if he thinks fit to Judge that Magna
Caligula's Guards if he had gone about to put his wicked Wish into Execution or likewise to have resisted or put to death those Incendiaries they found firing the City tho' they might have had the Emperour Nero's Commission for it So likewise sure it would have been as lawful for the People of Pegu to have resisted those whom the Emperour might have sent to hinder them from Ploughing and Sowing their Lands And that I am not the only Man of this Opinion I desire you to consult what Barclay hath in his Treatise contra Monarchomachos which he writ against Buchanan de Iure Regni apud Scotos and the Author of Vindiciae contra Tyrannos where tho'he be a most Zealous assertor of the unlimited and irresistible Power of Princeâ— Yet in his third Book chap. 8. he speaketh to this effect the sense of whose words as near as I can I will give you in English Now if any one should say But must the People always yield their Throats to the Fury and Cruelty of Tyranty â— Must they patiently permit their Cities to be destroyed by Hunger Fâ—e or Sword and their Wives and Children to be exposed to the lust of a Tyrant and also themselves to be brought into the utmost dangers and Miseries of Life Must that be denyed to them which is the Right of all Animals by Nature that is that they may repel force with force and defend themselves from Injury To this it may easily be answered that Self-defence which is of Natural Right ought not to be denyed to the People And therefore if the King doth not only exert his hatred against some Single persons but also shall go about to destroy the body of the Common-Wealth of which he is Head that is shall exert his Hatred against the whole People or some considerable part of them by an horrid and intolerable Cruelty or Tyranny There is a Power in the People in this Case only of Defending it self but not of Invading the Prince or of Revenging the Injury given neither of departing from their due Reverence because of the Injury received in short it hath Right only of repelling a Present force but not of revenging a past injury for one of them indeed is from Nature that we should defend our lives and Persons from injury and therefore the People may be able to prevent an Evil before it be done but cannot revenge it upon the King after it is done Therefore the People hath this Right more than a Private Man that he hath no other Remedy left him but Patâ—ence Whereas the People if the Tyranny be intolerable may still resist tho' with Respect In all which this Author hath there said we may easily understand his meaning unless it be in this of resisting force with Respect and Reverence For I cannot understand how a Man may sight against his Prince with Reverence or give his Guard a Knock over the Paâ—e or a Cut in the Face with Respect to the Prince's Authority But the reason is plain why the people may act thus because when a Prince once Goeth about to destroy and make War upon his People he doth not act then as a Monarch but like a Cut-throat and Enemy to the Common-Wealth And no man can imagine a Will to destroy and to protect the people can at once subsist in the same Person M. But pray give me leave to interrupt you a little I grant indeed that by the Political Laws of any Government which are made to Secure the Rights of the Subjects in their Lives and Fortunes No Prince can or ought to take away his Subjects Lives or Esâ—ates contrary to Law Yet by the IMPERIAL LAWS in every Government and by the Laws of the Gospel which As I shall hereafter shew establish those Laws in all perfect Governments and particularly in the English all these Rights Legally belong to the civil Soveraign especially to be accountable to none but God to have the Sole Power and disposal of the Sword and to be free from all Coercive and Vindicative Power and from all Resistance by force It is by these Common Laws of Soveraignty that the Gospel requires Passive Obedience which is but another name for Non-Resistance these Laws are in eternal force against the Subjects in defence of the Soveraign be he Good or Evil Just or Unjust Christian or Pagan be he what he will no Subjectâ— or number of Subjects whatsoever can lift up his or their hands against the Soveraign and be Guiltless by these Laws Therefore for the Subjects to bear the Sword against their Soveraign or to defend themselves by force against him or his Forces is against the Common Laws of Soveraignty and by consequence Passive Obedience even unto Death becomes a duty in Soveraign Governments by vertue of those Laws and we are not to resist them upon any pretence whatsoever but therefore all Subjects are bound to Suffer Death wrongfully rather than to resist them upon any pretence or account whatsoever So that let Popish Writers though never so moderate say what they please concerning the Lawfulness of Resistance in some Cases Yet We of the Church of England have learned better things from the Scripture and the Examples of the Primitive Christians which we think our selves obliged most strictly to observe And therefore in relation to our own Government and the present State of Affairs I shall reduce all that I have to say against Resistance of the King or those commissioned by him into this Syllogisme Not to be resisted by the Subjects is an Inseparable Right of all Soveraign Power But the King is here the only Soveraign Power Ergo the King is upon no pretence whatsoever to be resisted by his Subjects So that not to quarrel any longer about words Non-resistance is the same thing with Passive Obedience and Submission and by consequence these are required by the IMPERIAL LAWS of the Government Therefore Whatsoever the Imperial Laws of the Government require of its Subjects if it be not contrary to God's Laws they are bound to perform it But Passive Obedience or Patient Suffering of Injuries from the Soveraign is not forbid by God's Laws And therefore Subjects are bound to perform it where it is required by the Imperial Laws F. I Shall forbear to say any thing as yet concerning what Doctrines the Scriptures teach or the Primitive Christians practised concerning this matter because I desire to discourse that Question apart from this of the Laws of Nature or Reason which We are now upon Therefore I must tell you that tho' this new Fingle-fangle Term of Imperial Law of Non-resistance may sound very prettily to their Ears who mind words more than sense Yet I must freely confess that I am altogether a Stranger to this Notion of Imperial Laws as also of the distinction you make between the Imperial and Political Laws of this Kingdom and if by Imperial Laws you mean those of the Roman Empire I never knew that
by the Scripture as by Iosephus his Testimony that there was no more Divine Revelation after Malachi neither do the Books of the Maccabees Iosephus Sulpitius Severus or any other ancient Ecclesiastical Writer mention these Maccabees as Men inspired by God I grant indeed they might be excited by some Divine Impulse of Gods spirit to do what they did But this is so far from being at all Miraculous that I do suppose that divers great and good Men have been in our latter times of Reformation stirred up by the same Divine Spirit to undertake and perform extraordinary things for the Reformation of Religion and the deliverance of Gods Church and People And therefore as for the Vision or Dream which you mention it doth not appear that it was any more than an Ordinary Dream and if this might pâ—sâ— for a proof of a Divine Revelation I could quote you many such Dreams as this out of the Lives of Luther Calvin and divers others of the first Reformers whom I suppose you will not maintain to have had any express Revelation to do what they did contrary to the Civil and Ecclesiastic Laws of those Princes and States under which they lived And tho' t is true these Books are not held Canonical yet they were always esteemed in the Church as Sacred Writing as Written tho' not by Inspired yet by Pious Men and tho' they are not received in matters of Faith and Doctrine yet you know very well they are Commanded to be read in our Châ—râ—â—es as containing excellent Precepts and Examples in matters of Morality and therefore 〈◊〉 pâ—rhaps they would not be a good Authority to a Praesbyterian yet I hope we of the Churchâ—s England cannot refuse them as Rules of Morality But I think we are now come to the last Instancâ—â—hat can be brought before the Coming of Christ and therefore pray will you now proceed with your Quotations out of the New Testament which I suppose you have ready for me M. I confess I am not able in a Story so imperfectly related as this of the Maccabees to prove they had Gods express Warrant for this Resistance and you on the other side produce bâ—t a Negative Argument that they had not viz because neither Iosephus nor the Book of the Maccabees expresly mention any such thing and yet for all that Mattathias might for ought that you or I know have acted in this matter by Divine Revelation since as the Rabbins suppose there was for a long time after the times of the Prophets a lâ—wer sâ—â—t of Revelation given by God to some particular Men called Batcol that is the Daughter of the Vâ—â—ce which seems to have been some Private or inward Voice by which God Revealed his Will in some Particular Cases and we read that long after this Iosephus relates that Hâ—rcanus the last good High-Priest of the Maccabean Race had the Gift of Prophecy by Divine Revelation And why his Great Grand-Father might not have it likewise I see no reason besides all this there might be other reasons that God might allow to the People of the Iews a greater Liberty of Resistance even without Cruel Authority to revenge the Profanation of his Temple and Religion being the Place where he was pleased particularly to place his Name than are allowed to us Christians at this Day who have no such Visible Temple nor are under such severe Obligations to extirpate Idolatry So that what Mattathias and the People of the Iews acted in this matter they might do it by the Right of Zealotâ— for the defence of the Law of Moses even as Phineas did who by killing Zimri and Cosbi for Fornication and Idolatry did that which in another occasion and at another time would have been down right Murder But be it as it will I think we Christians are by the Laws of the Gospel tyed to a stricter Subjection to the Supream Powers if it be possible than the Iews themselves were and whatsoever they might have done under Antiochus for their own defence and to avoid Persecution yet Iesus Christ doth now require Higher things of us and hath by his own Example as well as Precept forbidden us to Resist the Supream Powers for any Persâ—cution for Religion whatsoever since he hath Ordained his Religion to be Propagated and desended by Sufferings and Persuasions and not by Force of Arms against the Will of the Supream Powers and if not for Religion the most Weightâ— of all Concerns surely not for any Temporal thing whatsoever But the Proof of this requires more time than this evening will afford without trespassing too much upon your as well as my own repose And therefore I should be glad of another Eveningâ— conversation with you to free your Mind if it were possible from this dangerous Error and to bring you over to the true Belief and Practice of the Primitive Christians and of our Mother the Church of England who treids exactly in their steps F. I humbly thank you for your great Kindness to me and the Pains you have taken â—as also for what you intend to take for the better Information of my Conscience and therefore if you please and that you have no other occasion to draw you forth out of your Lodgings I will wait upon you again to morrow in the Evening about seven and shall think it a very proper Work for the Lords Day to have my Conscience better informed by those Testimonies which you say you will bring out of the New Testament and Waitings of the Primitive Fathers and Church Historians for my Instruction and if you can out of them prove to me that all Resistance whatever is unlawful I promise you upon the Word of an Honest Man to become a Proselyte to this Doctrine M. I humbly thank you Sir for your great Candour and Ingenuity and tho' I am no Profest Divine yet I hope by the help of the Scripture and those Quotations that I can produce out of the Fathers as also from the constant practice of the Primitive Church to prove these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance to be the true Antient and Apostolical Bâ—â—â—s But it is now late and I will not trouble you any longer to night therefore shall take my leave of you and so Sir your Humble Servant F. Dear Sir good Night yours most heartily Well to morrow I will wait upon you as I appointed M. Pray be sure to come at your hour for I 'll expect you FINIS Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Fourth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane neaâ— the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second and Third Dialogues 169â— The Subject of the
limit our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes This I hope is sufficient for the Explication of our Saviours Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians which evidently contains the Doctrine of Obedience and Subjection to Princes enforced on us by the Authority of our Saviour himself F. I shall not dispute that this Instance of our Saviour doth enjoyn the Iews to pay Tribute and render all those Rights and Dues to Caesar as the Supream Power which are necessary to it's Essence but you seem to me to stretch this Prerogative a great deal too far when you thus suppose an absolute Subjection to Princes without any resistance to be as plainly enjoyn'd by our Saviour in this Law as paying Tribute For the Reason you give for it viz. that Subjection and Non resistance is as essential a Right of Soveraign Power and as inseparable from the Notion of it as any can be and that it is so acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations is the thing which I deny and which having been the Subject of our last Conversation is still the thing to be proved and I think I have there sufficiently proved that absolute Non resistance is no Essential Right of Soveraign Power nor inseparable from the Notion of it Since by asserting it no just Right of Soveraign Power will be thereby destroyed or taken away but rather confirm'd and that I may make it out yet plainer by a Familiar Instance a General of an Army hath an absolute Power over the Lives of his Souldiers that transgress his Rules of War or Military Discipline but suppose that in a Mad or Drunken sit he should command some Troops of his Guards to cut the Throats of all the rest of the Army and they be such obedient Coxcombs as to go about to put this order in Execution doth it therefore derogate from the absoluteness of his Power as General if the Army will not stand still and let three or four hundred fellows take away all their Lives But that this Principle of Passive Obedience in your Sense of suffering Princes or other Supream Powers to destroy or inslave them is so far from being acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of all Nations that as I think I have proved it to be contrary to the Laws of Nature and Reason so I doubt not but I can much easier make it out by the Laws and Customs of all Nations as well Barbarous as Civiliz'd to be both unreasonable and impracticable And that it is otherwise determin'd by St. Paul I desire you to prove it to me when you come to make use of the 13 th to the Romans so much insisted upon by those of your Opinion But before I make an end with this Text we are now upon I cannot but take notice of your last Assertion That by rendring to Caesar the things which are Caesars God excepts nothing from Caesar 's Right which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign Princes but what is a Violation of and Encroachment on Gods Right and Soveraignty that is we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our Duty to God Now if this be the only limit that our Saviour sets to our Duty to Princes as you suppose I wonder by what Law the Learned Doctor from whom you borrow this Principle as also those other Clergy-men of the Church of England could justifie thelr refusing to read the Kings late Proclamation of Indulgence or Toleration for if the King as they own in the Oath of Supremacy is the only Supream Governour of his Dominions in all Things or Causes whatsoever He must likewise be the Caesar here meant in this Text and consequently an Active not Passive Obedience ought to have been paid to this Declaration Since you say that Obedience is by the Law of Nations due to Soveraign Princes to whom we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection which is consistent with our Duty to God and I hope you will not say that this Declaration was inconsistent with that Duty or was any Violation or Encroachment upon Gods Rights of Soveraignty M. As for your last observation upon those Clergy men who refused to read the Declaration I must confess I have according to my Civil Law Maxims no excuse ready for them since with us it is always true in this as well as other absolute Monarchies Quicquid Regi placuit Legi's habet Vigorem Much less can I reconcile it with that unbounded Supremacy which the Oath of Allegiance as also the Opinions of most modern Judges have placed in the King in all Ecclesiastical Matters but indeed I can least of all reconcile it with this Assertion you now mention which I confess I have taken from divers Sermons and Treatises that have been Preaâ—ht and Printed of late by our City Divines to whom I shall leave it to Answer this Objection but to proceed with the design in Hand I shall come in the next place to prove an absolute Subjection without Resistance to be due to the Soveraign Power from our Saviour's rebuke to St. Peter when he drew his Sword and struck a Servant of the High-Priest and smote off his Ear which is as plain a Declaration against Resistance as Words can make it Then said Iesus unto him put up thy Sword unto his place for all they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword For the understanding of which we must consider upon what occasion St. Peter drew his Sword for we must not think that our Saviour doth absolutely forbid the use of the Sword which is to destroy all Civil Governments and the Power of Princes and to proclaim impunity to all which Villanies that are committed in the World The Sword is necessary to punish wickedness and to protect the Innocents In the Hands of Princes it is an Instrument of Justice as St. Paul tells us That they bear not the Sword in vain But are the Ministers of God revengers to exâ—cuâ—e wrath upon him that doth evil In the Hands of privaâ—e Persons it may be lawfully used in Self-defence thus our Saviour a little before his Crucifixion gave Commission to his Disciples to furnish themselves with Swords tho' they parted with theâ—r Garments for the Purchase Which we suppose was not designed as a meer modish and fashionable thing but to defend themselves from the Private assaults of Robbers and such like Common Enemies who as Iosephus tells us were very nuâ—meroâ—s at that time For no Man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away But the Case of St. Peter was very different He drew his Sword indeed in his Masters defence but against a lawful Authority The Officers of the Chief Priests and Pharisees came with Iudas to the place where Jesus was to seize on him This was a lawful Authority tho' employed upon a very unjust Errand but Authority must not be resisted
Supream Power where ever it is placed you dissolve human Societies or at least expose them to perpetual Disorders and Convulsions Factious and Ambitious Men will still find Pretences to resist good Princes as well as bad and no Government can be any longer secure than whilst ill-designing men want power to resist Now then to pass a true Judgment on this whole Matter we must not only consider what present Inconveniences we may suffer from the irresistible Power of the worst Tyrant but also what an irreparable Mischief it is for ever to unsettle the Foundations of Government We must consider whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind or a Tyrant the greater Curse whether it be more desirable to endure the Insolence and Injustice of the greatest Tyrant when the Power falls into such a hand or for ever to be deprived of the Security of Government and the Blessings of Peace and Order And therefore there is great Reason why God should so severely forbid the Resistance of all Princes tho' the Cruellest Tyrants you can imagine and why we should quietly and contentedly submit to this Divine Appointment because the Resistance of the Supream Powers were it once allowed by God would weaken the Authority of all Human Governments and expose them to the Rage and Frenzy of Ambitious and discontented States Men or wild Enthusiasts And this I think is a sufficient Answer to this Pretence that the Apostle limits our Subjection to Princes to the regular Exercise of their Authority F. I see we are ev'n come where we set out to the necessity of an Irresistible Power and the mischief that must follow if the People ever Iudge for themselves which indeed is but the same Argument in Politicks which the Church of Rome makes use of for the necessity of an Infallible Iudge in spirituals because otherwise if the People should judge for themselves in matters of Religion there would nothing follow but Anarchy and Confusion in the Church and that there would be as many Religions as there are Men And so you likewise urge that if the People may ever once come to Iudge when they are assaulted enslaved or opprest and should have a Right of making Resistance nothing but Anarchy and Confusion must follow in the Common wealth And truly I think the Argument is as good for the one as the other and as I hope we may be always good Orthodox Christians without such an infallible Iudge in matters of Faith so I think we may be Loyal Subjects to our Prince without investing him with an Irresistible Power of doing with us what ever he hath a mind to But since you have only repeated what you have said at our last meeting when we first began to debate this Question so I must beg you pardon if I refresh your Memory and again repeat my Answers In the first place I deny that it must follow that if once it be made Lawful to resist the Supream Power where ever placed this must dissolve Civil Societies or expose them to perpetual Disorder because forsooth some Factious and ambitious Men will find Pretences to Resist good Princes as well as bad For first I have all along supposed the Civil Society as good as dissolved before such Resistance is Lawful And therefore the Convulsions or Disorders of a Civil War can scarce be worse than such a State and until the People are under this Condition I grant factious and ambitious Men may make Pretences to Resist good Princes as well as bad and may find some followers as wicked as themselves to take the◠part Yet this Infection seldom or never seizeth upon a whole Nation who hath always Power and Affection enough for the Supream Powers to joyn with them to Suppress such Rebels I grant we ought always to consider whether Civil Government be the greater Blessing to Mankind or a Tyrant the greater Chrs◠But I do never suppose such Resistance to be Lawful but when the Power falls into such hands that tho' they may call themselves a Civil Government yet the People are almost as totally deprived of all that Security and those Blessings of Peace and order which they may justly expect from it as if they were in a State of War And therefore as you suppose that God Almighty forbids the Resistance of the most cruel Tyrants because this Resistance were it once allowed by giving the People a Power of Iudging would weaken the Authority of Human Governments and expose them to the Rage and Frenzy of Ambitious and discontented States-Men or Wild Enthusiasts And this you think a sufficient Answer So on the other side if this Resistance be in no case lawful tho' in never so great Extremities and that the People must not judge when they are so cruelly used as that it is no longer to be endured not only the Persons of Princes are Sacred and irresistible but also all those Instruments of Tyranny whom they may hire and employ to that purpose by which means all Government whatsoever will not only be Absolute but Arbitrary and without any sufficient Obligations to other Mercy Justice and the Common Good than what the Tyrannical Will or Humour of one or more men shall please to allow So that the Lives Liberties and Estates of a free People or Nation shall be in as bad or a worse Condition than if they were Slaves if all means of defending themselves by their own Resistance or joyning with those that would assist them be wholly denyed them And whether God can ever be the Author of such an Institution I appeal to your own Reason to judge when you are in a more sedate and equal Temper M. I see 't is in vain to argue this Matter any longer with you And therefore I must tell you that I cannot but look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as true Christian Doctrines since the Antient Fathers of the Church and Primitive Christians did always both believe and practise them and in imitation of whom our own Church of England which I think of any in the World comes nearest to the Primitive doth likewise maintain it in her 39 Articles Canons and Homilies whereas you can shew me no Express Text of Scripture nor Testimonies of the Fathers nor Examples of the Primitive Christians to justifie this Resistance which when ever you can do I shall be of your Opinion and if you doubt the Truth of what I say I have here by me the Lord Primate Usher's Book of the Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject which you may if you please take home with you and consult at your Leisure in which I doubt not but you will meet with full Satisfaction in this matter F. I have already proved at our last meeting that Resistance for self-defence against those who have the Power of the Sword is a Right of Nature conferred by God on all Mankind and unless you can shew me 〈…〉 place of
these Christians were under no other Obligations to Non resistance then what the particular Providence of God had brought them to as these French Protestants who remain still in France are now under that is Obligations of Fear and not of meer Conscience And as for your Example of the Thebaean Legion tho' it is true they might have sold their Lives dear before they had been killed yet would this Resistance have served them to little purpose against the Rest of the Army which might consist of 30 or 40000 men all Heathen and Headed by the Emperour himself But what if after all this stir about this Story it should not be true for Eusebius and Socrates who lived nearer the time in which this Action is supposed to be done make no mention at all of it tho' they had very good occasion to do it The first writer that ever made any mention of this Story was Eucherius Arch-bishop of Lyons who did not write this Act oâ— the Martyrs till above 150 years after the thing was done and he is also followed by one Ado in his Martyrology who lived likewise some time after him when writing of Legends began to grow in Fashion But granting all the matter of Fact to be as you relate it it proves no more than what I have already granted that the Christians were at that time obliged to lay down their lives for the Testimony of Christ rather than to make any Resistance but that this Precept is of a Constant and Eternal Obligation when the Ends for which it was ordained are no longer of any use and when our Religion is established by such Laws as the King himself cannot abrogate or dispense with I utterly deny And certainly if you were not very much blinded with the Prejudice of these Notions of Passive-Obedience and Non Resistance you would not leave all the People of England at the Mercy of a Popish King to be dragooned out of their Lives Liberties and Estates as the Protestants have been in France and Savoy whenever the King shall please to put them to that severe Tryal M. You have given me a very long and I wish I could say a satisfactory Answer and I see provided it would serve your turn you do not value how much you vilifie the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians by making them not of Ability to make any considerable Resistance if they would Tho' Tertullian expresly affirms the contrary and so you likewise take upon you to follow the Example of a late Dâ—ctor and to Question the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion which tho' it might not be committed to writing before Eucherius published it yet might be very well have received a faithful account of this matter either by Tradition or by some Private Memorials that might be kept of it in that Church since they suffered this Martyrdom not far from Octodurum a place now called Martinach in Vallaâ—s a part of Switzerland and not far from Lyons so that he might very well have a sufficient Information of such a remarkable Action as this was Nor doth what you say savour less of a Latitudinarian Principle whilst you maintain that a Patient Submission to the Supream Powers is not of constant and Eternal Obligation in all Circumstances which is contrary to the opinion of the Primitive Fathers and also of the Church of England But if St. Paul's Doctrine be true that we are not to do the least Evil that Good may come And if our Saviour hath enjoined us not to resist the Supream Powâ—rs upon any account whatsoever and also to lay down our Lives for the Testimony of the Truth we ought certainly to observe his Commands let the Consequence be what it will tho' it were to the total Destruction of a whole Church or Nation Since God if he pleases may by the just Course of his Providence lay such severe Iudgments upon us who can also infinitely reward us for our Patient Suffering of them in the Life to come F. I think I may without any Crime Question the Truth of Tertullian's account of the Power the Christians had to make any considerable Resistance in his time for sure he may be out in such a Nice matter of Fact Since he could be guilty of such gross Errours in point of Doctrine for before he turned Mortanist he was like our Quakers and thought all Resistance of what kind soever unlawful and therefore he tells us in his Apologetick Idem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis no 〈◊〉 and a little after Quodeunque enim non licet in Imperatorem â—d nec in quenqâ—â—m and he likewise condemned all â—light in time of Persecution as you may see in the Treatise he writ upon that Subject And as for the bare Practice of Primitive Christians they are not of any general binding Example to us unless the Principle they go upon be true since I doubt not but many of them suffered Death out of a pure desire of Martyrdom of which Sulpitius Severus tells us they were more Covetous than Men were in his time of Bishopricks in so much that it was a common thing even for Women and Boys to offer themselves to voluntary Martyrdom that the Council of was forced to make a Decree on purpose to forbid it And as for the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion it not being recorded by any Writer of the Age in which it is said to have been done I think a Man may very well question its reality without any Suspicion of Heresie And when I can see those Arguments answered by you or any Body else which the Learned Doctor you mention hath brought against it I will give more credit to it than now I do But you may call me a Person of Latitudinarian Principles as much as you please in this matter until you are able to prove to me by better Arguments than you have done hitherto that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance in Case of Persecution for Religion is of Constant and Eternal Obligation unless it be in the same Case in which the Primitive Christians were obliged to suffer rather than resist and till this be done I fear not falling under St. Pauâ—'s Censure of doing Evil that good may come of it and unless God had in down-right Terms commanded it I will never Believe but that I may have a very good Right in such a Government as ours to deâ—end my Life against any one that would take it away upon the bare score of Religion nor can I think it a Doctrine suitable to the Iustice and Goodness of God to ordain a whole Nation to fall as a Sacrifice to the Cruelty or Superstition of any one or more Men. But since you are pleased to urge me with Examples of Primitive Christians who chose to die rather than Resist or Râ—bâ—l against their Prince pray give me leave likewise to tell you a few stories wherein these Primitive Christians have not shew'd themselves so
the mentioning of them since I grant that about the End of the Fourth Century when these things happen'd not only the common People but also the Clergy began to grow very corrupt in their Manners And therefore I cannot much value any Precedents that you can bring in that time to justifie Resistance in Christians unless you could have shewn me any before the time of Constantine which I am sure you are not able to do much less any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers which justifieth Resistance of the Supream Powers upon any account whatsoever F. 'T is a very hard matter to satisfie you by Quotations for before the time of Constantine it is evident the Christians were not only weak dispersed and disarmed but had also the Laws of the Empire against them And I have already granted That Self-defence against Persecution upon account of Religion was unlawful but when in the time of Constantine's Son and Successor the People having the Law on their side stood upon their defence against those that would have taken away their Lives as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabitants of Paphlagonia then the Instances come too late and the Age is grown so corrupt that they are no longer Primitive Christians than they observe your Doctrines But as for express Precepts or Testimonies out of the Scriptures and Fathers to justifie Resistance I think it is very needless to bring any for the great Mr. Hooker shews us very well that it is the intent of the Scripture to deliver us all the Credenda and Agenda necessary to Salvation but in other Matters within the compass of our Reason it is enough if we have evident Reason for them Scripturâ non contradicente and if the Scripture doth not forbid such Resistance for Self-defence as I hope I have now proved to be Lawful I do not value whether there be any Express Authority to be quoted out of the Fathers for it or not For whatever the Scripture leaves free I think the Fathers have no Power to forbid M. I see it is to no purpose to argue longer with you from Primitive Examples or Testimonies And therefore I come now to the last thing I proposed which is to shew you that the Doctrine of our Church of England as it is contained in the 39 Articles Canons and Book of Homilies is as expresly for passive Obedience and against All Resistance of the Supream Powâ—rs as the Primitive Church it self And therefore I shall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the VIII For there I begin the Restoration of Religion to its Purity in this Kingdom F. I pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you for I must tell you I will not be concluded by any thing that the King or Church in those times did publish concerning matters of Faith or Practice since unless it were in that one Political rather than Religioâ—s Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Church in all other Speculative and Practical Doctrines was as much infected with Popâ—ry as it was before And therefore if you will have me to be converted by your Authorities I pray begin with the Purer Times of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth M. I shall comply with your desires since you will have it so And therefore I shall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England where in the 37 Article as they were past under Queen Elizabeth Anno 1562 you may find it runs thus The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of all the Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction It is true this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it First Because if the Pope who pretended by a Divine Right had no Power over Kings much less have the People any such Power who pretend to an Inferiour Right that of Compact Secondly Because the Article makes no distinction but excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope And in truth the Plea is the same on either side the Pope says as long as the Prince Governs according to the Laws of God and the Church of which He is the Interpreter so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him and say the People as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land and of the meaning of those Laws they themselves will be the Interpreters so long are they bound to be obedient but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope then he is deservedly say the Romanists excommunicated deposed and murdered and when he usurâ—s upon the Peoples Liberties then he ought to be deposed by the People The Arguments on either side are the same and for the most part the Authorities F. I must confess this is the first time that ever I knew any Man go about to prove Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance out of the 39 Articles and indeed I should have thought you might have deduced any thing else from these Articles as well as that But let us see how what I have saiâ— in this Discourse can come within the Contents of this Article which only says that the King or Queen of England is Supream Governour over all Persons as also in all Causes whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and is not subject to any foreign Iurisdiction from whence you raise this Argument that if the Pope who claims by a Divine Right hath no Power over our Kings much less have the People who can pretend to no such Right as he does but only that by Compact Now pray tell me whether this be conclusive I assert that the People have by the Law of God and Nature a Right to defend themselves against the Supream Powers in case they are violently Assaulted in their Lives Liberties or Estates Now I would very fain have you prove to me how Resistance for Self-defence doth subjâ—ct a Prince to any Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick and whether the People can have no Right to Resist such Violence unless they have also an Authoritative Power over them M. It is not worth while to dispute this any longer with you to so little purpose And therefore I shall come to the Canons of the Church and in particular those of the year 1640 which I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of our Church in this Point where you may see in the first Canon these two plain Propositions among others First That the most Sacred Order of Kings is of Divine Right being the Ordinance of God himself founded in the Prime Laws of Nature and clearly Established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments Secondly For Subjects to bear
Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God And tho' they do not invade but only resist St. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves Damnation From which you may plainly see that this Convocation which consisted of as great Men as I think had been for divers Ages do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right and Resistance to be in no Case lawful F. I should grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Iudgment of the Church of England were it not for two very good Reasons I have against them The one I will tell you presently and the other I will keep a while to my self In the first place therefore I suppose you cannot but very well know that this Convocation sate and passed these Canons which likewise received the King's Confirmation after the Parliament that was summoned together with this Convocation was dissolved And I suppose you know that by the Law of England the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament was till then always dissolved with it For which Reason all Acts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned and declared null and void by the Long Parliament that began to fit the latter End of the same Year And which is more was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second And therefore I think I have very little Reason to own thâ—se Canons as Conclusive M. In the first place I might reply to what you have now said that that very Parliament which first condemned these Canons afterwards ruined the Monarchy it self In the next place that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time And I likewise farther Answer that these Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury and York and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King which was all that was of old required in such Cases and tho' the Convocation sate after the Dissolution of the Parliament yet this is not without President even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth not to look back unto Henry the eighth or the Primitive times And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say that I quote them not as Law but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time F. Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious For it was not this Parliament that ruâ—ned the Monarchy but only the Rump or Fag end of it after it had suffered divers Violences and Exclusions of Members by the Army and that the House of Lords being by this Iunto voted useless and dangerous were shut out of doors nor is your second Answer any more true for antiently in the Saxons time the Wittena Gemot or Great Counsel and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergy-men and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King as also the Spiritual as well as Temporal States Nor can you shew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod which met independently and without the States of the Realm until after the Reign of Henry the first when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority as also upon our Civil Rights and by his Legaâ—s to call Synods and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do And tho' I grant that upon the Reformation the King was restor'd to those Rights as Supream Governour of the Church which the Pope had before usurped yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood as to give the King all that Power which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before and therefore this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form or after any other manner than they were held before the Popes Usurpation in taking upon him to call such Independant Synods and notwithstanding what you tell me I am confident you cannot shew me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth But as for your last reply that you quote not these Canons for a Law that obliges the Church but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief nor Practice as you may seem to grant it signifieth no more to me what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter nor doth it any more shew me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England than if I should tell you that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England but is not so now And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church unless the Synod or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws and Customs of that Nation or Country wherein they are so declared M. Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons I shall no longer insist upon them but I shall here shew you out of the Books of Homilies to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe by Act of Parliament as well as to the Articles and Canons as containing wholesome Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever that if you are a true Church of England Man as I hope you are you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told in these Words which I desire you to read along with me That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side
whole People or Nation together with the Religion established should be thus ruined and destroyed rather than that such Resistance should be made M. But pray tell me can there be any thing more express against your Interpretation or more plainly oblige us to a patient Suffering without Resistance of the cruellest and most intolerable Tyranny than these Words I last read The farther and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government the greater Plague be is of Gods Wrath and Punishment by Gods Iustice unto the Country and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governour And by what there follows you will see that tho' such a Prince be so great a Plague to them Yet they cannot without Sin judge such a Prince or Rebel against him but must patiently wait God's Leisure to remove him F. I confess this is the strictest Passage of any in the whole Book yet doth not this expressly reach the Case here put or if it had do I think my Self or any Body else obliged because of one or two unwary Passages in this Homily which perhaps neither the Parliament nor Convocation closely considered the evil Consequence of or so much as knew they were there things of this kind usually passing such great Assemblies by the Lump as relying upon the Testimony of some Leading Bishops or Clergy men without considering the Book of Homilies strictly Or reading over the whole So that the Parliament might very well declare that they contained sound Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God without asserting the literal Truth of every particular passage in them much less that all that is contained therein is to believed upon pain of Damnation and therefore I must beg your pardon if I cannot suppose that all Resistance whatsoever tho' in the most necessary Cases of Self-defence which I have now puâ— is absolutely unlawful and rebellious or that the Fathers of our Church ever intended to lay so hard a Yoak upon the Neck of this Nation which neither they nor their Fathers were ever able to bear much less that there is thereby taken away from this Nation defending those fundamental Rights and Priviledges which are essential to the Nature of the Government and which as it distinguisheth it from a Despotick Monarchy So it doth the Subjects likewise from those of other Nations for if the Scriptures themselves were never intended to alter Civil Constitutions much less certainly can either our Canons or Homilies do it And therefore to deal freely with you if the Canons and Homilies had been nâ—ver so express on your side yet as long as no such Consequence can be drawn from the Holy Scriptures I should not much value what they say unless you can prove the Church of England to be infallible And for this I have the sixeenth and twentieth Article of the Church of England made in the Year 1562. to bear me out The former of which concerning the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation runs thus The Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought necessary or requisite to Salvation Therefore if I have plainly proved by sufficient Authority that your Doctrines of Passive-Obeâ—ience and Non Resistance are not expresly found in Scripture nor by necessary Consequence may be rationally deduced from thence they cannot be required of any Man to be believed or practiced as necessary to Salvation And therefore if either this Church or any other imposes such a Burden upon me I am not obliged to bear it And this the latter of these Articles of the Authority of the Church expresly asserts in these Words It is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to Gods Word Written c. after which it follows thus So besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation Where Note that besides the same is to be understood any thing that is not found therein or may be proved thereby by necessary Consequence as was said before and if the whole Church it self cannot do this certainly no Particular Church can M. Methinks Sir it is a great Presumption in you and those of your Party to make your selves the sole Interpreters of those Places of Scripture which so expresly forbid all Resistance of the Supream Powers and then when you have wrested the Scriptures to your own Mind to cry out that you are not bound to believe these Christian Doctrines because you suppose they are contrary to Men's humane Reason and the too great Love they have to their own concerns which is but the same way of reasoning which the Socinians and Arians make use of against our Saviour's God head because their narrow Understandings cannot comprehend it But besides all this I could shew you out of the best Writers of the Reformed Religion both in this and other Protestant Churches who interpret these Places of Scripture against all Resistance in the same Sense as our honest Homilies have done but I find it grows late and I have not time now to shew you them or if I had do I believe you would be much Edified by them since you make so slight of the Authority of our Homilies F. You are very much in the Right of it and indeed I do not desire you should put your self to that trouble for the Papists themselves will not own any thing for a Doctrine of their Church which is not expresly found in the Council of Trent or the Catechism composed according to its Decrees and therefore will not be concluded by the Sermons or Theological Treatises of any of the Divines of their own Church as to any thing or matter in debate between us And I think I that am a Protestant may certainly claim alike Christian Liberty especially since I am very sensible upon what account too many Men have carried these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance to so great a heighth as they have done of late years But since you tell me that so many Learned Writers both of this and other Protestant Churches have been of your Mind So I could also if I had a mind to Cap Quotations with you produce a sufficient number of places out of Luther Calvin Zuinglius and other first Reformers as also of our own Writers at home who have in many places of their Works allowed Resistance for self-defence in case of Intolerable Violence and Oppression to be Lawful and of these I can give you a Large Catalogue whenever you please to command me But since they will convince you as little as I suppose your Writers would do me I shall forbear mentioning them any further M. I value not much what Luther Calvin or any other violent Men of that sort may out of Passion
were of a much later Date then both the Being and Priviledges of both Houses had but one and the Self-same Original viz. nothing else but the meer Grace or Favour of our Kings I have only added this the better to enforce my former Argument And therefore I desire you would now answer them both together F. I am very glad your last Argument doth not prove so formidable as you suppose for to remove that out of the way I must tell you that you now very much mistake the Question which is not only concerning the Iudicial power of the Peers alone but the Legislative Power of the House of Peers and Commons taken together which is the Subject of our present Dispute And therefore if I should grant you that the Iudicial Power of the Peers is derived wholy from the King Yet would it not at all â—mpaiâ— the Legislative Power of either of the Houses which no Historian or Law-book that I know of that is of any Credit or Antiquity ascribes to the King's Favour as you suppose Nor is it true that the House of Peers can give no Iudgment either Civil or Criminal without the King's Consent or Approbation which is never so much as askt let the Cause be what it will nor is his Presence at such Judgments at all 〈◊〉 but indeed you confound the King's Council in Parliament where I have shewed you already he sat and dispatched divers Causes in a Room or Chambeâ— distinct from that of the Peers with the House of Lords But to come to your main Argument that our Parliament must owe its Original to the King because each of the Estates of which it consists doth so This I hope will prove as weak when throughly considered For first of all I could shew you that those Councils could not owe their Original to the K. since the Saxon Kings rather owed their Original to them by whom they were most commonly Elected as I could shew you out of our Ancient Historians if it were now a proper time for it But as for our Bishops and Abbots c. which anciently made so great a figure in our Saxon Great Councils which I can shew you were then both Civil and Ecâ—lâ—siasticâ—l Assemblies I have already proved out of Tacitus that among the Ancient Germans a part of whom our Ancient English Saxons were their Priests who were their Clergy had a Considerable Authority in their Common Councils And can any body believe that a sort of People so Powerful and Subâ—ile as the Priests then were would lose their Power after they came over into England And we find in Bede that Edwin King of Northumberland consulted with a Council of his Great Mâ—n and Priests concerning his embracing the Christian Râ—ligiâ—n and when it was generally received can any body think that the Christian Bishâ—ps and Clergy would not expect to Succeed in the same Station which the Heathen Priests before held in their Councils And that they enjoyed this Power very early appears from hence that the same Ethelbert could not endow the Church and Monastery of Canterbury Sine Assensu Magnatum Principum tam Cleri quam Populi But indeed you are as much mistaken in the manner of the Ancient Elections of Bishops and Abbots in England For tho I own that at the time of the Conquest and somewhat before there might be no such Elections of them as the Ancient Canons required Yet that this was not so at the first you may see in Bede's Ecclesiastical History and other Historians where it is often mentioned that Bishops were chosen according to the Canons by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province and Abbots by their Convent Nor was the Kings investing of them per annulum Bacculum then lookt upon as any Derogation to their Canonical Election that being no more than either a Ceremony of investing them with their Temporalities or a token of the King's Confirmation of the Election And that this was so appears by King Edgars Charter to the Abby of Glastenbury wherein he retains to himself and his Heirs jus tribuendi fratri Electo baculum pastoralem But that which so much Scandalized both Ingulf and Malmsbury was a Custom then in use as also long before the Conquest of confirming the Bishop Elect in a full Synod or Parliament And to this Custom Ingulf refers when he tells us A multis annis retroactis nulla eras Electio Prelatorum merè Libera Canonica Sed omnes Dignitates tam Episcoporum quam Abbatum Regis Curia pro suâ— complacentia conferebat Where by Curia Regis you must not understand the King's Court in the Sense it is commonly taken but for the Great Council or Mikel Synod as it was then called and which dispatched Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs in the same Sense as Curia Regis is used by Brompton in the Case of King Edw. and Earl Godwin which you but now cited And in which Sense it is always used by Ingulph when he speaks of the Great Councils under the two Williams I will not be very tedious on this Subject and shall therefore give you but one Authority on this Head and it is that of Walslan who was made Bishop of Worcester in the time of Edw. the Confessor and that as Mat. Paris tells us Vnanimi consensu tam Clâ—ri quam totius Plebis Rege ut quem vellent sibi eligerent praesulem annuente in Episcopum ejusdem loci eligitur And then he goes on thus Nam licet fratrum non deesset electio Yet that there concurred to it Plebis petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum Regis Authoritas All which amounts to no more than that he was Elected Chosen and Confirmed by the King and all the Three Estates For here is the Petition of the Commons joyned with the Good-will of the Lords and both backt by the Kings Authority Yet that all this did not hinder him from being invested per Baculum Annulum as the Custom then was may appear by the Speech this Bishop Wulstan made at the Tomb of Edward the Confessor whither he went to resign his Pastoral Staff after his being deprived of his Bishoprick by Arch-Bishop Lanfrank and the Synod And the Conclusion of this Speech is remarkable Tibi Scil. Edwardo Baculum resigno qui dâ—disti Curam â—orum dimitto quos mihi commendasti A like Example I could give you of the Election of this Arch-Bishop Lanfrank himself in the Kings Curia or Great Council not long after the Entrance of K. William but for this I refer you to Eadmerus But admitting that the King alone had in those days conferred all Bishopricks does it therefore follow that his Nomination of Bishops in the Pursuance of that Trust which the Kingdom reposed in him did likewise make them to derive all the Right they had to sit in the Great Council from the King 's Sole Authority you might indeed with as much Reason urge
that because the Emperour Theodosius as likewise divers of his Predecessours did Nominate Bishops to Sees therefore they did likewise receive from them all the Authority they had of appearing and acting in General Councils which I am sure you are too good a Church of England Men to affirm M. I must confess I never did so closely examine the Ancient Form of conferring of Bishopricks before the Conquest as I find you have done and I will better Examine your Authorities and if I find this Custom to have been constant and uniform I shall come over to your opinion tho' I doubt it will not prove to have been so general as you would make it since by the Authority you have now brought out of Mat. Paris it appears that it was the King who gave leave to this Election of Bishop Wulstan in the Great Council which I am not yet convinc'd did then take upon them to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters without the Kings Consent but since you have spoken enough concerning the Right and Antiquity of the Bishops sitting in our Great Councils it is time you now speak of the Right of the Peers or Temporal Lords which certainly could have no place there but from the Favour and Concession of our Kings So that whether we consider those Lords in the Saxon time as Rulers of Counties called in old English Earls or Aldermen in Latin Duces or Comites or else as Judges or Counsellors called in old Saxon Wites or Wisemen in Latin Sapientes or lastly as Thanes in Latin Ministri who were either Military Tenants or Civil Ministers or else Officers of the King in his Court or other Employments none of them were Hereditary in those times but all of them either depended upon the King's VVill or else owed their Honours and â—states to his Favour F. I hope notwithstanding the Confidence you put in this part of the Argument that it hath no more weight in it than the former For tho' I grant there was no such thing as Hereditary Earldoms before the coming in of the Normans so that tho both the Earls and Aldermen might have places in the Great Councils ratione officii as the Earl Mareschal of England has at this day and not by Tenure as they did after that time Yet I very much doubt whether they sate there only ratione officii and not as Thanes or by reason of their great Lordships or Estates in Lands but if they sate there as Earls or Aldermâ—n yet might they not be the only Persons that sate in those Councils by that Title For there were besides these Aldermen of Cities and Burrougâ—s who were Elected by those Places and who it is very likely appeared for them as their Representatives in those Councils until by Succession of time those Towns began to send two Burgesses in their stead some Footsteps of which still remain in London where the Aldermen of every Ward are first proposed to be Elected Parliament Men before any other and it is certain that these Aldermen in the most Ancient Cities as London York Lincoln â— are not Elected by any Grant or Charter from the Crown but by an immemoâ—ial Right of Prescription But admitting that these Earls or Aldermen appeared in these Councils by reason of their Offices or Dignities which the King conferred upon them yet doth it not prove that the very Office it self proceeded 〈◊〉 from him since we find the Authority of those chief Men whom 〈◊〉 calls Princes and which Answer these Earls to have been used among the Ancient Germans long before when he tells us in the same Chapter where we cited the rest Iura per Pagâ—â— Viâ—osque Principes reddunt â—enteni Singulis ex plebe Comites Consilium simul auctoritas adsunt Which exactly answers our County and Hundred Courts under the Saxon Kings wherein the Alderman of the County or his Deputy the Sheriff preâ—ided and the Free Men of the County or Hundred were the Iudges of all matters of Fact So that tho the King might appoint these Princes or Governours of Provinces or Counties yet doth it no more follow that they owed their Being and Place in the great Council wholy to his Will than as I said before supposing that the King had Anciently the Nomâ—nation of all the Bishops and Abbots in England that therefore they must also owe their Place in our great Councils or Synods wholy to them since the King performed both of them as a Publick Trust committed to him by the Common Weal in the one case as much as in the other But indeed I think the greatest part of the Members of this Assembly besides Aldermen and Burgesses for Cities and Towns consisted of those Thanes whose Names are often found in the Subscription of the Anâ—ient Charters of our Saxon Kings after the Principes Duces and Comâ—â—â—s and that tho many of them might be the Kings Feudal Thanes or 〈◊〉 Grand Serjeanty or Knights Sâ—rvice in Chief as Mr. Sâ—lden tells us in his Titles of Honour yet that Author no where excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. middle or less Thanes from having Voices in those Assemblies who were afterward Stiled Vavissours or Lords of Townships afterwards called Maunors with Courts annexed to them under the Names of Sac Soc which were the same with our Court 〈◊〉 and Court-Baron Especially if you please farther to consider what a vast nâ—mber of Alâ—dariâ— or Free Tenants there were then who held their Lands Discharged of all Services but the Common Burthens and Taxes of the Nation none but the Lands of the Kings Thanes being held by Military Sâ—rvices before the Entrance of the Normans So that whoever will but consider the Nature of our Saxon Councils will find that the Greatest part of the Persons that appeared there did not owe their 〈◊〉 to their being the King's Ministers or Officers as you suppose but to their holding such Lands and Possâ—ssions as Capacitated them and gave them a Right to have places in those Great Councils And that this was 〈◊〉 we need go no further than the Laws of King Athelâ—â—an where you will find Gâ—mility it self annexed to an Estate in Land For if you will but be pleased to Consult King Athelston's Laws you will there find that if a Villaâ—aus or Câ—eorl could so thrive as to get an Estate of five Hides in Lands he was reckon'd a Thane i. e. a Gentleman or Nobleman as they were promiscuoully reckoned at that time So that tho I suppose there might not be in those times that exact distinction between Peers and Commons as there hath bin established since the coming in of the Normans Yet was it the same thing in effect since the Bishops Earls or Aldermen of Shires tho not enjoyed as Hereditary Honours might make then the Greater Nobility or Peers as the Thanes were the Less Nobility Gentlemen or Freeholders who all appearing in person might together with
and the other Less Barons or Tenants in capite ever since the 17th of King Iohn were summoned by one Common Writ directed to the Sheriff of the County since which time if not some time before I grant these Tenants in capite were not look'd upon as Barons or Peers of the Kingdom properly so called Yet did their Votes in Parliament still conclude and charge their Tenants in the making and imposing of Taxes or Laws which they alone together with the Bishops and greater Barons still performed until the Times I assign F. I see you are in a Wood and do not know well under what Class to rank your Tenants in capite for if they were at first all Lords or Peers how could they serve upon Juries in Hundred or County Courts If they were meer Commoners then there were Commons in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. and why might not others as considerable Commoners have Places in the Great Council as well as they whether they were the Kings Barons or Tenents in capite or not But in answer to this you tell me that we never had any Barons held by mean Tenure here in England this is plainly equivocal for if you mean it of Baronies in capite it is true if of other Baronies it is false by your own Confession And Sir H. Spâ—lman tells us in the Title last quoted that the Barons of Burford pleaded to hold of the King per Baroniam and yet he was never any Baron of the Kingdom Now I desire you to shew me if he and such like Barons as himself had no place in Parliament who it was represented them there And therefore in answer to your Dilemma I grant that every Baron by Tenure was a Tenant in capite but every Tenant in capite was not a Baron and this I think is so plain that you your self cannot deny it But in answer to your next Question I can answer it without asking the Gentleman from whom you suppose I borrow the Notion that there might be other Barons or Lords of Mannors who by reason of their Estates might have Places in Parliament supposing Knights of Shires were not introduced till after Henry the II. or King Iohn's Time when such Freeholders became too numerous all to appear in person and yet these might not be Barons by Tenure And therefore all your Questions conclude nothing For you suppose that which is still to be proved That because all the Barons of England properly so called held of the King in capite and were consequently his Barons that therefore none but Bâ—rons and Tenants in capite had any place in our Great Councils which is the thing you only suppose and I as positively deny M. Well Sir since you put it to that issue I hope I shall fully convince you that none but the Persons I have mentioned were the constituent Members of the Common Council or Parliament before 49th Hen. III or 18th Edw. I and who done gave assent to all Laws that were made and all Taxes that were to be imposed on themselves and their Under-Tenants who were then concluded by the Acts of their Superior Lords But not to wrangle with you any longer about the signification of the Word Barones I grant there were Nominal or Titular Barons very many such as I have mentioned nay that there were several other Great Subjects who had Tenants that held 5 6 7 8 〈◊〉 nay more Knights Fees under them and who had the Name and Title of Barons But what is this to the purpose I desire you would prove to me by any direct proof that these sort of men had any Voices either by themselves or their Representatives in our Great Councils till after the time we allow them and this besides the Proofs I have already brought I think is sufficient Since it is plain that the Barones Regni or Terra and the Milites and Homines sui are all one and the same Persons that is they were the King 's Great Barons or Tenents in capite who alone constituted the Baronage or University of the Baronage of England or of the Kingdom in our Great Councils or Parliaments And for the farther proof of this I need go no farther than those very Arguments your own Author Mr. P. hath made use of in his Right of the Commons asserted wherein he would prove from certain Letters that were sent from the Baronage or University of the Baronage of England to the Pope against the Church of Rome's Exactions here in England And therefore I shall not bring only Fragments Phrases or single Words out of the Records or Histories which seem to countenance my Opinion contrary to the true meaning of those Records and the sense of the Historians as some of your men do but shall give you the Quotations out of those Authors whole and entire and shall make such reasonable Deductions from them as I think you will have no reason to deny to be fairly raised from the Words themselves And also as Matt. Paris relates in the 29th Hen. III. the Earls and Barons sent Letters to the Pope then at the Council of Lions to complain of the Pope's Exactions which Letters are said by this Author to be directed A Magnatibus Universitate Regni Angliae And tho it is also true that in the same Year there were other Letters sent thither from the same Parties to the Cardinals there assembled which are recited by the Old Manuscript to have sent Messengers to the Cardinals and the Old Manuscript in the Cottonian Library that they sent to the Cardinals assembled at the Council of Lyons Letâ—ers a Baronibus Militibus universis Baronagii Regni Angliae per procuratores 〈◊〉 Rogeram Bigod Comitem Norff. Willielmum de Cantelupo Iohannem silium Galfriâ—â—â— Radulphum filium Nicholas Philippum Basset Barones Procuratores Baronagii Angâ—â—â— tunc temporis Innocentio Papa Quarto celebrante Concilium ibi generale Anno Gratia 1245. And the Letters are thus directed Venerabilibus in Christo Fratribus uniâ—â—sis Singulis Dei Gratia Salutem Barones Milites Universitas Baronagii Regis Angliae And that Matt. of Westminster does likewise agree in this Relation only stiles the Persons last named Milites whom Matt. Paris calls Viri Nobiles discreti But this will make no difference as I shall shew you by and by And to these Matt. of Westminster adds Mr. William Powic Clark who seems to have been their Secretary But notwithstanding it will appear that all these Persons so sent named Barones Milites universitas Baronagii did not represent the Commons of England at all but only the Great Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite For first it appears from Sir W. Dugdale's Baronage of England that every one of the Persons here named was either an Earl Baron or Great Tenant in capite and nâ—â— Common Persons as your Author would have them And tho it true the Cottonian Manuscript
refer but to this very Letter which was assented as well per procuratores Communitatis Regni as by your Barons here called Nobiles Regni And this Application thereof is given by Mr Pryn himself when he makes use of these Records But to let you see farther that the Lords and Commons for all this Author Opinion to the contrary might joyn in a Letter ro the Pope I shall shew you by that which was writ in the Name of the whole Parliament to the Pope in the 17 th of Edw. III. about the Provisions of Benefices which then grew so exorbitant that Walsingham tells us in his History Quod Rex tota Nobilitas Regni pati noluit c. which Phrase the Letter it self will best explain The beginning and conclusion of which I shall give you in English as you may find it in Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs To the Most Holy Father in God Lord Clement by the Grace of God of the Holy Church of Rome and of the Universal Church Chief and High-Bishop His humble and devout Children the Princes Dukes Earls Barons Knights Citizens and Burgesses and all the Communalty of the Realm of England assembled at a Parliament holden at Westminster the 15 th Day of May last past c. In witness whereof we have hereunto set Our 〈◊〉 Given in the full Parliament at Westminst on the 18th Day of May Anno Drâ— 1343. And it still appears by the Parliament Roll of this Year viz. 17th Edw. III. n. 59. that the Commons petitioned the King that the Lords might stay at the Parliament till they had perfected and seal'd this Letter And that there was such a Letter then written by the Parliament appears by the King's Letter to the Pope about the same Matter still among the Tower Records In which he imitated his Grandfather Edw. I. and Great Grandfather Hen. III. who also seâ— Letters to the Pope on such like occasions but in those to excuse the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from being the Author of those Complain he had this Passage that since it was the Judgment tam Procerum Nobilium quaâ— Communitatis Regni in ultimo Parliamento contra Provisorum Exercitum To conclude I think nothing is plainer than that under the Universitas Regâ—â— in the first Letter to the Pope 29th Hen. III. and under the Communitas Regni mentioned in the Letter of the 29th Edw. I. were meant the same Estates or Orders of Men as were more particularly recited in this present Letter viz. The 〈◊〉 Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled M. I must freely tell you I am not yet satisfied with the Sense you now put â—pon these Words Universitas and Communitas Regni before the Commons were summoned to Parliament for you your self must grant that as the word Universitas Regni takes in the whole Representative Body of the Kingdom so likewise the word Communitas signifies no more than the same whole Body or Community thereof Therefore if I prove to you that in those times this Universâ—â—y or Community consisted only of the Earls Barons and Tenants in capite that word Communitas Regni ought never to be interpreted by the English word Commoâ—â—lty or Commons of England till after the time that I allow the Commons were admitted to make a constituent part of the Great Council or Parliament nor always then neither And Mr. P. in his Book which we have so often cited hath done very unfairly to make the Universitas and Communitas Regni to comprehend the Commons of England before they everappeared in Parliament at all and so hath he likewise abused the Word Populus as I have already observed to signifie the Commons when indeed there is no more thereby meant than the whole Assembly of the Laity which at that time consisted of no more than the Earls Barons or other Tenants in Capite And tho I grant that by Communitas Praelatorum or Baronum are often understood the Body of the Prelates or greater Barons only called by way of Eminency Proceres Magnates yet most frequently these with all the other Tenants in capite did make the whole Body of the King 's immediate Tenants in Military Service and were altogether called the Baronage of England the Community of the Land or Community of the Kingdom and for this I think I shall give you undeniable proofs by and by F. I am very well aware that the Word Populus often signifies the whole Body of the Laity yet not excluding the Commons as I have already sufficiently proved For then the word must signifie quite contrary to its genuine Signification instead of People the Greater Nobility only yet that when it is put after as distinct from Magnates it must mean the Commons as now understood I shall shew you by and by But that this word Populus does not always signifie the whole Body of the Nobility only but takes in oftentimes the Commons too pray see Matt. VVest who tells us King Edw. I. in the 34th year of his Reign making his Son a Knight Pro hac melitia silii Regis concessus est Regi zomus Denarius a Populo Clero Mercatores vero vicesâ—mum concesserunt Upon which your Dr. in his Glossary very well remarks that it is evident upon Record who were the Populus meant by the Historian viz. the Comites Barones alii Magnates nec non Milites Comitatuum So that unless the Knights of Shires were Lords it is plain Populus takes in the Commonâ— too But Universitas Regni and Communitas Regni called in French le Communâ— Dangletterre is often taken for the whole Community or Body of the whole Parliament and this Sir Edward Coke owns expresly in his 2d Instit. upon these Words In Articulis supâ—â— Chartas Thus here Le Commune is taken for People so astout le Commune is here taken for all the People and this is proved by the Sense of the Words For Magna Charta was not granted to the Commons of the Realm but generally to all the Subjects of the Realm viz. to those of thâ— Clergy and to those of the Nobility and to the Commons also And this is a Rational as well as Grammatical Interpretation For as the Word Universitas is derived from the Adjective Universus which signifies the VVhole 〈◊〉 Universal So the Word Communitas is derived from the Adjective 〈◊〉 Common or General So that these two Words when used simply in a Political 〈◊〉 Legal Sense ought to take in the whole Body of the Kingdom or all sorts and conditions of Freemen appearing themselves or their Lawful Proxies or Representatives in Parliament But I have already sufficiently proved that under those General words used in our Historians and Records viz. Principes Proceres Nobiles Magnates Barones alii de Regno were then comprehended either all the considerable Freeholders oâ— Lords of Manners or else the Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses So
that if the Sense of these Words have been sufficiently explained I think no reasonable man can have any cause to doubt whether these Abstract Words Nobilitas Universitas and Communitas should be taken for all Sorts and Degrees of men when thus represented in the Great Council or whether they shall be confined to the Greater or Lesser Nobility only viz. the Great Lords Bishops and Tenants in caâ—ite as you would make me believe which requires stronger Proofs than what you have yet brought Besides which Sense of this Word Communitas or le Commune it is also more commonly used at this day and often then too in another more restrained and yet legal sense and that is when it is used for the Commonalty or Commons of England distinct from the Peers and this may very easily be distinguished by observing that when it is taken in this Sense it is always set after the particular enumeration of the other Orders of the Lords or Peers viz. the Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Barons or when it is put contradistinct to the Word Magnates I shall give you some Authorities and Examples from Historians and Records of both these and that in the Times preceding those that you allow the Commons to have been summoned in Parliament Of this sort is that which Matt. VVestm mentions as a Parliament held 37th Hen. III. and which is thus recited in the Patent Roll of this year where after the Excommunication denounced against all Infringers of Magna Charta there is this solemn Clause aâ—ded That if to the Writings concerning the said Sentence any other thing or in any otherwise should be added thereunto besides the Forms of the said Sentence then to be denounced and approved of that then Dominus Rex praedicti Magnates Communitas Populi Pretestantur publice before all the Bishops that they would never consent thereunto and conclude thus In cujus Rei Testimonium in posterum Veritatis testimonium as well the King as the Earl of Norff. Heref. Essex and VVarwick as Peter de Sabaâ—dia ad Inslantiam aliorum Magnatum Populi Praescripti sigilla sua apposuerunt where you may see that it was usual before the 49th Hen. III. for those that were Peers to sign for the Communitas Populi or Commons M I pray give me leave to answer your Authorities as you bring them lest I not onely forget some of them but also tire both you and my self with too long a Discourse I hope I am very well able to prove by the learned Dr.'s assistance that the Communitas Populi here mentioned doâ—h signifie not the Commonalty or Commons but the Community of the Laity there present consisting of the Greater Barons or else the Less or Tenants in capite And for proof of this pray take notice that Matt. Paris called this Council Tota Angliae Nobilitas And in this Parliament the King demanding a great Sum of Money of them after much contest and upon promise to reform all Abuses according to the Tenour of the Great Charters thereupon the same Author tells us The Church granted the Tenth of the Revenue for three years and the Knights or Nobility granted for that year Scutage to wit Three Marks of every Scuâ—uâ— or Knights 〈◊〉 And then the Arch-Bishops and Bishops in their Pontificalibus with Light-Candles in their Hands in the presence and with the assent of the King the Earl of Cornwal his Brother and several Earls there named aliorum Optimatum Regni Angliae and other chief men of the Kingdom excommunicated and cursed all those that from thence forward should deprive the Church of her Right and all those that should change alter or diminish the Liberties of the Church and Anciâ—â—t Customs of the Kingdom especially those granted in the Great Charter of the Common Liberties of England and Charter of the Forest granted by the King Arâ—hiâ—piscopis Episcopis cateris Angliae Praelatis Comitibus Baronibus Militibus â—â—berè Tenentibus c. i. e. To the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates of â—â—gland and to the Earls Barons Knights and Free-Tenants or Tenants in Military 〈◊〉 Knights Service For they only were such aâ— paid Scutage which was at this â—ime a kind of composition with the King for the confirming Magna Charta and was never charged but upon Knights Fees and these were such that held perhaps one narrow or scanty Knights Fee only or some part of a Knight's Fee as an half 3d 4th 6th 8th part c. who all paid a proportionable share of Scuâ—age to the Great Lords or Tenants in capite for the Land they held of them in Military Service which was paid first to the Great Lords and by them paid to the King And from thence I collect that besides the Barones Majores that came to this Great Council or Parliament there were also the Tenants in Capite according to the Directions and Law for Summons in King Iohn's Charter who were comprehended under the Words tota Nobilitas Milites and that other Tenants but held of the Tenants in capite by Knights Service were bound by their Acts 〈◊〉 they all knew how many Knights Fees they held of the King in capite and if â—â—ey had given any away to others they held of them as they did of the Crown â—â—d answered a proportionable rate towards this Tax for the Fees Quantities 〈◊〉 Parts of Fees they held of them about which there could be no mistake 〈◊〉 the Scutage was ascertain'd So that in so Great an Assembly where all the Nobility of England were called together by the King 's Writ and upon so great 〈◊〉 occasion and solemnity as confirming the Great Charter of Liberties after such an extraordinary a manner it cannot be doubted but besides the Barons all the 〈◊〉 in capite both Great and Small which were then very numerous were â—resent or at least most of them from whence it is not difficult to tell you to the Communitas were after the Prelates Barons and Magnaâ—â—â— they were no other than the Small Tenants in capite who were all summoned by one General Writ nor chosen and sent by the people but summoned as the Great Barons in general by King Iohn ' Magna Charta as I shall shew you hereafter F. I hope I shall be well enough able to prove that what you have now alledged is pure imagination or in the Dr. Phrase an airy Ambuscade and quite contrary to the Sense of Matt. Paris as also of the Lawyers and Historians of those Times For in the first place nothing is plainer than that this Author by the Words Communitas Populi must understand an Order of Men distinct from the Magnates or else if the Word Magnates might have comprehended them all it would have been to no purpose to have mentioned any more But to answer those Authorities you bring from Mat. Paris As for the Word Nobilitas since you still insist upon it I
other Weapons And the 2d Article of King Iohn's Charter says expresly Concessimus etiam omnibut Liberis Hominibus Nostris Regui Anglia pro Nobis Haeâ—elibus Nostris in perpetuum omnes Liberates subscriptas â—abeâ—das â—enandas eis haeredibus â—uit de Nobia Hâ—rodibus nostris Which the Dr. himself renders thus We have also granted to all our Freemen of the Kingdom of England c. And sure then this Charter could not be made to none but Tenants in Capite unless you will suppose that none but they were Freemen and all the rest Slaves Nor was this Charter only made to relax the severity of the Feudal Tenures as you suppose since there are divers other Clauses in it which concern all the rest of the Freemen and Free holders in England as well as they for besides the first and second Chapters of this Charter which grants and confirms to the Church of England and to all the Freemen of the Nation their Rights and Liberties If you please better to consider it you will find that there are several other Chapters in this Charter which all other Freemen as well as the Tenants in Capite have thereby an Interest in as you may see by the 10 11 12 13. 15 16. 22 23 24 25. and above 30 other Chapters or Clauses therein exprest which are granted not to Tenants in Capite alone but either to Ecclesiasticks or other Lay Freemen of the whole Kingdom But to prove this a little further I shall give you but one or two instances out of this Magna Charta and that too in the Drs. own Translation Article 48. No Freman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his Free Tenement or Liberties or Free Customs or Out-Lawed or Banished or any ways dâ—stroyed nor will we pass upon him or commit him to Prison unless by the Legal Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the Land i. e. by Legal Process The other is the 49. Article of this Charter that we will not sell to any Man we will not deny any maâ— or delay Right or Justice Now Judge your self whether these two Articles were made to the Tenents in Capite alone or to all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom And hence it also plainly appears that the same Body of Freemen to whom this Charter was made were likewise present and gave their Assents to the making of it Nor were Vavasors or Fendatary Tenâ—nts of the Bishops Abbots great Lords and other Tenants in Capite Persons so inconsiderable as you would make them that they only should come hither but as followers to augment the Noise since I have already proved from Bracton that there were divers of them Men of great Estates and Power in their Countries besides the Tenants of those Abbots and Priors who as I have already mentioned did not hold in Capite of the King at all and yet made a great Part of the Kingdom besides Tenants in Petyâ— Serjeanty and those that held of great Honours who could never be represented by the Tenants in Capite at all And therefore I must notwithstanding what you affirm to the contrary look upâ— on all these Persons for as good Law-makers as the greatest Lords or Tâ—nants in Capite of them all since the main force of the Nation did not lye in them but in their Feudatary Tenants who would never have followed their Lords in this Assembly if they had not look'd upon themselve as having as good an interest in the Rights and Liberties they demanded as appears by this Silvo of all their Liberties as their Lords themselves and also as good a Right as they in giving their Assent to them when they were to be pass'd into a Law as they were by this Charter since these Feudatary Tenants were not at all obliged by their Tenure to obey their Lords Summons at any other Warlike expeditions but where the King or his Lieutenants went out in Person M. I am very well satisfied that this could be no Parliament for the reasons already given and tho I grant that these Charters were made to and in the Presence of the greatest part of the Clergy Earls Barons and Freemen of the Kingdom yet this proves not that they had any Vote or Suffrage in making of them nor indeed could they for the great Charters were only the Petitions of the People drawn into the Form of a Charter and passed under the King's Seal as his meer voluntary Free Grants and Concessions without any Votes or Authority from the People And therefore the great Charters of Henry III. recites them to have bin made of his meer Grace and Free Will as it is in the Preface to it But pray answer me a few plain Questions concerning King Iohn's Charter which if you can resolve I may be inclined to believe there might be some other great Council besides that of Tenants in Capite The first is if this Common Council of Tenants in Capite were for Assessing of Aids and Escuage only as you suppose it is provided by the last Clâ—use of this Charter why was the Cause of the Meeting to be declared in every Writ of Summons to the great Barons and Tenants in Capite if they were only Summoned about Aids and Escuage or other ordinary business of Course sure then the Cause of Summons need not to have been declared as it is here provided In omnibus Litâ—er is Submonitionis causam Submonitionis illius exponemus F. I will give you an answer to this Question immediatly but before I do it let me tell you that you are much mistaken in saying that the great Charters because they were the Kings Free Concessions were therefore passed without any Votes Suffrages or Authority of the People of England Since I have already proved in our discourse concerning the legis â—â—tive Power that the matter of those Charters was no more then an affirmative of the Common Law of England long before your Conquest and that the Peoples consent and Suffrage was sufficiently given in their drawing them up and offering them to the King to be Sealed and accepting them from him when he had done it And therefore that the great Charters are always called Statutes in our Ancient Records and Aâ—â—s of Parliament But to answer your Question I suppose that the King besides the ordinary business of their Assessing Escuage had often other affairs of great moment to be transacted with and Communicated to his Bishops great Lords and Tenants in Capite in which the rest of the Kingdom were not at all concern'd such as giving the King their Advice as a great Council concerning divers weighty Affairs as in the business of Sicily mentioned in the first Record I have cited as also about undertaking Forraign Wars against France Scotland Wales c. in which they were bound to follow and assist him together with their under-Tenants according to their respective Tenures and therefore it was but reason
Inferiour had either themselves in person or else by their Representatives a place in the Saxon Witten Gemots or Mycel Synods and made together with the Laity one entire Council or general Assembly without the joynt consent of both which no Laws or Constitutions whether Ecclesiastical or Civil could be enacted for proof of this we need go no farther than Sir H. Spelman's first Volume of Saxon Councils and particularly in the Councils or Synods of Clovesho first and second that of Kingston A. D. 838. that held under King Egbert and Withlafe King of the Mercians and that of Winchester under the same King Egbert in which Tithes were first granted in all which you will find that both the Clergy as well the Inferiour below the degree of Bishops and Abbots as also the Laity below your Earls and great Aldermen and Wites had a share And that this continued so both in and after the Norman Times appears by the first great Councils we have left us that were held under the first Kings of the Norman Race M. I should be very glad to see that proved for I always hitherto believed that none of the Clergy had then any Votes in the Great or Common Council of the Kingdom but those Bishops Abbots and Priors who all held in Capite of the King alone and tho' it is true there was also a Synod or Convocation of the Clergy often held at the same time when the Common Council of the Kingdom was assembled yet was it no part of that Council and as the Clergy had nothing to do in the making of Temporal Laws so had the Laity no hand in the making of Ecclesiastical Canons or Constitutions for the Popes Legate or Arch-Bishop of Canterbury often held these Synods at other times when the Common Council of the Kingdom was not assembled at all and thus it continued till the 25th and 26th of Henry the 8th when the King was first by the Clergy in Convocation and afterwards by the whole Parliament recognized and declared Supreme Head of the Church of England under Christ and from that time the King reassumed the Power which the Pope had before usurped and his consent alone under the great Seal is the only Ratification of all Canons or Ecclesiastical Constitutions passed in either of the Convocations of Canterbury or York at this day F. I grant that for between three hundred and four hundred years the matter of fact hath been as you say but that it was not so from the beginning is also as certain for first in the Saxon times before the Popes Usurpation came in it is evident from the Councils or Synods I have now cited that the King had no more power to make or confirm any general Ecclesiastical Laws or Constitutions without the consent of the Wittena Gemot or Mycel Synod consisting of the Clergy as well as Laity than he had to make Temporal Laws without it So far were they in those times from having any notion of any personal Supremacy in the King in Spiritual more than in Temporal matters and that this continued so till the Pope did not only usurp upon the King 's Right but that of the whole Kingdom in general may appear by those Memorialâ— we have left us of such common Councils or Synods in the Reigns of our first Norman Kings For the Proof of which I shall begin with the Reign of William l. in whose 14 th Year the Priviledges of the Abby of Westminster were Confirmed by that King in a Common Council as well of all the Clergy as Laity of the whole Kingdom as may be proved by a Charter still to be sound at large in the Old Charâ—ulary of the Abby of Westminster now in the Corronian Library Collected by Sulcardus an ancient Monk of that Abby the Conclusion of which Charter of Priviledges makes it very plain of what Members this Council then consisted and who gave their Consents to the Acts of it which pray read In solemnitate Pentecostâ— haebito consilio in celeberrino loco praescripti Westmonast a nostra regia Majâ—sâ—ate Conventis in unum cunctis Regni nostri Primatibus ad audiendes confirmandas quosdam Synodalis decreti causas necessarias communi consensu maxime Episcoporum Abbatum alioâ—um insignium Procerum c. Scripta est haec Charta sigillata ab ipso Regâ— supradicâ—is personis testificata confirmat auctorizata in Dei nomine c. This being one of the first and most remarkable Councils of this Kings Reign I cannot let it pass without observing First That all the chief men of the Kingdom were there as well of the Clergy as of the Laity and that the Words Primates and Proceres here mentioned are very Comprehensive and may take in many others besides your great Lords and Tenants in Capite I have already proved at our last Meeting but one Secondly Pray observe that this Charter of Priviledges tho' all of them concern meer Temporal Things is authorised Confirmed by the common Consent and Subscriptions of all the chief men as well of the Clergy as Laity from all which nothing can appear more plain to me than that in the Reign of this King the Clergy and Laity made one Common Council without whose joynt Consents nothing could be transacted in the Legislative Whether of Ecclesiastical or Civil Concernment I could give you more Instances of this kind in this King's Reign but I make haste to that of his Son William II. in whose 7th Year Eadmeâ—â—s tells us there was a Common-Council held at Rockingham about the difference between Archbishop Anselme and the King at which were present Episcopi Abbates Principes ac Clericorum ac Laicorum numerosa multitudo noâ— that by Principes or Chief Men may be here meant many more than your Tenants in Capite I have already sufficiently proved and that this Numerosa multitudo must mean somewhat more than those I shall prove fâ—rther by and by In the long Reign of Henry I. I could give you many Instances of this kind buâ— let these suffiâ—e In the 7th Year of this King Bromton tells us in his History speaking of the Council in which this King gave up his Right of Investituâ—es Clero Populo ad Concilium Londoniae congregato and who this Clerus and Populus then were he immediately explains himself thus Astantibus Archiepiscopis Episcopis caeteraq multitudine maxima Procerum Magnatum under which words I have already proved that divers others besides your Tenants in Capite might be comprehended and their great number shews them to have been more than those But tho' this Author does not here expresly say it yet that the Inferiour Clergy were likewise at these Councils appears from Sim. of Durham and the Câ—ntinuator of Florence of Worcester A. D. 1126. being the 25. of this King where they both make mention of a Synod or Council held at London at which were
translates the Clergy and Commons together with the Nobility being summoned And in 1 of Richard I. R. Hoveden also tells us of a great Council held at Pipewel Abby in Northamptonshire where the Archbishop of Canterbury produced a Charter of King William I. Coram Rege Vniversis Episcopis Clero Populo And an ancient Charter of primo of King Iohn now in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Library entituled Charta Moderationis seod magni sigilli recites the said King to have been Crowned Mediante tam Cleri quam Populi unanimi consensu savore and tho the rest of his Reign was Turbulent yet the Author of the Manuscript Eulogium quoted by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour mentions a great Council at London in the 16 th Year of King Iohn where the Archbishop of Canterbury was present Cum toto Clero tota secta Laicali i. e. says Dr. Heylin in the same place The Clergy of both Ranks and Orders with all the Laity called here Secta Laicalis and the Lords and Commons had then their places in Parliament and the Dr. proceeds thus and in possession of this Right the Clergy stood when Magna Charta was set forth by King Henry the 3 d. Wherein the Freedom Rights and Priviledges of the Church of England of which this evidently was one was Confirmed to them i. e. the whole Clergy in general I have here shewed you what Dr. Heylins sense was to let you see that a Person of great Learning and a high Churchman thought it no Heresie to be of our Opinion and to maintain as he does all along in that Chapter that the Inferior Clergy and the Commons were a Constituent Part of the Common Council or Parliament long before the 49 th of Henry 3 d and that the Inferior Clergy continued to be so till the Reign of Henry the 4 th at least But that their Consents was also anciently asked in the making of Laws we need go no farther than the Authority I have now given you from the Continuation of Florence of Worcester And farther that they were once a part of this great Council or Parliament besides the Testimony of the Modus tenendi Parliamentum who tho he be exploded as an ancient Author yet certainly is a good Witness for his own time viz. that of Edward the third where the Procuratores Cleri are reckoned among the Constituent Members or States of Parliament which is also confirmed by the two first Writs of Summons we have left us on the Rolls viz. the 23 d of Edward I. where in this Clause of Praemunâ—entes Clerum is particularly exprest which pray read from your Drs. Answer to Mr. P. Praemunientes Priorem Capitulum Ecclesiae vestrae Archidiaconos totumque Clerum vestrae Diocaesis facientes quod iidem Prior Archidiac in propriis Personis suis dictum Capitulum per duos Procuratores idoneos plenam sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capitulis Clero habentes una vobiscum intersint modis omnibus tunc ibidem ad tractandum ordinandum faciendum nobiscum cum coeteris Praelatis Proceribus aliis Incolis Regni nostri qualiter sit hujusae modi periculis obviandum viz. The dangers in the Writ mentioned to be threatned from France and that this was not the first time this Clause of Praemunientes was inserted in the Writs of Summons to Bishops might be easily proved had we all the Writs of Summons before the 23 d of Edward I. as well as since But we may hence observe that the Inferior Clergy are not onely summoned to treat with the Prelates but are as well as they here authorised to Treat Ordain and Act with them and the Lords and Knights Citizens and Burgesses for so your Dr. himself here in the Margin translates Aliis Incolis Regni and how they could thus Consult and Act with them if they had not beeâ— then as well as the Prelates a part of the same Body of the great Council or Parliament of the Kingdom I confess surpasses my Capacity to understand nor is this Clause found in this Writ alone but is also in most other Writs of the Bishops Summons to Parliament as low as our own times and that these Writs were not to Convocation but Parliament appears in Pryns Parliament Register plainly by the Letters of Procuration made by the Prior and Chapter of Bath to William Swynham and Iohn de Merston appointing them to appear and Act for them as their Lawful Procurators in the Parliament summoned Ann. Dom. 1299. being the 27 th of Edward I. which is of a different form from another Letter of Procuration of the same Prior and Chapter Ann. Dom. 1295. 231. Edward I. to their Procurators therein named to act for them in the Convocation then summoned at Westminster the same difference is also observed in all the Writs of Summons to Convocation different from those whereby the same Persons are summoned to Parliament the former being directed onely to the two Archbishops or their Vicar Generals to Summon all the Bishops Abbots Priors and Clergy of their respective Provinces without any particular Writs issued to any other Bishops Abbots Priors or Clergy-men as in Summons to great Councils or Parliaments wherein there are commonly particular Orders to the Bishop to warn all the Inferior Clergy in the manner but now mentioned as Mr. Pryn very well observes in his first part of his said Parliamentary Register where you may see there is a Writ of Summons to Parliament of the 31 st Edward 3 d to the Archbishop of Canterbury reciting that he intended a Parliament for divers arduous and urgent Businesses concerning Himself and Crown and the necessary Defence of the Kingdom and Church of England And then proceeds thus Et quia Negotia praedicta perquam Ardua sine Maxima deliberatione tam Praelatorum Cleri quam Magnatum Communitatis ejusdem Regni c. and therefore it behoved him to Summon the said Clergy Great Men and Commons and then requires him to summon all the Bishops Abbots and Deans and Priors and Arch-deacons to appear personally and the rest of the Clergy by two Procurators with full Power ad tractandum consulendum super praemissis una vobiscum ad consentiendum Illis quae tunc ibidem super dictis negotiis divina savente Clementia contigerit ordinari M. But what can you say to their being omitted to be summoâ—ed in divers Writs to Parliament as appears in Pryns Register you now cited and from whence himself has there made this Observation That there is no Clause of Praemunientes c. in any Writs of Summons to Councils of State but onely to Parliaments and that not always but at the Kings Pleasure Which shews plainly that tho they were sometimes summoned as a part yet were certainly no Essential Constituent part of this general Council since they were omitted in so many of them
became less necessary we must have recourse to the Bull of Popâ— Boniface the 8 th in the 24 th of Edward I. by which he forbad all the Clergy of the Western Church as well Superior as Inferior to give any more Taxes of Subsidies to Temporal Princes without his Holinesses Licence whereupon the King summoned the Bishops and Clergy to Parliament at St. Edmunds-Bury in the 24 th of â—is Reign where when they then reâ—used to grant him any supplies he then as all the Historians tell us held his Parliaments at Westminister Cum Baronibus suis excluso Clero without either Bishops Abbots or Inferior Clergy which was the first Precedent of this kind that we ever read of in this Parliament the King with the consent of the Lay Lords and Commons seized all the Temporalities of the Clergy as well Bishops as others and put them out of his Protection untill they were forced to redeem themselves by paying a 5 th part of their Moveables for doing of which they were afterward forced to procure the Popes Absolutions some of which Mr. Pryn has given us in this said Register and yet for all this the Pope maintain'd this Power over the Clergy for the future so that they could not be taxed without his express License which since it could not always be obtained no wonder if our Kings did more frequently omit summoning any more than the Bishops and Abbots who were bound to appear in Parliament by their Tenures and so left out all the Inferior Clergy as useless the main business and cause of their summoning to Parliament viz. giving of Money being now taken away by the Popes usurped Power tho whenever his Licence was obtain'd yet that their own express Consents in Parliaments or Convocation was necessary appears by that Passage in the Annals of Burton in Anno 1255. already cited when the Inferior Clergy being extravagantly opprest between the Pope and King they sent express Messengers when they met in Parliament who were to set forth their greivances to his Holiness I have given you as good an account as I am able how the Inferior Clergy which as well as the Superior did once make a Constituent part of our great Councils before the Conquest nay for above 200 Years after did at last cease to be so partly by the prevailing Power of the Bishops partly by the Usurpation of the Pope tho chiefly by their own silence and consent not complaining of their want of Summons to Parliament as long as they could 'scape scot free and all the rest of the Kingdom pay Taxes notwithstanding which the clause of their Acting and Consulting with all the rest of the Estates in Parliament still remaining in the Writs of Summons is a sufficient Monument to Posterity to prove their ancient Right And the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation was so sensible of this that among certain Petitions by them made to Dr. Cranmer then Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Prelates in the higher House of Convocation in the Reign of King Edward the 6th the 2 d Article of which runs thus Also that according to the ancient Custom of the Realm and the Tenor of the Kings Writ for summoning of the Parliament which now and ever have been directed to the Bishop of every Diocess the Clergy of the lower House of Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the lower House of Parliament or else that all such Statutes and Ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of Religion and causes Ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight and assent of the Clergy and there is in the same place a second Petition as also a Paper of Reasons offered to Queen Elizabeth and after to King Iames to the same effect And lastly to shew you that the Government of the Church and State of Scotland was anciently all one and the same in respect of their Clergy as well as Laity with that of England in their great Councils or Parliaments appears by the Agreement between King Edward the â— and the States of Scotland concerning the Marriage of his Son Prince Edward with the Princess of Norway then Heiress of Scotland which is publisht at large in Mr. Pryns 1 st Vol. of the Popes Usurpation where you will find this Agreement to have been made between the said King Edward ex una parte venerabiles Patres custodes scil Scotiae Episcopos Abbates totum Clerum nobiles viros Comites Barones totamque communitatem Regni Scotiae ex altera de matrimonio contrabendo c. From whence you may observe that as the same stile was observed there in the Titles of their general Councils or Parliaments as with us and as the Inferior Clergy there put after the Bishops and Abbots did not hold in Capite but frank Abnoign in that Kingdom So likewise by the same Analogy between the lowest Temporal State with the Spiritual the Commonalty of Scotland here stiled Communitas Scotiae could not then consist onely of Tenants in Capite as your Dr. and those of this Opinion suppose it did M. I must confess you have shewn me more for the Inferior Clergies being once a Constituent part of the Parliament than ever I knew before I will take time farther to consider them but that the word Populus must needs then take in any more than the Tenants in Capite I much doubt since the other word Plebs which you so much insist upon from the old Book of Ely signifies no more than Populus which as the Dr. shews us in his Glossary In it self signifies neither Great nor little People but only Laity and therefore as it is used and restrained signifies either the Lay Plebs or the Lay Magnates as I can shew you by several Examples as particularly out of Mat. Westminster Ann. Dom. 1295. 23 d Edward I. where speaking how the Popes Legates were received in England who came to make up the differences between England and France He thus relates their Reception Quos in Regnâ— Angliae applicatos excepit Plebs debito honore accita per Regem apud Westmonasterium Primatum Optimatum suorum Caterva Here the Plebs were the Kings Great or Chief Men that is the Earls and Barons which he had called to Westminster who so honourably received these two Cardinals So likewise the same Author Ann. Dom. 1297. 25. Edward I. The King and Barons being at some difference about the Observation of Magna Charta and the Charter of Forrest speaking how the King declared that he intended to observe those Charters after this he relateâ— that the King thereupon required to be given him by the Incolae or Inhabitants the eighth Penny and says thus Articulos in praedictis Chartis Contentos innovari insuper observari Rex Mandavit exigendo pro hac Concessione ab Incolis Octavum denarium sibi dari qui mox Concessus est a Plebe in sua
to examine this Quotation because I confess it seems very specious at first sight but if it be throughly examined will make nothing at all for you And to this end pray let us read the Dr's Observations on this Passage at the end of his Answer to Argumentum Antinormaunicum F. But you need not read from the beginning of that Paragraph since I so far agree with the Dr. as that by Principes diversi Ordinus are not to be understood as this Author renders them whom the Dr. here writes against the Chief or Principal Men of several ranks or conditions but the Chief and Principal Men of both Orders viz. of the Clergy and Laity yet will it not therefore follow as the Dr. here would have it that these Principes diversi Ordinis were only Bishops â— Abbots and great dignified Clergy-men only and the Procenes and Magnates the Earls Barons and Temporal Nobility alone for though I grant he produces several Quotations out of Florence of Worcester Malmsbury Eadmer to prove that Principes Regni Ecclesiastici Secularis Ordinis Primates Regni utriusque Ordinis c. were at these Councils yet I have already proved that the words Principes and Primates do not in their proper signification signifie none but Bishops or dignified Clergy-men on the Temporal Nobility only since these words mean no more than Chief Principal or most considerable men both of the Clergy and Laity who had by reason of their Offices Dignities or Estates any place in our General Councils at that time and which did certainly comprehend the Inferiour Clergy also tho' the Dr. has made bold to pass them by without any notice taken of them and if they were then there by the same Rule the lesser Nobility or Commons were also summoned from divers Provinces Cities and great Towns M. Well But pray see here does not the Dr. prove plain enough that this Gentleman he writes against is mistaken in his Translation and applying the words Provinciis Vrbibus for Chief Lay-men from divers Countreys Cities and Burroughs whereas the Dr. here proves that the words mentioned in this passage cannot here mean Lay-men sent from County to Cities but only the Bishops whose Seats are here called Vrbes and which as the Dr. shews us were by a great Council held at London in the year 1077. being the 11th of King William translated from Villages to Cities as were Sherburn in Dorsetshire removed to Sarum Selsey to Chichester Litchfield to Chester which was before this Council at Westminster cited by Sulcardus which this Author places in the 14th of this King And the Dr. here farther proves from these words following pro causis cujuslibet Christianae Ecclesiâ—e that this Universal Synod being called for hearing and handling the Causes of every Christian Church that these words every Christian Church must certainly mean many Churches in England which in reason and probability could not be meant of the small Parish-Churches all the Nation over and therefore must be understood of Cathedrals or Churches where Bishops Seats then were or where they had been or were to be removed F. Pray give me leave to answer this Comment of your Doctors before we proceed farther In the first place suppose I grant him that by Vrbes may here be meant such Cities as had Bishops Seats yet does it not therefore follow that it shall signifie no other Cities or Towns but Bishops Seats only for tho' I grant in the Modern acceptation of this word Vrbs here in England a City and a Bishops Seat are one and the same yet it is plain that at first it was not so for then there had been no need of the Law you mention whereby it was ordained that Bishops Sees should be removed from Villages to Cities nor it seems were all of them so removed at this Council you mention since the Dr. shews us from this very place here cited that some of them still remained in Villis Vicis in Villages and small Towns and therefore it is here said Dilatum est ad Regis Audientiam qui in partibus transmarinis tunc Temporis bella gerebat â—And tho' the Dr. here supposes tho I know not on what grounds that the persons summoned by the King to this Synod from Provinces and Cities were such as were concerned or able to advise the King in this matter of the conveniency of the places whither the Removals were to be made as Deans Arch-Deacons and other dignified persons and Church Officers as well of the Clergy as Laity c. And also the Principes Regni the great Nobility who were in those days present in those Assemblies Now I shall only observe from these words of the Doctors that even in his own supposition all Cities had not yet Bishops Seats annext to them and therefore the word Vrbibus cannot mean Bishops Seats alone but any other great or walled Towns But the worst of it is it falls out very unluckily for the Dr. that this Charter we now mentioned bears date A. D. 1075. two years before this Law for removing Bishops Sees to Cities was made so that all his Learned Comment on that matter signifies just nothing and this is one of the Doctors very rational conclusions which have no other ground than his own Fancy to support them In the next place pray observe the Dr. owns that by these Principes universi Ordinis were meant the chief Clergy-men and Nobility he there musters up but passes by or else did not consider the whole Context of these words hii autem illo tempori diversis Provinciis Vrbibus ad universalem Synodum Convocati which must certainly refer to the Principes Regni diversi Ordinis to the chief and considerable Men both of the Clergy and Laity of the Kingdom who were alike summoned from divers Countreys and Cities and great Towns to this Synod Now pray do you or your Dr. tell me if he can what Earls Barons or great Noble-men were then summoned from Cities or great Towns as well as the Bishops and Deans of Cathedrals which if you cannot do I see no reason why we may not understand these Principes Regni who were also summoned from the Countreys and Cities for the Representatives of the Commons of those Cities and Towns at that time In the next place I think the Dr. is as much out in his interpretation of the word pro causis cujuslibet Ecclesiae for the causes of every Cathedral Church since it must certainly mean not only Cathedral Churches but all other Churches whether Parochial or Conventual for that it takes in the latter appears by one great cause of the summoning this Council which was chiefly for the confirmation of the Priviledges of the Abby of Westminster which sure was no Cathedral Church and yet must be some Church or Ecclesiastical Corporation or else this Synod could have had nothing to do with it And I doubt not but this General
of Knights of Shires I will not dispute it farther with you since it is a Point of your Common Law in which I confess my self but meanly skilled but I shall take farther time to advise with those that know better in the mean time as for the Cities and Burroughs let them have appeared when you will their coming to Parliament could not be so ancient as before the time of Richard I. much less the Conquest as you suppose since Mr. Pryn hath in the same second part of this Parliamentary Register traced the summoning of the Burroughs to their very Original and proved it could not be ancienter then the 49th of Henry the 3d. I shall here contract his Arguments and give you them as I did the former First He here proves that there were never but 170 Cities and Burroughs who sent any Members to Parliament of which 170 in his Catalogue nine of them never had but one or two Precepts and others but four Precepts of this Nature sent them upon none of which Precepts the Sheriffs made any returns of Burgesses as these Ballivi Libirlatis nullum mihi dederunt responsum or nihil inde secerunt attest whereupon they never had any more Precepts of this kind sent them to this Day christ-Christ-Church in Hampshire onely excepted which of late years hath sent Burgesses to Parliament so that in Truth there were only 161 Cities and Burroughs in England that ever sent Members to Parliament during all the precedent Kingâ— Reign viz. From the 26th of Edward I. to the 12th of Edw. the 4th Secondly That 22 more here named of these 161 never elected and returned Burgesses but once and no more during all the said time Thirdly That many more of these ancient Burroughs here named never sent Members some of them more then twice others thrice others four others five others six others seven others eight times and Lancaster has but 13 Elections and Returns of Burgesses and no more during all the above mentioned Reigns Fourthly That altho some of these Burroughs here named who seldom sent any Burgesses tho they were summoned by the Sheriffs Precepts to Elect Burgesses without any great intervals of time to six or seven Succeeding Parliaments yet most of them had along discontinuance of time some of above 200 others above 300 years distance between those few respective Returns of which he here gives you several Instances and referrs you to his precedent Catalogue of Returns for the proof of it So that there were but 112 Cities and Burroughs taking in the Cinque Ports and all who senâ— Members to Parliament in the Reign of Edward I. seven of which made onely one return and no more for ought I can discover before or after Edward 1st Reign till of very late Years Yet that in Edward the 2ds Reign there were Precepts issued by the Sheriffs and returns of Burgesses for 19 new Burroughs here named which for ought I can discover never elected any Burgesses before Fifthly That under this long Reign of Edward the 3d. there were Sheriffs Precepts issued to 19 new Borroughs returns made upon them to serve in Parliaments or great Councils who never sent any Members before and Precepts to more that made no returns at all thereupon as for the Cinque Ports of Dover Romney Sandwich Winchelsey Hastings Hâ—the and Rye though there be no Original Writs for or returns of their electing and sending Barons to Parliament now extant before the Reign of Edward the 3d yet it is apparent by the Clause Rolls that they sent Barons to Parliament in 49th of Henry and during the Reign of Edward 1st and 2d of which more anon Sixthly That King Richard the 2d Henry the 4th and Henry the 5th created no new Burroughs at all neither were there any Writs or Precepts issued to or Election of Citizens or Burgesses by any new Cities or Borroughs but such as elected them before their Reigns Seventhly That about the midst of King Henry the 6th long Reign there were Precepts issued to and returns made by five new Burroughs and no more which never sent Burgesses to Parliaments before viz. Gatton in Surrey Hâ—ytesbury Hyndford Westbury and Wootton Basset all in Wiitshire yet very poor inconsiderable Burroughs tho they elect Burgesses at this day That during Edward the 4th Reign there was one new Burrough here named which began to send Burgesses to Parliament under him though it never sent any before F. Well but how came this about that so many new Burroughs were made in some Kings Reigns and few or none in others â— and so many omitted that had served before in other Parliaments M. Pray read on and you will see this Author gives us a very good account of that and impures it to two Causes First The Partiality and Favour of the Sheriffs and the Ambition of the Neighbouring Gentry who desired to be elected in such new Burroughs Secondly The meer Grace and Favour of the King who by divers Charters to new Corporations have given them the Priviledge of sending Burgesses to Parliaments For Proof of which pray see what this Author here farther says It is evident by the precedent Sections and Catalogue of ancient Cities Burroughs Ports and their returns of Writs and Election before specified with these general Clauses after them Non sunt aliae or ullae Civitates nec Burgi in Balliva mea or in Comitatu praedicto praeter c. as you may see by the return of the Sheriff of Bucks Anno 26 of Edward I where he denies there were any Cities or Burroughs in his whole County and yet the very next Parliament but one within two years after the Sheriff of Bucks returns no less then three Burroughs viz. Agmundesham Wycombe and Wendover with the Burgesses Names that were returned so that the 78 new Burroughs here named were lately set up in the Counties since Edward the 4ths Reign by the Practice of Sheriffs and the Ambition of Private Gentlemen seeking to be made Burgesses for them and Consent of the poor Burgesses of them being courted and feâ—sted by them for their Votes without any Charters from the King and are all me in poor inconsiderable Burroughs set up by the late Returns and Practices of Sheriffs And tho others may conceive that the Power of our ancient Burroughs or Cities Electing and sending Burgesses and Citizens to our Parliaments proceeded originally from some old Charters of our Kings heretofore granted to them and to which Opinion I once inclined yet the Consideration of the new discovery of the old Original of Writs for Electing Knights Citizens and Burgesses I found in Caesars Chappel hath rectified my former mistake herein and abundantly satisfied me that neither bare ancient Custom or Prescription before or since the Conquest not our Kings Charters but the Sheriffs of each Counties Precepts and Returns of Elections of Burgesses and Citizens for such Burroughs and Cities as they thought meet by Authority
England and Scotland there was no difference in Point of Priviledges as to being taxed or having Voices in the great Council of the Kingdom between the higher Nobility such as had the Titles of Dukes Marquesses and Counts and simple Gentlemen whereas in England it has been always otherwise at least since the Conquest and the Earls and Barons had by 〈◊〉 Tenures Places as Lords or Peers in the great Council of the Kingdom and so made a distinct Body from the rest of the People whereas in other Countreys the higher Nobility and Gentry are reckon'd as all one Estate and therefore it was but Reason that the rest of the Inferior Nobility or Gentry should have their Representatives in this great Council or Parliament or otherwise they would have been as very Vassals as to their Estates to the great Barons and Tenants in Capite as the Boors in Germany or the Paisants in France were to their Lords by whom they were taxed aâ— their Pleasures which they never were in England as we can find either from History or Records So that tho I grant that it is the municipal Laws of each Kingdom or Nation that must determine what are the governing part of the People in those Countreys yet tho that was not absolutely the same in all of them as it is in England yet we find it so in the main and the Representatives of the Cities and Towns do sufficiently assert the Right of the Plebians or Common People who make the 3d Estate in those great Councils But I must here except Sweden in which it is certain that the meer Rusticks or Boors had always their own Deputies in their Dyets as well as the Cities and Towns and if Sweden had this priviledge I cannot see why the English Gentry and Yeomanry who make but one body of Commons might not have had the like till you can shew me more sufficient proofs to the contrary M Well Siâ— I shall consider of what you say but since it grows late that we may wind up this Conversation as fast as we can give me leave to tell you that tho' I should admit all that you have hitherto averred for truth and that we should grant the Commons of England to have been as ancient a part of the great Council or Parliaments as any of the other two what is that to the main Point in question between us viz that of Non-resisâ—ance of the King upon any account whatsoever or how can you justsfie those of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of the Church of England for taking up Arms against the King and contributing so much as they have done to the driving him away and in bringing things to this confusion they are now in since let your Constitution of great Councils and Parliaments be never so ancient let us also for once suppose them as you do to have a share in the Legislative Power of the Nation yet how can this authorize them much less any private persons out of Parliament to take up Arms against the King or those commissioned by him since the whole current both of Common as well as Statute-Law runs directly against you and all with one consent assert that the disposal of the Militia or Military Force of the Kingdom has been even so absolutely in the King's power and at his disposal that no man can without being guilty of Treason take up Arms whether offensive or defensive without his Commission to authorize him to do it so that no Government in the World is more averse to all forcible Resistance than our own the King having been even from your time beyond memory so fully possest of the whole Militia or power of raising offensive or defensive Arms in this Kingdom that it is expresly forbid by the Statute of the 7th Ed. I. against coming to Parliaments and Treatises with force of Arms in which the King sets forth That in the last Parliament the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalry in Latine Communitas or Body of the Realm have said that to us i e. to the King it belongeth and our part it is through our Royal Seignâ—ury to defend that is in old French to forbid force of Armour and all other force against our Peace at all times when it shall please us and to punish them according to our Laws and Vsages of our Realm and hereunto they are bound to Aid us as their Soveraign Lord as oft as need shall be From whence you may observe that it is the King's Prerogative to forbid all manner of Arms or Armed force within the Realm so that no man can lawfully Arm himself without his Authority And this is further confirm'd by the Statute of 25 Ed. the Third concerning Treasons wherein it is declared without any excepted Cases to the contrary That to Levy War against our Lord the King in this Realm or to be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And Sir Edward Coke upon this Statute saith thus That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can Levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King and if any man Levy War to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove wicked Councellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation on their own heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority From which Statute as also from your own Oracles Sir Ed. Coke 's Interpretation of it you may observe that it is not only Treasâ—n to make War against the King's Person but to take Arms to make any Reformation or Alteration in Church or State without the King's Authority nor can any Subject of England justifie the taking Arms upon any account whatsoever unless it be by the King's Commission and therefore all the Judges of England in the Case of Dr. Story who was Executed for Treason in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth did with one consent agree that the very Consultation concerning making War against the Queen shall be interpreted a making War against her Person and supposes a design against her Life So that nothing seems plainer to me than that by the Ancient as well as Modern Laws of England all defensive as well as offensive Arms are expresly forbidden and condemned F. I think I shall be able to make out notwithstanding what you have now said that all Resistance of the King or those commissioned by â—im is so far from being Treason as you suppose that it is every mans duty to oppose him in case he goes about to set up instead of a Legal Monarchy a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power in this Nation since this is but to preserve the Original Constitution of Parliaments which in some cases cannot be maintained without such a Resistance be allowed But to proceed to the Authorities you bring from our Statutes as for the first you urge
of this I shall proceed with the earliest Instances of this kind after the Conquest viz. in the Time of King Richard the First during whose absence in the holy Land he had committed the Government of his Kingdom to William Bishop of Ely who abused his Power by an Arbitrary and Insolent Carriage affronting and oppressing Iohn Earl of Morton the King 's own Brother and Geoffry Arch-Bishop of York the King 's base Brother whereupon they rose up against him and having the Bishops the Earls and Barons of their side appointed the said Bishop a day to answer to his Crimes in the King's Court or great Council of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite then called Curia Regis where when he refused to appear they all with one consent came to London and fought with the Followers and Adherents of the said Chancellour by the way when they came to Town Earl Iohn with the Arch-Bishops of York and Rouen with all the Earls and Barons together with the Citizens of London met in St. Paul's Church-Yard and there it was proposed that the said Chancellour should for his Evil Government he deposed and banisht the Kingdom and so he immediately was by the general Consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom so that you see the Nobility Clergy and People had then no notion of an Irresistible Power in the King and those put in Commission by him when they found their Power to grow Tyrannical and Insupportable M. But if I forget not you omit one material Circumstance in this Affâ—ir which seems to make against you which is that Arch-Bishop of Rouen and William the Earl Mareschal did at that time produce the King's Letters signed with his 〈◊〉 wherein he had appointed that they two should be associated in the Government with the Bishop of Ely and that he should do nothing without their privity and consents and of those associated with him in the business of the Kingdom and that if he offered to do otherwise he should be deposed So that it seems what they now acted was not so muchin opposition to the King's Commission as to the Bishops who had refused to obey his Commands F. I confess it was as you set forth yet this makes nothing against my Opinion since it is apparent that Arms were taken and this Resistance made by the major part of the Bishops Earls and Barons together with the Londoners before ever it was known that such Letters were written by the King And so it seems they would have done much the same thing if there had been no such Letters sent by the King at all You may also rememâ—er that all these proceedings also were approved of and confirmed by the King himself But that I may proceed in my History of Non-Resistance I come to the Reign of King Iohn his Brother who when he had refused the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and all the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom to confirm the great Charter of King Henry the First they together with the rest of the great Men and People of the Kingdom of all degrees and conditions took up Arms and made a vast Army resolving never to lay them down till he had new granted and confirmed the Charters of Liberties and Forrests till at last the King finding himself almost quite forsaken so that he had scarce five Knights left about him he was at last forced to meet the said Bishops Earls Barons and People at Runne-Mead and there to grant them that great Charter which has been the Subject of so much discourse between us so that you see here that the Church of England in those Times if the Bishops and Clergy are the Representatives of this Church had then no notion of this Doctrine of Passiâ—e Obedienâ—e to the King 's Absolute Will and Commands M. I cannot deny the matter of fact to be as you say but yet you may remember that the same Author tells us that the Pope thought the King hardly dealt withal in this matter so that he gave Audience to the King's Ambassadors concerning the Rebellions and Injuries which the Barons of England had committed against their King and that upon a solemn hearing of the whole business and after a consultation with his Cardinals he did as Supreme Lord of Engâ—and after King Iohn's Resignation of his Crown to him by his Bull then published make void the said great Charters of Liberties and Forrests and condemn all the Barons proceedings as against their Duty and Allegiance to the King their Soveraign Lord so that it seems this was not approved of any where but by the Actors the Pope thereupon Excommunicating the Barons and Suspending the Arch-Bishop of Caâ—terbury for joyning with them F. I believe you will make nothing of this Objection for it appears from the same Author that the Pope had before this Excommunicated the King and as far as lay in his power depriv'd him of his Kingdom and absolved all his Subjects of their Allegiance so that it is plaiâ— it was not out of any true Principle or hatred of Rebellion and Resistance in Subjects that the Pope had thus acted but purely to gratifie the King at this juncture of time and to defend him in his Tyranny and breach of his own Charters because he was then become his Vassal and so he cared not how much he oppressed his Subjects because he was thereby the more able to pay him the Tribute before promised and he could also expect the more securely to extort Money from the whole Kingdom But that this Bull of the Popes was contrary to the King 's own Express Act and Agreement appears plainly by that Clause which is still to be found in a Charter under the Seal of this King and which seems to have been the Heads of the great Charter according to which it was drawn into the Form we now find it in Mat. Paris in which it is expresly provided and granted by the said King that in case he should go about to break or infringe any Clause in the said Charter and shall not amend it within the space of forty days that then Iâ—li Barones cum Communia totius Terrae distringent gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus pouerint aut scil per captionem Castrorum Terrarum possessionum aliis modis quibus potuerint donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum salva Persona nostra Reginâ—e nostra Liberorum nostrorum cum â—uerit emendatum intendent nobis sient prius fecerunt So that you see here in the Judgment even of the King himself they might freely resist and take up Arms against him till he made good every Article of these Charters if violated and were not to return to their Obedience till it was amended and the like Clause almost word for word is also to be found in the conclusion of the great Charters published in Mat. Paris M. I grant the Clause is there as
his Father and to be Exiled from the Realm of England and that therefore the King that now is and the Queen his Mother being in so great Jeopardy in a strange Countrey and seeing the destructions and disinherisons which were notoriously done in England upon holy Church the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalty of the same by the said Spencers Robert Baldock and Edmund Earl of Arundel by the Encroachment of Royal Power to themselves and seeing they might not remedy the same unless they came into England with an Army of Men of War and have by the Grace of God with such puissance and the help of the great Men and Commons of the Realm vanquished and destroyed the said Spencers c. therefore our Soveraign Lord the King by the Common Council of the Prelates Earls Barons and other great Men and of the Commons of the Realm have provided and ordained c. as follows That no great Man nor other of what Estate Dignity or Condition soever he be that came in with the said King that now is and with the Queen in Aid of them to pursue their said Enemies and in which pursuit the King his Father was taken and put in Ward c. shall be impeached molested or grieved in person or in goods in any of the King's Courts c. for the pursuit and taking in hold the body of the said King Edward nor for the pursuit of any other persons not taking their goods nor for the death of any Man nor any other things perpetrated or committed in the said pursuit from the day of the King and Queens Arrival until the day of the Coronation of the said King This Act of Indemnity is so full a Justification of the necessity and lawfulness of the Resistance that was then made against King Edward the Second and his wicked Councellors the Spencers that it needs no Comment And tho' King Edward the Third took warning by the example of his Father and was too wise then to follow the like Arbitrary Courses yet Richard the Second his Grandson being a wilful hot headed young Prince fell into all the Errours of his great Grand-father and found the like if not greater Resistance from his Nobility and People for when he had highly mis-governed the Realm by the Advice of his favourites Alexander Arch-Bishop of York the Duke of Ireland and others a Parliament being called in the 10th Year of his Reign the Government of the Kingdom was taken out of their hands and committed to the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely with Thomas Duke of Gloucester the King's Uncle Richard Earl of Arundel and Thomas Earl of Warwick and nine or ten other Lords and Bishops but notwithstanding this the King being newly of Age refused to be governed by the said Duke and Earls but was carried about the Kingdom by the said Duke of Ireland and others to try what Forces they could raise and also to hinder the said Duke and Earls from having any Access to him But see what followed these violent and arbitrary courses as it is related by Henry de Knighton who lived and wrote in that very time and is more exact in this King's Reign than any other Historian he there tells us that when Thomas Duke of Gloucester and the other Bishops and Earls now mentioned sound they could not proceed in the Government of the King and Kingdom according to the Ordinance of the preceding Parliament through the hinderance of Mich. de la Poole Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland Nich. Brembar and Robert Tresillian Chief Justice and others who had seduced the King and made him alienate himself from the Council of the said Lords to the great damage of the Kingdom whereupon the said Duke of Gloucester and the Lords aforesaid with a great Guard of Knights Esquires and Archers came up towards London and quartered in the Villages adjacent and then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Lord Lovat the Lord Cobham the Lord Eures with others went to the King in the name of the the Duke and Earls and demanded all the persons above-mentioned to be banished as Seducers and Traitors to the King and all the Lords then swore upon the Cross of the said Arch-Bishop not to desist till they had obtained what they came for the conclusion of this Meeting was that the King not being able to withstand them was forced immediately to call that remarkable Parliament of the 11th Year of his Reign in which Mich. de la Poole and the Duke of Ireland were attainted and Tresillian and divers other Judges sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn upon the Impeachment of the said Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel for delivering their Opinions contrary to Law and the Articles the King had not long before proposed to them at Nottingham I shall omit the Resistance which Henry Duke of Lancaster made after his Arrival by the Assistance of the Nobility and People of the North of England against the Arbitrary Government of this King being then in Ireland not only because it is notoriously known but because it was carried on farther than perhaps it needed to have been and ended in the Deposition of this King Only in the first Year of Henry the 4th there was the same Act of Indemnity almost word for word passed for all those that had come over with that King and had assisted him against Richard the Second and his evil Councellors as was passed before in primo of Edward the Third I shall not also insist upon the Resistance of Richard Duke of York in the Reign of King Henry the 6th who took up Arms against the Evil Government of the Queen and her Minion the Duke of Suffolk because you may say that this was justifiable by the Duke of York as right Heir of the Crown nor will I instance in the Resistance made by the Two Houses of Parliament during the late Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First since it is disputed to this day who was in the fault and began this Civil War whether the King or the Parliament Only thus much I cannot omit to take notice of that the King in none of his Declarations ever denied but that the People had a right to Resist him in case he had made War upon them or had introduced Arbitrary Government and expresly owned in his Answer to one of the Parliaments Messages that they had a sufficient power to restrain Tyranny but denied himself to be guilty of it and still asserted that he took up Arms in defence of his just Right and Prerogative to the Command of the Militia of the Kingdom which they went about to take from him by force M. I have with the greater patience hearkened to your History of Resistance in all the Kings Reigns you have mentioned because I cannot desire any better Argument to prove the unlawfulness of such Resistance than those Acts of Pardon and Indemnity You cannot but confess have
against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such Military Commissions and it is also to be noted that all Mayors of Cities or other Corporations were obliged by a former Statute of the 13th of this King to take the same Oath From both which Statutes and Declaration we may draw these Conclusions First That the Militia i. e. the Command of all Military Forces and War-like Affairs are declared to be wholly in the King Secondly That either or both Houses of Parliament cannot make any War offensive or defensive against him c. Pray mark that Thirdly That the contrary practice hath tended almost to the destruction of this Kingdom and that many evil and Rebellious Principles whereof this without doubt is intended for the chief have been instilled into the minds of the People c. And lastly That in pursuance thereof all persons above-mentioned were not only obliged to renounce taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever but also against any that shall be authoriz'd by the King 's Military Commissions without any Exceptions And it is farther Enacted That all Clergy-men should be obliged to take this Oath as well as the Laity and it is likewise there ordained That all Clergy-men who were to enjoy any Livings or Preferments in the Church were likewise for the space of Twenty Years next ensuing obliged to subscribe this Declaration so that it is no wonder if the Loyal Clergy of the Church of England think themselves not only tied by the Express Rules of Scripture but also by the Laws of the Land strictly to observe this great Law of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance Now pray see here the Doctrine of Non-Resistance in its full amplitude yea this very Doctrine declared to be the Law of this Kingdom and that by two express Acts of Parliament And can you think the Two Houses were not in earnest when they made this Declaration surely had they not been so they had been very ridiculous to jest with all our Laws and Liberties had they not been I say verily perswaded of the truth of this Doctrine by Law as well as by Scripture So that I hope you must now be forced to confess that even our own Representatives have solemnly renounc'd for themselves and the whole Nation all right of Resistance so much as defensive against those Commissioned by the King upon any pretence or occasion whatsoever and we have left us nothing whereby to defend our selves against our Kings or those Commissioned by them no not if they never so much abuse their power but the old Primitive Artillery of Preces and Lachryma F. As for what you have more than once said that this Doctrine of Resistance if carried home always ends in the Deposition and Murder of the King tho' it hath I grant sometimes happened yet that has not been always so but most often to the contrary as appears in those Resistances that were made in the Reigns of King Richard the First Henry the Third Edward the First and divers times in Edward and Richard the Second's Reign before things were driven to that extremity as they afterwards were and as I will not justifie the Deposition of those Princes tho' done by Parliament yet will I not absolutely condemn them since no Act of Parliament hath as I know ever done it And tho' it is true all the proceedings in Parliament against Edward the Second are taken off the Rolls yet was it not done by Order of Parliament but by Richard the 2d alone when he by his exorbitant courses feared to be served after the same manner but that there was in those times some Ancient Law extant which was also destroyed by that King appears by that remarkable Declaration of the Lords and Commons in Parliament sent by way of Message to the King then wilfully absenting himself from the Parliament by the Duke of Gloucester his Uncle and the Bishop of Ely who sure were too great to tell so notorious a Lye The Speech you will find at large in Knyghton beginning thus Domine Râ—x And after many Petitions and good Advices at last thus concludes which I shall give you in Latine Sed unum aeliud de animo nostro superest nobis ex parte Populi vestri vobis intimare habint enim ex antiquo Statuto de facto non longe retroactis temporibus experienter quod dolendum est habito si Rex maligno Consilio quocunque vel inepta conâ—â—macia aut contemptu seu protervae voluntate singulari aut quovis modo irregulari se alienaverit à Populo suo nec voluerit per jura Regni Statuta laudabiles Ordinationes cum salubri Consilio Dominorum Procerum Regni gubernari regulari sed captiosâ— in suis inâ—anis Confiliis propriam voluntatem suam singularem proterve exercere tunc licituâ— est iis cum comâ—uni assensu Populi Regni ipsum Regem de Regali solio abrogare propinquiorem aliquem de stirpe Regis loco ejus in Regni solio sublimare From whence you may observe that the Lords here relate to an Ancient Statute or Law then in being tho' the execution of it on the person of his great Grand-father Edward the Second was but of times not long passed and that King Richard might as well destroy the Record of that Law being not then commonly known or in private mens hands as well as he did divers other Records as appears in the 24th Article against this King wherein it is set forth That the said King had caused the Rolls of the Records touching the State and Government of this Kingdom to be defaced and razed to the great prejudice of his People and the disinherison of the said Realm c. So that nothing is more certain than that the Two Houses of Parliament at that time did look upon it as their undoubted right to Depose the King in case he violated the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom tho' how this could consist with that Power which the King then exercised of calling and dissolving Parliaments at his pleasure I do not understand since it can never be supposed that a King if in full power would permit a Parliament called in his name to sit to Depose himself for Evil Government As for the Resistance made by the Two Houses against King Charles the First I shall not undertake to justifie for the Reasons already given as also because it it was not a War undertaken by the general consent of the whole Kingdom but carried on chiefly by the Puritan or Presbyterian Party For tho' the City of London and many other great Towns were for the Parliament yet it is also certain that the major part of the Nobility and Gentry of England fought for the King and were so considerable a number as to make an Anti-Parliament at Oxford so that this War could never have happened had not the King parted with the power of
the Doctrine of the Church of England but the known Laws of the Land F. I do not deny but the persons of the Kings and Queens of this Realm are and ought to be sacred and inviolable and yet no man will therefore say that they are irresistible too in all cases whatsoever as if the King for example should attempt to ravish Women or rob or murder men upon the High-way or in the Streets as the Ancient Historians relate of Nero and Commodus the Emperours and as is reported of the last King of Portugal and which was one of the reasons of the Estates of the Kingdom removing him from the Government And as our Henry the Fifth is related by our Historians to have robbed Men upon the High-way before he was King so if he had gone about to continue the same frollick after he came to the Crown I do believe his Person and all those that Robbed by his Commission had not been irresistible nor would it have been Treason within the Statute of the 25th of Edward the Third tho' he was then actually King any more than it would have been Treason had the like happened when he was Prince tho' he was expresly within that Statute and yet this would not have contradicted the Parliament◠Declaration in the 12th of Car. the 2d That neither the Parliament nor the People having Coercive Power over the persons of the Kings of this Realm since by Coercive Power must be here understood his being subject to the penalties of the Law or being called to an account by any ordinary Jurisdiction but there is a vast difference between that and Resistance for Self defence since I may use this against the violence of my Father in the State of Nature as I have already proved tho' I cannot justifie the punishment of my Father or calling him to an account as his Superiour therefore it is only in the King 's Politick Capacity that he can be said to do no wrong since you see he may personally commit the greatest Crimes imaginable tho' his person is unaccountable for want of a Superiour Power to call him to an account yet is it not so with those who act by his Illegal Commissions or Commands since having delegated the Executive part of his Regal Power to his subordinate Ministers and Officers 't is they that are accountable and punishable too by the Law of the Land in case they any way transgress or violate it by his illegal Commissions or Commands as I shall prove more at large by and by And as no War properly so called can be made against a single person but against a Man as he is aided or assisted by many others So this War against the King can only be interpreted of such Wars or Rebellion as are made against him in his politick capacity as he is King and Supream Governour of the Realm and the Commander of all the Militia thereof to Legal intents and for the defence thereof against Forein or Domestick Enemies nor was there any great fear according to the Ancient Legal Constitution of this Kingdom that this could often fall out or indeed he put in practice by the Kings of this Realm if we consider the Ancient Form of ordering the Forces or Militia of this Kingdom For in the first place I desire you to observe that by the Common Law of England before these Acts of the Militia the King himself could not but in case of Invasion or Insurrection Levy or keep on foot any standing Forces in England unless for Forein Succours which was usually by Contract with some great Lord or other Person or by Tenure against the Scotch and Welch and as for the Militia it was never reduced into Troops Companies or Regiments till the Spanish Invasion as will appear by all Acts of Parliament in the Statutes at large where Acts for the Assize of Arms were made only for Men to provide and have in readiness such Horses and Arms to shew them before the King's Commissioners when they should be required to take view of them a Regimented Militia being of no elder date than Queen Elizabeth King Iames the First did by Act of Parliament in the first year of his Reign repeal all former Acts for Assize of Arms and never established any thing in 〈◊〉 thereof So it stood till King Charles the Seconds time that these new Acts for the Militia wer made And to confirm this point beyond all dispute in all the quarrels between the King and the Barons and York and Lancaster the Parliament still refused to meet unless the Forces were disbanded that were raised upon those occasions Nor had any King standing Forces or Guards till King Henry the Seventh◠Time when that of the Yeomen was settled by a special Act of Parliament and what is most remarkable the Commons in the Long Parliament of Charles the Second did by their Votes entered upon their Journals declare and assert that by Law no Armed Force could be kept up in time of Peace except the Militia and as for Foreign Succours they were obliged to be carried immediately to the Port of their discharge and were not to exceed one Month at furthest from the time of their first Muster as for Castles and Forts within the Realm they were all supplied and defended by Tenures but for the Militia of old time it was in the Sheriffs of the Counties to make use thereof for the Execution of the Laws and defence of the Kingdom except in the cases aforesaid and it was Treason for any Subject to Levy Souldiers except by the King's Commission and in the cases aforesaid or so much as to Ride or go Arm'd as may appear by the Statute of Northampton in the 2d of Edward the Third much less was it lawful for them to take up Arms unless in their own defence against Illegal Violence and in such manner as the Law directs and it was one of the Articles that was adjudged to be Treason in Parliament against Mortimer that he Rid Armed to Parliaments and threatned the Prelates and Peers that did any thing against his will and caused the King to make War on his Nobles who advised the King to Levy War upon his Subjects See Coke's 4th Institutes Title Council-board where the 4th Article against the Spencers is that they falsly and maliciously had counselled the King to raise Horse and Arms in destruction of the good People against the Form of Magna Charta and so by their Evil Counsel would have moved War within the Realm to the destruction of Holy Church and of the People for their proper quarrel so that taking Arms by the King against his Subjects and the Subjects against the King was both alike against Law 2ly That taking Arms against the King in construction of Law is Levying War but this by no means extends to defensive Arms in maintenance of the Law which is allowed and enjoyned and that nothing else was here mean is plain
downright Treason to resist them And if this be so the last difficulty will be easily answered viz. By what Authority or Commission the People may make this general resistance To this I say That in the first place all Commissions granted to persons uncapable by Law to take them or for illegal purposes are to be supposed to be issued contrary to the Kings will and knowledge and therefore are to be look'd upon as void in Law and consequently the Persons not to be commissioned at all and so may be resisted by the Kings legal Officers all over England as I have already proved but if once the King should Countenance and Abett such Robbers by his own personal presence this resistance may then be made and justified by the whole nation not by the King's Authority against his Person but by another higher and precedent right viz. The Right of Self-defence and the Common-safety of the whole Nation which the People must have reserved to themselves at the first Institution of the Government or else all Monarchies would be alike and there would be no difference at all between absolute and limited Kingdoms M. I shall not trouble my self about other Kingdoms but this much I firmly believe that our Kings are absolute Monarchs notwithstanding they have limited themselves by Law to the manner of their administration of these grand essentials of Government the making of Laws and raising of money so that since the supremacy of the Government is still in themselves as Gods Vicegerents here on Earth and not as the Peoples Deputies I cannot but still understand this Oath in the strict litteral sence in which I am confident this Parliament meant it and therefore since they have expresly declared the Law to be so I will not be wiser than the Law especially since it is most agreeable to the Scriptures and the known doctrine of the Church of England that the Kings Person is not only unaccountable but irresistable too upon any pretence whatsoever and I think I am able to shew you that it is much better for this Nation or any other of a like constitution to suffer the worst that may happen from the ill Government nay Tyranny of our Kings than to involve themselves in blood and confusion by Rebellion and Civil Wars as often as the People shall judge though never so falsly that their fundamental Rights and Priviledges are forceably invaded by the King F. I think I have very expresly proved at our 5th meeting and that from undoubted Testimonies from our ancient Histories and Writers of the Laws of England as also from the whole constant Tenour of the Statute Law of this Nation that the Kings of England are not limited by their own concessions in the manner of the Administration of their Soveraign Power but from the first constitution of the Government and if the King be not the sole supreme Legislative power I care not what some Divines have writ to the contrary and since it is a Law question the supreme Authority alone ought to decide it And therefore it is no matter in this case what the Scriptures say nor yet the Church of England the former hath not and the latter cannot determine what is the Legal constitution of the Government in this Nation and where the supreme power resides and therefore suppose it to have been the intent of this Parliament never so much to bar all resistance of the Kings Person in any case whatsoever yet I am sure it was not in their power to do things absolutely inconsistent and contradictory in themselves as they must have done had they made the Persons of all Officers however commissioned by the King absolutely irresistible and much more if they had induced the Kings Presence with an absolute power for them to commit the most violent and illegal action and yet have supposed they had thereby altered nothing in the constitution of the Government though they had rendred it instead of a Limitted an Absolute Despotick Monarchy which as I am not yet convinced it was in their will so neither was it in their powers to grant if they would And therefore as I do not desire to be wiser than the Law so I cannot allow this to be any Law at all in the sense you would put upon it so that make the most of it this was but the unwary declaration of a Parliament of very young Men not long after the King 's coming in who thorough the great Abhorrence they had of the late Civil War raised by the Parliament under colour of the King's Authority were drawn in before they were aware to be a little too free in their Expressions not considering the consequences that might follow But when this sond Fit was over and that a standing Army had been raised in England under pretence of the Dutch War and that the King had by his Declaration of Indulgence made some approaches to an Arbitrary Power and in order thereunto would in that very Parliament in 1675. have imposed this very Oath or Test not only upon those who were to take it before but upon all Peers and Parliament Men before ever they sate in the Two Houses as also upon all Officers in Church and State to the very Justices of Peace so that the Disguise being now seen thorough it made divers of the Peers even those of greatest Loyalty and Wisdom stiffly to oppose the laying this Test upon all the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of the whole Nation as it was then the design of the Bishops and Court-Party to have done Which vigorous Opposition tho' in the smaller number yet met with such good success that the Bishops and Lords of the contrary Opinion could not then carry it and the Eyes of the whole Nation were afterwards so much opened that the King durst never offer this Test any more to either of the Two Houses So that if you will but consider this matter of Fact how this Test was first obtain'd and how afterwards when it was thought to be intended to set up Arbitrary Power was also as vigorously opposed by them and their being sensible that the Parliament had gone too far already in doing what they had done I think none can take this Oath in your sense except those Clergymen who will allow none to be of their Church but those who are for this Passive Obedience according to their prejudicate Notions of Loyalty or else some few mercenary Lawyers who in hopes of Preferment which they can never otherwise obtain would interpret this Oath in such a sense as should make us all Papists and Slaves too whenever the King has a mind to it Now which of these extreams are worst that the people should judge for themselves tho' perhaps erroneously when the King or those acting by his illegal Commissions shall violently assault them in their Religion Lives Liberties and Estates that thereupon they make Resistance with one consent when they find themselves brought to this
any Legal Power all which could never have happened had not that War been not only begun but continued to the very last by a Standing Army which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all I can see no reason in the World for it As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword especially where it is the received Establish'd Religion of a Nation or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent yet a Man may be taken from his Religion and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom or violent Persecution as bad or worse than death what will become of the Church and Religion Establisht by Law when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away destroyed or made to renounce it And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars which if it be any Argument at all is so against all Standing Armies whatever whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers And I think there was much more debauchery in the King 's late Camp at Hounslow-heath as also in all places where they quartered than was lately at York or Nottingham among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debaucht since we may remember that the Parliament Army to its praise be it spoken was infinitely more sober and outwardly religious than the King 's but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles as well as good Discipline I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer and also by a strict Discipline be as little debaucht as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain who if they lye idle as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late are more likely to fall into all the wickedness that attend a loose Discipline and want of Imployment and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example M. I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves and take up Arms when they please for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things And the South part of England for example may think their Religion and Liberties in great danger and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it when the North parts are not under those apprehensions but lye still as was lately seen in the riseings for the Prince of Orange F. As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfie any indifferent and unprejudiced person And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom and that first In respect of the safety of mens lives and the liberties of their persons aly The security of their Estates and Civil Properties And 3ly The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions 1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned or arrested contrary to Law without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus whereby he is sent to prison And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed unless he be removed by due course of Law neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment but ought to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession 2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life or Members without due Trial by his Peers and Legal Judgment given thereupon And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England◠see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or Liberties or his free customs or be Outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes viz. the 37 38 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up and more particularly declared against contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign wherein the late imprisonment of the Kings Subjects without any cause shewed and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expresly resented as also putting Souldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable
and Lord Lieutenants and if they had refused to answer positively to those questions proposed to them I know no other penalty they had been liable to more than being put out of Commission which sure is no punishment but rather an ease and tho' I do not defend those evil Ministers that put the King upon this Method of distrusting and disobliging his best Protestant Subjects I mean those of the Church of England by putting them out and putting in either Papists or Fanaticks in their steads yet all that own themselves of that Communion ought to have been of more loyal Principles than to have taken up Arms as some of them have done upon pretence of standing by the Prince of Oranges Declaration against these abuses F. I see though you cannot directly justifie the examining of the Lords Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of the Peace about taking away the Penal Laws and Test and turning those out of Commission that refus'd yet you strive to mitigate it as far as you can by making it part of the Kings Prerogative to put in and out what Judges Justices and other Officers he pleases well granting this to be so yet sure you cannot deny but that the clositing of Judges and all other Officers you have now mention'd and putting those out of Commission that refus'd to comply with the Kings Will and that for no other reason was sure a strange abuse of that Prerogative and the excuse you make that the persons examin'd had a liberty to refuse whether they would give any positive answer or not is yet more trivial since it is very well known that as well those who gave doubtful answers or refused to make any answer at all were as much turned out as they who positively denied to comply with the Kings demands so that no answer was looked upon as satisfactory but such as seemed to give up all freedom of Elections and Votes in Parliament none being to be chosen by the Kings directions but such as would engage before hand to repeal the Test and Penal Laws and I think you will not deny but that the King by thus examining all these Magistrates and Officers you now mention and by turning those out that refused to comply did all he could to hinder the free Election of Members to serve in Parliament and the freedom of giving their Votes when they came thither and the King might as well another time have declar'd that he would have no Members chosen but such as would agree to take away the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo or any branch of Magna Chartâ— which he should think fit to have repeal'd and as this strikes at the very fundamental constitution of the Government viz the free Election of Parliament men so it was inserted among the Articles against Richard the II. that he had caus'd the Sheriffs to return whom he pleas'd for Knights of Shires as I have already shewed you But what say you to the Kings late calling in almost all the Charters of Cities Towns and Corporations in England and putting in Popish or Fanatick Officers and Magistrates into the rooms of those that were turn'd out only to influence Elections and to procure what persons he desired to be return'd for Parliament men is not this a grand breach of the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom thus to take away the legal Rights and Priviledges of these Corporations for no other cause than to procure the King such Parliament men as he had a mind to M. I beg your pardon I forgot to mention this sooner and though I will not take upon me absolutely to defend the Legality of it much less the design for which it was done since I grant that it was in order to destroy or at least to humble the Church of England yet since iâ— was done by colour of Law and Judgment of the Court of Kings Bench and no more than what has been formerly done in the Reign of King Charles I cannot see how the Noblemen and Gentlemen lately in Arms could defend their rising upon that ground unless they would also at the same time justifie the lawfulness of the Plot and Rebellion intended in the same Reign and in which so many of the Whig Nobility and Gentry were deeply engaged F. To answer what you have said in vindication of this great violation of one of the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom I must in the first place tell you that as I shall not now examine into the matter of Law whether a Corporation can forfeit it's Charter for misdemeanours or not much less shall I concern my self whether it were done by or without colour of Law or the Judgment of the Court of Kings Bench since it is notoriously known that none of the Judges were permitted to sit there nor any new ones put in but such as would blindly agree to all the Court would have done and therefore I value nor any thing they did nor think it one â—ot the more legal for their Judgments nor is it any excuse that the same thing was done in King Charles Reign and therefore might as well be done now without any rising against it for though I must tell you I look upon the taking away of the Charters from the City of London and the other Cities and Corporations of the Kingdom one of the most arbitrary and illegal acts of that Kings Reign yet there were several reasons which made it unlawful for the Nation to rise then yet it might not be so now as in the first place because most of those Charters were either willingly surrender'd by the members of those Corporations or else were declared forfeited by due trial and Judgment of Law whereas it was much otherwise in this Kings Time when notwithstanding that all the Cities and Towns Corporate in England had but a few years before taken out new Charters to their great trouble and expence they were now summon'd anew to surrender these again for no other reason but because it was the Kings pleasure it should be so for who can imagine that all the Corporations of England could have forfeited their Charters in so short a time as three or four years and they were plainly told that the King must and would have them and that it was to no purpose to stand out and therefore it was no wonder if all the Cities and Corporations of England were forced to submit patiently to this violation since they found by experience the Judges were ready to give Judgment against them right or wrong And besides this I have already laid it down as a Maxime that no resistance whatever is to be made till matters become desperate and all other means are become absolutely ineffectual which I think they were not as long as King Charles lived who besides the inconstancy of his humour which seldome persisted long either in well or evil doing especially if the ill consequences of it were well laid
out the President and Fellows of Magdalen Colledge by the late Ecclesiastical Commission as also the turning out of the Deputy Lieutenants and Justices of Peace and all other Magistrates out of Cities and Corporations the King has sufficiently redress'd them by restoring the first to their places and by putting all the rest into Commission again and turning out those that came in their rooms and all this before the Prince of Orange came over and I doubt not but his Majesty would have been content to have given the Nation any other reasonable satisfaction they could have desired in the next Parliament Which ought to have been patiently waited for untill his Majesty thought sit to call it without going about to right our selves by Force F. I confess you have made not only the most plausible defence you can of the Kings late actions but have also urg'd the utmost that can be said against those defensive Arms that have been lately taken up by those Lords Gentlemen and others who have associated themselves to stand by the Prince of Orange till our grievances were redrest by a free Parliament but if what you have said be strictly lookt into I doubt it will prove but a mere Subtersuge to hide the nakedness of the Cause you have undertaken In the first place therefore let me tell you that though I confess the King has not yet Dragoon'd us to Mass nor has made an actual War upon the Lives and Properties of the People of this Nation yet that he has not only invaded our Liberties but also endanger'd the Protestant Religion of the Church of England establish'd by Law you your self have not the confidence to deny only you will not suppose it to have been done by any Armed Force and therefore ought not to have been resisted by Force but to have waited for their redress by Parliament which is but an evasion for in the first place it is plain that the things complain'd against in the Prince of Oranges Declaration do most of them strike at the Fundamental Constitution both of the Church and State as I have sufficiently prov'd and shall do it more particularly hereafter when there is occasion all therefore that remaines to be prov'd is this that all these breaches and violations of our Religion and Civil Liberties tho' done under colour of Law yet were acted and maintain'd by Force and Secondly that all other hopes of remedy or redress unless by joyning with the Prince of Orange was wholy taken from us the first of these I prove thus It is notoriously known that for the King to maintain a standing army in time of peace has been always declar'd against in Parliament as contrary to Law and dangerous to the Religion civil rights and Liberties of this Nation now it is also as certain that the King has ever since the Duke of Mâ—nmouths coming over set up and maintain'd a standing Army in this Kingdom in which he has also put in as many Popish Officers and they as many Popish Souldiers contrary to the Laws of the Land as ever they could find besides the many Irish Papists that have been of late sent over for no other purpose than to be listed here whilst Protestant souldiers were turn'd out of several regiments to make room for them not to mention the listing of vast numbers of loose and prâ—â—ligate fellows and some of them pardon'd Highway men who provided they had their pay would not have â—luck to Rob or Murder any body they had been ordered as may be sufficiently prov'd not only by their common taking of free quarter but by their frequent taking it in the houses of Gentlemen and other private Persons in divers places of this Kingdom and that without any amends or redress as I know of tho' frequently complain'd of at Court all which being done by the Kings arbitrary Power without the least colour of Law and in contempt of the Militia the only legal Forces of this Kingdom what was this but plainly to declare that as the King had thought fit to Act so many arbitary things clean contrary to Law so he was likewise resolv'd to maintain 'em by force since it is plain that the King never dur'st undertake to do all these Illegal and arbitrary things we have now mention'd untill such time as his standing Army was raised and tho' it is true mens Lives Liberties or Estates cannot be taken away unless by some Force or other either Legal or Military yet as for those Civil rights and Priviledges which are the main Bulwarks and defences of the former they can only be invaded or taken from us by Illegal Judgments and Declarations which if supported by a visible Force beyond what the Nation in the Circumstances it was in was able to resist this is as much a taking them by Force as if there had been resistance made about them Thus if Souldiers come into my House and say that the King hath given them Orders to quarter there upon free cost I suppose you will not deny but this is a forceable taking of my goods nowithstanding I dare not because I cannot resist them the same I may say for a whole Nation when once opprest in their Civil Liberties and those oppressions are once back'd and defended by a standing Army contrary to Law But that this Army was raised cheifly to this intent I can give you a remarkeable instance from the mouth of the late cheif Justice Wright who sent for Officers and Soldiers to make the Scholars keep silence because they Hum'd at what the President and Fellows of Magdalen's had just before done against the authority of this pretended court so that to conclude from that very time that the King beagn to keep up an Army and to list Popish Officers and Souldiers tho' utterly disabled by Law to take Commissions or to bear Arms by vertue of his Dispensing Power and all this in Order to back and support his Arbitrary proceedings I look upon this Nation under such a force as that they might Lawfully remove it by Force when ever they could And that either by joyning with some Foreign Prince or else by their own Domestick Arms. But to come to the second point to be prov'd viz. That there was no other means but Force lest us to redress these mischiefs and to retrieve us out of that sad condition in which we lately were as also to hinder us from falling into worse I shall only suppose that which I think you will readily grant that there could be no other means to cure these evils but either by some sudden change in the Kings inclinations or else by a Free Parliament the former you must acknowledge was not possible as long as he continued of the Religion he is of and suffer'd himself to be manag'd by the Counsels of the Jesuits and French King and as for a Free Parliament what hopes could there be of that as long as the King had done all he could
he was made King nor can I see how their taking of Lands from Him could make him become an Absolute and Irresistible Monarch over them and their Descendants so that if upon your supposition all the owners of Lands in England at this day hold their Estates either by descent or purchase from those Antient Normans or French Proprietors they must also succeed to the same Liberties and Priviledges as those under whom they claim did formerly enjoy But before I conclude I cannot but take notice of what you have said against my proofs of the formal election of King William for if the keeping of a guard about the place where the King is Elected and Crowned should void the freedom of the Election I doubt whether the election of any elective Kings or Monarchs no not of the German Emperor himself would hold goods as for the other reason that they could not chuse but â—lect him that is yet mâ—re trivial for there being no more than one thaâ— stood to be chosen they could indeed chuse no other but if not having a Liberty to refuse must void the Right of Election pray consider as I told you before whether there be any Canonical Election of Bishops in the Church of England at this day therefore I doubt not but that King William I. was as lawfully and freely elected as K. Edward the Confessor his Predecessor whom all Authors agree to have had no other Title and Williâ—lmus Gemeticensis in the place I now cited tells us he was Elected King as well of the Norman as English Nobles and if the custom had not â—â—en â—â—cen to Elâ—â—â— the King before he was Crowned it is not likely thaâ— your Conqueror would have introduced a new custom to the prejudice of his pretended right by Conquest but indeed there is not only more cogent argument to prove that the Crown was formerly elective than â—he constant usage as you your self confess ever since your preâ—ended Conquest to this day of asking the People whether they are content to have such a one for their King As for your Doctors quotation out of William of â—oictoâ— pray take notice that he places your Conquerors Hereditary bequest together with the Oaths of the English as his best Title and the right of War last by which this Author did not understand a Conquest of the People of England but his prevailing against Harold M. I do own with the learned Dr. B. that the Descendants of those ancient Norman and Freâ—â—h Earls and Baâ—ons than came in with the Conquerour and their Posterity afterwards seeing the Yoke of feudâ—l Tenures and other prerogatives this King and His Descendants exercised over them to press as hard upon them as the Antient English were those that made such a disturbance for their Right and Liberties in the Reigns of H. Iohn and Henry the third and tho' I grant their Ancestors were never conquered and consequently could not be obliged to him as to a Conqueror 〈◊〉 may for all this maintain that they and their Posterity were as much bound to an Absolute Subiection without any resistance aâ— the English whom they conquer'd for they were either his own Subjects in Aâ—â—mandâ— before his coming oâ—eâ— hither or else were such Volunteers who followed him but of hopes of Estates and Brâ—ferment was for all those of the former 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 were his subjects before they were tied not only by their 〈◊〉 Oaths of a Regiance which they had taken in Normandy but were also bound by the same obligation of Non resistance as all other subjects must always be both in that and all other Governments to all which was added another Obligation in respect of those who were not his subjects before his entrance since this whole Kingdom was by Conquest the Conqueâ—ors as appears in that he bestowed the 〈◊〉 part of 〈◊〉 his Followeâ—â— whose blood runs at this day in the Veins of most of our English Genâ—ry and Nobility as a reward for their Service and Assistance tho' he might have some part to the English Natives and their Heirs yet so aâ— that he altered the Tenure and made it descend with such burdens as he pleased to lay upon them so that as well â—his own Countrymen Normans as those of all other Nations who thus became Subjects and Feudataries to him for all the Lands they possessed in England since he was the only Directus Dominus or Lord Paramount of the whole Kingdom were also his Vassals and Subjects for in case of Treason and Rebellion or Death without Heir those Lands were to return to him again and to be aâ— his dispossal so that all subjects as well Normans as other Foreigners who had Lands granted to them by the Conqueror thus became his homines Ligei Liegemen and did owe Faith and true Allegiance to him as their Supream and Liege Lord as the King is called in several Statutes and the definition of Liegeancy is set down to the grand Customary of Normandy Ligeantia est ex quâ domino tementur vasalli sui c that is Liegeancy is an obligation upon all subjects to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living to aid and assist him with their Bodies and Goods and with their advice and power 〈◊〉 to lift up their hands against him nor to support in any wise those who oppose him and tho' I grant that the Supream or Liege Lord is likewise bound to govern and defend his Liege People according to the Rights Customs and Laws of the Countrey yet is he not liable to resistance much less forfeiture if he neglect it For tho' if Subjects break their Covenants and prove disloyal all their Lands and other Rights are forfeited to the King yea if the King or Supream Lord break his Oaâ—â—â— notwithstanding his sailing therein neither his Crown nor any Rights belonging to his Royal Dignity are thereby â—orfeiâ—ed the reason of this inequality is because the King gave Laws to the â—eople but the People did not give Laws to him so that it is plain that however you 〈◊〉 the Conquerors entrance whether by the Sword or to avoid the Envy of the Title of a Conqueror by a voluntary submission of the English Nation to him as to their Sovereign the conclusion cannot vary because the duty of Non-resistance arises from their own Act they taking an Oath of Allegiance to be his True and Loyal Subjects with which Oath Resistance can by no means consist F. I must beg your pardon if I cannot take what you have now said for a satisfactory answer since I doubt it will do you little service whether you make use of it either in respect of the Normans or other Foreigners for as to the soâ—mâ—r it appears from the Antient Constitution of Normandy that the Duke was no absolute Monarch there but Feudaâ—ary to the King of France and farther could make no Laws nor impose Taxes in Normandy without the consent of the Estates of that Dutchy as
to private Churches and if his Nobles or Followers had unjustly dissieâ—ed any Bishop or Abbot of their Estates the King caused them to be restored again as appears by many Presidents of this kind which are to be found in Ingulphus and Eadmerus this being premised let us see in the next place what proportion the Lands belonging to the Church did in those days bear to the rest of the Lands in England now we find in Sprot's Chronicle as also from the old Legierbook cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour and particularly from that Secretum Abbotis formerly belonging to the Abby of Glassenbury and now in the Library of the University of Oxon that there were not long after your Conquest 60215 Knights fees in England of which the Bishops Abbots and other Church-men then enjoyed 28015. When it is supposed this account was taken then it will follow that in the Reign of your Conqueror there were above 28000 Knights Fees which belonged to the Church and in these we do not any where find that K. William dispossessed their Tenants of their Estates most of which were held in Fee under them and those Tenants were great and powerful men in their Countries and hence we read in the ancient Records and Legier Books of the Barons and Knights that held of divers Bishops and great Abbots several examples which you will find in Sir Henry Spellman Title Baro now it is certain that King William could not turn all these men out of their Estates and give them to his followers without committing sacriledge and invading the Rights of the Church which that King durst not commonly do so that the utmost that you can suppose he could do was to take the forfeitures of all such Tenants of the Church who had taken part with King Harold or had any ways committed Treason against himself which were far from the whole number of them so that here goes off at once almost a half of all the Lands held by Knights service which the King did never dispossess the ancient owners of to these may be also added all Tenants in ancient Demesne all Tenants in Socage as also all Tenants in Gavel kind which in those days made at least two thirds of the Lands of Kent which by the way was never conquer'd but surrender'd upon Terms to â—are their ancient Customs and Tenures as Mr. Cambden himself acknowledges in his description of this County besides what was held in other Counties by the same Tenure as you will find in Mr. Taylor 's History of Gavel kind all which being not Tenures in chief by Knights Service are not Register'd in Domesday book nor does it appear that the owners were ever dispossessed of them to which may also be added the Lands of those smaller Thanes or Officers of King Edward whose names are found in Domesday book who held their Lands ratione officii To all these we may also add all such Norman Noblemen and Gentlemen who having come into England in Edward the Confessors time and having Honours and Lands given them by him had continued here ever since and these were so numerous that it was thought worth while by King William to make a particular Law concerning them that they should partake of all the Customs the Rights and Priviledges of Native Englishmen and pay Scot and Lot as they did of these was the Earl of Moâ—ton besides many others whose names appear in Doomesday book and not only these men but also divers Cities and Towns held Lands of King William by the same Rents and Services as they had formerly paid in the time of King Edward the Confessor as Oxford for example But to give an answer to some of your instances as when you say that King William gave away whole Counties as all Cheshire to Hugh Lupus and the greatest part of Shropshire to Roger de Montgomery c. It is a great error to suppose that these Earls had all the Lands mentioned in these Counties to dispose of at their Pleasure and that they turned out all the Old Propâ—ietors which it is certain they did not as I could prove to you by several instances of Antient English Families who have held their Lands and enjoyed the same seats they had in the Conquerors time so that you see there is a great deal of difference between a grant of all the Land of a County and that of the whole County what is meant by the former is plain but as for the latter it generally implies not any thing more than the Government of that County Thus whereas your Dr. would have it that the greatest part of Shropshire was given to Roger de Montgomery Doomesday says only that he had the City of Shrewsbury totum Comitatum and the whole County But that is soon explained by what follows totum Dominum quod Rex ipse tenebat where it is plain that by Dominium is meant no more than that power to govern it which King Edward had for otherwise the Grant of totum Comitatum had been sufficient M. I confess this is more than I ever heard or considered before concerning this matter but you do not give me any positive proof that at the time when Doomes day Book was made there were any Englishmen who held Earldoms or Baronies or other great Estates of the King or any of his great Men so that what you have said hitherto tho' it carry a great shew of probability yet is no positive proof against the Doctors assertion F. I shall not go about to deny what William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntington so positively affirm that for sometime before the end of King William's Reign there was no Englishman a Bishop Abbot or Earl in England yet does it not therefore follow that it was thus thorough his whole Reign or if it were so that it will therefore follows that there were few Englishmen who when Domesday Book was made possessed any Lands in England but that in part of King William's Reign there were many English Earls and Barons appears by above a dozen Charters cited by Sir William Dugdale in the Saxon and Latin Tongues in his Monast. Anglic. which are either directed by K. William to all his Earls and Thains or else in Latin Omnibus Baronibus Francigenis Anglis or else Omnibus Baronibus Fidelibus suis Francis Anglis salutem the like Charters also appear of Henry J. and the Empress Maud his Daughter so that if Francigena and Francus signifie a Frenchman and Anglus and Englishman and if Fidelis does as your Dr. would have it signifie a Tenant in Capite then I think nothing is plainer than that there were for great part of King William's Reign both Earls Barons and Tenants in Capite of English Extraction But to come to particular persons it will appear by the Saxon or English names in Doomesday book as also by several recitals therein that there were divers English
English and if it were so in this cause it will follow for the same reason in all other Counties all over England Lastly That these Gentlemen were well skilled in the Antient Laws and Customs of England which had been in vain if they had been altered as you suppose M. I will not deny but that in the beginning of the Conquerors Reign many Englishmen might have Estates left them which might not be taken away till some years after and Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour places this Tryal between Earl Odo and Arch-bishop Lanfranc about the first year of K. William and I suppose that it happened before the fifth year of his Reign when Matthew Paris tells us that the Earls Eadwin Morcar and Siward together with Egelwin Bishop of Durham as also many thousands of Clerks and Laicks not being able to bear the severity of K. William fled into Woody and Desart places and from thence got into the Isle of Ely where they fortified themselves and whither K. William followed them and taking the Island made them submit to mercy and then this Author tells us that the K. put the Bishop of Durham in Prison and as for the rest some of them he killed some he put to ransom and others he commited to perpetual imprisonment so that I reckon from this time the King took away most of the Englishmens Estates as not trusting them any more F. If this had all happened as you have put it yet would it not prove what you have maintained for if those Englishmem who had not been engaged with Harold or else had been pardoned for it still held their Estates and as you say they forfeited them afterwards for Rebellion then it is certain K. William did not proceed against the English as a Conqueror since if he had he would have taken away their Estates Iure belli which since as you your self confess he did not whatever Estates he took away afterwards was either for Treason committed by the English or else wrongfully if the former he did it as a lawful King if wrongfully then as a Tyrant and as such could obtain no just right against the English Nation by his unjust proceedings But indeed after all you are quite out in your account concerning this matter for as to the great Tryal you now mentioned it could not be in the first or second year of King William's Reign nor could happen sooner than the sixth or seventh of his Reign for Arch-bishop Stigand was not deposed till the year 1070. which was the Fourth year of K. William and in the next year being 1071. the Annals of Mailros as also the Chronicle of Thomas Wiks place Archbishop Lanfranc's Coâ—secration and fetching of his Pall from Rome so that it could not be until the year after this Rebellion at the soonest when Lanfranc was setled in his Bishoprick that this suit was commenced by him against Earl Odo and therefore a great many of the English Nobility and Gentry had still Estates let them after this Rebellion And that they continued to have so some years after this time appears by those Writs of K. William which Mr. Atwood hath given us in his Ianus Aâ—glorum c. concerning the restitution of the Lands belonging to the Church of Ely which are also transcribed and allowed by your Dr. in his answer to it and I desire you particularly to consider that writ of K. William's directed to Arch-bishop Lanfranc Roger E. of Morton and Ieoffery Bishop of Constance commanding them to cause to be assembled all those shires who were present at the Plea had concerning the Lands of the Church of Ely before the Queen went last into Normandy the rest being most material to the cause in hand I shall give you in Latin Cum quibus â—tiam sinc de Baronibus mâ—is qui competenter adesse potâ—â—unt praedicto placito intersuerunt qui terâ—â—s ejusdem Ecclesiae tenent Quibus in â—num congragatis eligantur plures de illis Angliâ— quisciunt quo modo terrae jacebant praefatae Ecclesiae die qua Rex Edwardus obiit quod inde dixerint ibidem jurando testentur From whence we may also gather that this Tryal concerning the Lands which is here ordered was to be in like maâ—ner and by a Jury of the same sort of Englishmen who tryed the cause between Earl Odâ— and Arch bishop Lanfranc that is they were English Gentlemen of sufficient Estates or Tenants in Capite if you please Now. let us look into the time when this happened since the Writ doth not tell us when it was only that it refers to a Plea held concerning the Church of ELy before the Queens last going into Normandy so that this tryal here mentioned could not happen till after the fourteenth year of K. William's Reign which I prove thus this Queen did not come over into England till the year 1068. when the King returned with his Queen out of Normandy after his Coronation at which she was not present after which K. William went not into Normandy till the seventh year of his Reign when he went over and took Mans and then whether he carried the Queen with him is uncertain but the Annals of Waverly tells us he went over again the next year and then he might carry the Queen with him which might be the first time she returned into Normandy but it appears by the same Annals that the King went over the year after and staying but a little while returned into Normandy to fight against his Rebellious Son Prince Robert where staying not long he returned as soon as he had driven his Son out of Normandy nor do we find he went over again till the 14 year of his Reign being the year 1080. and then I suppose since he stayed there for some time he carried the Queen with him and to this last going over I suppose this Writ we have cited refers for tho' the Queen went over again after this yet she returned no more because she died in Normandy in the year 1083. as Iogulph who was then alive relates the use I make of these particulars is this that long after the time you suppose the English to have lost all their Estates we here find a great Jury of Englishmen summoned out of several shires in England to try this great Cause concerning the Lands which the Church of Ely had been unjustly Disseised of so that here you see after the fourteenth year of this King the English still continued to keep their Estates and to serve upon Juries and consequently the Pleadings before them as well as their Verdict must have been in English M. I shall not insist upon this point any farther yet this much you cannot deny but that all the Pleadings and Proceedings at Wâ—stminster as also the old Law books were all in French as appears by the Mirror of Justices Britton not to mention those of latter days as Littleton's Tenures and others and so were
Paul Successor to Frederick Hic primus Abbas hujus Ecclesiâ—â—suti postquam Anglia Normannis penitus fuit sâ—bjugata F. I will not deny the matter of Fact in great part to be as you say but whether the English were to blame to make these Insuâ—rections or whether they were provoked to it by the Kings unreasonable severities I have not now time to dispute if it were their fault he had no doubt very good cause to do as he did and to punish such as were guilty But it was altogether unjust and tyrannical to punish the innocent with the guilty Nor could he have any right to do it as a Conqueror since by taking his Coronation Oath to deal mercifully with his Subjects and to treat both English and French with equal right he had renounced that Title and that he looked upon himself as a Tyrant if he had Governed without being Crowned or taking the same Oath as his Predecessors I shall prove to you from Abbot Broâ—ton's Chronicle the Author of which lived in the time of K Richard I. who has Col 962. these words Cumque Willelmus Dux Normannorum Conquestor Angliae Tyranni nomen exhorresceâ—et nomen Legitimi Principis induere vellet a Stigando Cant. Archiepiscopo in Regâ—ia petiit consecrari c. as But your reply that he did not shew himself a perfect Conquerour till he wâ—n throughly setled is very pleasant as if being solemnly Crowned and taking a Oath to govern Justly and according to Law and after four years quiet possession and a voluntary confirmation of the Laws of his Predecessors were not sufficient signs of his peaceable settlement upon the Throne unless you will have a King to be never setled until he has by the force of a standing Army got sufficient power to do all he designs that is to take away his Subjects Liberties and Estates at his pleasure contrary to his own Oath and the Laws he has made If those be signs of a thorough settlement pray consider whether the King that is gone away was ever thoroughly setled at this Rate tho' I confess he was in a very fair way to give us such a thorough settlement But since you date this thorough settlement from that great transaction of Abbot Frederick I am not afraid to appeal to Mat. Paris from whom you have borrowed this relation where he tells us thus That after Lanfranc was made Archbishop the K. being now strengthened with both Swords began more severely and manifestly to oppress the English who seeing it nearly concerned their very lives calling a great many together they made Edgar Atheling their Leader in whom the English placed all their hopes but among all the English Frederick Abbot of St. Albans was the chief promoter thereof being a generous Man and to be seared for his Riches and Power Therefore the K. began to be vehemently afraid left he should lose the whole Kingdom which he had gained by so much effusion of Blood and also hazard of his life and therefore being luckily taught by the Archbishops Prudence he began to act more mildly with the chief men of the Kingdom humbly proposing Tearms of Peace and with a pleasant countenance inviting them to a Treaty tho' deceitful as the end at last declared therefore the said English met him at Berkhamstead thinking no harm under the leading of Abbot Frederick where after many disputes Archbishop Lanfranc being present the K. swore upon all the Relicks of the Church of St. Albans as also upon the Holy Evangelists Inviolably to observe the good ancient approved Laws of the Kingdom which the Picus Kings of England his Predecessors and chiefly K. Edward had Established and so being pacified they all returned home very well satisfied So that you see this was the third time whereby he renounced all right of Conquest if ever he had any by swearing expresly to observed all the ancient Laws of the Kingdom since they found his Coronation Oath would not bind him besides his so solemn confirmation of K. Edwards Laws in the great Council of the Kingdom not long before M. But pray read a little farther and see how he resented this force now put upon him and whether at all he intended to keep what he had sworn or to divest himself of his Right of Conquest and therefore give me now leave to read the rest out of this Author But the K. cunningly hiding his designs within a few days after studied how to overcome and supplant those dispersed and asunder whom he could not when joined and consederate together which he performed by killing disinheriting and banishing many of them and violating the above mentioned Laws and the English being thus spoiled at pleasure and impoverisht without any legal Judgment he therewith enriched his Normans to the great provocation of his natural English subjects who had of their own accord thus exalted him So that you see he never intended to keep his Oath that was thus forced upon him for Conquerors do not love to be made Slaves to their words whether they will or no and therefore I may give you an answer both as to his Coronation Oath as also to this now mentioned from an old English Proverb that there was never any Oath but was either broken or kept more Conquerors than one have used fair pretences and made smooth promises and dealt cunningly with the People to carry on their designs and have at first taken plausible Oaths and broken them afterwards nay took them when they intended not to keep them and knew thâ—y could not and for Oath breaking Harold in his answer to Duke William when he demanded the Kingdom of him had given him a fair example that Stuâ—tum Sacramentum est frangendum many specious Oaths Vows and Covenants were contrived and taken by crafty and designing men in the late times and imposed upon the People contrary to the Oath of Allegiance they had before taken for no other ends than to cheat them into Rebellion and to make them Authors of their own slavery which was discovered too late when they were under the power of an Army and could not help themselves as I could prove at large would the time 〈◊〉 F. Before I give you a positive answer to what you have said tho' I do believe a great deal of the matter of Fact to be true as Mat. Paris hath related it either from Tradition or else from the Legier book of his own Abby yet I very much doubt whether out of hatred to this Kings severe proceedings they did not represent K. William's cruelty and severity much greater than it was for tho' I grant after this time he turned a great many more of the English Nobility and Gentry out of their Estates and put divers of them to death yet whether he did this without any colour of Law or Legal Process is very much to be doubted since we find many forfeitures mentioned in Doomesday book which had been needless
same right by which they took upon them to make this Declaration by the same right not only every Curate of a Parish but also every Layman in England was free to Judge of the Kings breach of this Law and consequently of denying obedience thereunto which disobedience if it once prove general will quickly make the Kings personal commands wholly insignificant So that it seems it is not the Peopleâ— Judging of the Illegality of the Kingâ— Actions and Commands which is the thing you 〈◊〉 fault with since when these Bishops acted thus all the high men of the Church of England praised it to the Skie So that it seems it is now the bare Censuring and Disobedience that makes it a crime but it is the iâ—sisting such Violent and Illegal orders and commands and at last Declaring that Power void and forfeited by which they were made That sticks in your stomach which is as much as to say that this Judging and Disobedience in its self is no Crime but the pushing it home and doing it in such a way as that it may be mended for the future though this is never lawful to be done but when things come to that extremity that all milder remedies are become ineffectual But to answer your Objections a little more closely the consequences of my Opinion are not so dangerous as you suppose them if you will please to consider what I have already laid down at our last Meeting As first That this Resistance is never to be made but when this violent breach of the Laws becomes evident and undeniable not to the Rabble alone but to the whole Nation that is all sorts and degrees or men and as long as there is any question about it I acknowledge it is by no means to be used And lastly As to declare the Regal Power forfeited this likewise is never to be done but when the King becomes so obstinately resolved to pursue those evil and illegal coâ—â—es as that he is utterly irreclaimable and refuses all propositions and terms of amending or redressing them And as to what you say that the King is hereby depriv'd of all means of justifying himself or vindicating his Actions that is not so since if a War be once begun he may do this either by Declaration or Treaties as King Charles the First did in his War with the Parliament by which means he gain'd a great many both of the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty to his Party who were before absolutely set against him But if you will needs have a Parliament to Judge and examine the reality of this forfeiture I so far joyn with you that though every private man may first judge thereof yet is it not become absolute and an Act of the whole People till the Estates of the Kingdom have by some solemn Vote or Declaration made it so M. Well I see you do all you can to make the best of a bad Cause but though I think nothing of what you have said can give Subjectâ— any right to resist much less to cast off all Allegiance to their Natural Prince yet I shall not now dispute this point any longer with you but will proceed to the merits of the Cause and shall lâ—â— you see that even upon your own principles the King has not been dealt 〈◊〉 in all this whole transaction either like an Ally by the States General of the United Provinces or like a near Relation or a Son in-law by the Prince of Orange or like a King by his own Subjects To begin with the Estates in the first place it is apparent that they have acted treacherously with the King and contrary to the last Treaty of Peace and Alliance in furnishing the Prince 〈…〉 their Captain General and 〈◊〉 holder both with Ships Men and Money and make this late Expedition against England without so much as ever declaring the cause of their Quarrel or demanding any satisfaction if any occasion of difference had been given But the Prince of Orange his dealing with the King his Father-in law has been much less justifiable for in the first place he is not only guilty of the same fault with his Masters the Dutch in beginning a War without ever declaring the causes of it or demanding any satisfaction or â—eparation if he had been injur'd till it was too late to go back and that his Fleet was ready and the Army shipt for the Expedition but which was more unkind from a Nephew and a Son-in-law who had reason to expect all the satisfaction which a King an Uncle and a Father-in-law could give though indeed to speak the truth the whole War was in my Opinion altogether unjust on the Pâ—â—nces side since his chief pretences were to redress Grievances and to re-establish the Bishops and Church of England with the Colledges in their just Rights and also restore the whole Nation to the just Execution of the Laws by a Free Parliament and Priviledges Now I desire to know what the Prince of Orange had to do either as a Neighbour or a Son-in-law to concern himself with the Mis-government of the Affairs of England much less to countenance and take the part of those many Male contents and Traitours who have ever since the Duke of Manmouth's Rebellion gone over into Holland So that upon the whole matter I can find but one thing which he had so much as a pretence of making War about if it had been real viz. the pretended suppoâ—â—â—tioâ—s Birth of the Prince of Wales and yet even for this he ought not to have made War till such time as all reasonable satisfaction in this matter had been demanded and denied him and that the next Parliament which the King had before declared should meet in November last had been either hindered from medling in it or that they had faâ—â—'d to make a due enquiry into it But if we look home F. Pray Sir before you come to consider what has been done here give me leave to iustifie the late proceedings of the States General and the Prince of Orange in this matter First as to the Estates it is a very great mistake for you affirm that they made this War upon the King in their own names or furnish'd the Prince of Orange with Ships or Men as their Sâ—adt-holder or General but only as a free Independent Prince whom they looked upon to have a good Cause of making War against the King of England as one they had great cause to believe was so far engag'd in the France interesâ— as instead of standing 〈◊〉 in this War with the Empire which they every day expected when he would joyn with France and declare War against them as they had reason to â—ear by several angry Memorials which the French King's Eâ—voy in Holland had not long before given them so that indeed it was but according to the Rules of Self-preservation to begin first especially when it might be done without their appearing in it at allâ— but granting
this War had been made in their own names it had been but a just Return for what had been done to them before by the Late King who made actual War upon them without ever giving them the least notice or demanding satisfaction for any wrongs or damages receiv'd and this was the more justifiable because his present Majesty when Duke of York was looked upon to have a very great hand in those Councils which begun that unhappy War in which he himself serv'd as Admiral But as to the Prince of Orange there is much more to be said in his justification for in the first place tho' in some respects he was a Subject by living under and enjoying divers Lands and Territories and Commands within the Dominions of the United Provinces yet as he is Prince of Orange he is a free independent Prince and as such has a right of making War and Peace and if so all that is to be further enquired into is whether the Prince had any just cause of making War upon the King or â—ot therefore to answer your first Objection against the Prince's making War upon an Uncle and a Father-in-law without first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if he could not obtain it I confess this were a good Objection if you could once prove to me that the Prince could have been sure to have had granted him whatever he could in reason demand both in respect of the Church of England the security of the Protestant Religion the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects of England and his own particular concerns in respect of the Prince of Wales but whoever will impartially consider the Terms that the Prince and King were upon just before his coming over will find that he was not obliged to give the King notice of his intentions by first demanding satisfaction and then denouncing War if it had been denyed since the King might then have joyned his own with the French Fleet and sent for French Forces into England and then all that the Prince could have done in behalf of himself and the Nation had been altogether in vain And then though I grant that such satisfaction ought to be demanded in most cases yet will it not hold in this where if the Prince had sooner discovered his designs the King might have easily prevented them And how near this was to have been put in Execution may appear by this That Succours were actually offered by the French King and if they were refused by ours it was partly because it was too late for the French Fleet to be then put out and partly out of a Politick consideration that besides the losing of the Hearts of his English Subjects it might give the French such a footing here that they would not be easily gotten out again But indeed it seems as if the old formal way of making War was quite out of fashion since Charles the Second made War against the Dutch and the King of France so lately against Spain the Elector Palatine and the Emperor without any Observation of those formalities But if we consider the Grounds and Causes of this War as they are set forth in the Princes late Declaration they may be reduced to these three Heads First The Restoration of the Church of England with the Bishops and Colledges to their just Priviledges Secondly The securing of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject from the Dispensing Power and those other Incroachments that had been made upon them by the partial Judgments of Popish Ignorant or Corrupt Judges And Lastly The Enquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales In all which the Prince was so reasonable as to refer the decision of these differences to the Judgment of a Free Parliament Now as for the first of these That the Prince as a Neighbour and of the same Religion with us might justly secure the interest of the Protestant Religion here and also redeem the Clergy from the persecution they lay under is very evident Since it has always been held lawful for Princes to take the part and espouse the interest of those of the same Religion with themselves though Subjects to another Prince Thus Eusibius makes it a good cause of War by the Emperor Constantine against Licinius because he persecuted the Christians living under his Dominions So likewise of later Ages Queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch Protestants of the united Provinces and those of France against the Persecutions and Oppressions they suffered from their own Princes As to the French Protestants King Charles the I. sent a Fleet and an Army to their Assistance in 1627. But as to the next Head the Oppressions we lay under in respect of our Civil Liberties the Prince had as great or rather greater right to vindicate these than the former For Bodin and Barclay though they suppose it unlawful for Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince though never so highly Opprest yet they count it not only lawful but Generous and Heroick for a Neighbouring Prince to rescue injur'd and opprest Subjects from the Tyranny of their Kings So that if the King had by his Dispensing Power his Levying of Taxes without Law and taking away the freedom of Elections for Parliament men almost totally dissolved the Government and brought it to the condition of an absolute Monarchy it was high time for the Prince to put a stop to those Encroachments both in respect of his own particular interest and also of the States whose General and Stadâ—holder he is Of the former since if this Kingdom should once become of the Popish Religion by the means of a standing Army and those other methods that have been taken to make it so granting the Prince of Wales to be truly born of the Queen yet should he happen to die the Popish faction here in England would in all likelihood debar the Prince and Princess of Orange from their lawful Succession to the Crown or at least would never admit them but upon conditions of establishing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England the former of which is as contrary to their consciences as the latter is to their principles and inclinations So on the other side if the Prince of Wales be not the Queens true Son he had certainly a much greater interest as the presumptive Heir of the Crown to demand satisfaction in that great point which so nearly concerned their right of Succession For then certainly they might justly demand satisfaction especially when they desired no more but to have this business left to the inspection of the Estates of the Kingdom as the only proper Judges of the same For as to the Privy Council who by the Kings command though without any president had taken upon them to hear and determine this matter their Highnesses certainly had no reason to be satisfied with it since besides the incompetency of the Judges the King himself appeared too partial and interested in the affair for them to set down by
their Judgments And as for what you say that the Prince ought first to have tryed whether the King and Parliament would give him that satisfaction he demanded This was very dangerous for him to hazard for supppose the King would never have permitted this affair to have been impartially inquired into by them or that the Parliament had been as it was very likely to be packt and made up of Papists Fanaticks and Time-servers who either would not or else durst not have examined this matter as they ought His Highness had been then to play an after-game the next year and what might have happened in the mean time God knows And therefore he had all the reason in the World whilst the French Kings Arms were imployed in Germany to demand satisfaction with the Sword in his hand This is what I have to say in justification of His Highnesses Arms which if they are just on his side I think I can as easily prove what has been done for his Assistance by the Nobility Gentry and Commons of this Nation to have been so too M. I shall not any longer dispute whether the Dutch and the Prince of Orange may not make some fair pretences for what they have done since making War for security by way of Prevention is no new thing in the World though I confess what you say in respect of the Prince of Wales had been a sufficient cause of War had there been any true grounds for that suspition but since there was no just cause given why his Highness should suspect his Birth not to be Genuine and that even in the present Convention it self there could be no proof made to the contrary I think it is now evident that it was a wicked and unjust Calumny upon his Majesty and the Queen since he himself in the last Paper he left behind him at his going away Appeals to all that know him nay even to the Prince of Orange himself that in their Consciences neither he nor they can believe him in the least capable of so unnatural a Villany nor of so little common Sence to be impos'd on in a thing of such a nature as that But as for those noble Men and Gentlemen who have declar'd for the Prince of Orange since his expedition I think that they are no way to be justified since granting them to have been satisfied that the Princes demands were lawful and reasonable yet sure they ought not to have taken up Arms on behalf of a Forreign Prince against their Natural Sovereign but if in their Consciences they had believed his quarrel to have been just the utmost they could have done had been to have stood Neuters without concerning themselves either with the one or the other party and then if the Prince had gain'd his point either by Arms or Treaty they might have enjoy'd the good effects of it without breaking in upon the Church of Englands Principles of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance and so many Acts of Parliament made but as for those Officers and Souldiers who so basely and perfidiously Deserted the King at Salisbury and ran over to the Princes Army with their Commissions in their pockets they cannot possibly be justified either by the Law of the Land or that of Nations since certainly they acted contrary to both F. Before I speak any thing concerning the business of the Prince of Wales give me leave to say something in Justification of those Noblemen and Gentlemen you so highly accuse and though we Discoursed something of this matter at our last meeting yet since you have again renewed the charge against them I cannot but again vindicate them in what they have done in the first place pray call to mind that it has sufficiently appear'd by the small Forces his Highness brought over with him that he never intended to Conquer this Kingdom or impose any thing upon it contrary to the known Laws and Customs thereof and therefore as appears by his Declaration his chief hopes of Success against so Numerous an Army made up of the flower of three Nations depended on that assurance he had of some Considerable Assistance from the Nobility and Gentry of Eng. and perhaps from some of the Officers of the Kings own Army and that this was lawful in both of them I thus prove you may remember I made out at our last meeting but one that when the Nation lay under any great intollerable Oppression by reason of the violation of their Just Rights and Liberties the Clergy Nobility and Gentry thereof did always look upon it as their Right and Duty to vindicate the same by a vigorous Resistance when no gentler means could suffice Secondly I have proved that it neither was nor could be the intent of those Oaths and Declarations made in the two first Parliamenâ—s of King Charles the Second to deliver up their Lives Liberties and Estates wholly to the Kings Mercy let him use them as he pleased and if they did not it must necessarily follow that upon the Kings Violation of their Religion Liberties and Properties they had still a Right left them to defend themselves from such Oppression and Tyranny Lastly I have also proved as the Convention also lately declared that the King by his exercising his Dispensing Power by Committing and Prosecuting the Six Bishops by setting up an Ecclesiastical Commission contrary to Law by Levying Mony by his Prerogative without or contrary to express Acts of Parliament and by Raising and keeping up a standing Army in time of Peace Commanded by Officers who had never taken the Test appointed by the Statutes for that purpose and consisting of so many Popish Souldiers who having never taken the Oathâ— of Supremacy and Allegiance were altogether uncapable of serving in his Majesties Army and by doing divers other things contrary to the known Laws Statutes and Freedom of this Realm too long now to particularize had broken the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom This being the Case I desire to know of you how it was possible for the Nation to have a firm and setled Redress of these Grievances without a Free Parliament Or how it was possible to obtain this Parliament the late taking away of Charters and Regulation of Corporations considered unless those Obstacles had been first removed And how could they be removed without some force proportionable to what the King had raised to hinder it I cannot tell And therefore it is a very vain Project of yours to suppose that those Noblemen and Gentlemen should have stood Neuters and not have declar'd themselves some way or other in this quarrel which is all one as to say they ought to sit still and see a Generous Prince ruin'd who had come in for their Redemption and to have then expected a remedy for all these illegal Violations and Oppressions when the King had kill'd or destroy'd the Prince of Orange and his Army or that the King would then have yielded to all the same Conditions that
But it is very strange to me that none of them deposed any thing concerning their seeing any Milk come from Her Majesties Breasts after she was Delivered And perhaps there was good reason for it for I have had it from good hands that she had none afterwards whatever she had before the reason of which deserves to be enquired into since it is very rare But as for the Mid-Wife her deposition is equivocal That she took a Child from the Body of the Queen She is also a Papist and consequently a suspected witness in this cause Whereas all this might have been prevented had the Queen were she really with Child been perswaded to be Delivered not within the Bed but upon a Pallate where all the persons whose business and concern it was to be present might have seen the Child actually born nor needed there to have any men been by though I have heard that the late Queen of France was Delivered of the present King the Dake of Orleans not being only present in the Room but an Eye-witness of the Birth And so sure if somewhat of this nature had been done it might have saved a great deal of dispute and bloodshed which has already or may hereafter happen about it And therefore I do not at all wonder that the Prince of Orange should not take this partial Evidence that has been given for sufficient satisfaction so that whether this Birth of the Queens was real or not I shall not now farther dispute It is sufficient that if His Highness and His Princess had just and reasonable suspitions of an Imposture whilst they remain under them they had also a just cause of procuring a Free Parliament to examine this great affair and also to obtain it by force since it was to be got no other way M. I need not further dispute this business of the Prince of Wales with you since I durst appeal to your own Conscience whether you are not satisfied notwithstanding these supposed indiscretions in the management of the Queens Delivery that he is really Son to the Queen and I think it would puzzle you or I to prove the Legitimacy of our own Children by better evidence than this has been and I think all those of your party may very well despair of producing any thing against it since the Prince of Orange himself has thought it best to let it alone as knowing very well there was nothing material could be brought in evidence against him But I shall defer speaking further to this Head till I come to consider of the Conventions setling the Crown upon the Prince and Princess of Orange But before I come to this I have many things further to observe upon the Princes harsh and unjust proceedings with his Majesty and refusing all terms of Accommodation with him upon his last return to London In the first place therefore I must appeal to your self whether It were done like a Nephew and a Son-in-Law after the King was voluntarily returned to White Hall at the perswasion of those Lords who went down to attend him at Feversham when he had had scarce time to rest him after his journey and the many hardships he had indured since his being seized in that Port and when he had but newly sent my Lord Feversham with a kind Message and Complement to the Prince inviting him to St. Iames's together with some overtures of Reconciliation as I am informed the Prince should make no better a return to all this kindness than to clap up the Messenger contrary to the Law of Nations as his Majesty observes in his Late Paper I now mentioned And should without any notice given to the King of it order his men to march and displacing his Majesties Guards to seize upon all the Posts about White-Hall whereby his Majesties Person became wholly in his Power And not content with this he likewise dispatcht three Lords whose names I need not mention to carry the King a very Rude and Undutiful Message desiring him no less than to depart the next Morning from his Pallace to a private House in the Countrey altogether unfit for the reception of his Majesty and those Guards and attendance that were necessary for his security Nor would these Lords stay till the Morning but disturbing his rest delivered their Message at Twelve a Clock at Night nor did they give him any longer time than till the next Morning to prepare himself to be gone and then the King was carried away to Rochester under the conduct not of his own but of the Princes Dutch Guards in whose custody his Majesty continued for those few days he thought fit to stay there till his departure from thence in order to his passage into France by which means the Prince hath render'd the breach irreconcileable between his Majesty and himself for whereas if he had come to St. Iames's in pursuance of the Kings Invitation and had renewed the Treaty which was unhappily broke off by the Kings first going away there might have been in great probability a happy and lasting reconciliation made between them upon such terms as might have been a sufficient security for the Church of England as also for the Rights and Liberties of the Subject which you so earnestly contend for whereas by the Conventions declaring the Throne vacant and placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein they have entail'd a lasting War not only upon us but our Posterity as long as his Majesty lives and the Prince of Wales and his Issue if he live to have any are in Being F. I confess you have made a very Tragical relation of this affair and any one that did not understand the grounds of it would believe that King Iames being quietly setled in his Throne and the Prince of Orange refusing all terms of reconciliation had seiz'd upon his Pallace and carried him away Captive into a Prison whereas indeed there was nothing transacted in all this affair which may not be justified by the strictest Rules of Honour and the Law of Nations for the doing of which it is necessary to look back and consider the state of affairs immediately after the Kings leaving Salisbury and coming to White-hall where one of the first things he did after he was arrived was to issue out a Proclamation for the calling a new Parliament which was so received with great satisfaction by the whole Nation and immediately upon this the King sent the Lords Hallifax Nottingham and Godolphin to treat with his Highness upon those Proposals of Peace which he then sent by them and to which the Prince return'd his answer the heads of which are very reasonable without demanding any other security for himself and his Army than the putting of the Tower and Forts about London into the Custody of that City now pray observe the issue of all those fair hopes before ever the terms propos'd by the Prince could be brought to Town the King following the ill advice of the
still here for the King did not leave Rochester until the 23d in the morning so it is plain it was not their design to own or take notice of him any more as King and that which makes it more remarkable is that several of the Bishops viz. the Arch-Bishop of York together with the Bishop of St. Asaph and others joyned with the rest of the Peers in these Addresses which was a plain sign they all looked upon the Kings Power to be now at an end But as for the Acclamations of the people or any great joy the City expressed upon the Kings return to Town I doubt you have had a false account of that matter for I cannot hear that any of the Citizens went out to meet him or set any Lights in their Windows though he came into London after it was dark or that any of the better sort bid him God Speed I grant indeed there was a great many of what you call the Mob but more Boys than Men who followed his Coach making Huzza's whilst the rest of the people silently looked on M. I cannot deny but you may have given a true account of these matters since you may have observ'd them better than I yet as you your self have Related them sure the King had sufficient cause to Consult his own Safety and make his escape as soon as he could for what could he expect when once the Prince had secured his Person under a Guard and had refused to Treat with him as King and that also the Peers and divers of the Bishops had made an Association to stand by the Prince of Orange and had made a fresh Address to him without taking the least notice of him as if there had been no such thing as a King in being I say what could his Majesty now expect but either a more close Confinement or else being taken off privately by poyson or some other ways since he could not be forgetful of the King his Fathers saying that there is no great distance between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes or admit he had lived till this Convention Saâ—e what could he have expected more than the retaining the bare Title of King whilst the Prince of Orange or some others appointed by Him had wholly managed the Government at their pleasure or else they might according to your Doctrine have either declared the Crown forfeited or else that he had Abdicated it by his going away or who can tell but they might have again renewed the Villany of 48. and have made him undergone the same Fate with his Father F. I grant you have urged the utmost that can be to justifie the Kings second Departure and as I would not deny but that he was the best Judge of his own Danger so were the Prince Peers and Common together with the City the best and only Judges we could then have of the true means of our settlement and safety since after so many breaches that the King had made upon his first Declaration and Coronation Oath as also his going from his late Promise of calling a Free Parliament I cannot see what farther security he could have given us that he would not repeat the same things over again or admit the Prince had suffered him to continue at White-hall and to call a third Parliament what assurance could he have given that in the end of another forty days we should not have the same trick play'd us and then in March or April have been left in the same state of Confusion we were in in December to the certain ruine of these three Kingdoms and Holland into the bargain And then by that time the French King might have got ready an Army and a Fleet and under a pretence of redeeming his Majesty from the constraint he lay under and of restoring him to the free exercise of his Regal Power have Invaded this Kingdom and I suppose you cannot deny but the King would then have sound Papists and High Tories enough to have joined with him in this pious design for certainly the scruples of the high Church-men would have been the same they are now the obligations of the Oath of Allegiance the same and the supposed Sin of deposing a Lawful K. the same though he had utterly refused to give the Prince and Nation any satisfaction so that then if we had been forced to take Arms and to declare he had forfeited his Right to the Crown all these things would have given as great or rather greater scandal than for the Nation to take him at his first offer and since he had thus rashly deserted the Throne by a needless departure to resolve he should Ascend it no more But suppose what might also as well have happened that the Prince and his Party had been killed or expelled the Kingdom by the King do you think he would have granted us then what he would not grant us now Would he not think you have disbanded his Protestant Army and have kept only Irish Scotch and French Forces in pay and have every day encreased them What respect can we hope he would ever after this have shewn to our Laws Religion or Liberties when he had now no longer any thing to fear The memory of what happened after the Duke of Monmouth's defeat though effected only by those of the Church of England will certainly never be forgotten by others whatever you Bigots of Loyalty may pretend or say So that for my part I stand amazed to see you and so many others scruple the submitting to the present King for if ever man had a just cause of War he had and that creates a right to the thing gained by it the King by withdrawing and disbanding his Army yielded him the Throne and is he had without any more Ceremony ascended it he had done no more than several Princes formerly have done on the like occasions for the Prince was no longer then bound to consider him as one that was but as one that had been King of England yet in that capacity he treated him with great respect and civility how much soever the King complained of it who did not enough consider what he had done to draw upon himself that usage but as for your insinuation that if he had stayed he might have run the same fate with his Father I think it is fuller of Passion than Truth for besides that the Lords and Commons would never had the Impudence to have committed such a Villany and the Prince himself as a Nephew and a Son-in-Law would never have suffered it M. Well God only knows the event of things and we ought to judge charitably and still to hope that if the King might have been restored upon terms that he would have been the better for his Affliction and have amended all those errours he committed since he had seen that neither the Nation nor yet his Neighbours the Dutch would permit him to make himself an Absolute
Monarch I believe he would have been too much afraid of the King of France ever to have made use of his Forces to have setled Popery and Arbitrary Government and without his assistance I suppose you will grant it never could have been done since he plainly found that a Protestant Army would never have joined with him to act in such pernitious designs but however let the worst have happened that could be I think it had been much better for the Nation to have endured it with Patience than to have done that which was Evil though for the procuring of the greatest seeming Good tho' for the advantage of our Religion and civil Liberties and therefore it had been better for us in this extremity to have trusted God than Men since he always promises to protect those that relye upon him and strictly perform his Will and admit the worst that could have happened God would either have removed those afflictions from us in due time or have given us Patience to have born them since I suppose you will not deny that God oftentimes brings Persecutions and Afflictions upon a Sinful Church and Nation either for a punishment for their Sins or else to give an occasion for those that are truly Pious and Sincere to shew their Courage and Constancy in Suffering for the Truth and by withstanding not by force but Passive Obedience all the Kings Illegal and Arbitrary Commands if he should after his re-establishment in the Throne have again renewed his former courses these are the only remedies which we of the Church of England as obedient Subjects to the King and his Laws must think could have been Lawfully taken in this case F. I do not deny but what you say is in the main very pious and honest were the case as you have put it but the greatest part of your discourse depends wholly upon those old principles and prejudices of the unlawfulness of all resistance of the Supream Powers and that the King is the only Supream Power in this Kingdom both which propositions I have sufficiently confuted at our third fourth and fifth meetings and also at our last save one in which I gave you a true account of the Legal sense of those Oaths and Statutes of King Charles II. concerning Resistance as was also given by the best Lawyers and most considering Men of the then House of Lords and Commons so that if the means we have used are lawful both by the Laws of God and Man I think we are not bound to bring Afflictions upon our selves but to avoid them all we can especially when they come evidently attended with the utter loss and ruine of what ought to be most dear to us our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties and that not only for our selves but our Posterity who perhaps would never have regained them when they were once lost of which the French Nation is an evident example before our Eyes who by not opposing the Arbitrary Power of their Kings in due time have fallen into a Government almost as Despotick as that of Turky for when once the common good of the Subjects ceases to be the main end of the Governours the Government then ceasing to be Gods Ordinance degenerates into Tyranny which I think may be always Lawfully opposed by a free-born People who at first agreed to be Governed not as Slaves but Subjects But as for the first part of your Speech it needs not any long answer it first supposes the King might have been again restored upon terms now since it is plain these Terms must have been imposed upon him against his Will and as necessary Conditions of his Restoration I would be glad to know who it was should undertake to impose them upon him and to see them kept when they had been made whether the Prince of Orange or the Parliament if the former I grant indeed he might have made such Conditions with the King that the Church of England as well as the whole Nation should for the future enjoy their Just Rights and Liberties but then the Prince must either have trusted wholy to the Kings Honour or else he must have had some strong places put into his Hands for a Security that the King would not again make the same Violations upon our Laws Religion and Liberties as he had done before if the former I suppose you will not deny but that the King might if he had pleased have broken them all again as soon as ever the Princes back had been turned and that he had been once engaged in a War with France which could not have been long avoided considering the necessity there is at this juncture of time for the States of Holland and Consequently the Prince as their General to engage with the Emperor and King of Spain to drive the French out of the Empire and to hinder him from making himself Universal Monarch of Europe which it is plain is the thing he now drives at But if the Prince should have kept any strong places here as cautionary Towns for the Kings performance of the Terms agreed upon this must have been done either by English or Forreign Forces if by the former this would have been looked upon as inconsistent with their Duty and Allegiance to the King if he should have commanded them to be delivered up into his Hands since you tell us the King has the sole Command of the Militia and consequently of all Garrisons man'd by his Subjects within his Dominions But if the Forces that should have held these places had been Dutch-men or other Forreigners it would never have been endured either by the King or the Nation that Forreigners should possess the strong Holds and Keys of the Kingdom and the King might soon have wrought by some jealousies and suspitions which he would not have failed to have raised that the Nation it self should have joyned with him to drive them out and then the King might have done what he pleased without Controul but if you will place this power into the whole People or Nation or else their Representatives the Parliament of holding the King to these Terms agreed upon this could not have been done without their constant Siting and a power of Resisting him in case he infring'd them and then either they must have given up all their Liberties to the Kings Will or else farewell to the Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance so that take it which way you will all imposing of Terms upon the King either by the Prince of Orange or the Nation would in a short time have become either Unpracticable or Insignificant Nor is your other Supposition any whit truer that the King would never have made use of the Forces of France to subdue and keep under the people of England for fear he should not be able to get the French out again Ti 's true this would be a very good Argument to a Prince who were no Bigot and was not resolved
to introduce his Religion by all the ways and means he could but how near the French Forces were to be brought over into this Kingdom the last Summer is very well known to those who were then in France and saw them upon the Sea Coast ready to Imbark nor was their coming over put off by any other motives than that two of the Cabinet-Council represented to the King that it would be the only means to make the whole Nation rise up against him and joyn with the Prince of Orange as soon as he Landed which I suppose was the only reason that hindred it for that the French King offered to send them is very certain Yet it does not follow for all that but the King might take an opportunity of doing it another time and bringing them over in their own Ships if ours would not do the business And though I will not affirm that there is any private League with France for the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion yet this much I think may be sufficiently made out that long ago the King was wholly in the power and interest of France as appears by Coleman's Letters whilst he was his Secretary when Duke of York The first passage is to Sir William Throgmorton Feb. 1. 1673 4. You well know that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire The next is to Father La Chaise the French Kings Confessor in these words That his Royal Highness was Convinced that his interest and the King of France's were the same and whether the Duke by his Accession to the Crown has shewed any alteration in his Inclinations to France either in respect of Religion or Interest I appeal to the World Nor is your next Supposition less out of the way that the King could have made use of no Forces but French to settle Popery and Arbitrary Government here as if He had not Scotch and Irish Papists enough in his Dominions for this occasion and as for Arbitrary Government we have found to our grief that there are too many Mercenary Souldiers in the Kings Army who fought only for pay and would have Assisted the King to have Raised Money without the Parliament nay to pull the very Parliament out of Doors if he had bid them and if some of them were Discontented when the Prince came over I do not so much impute it to their Honest Principles as fear lest they themselves should be Cashierd and Scotch and Irish to be listed in their rooms so that upon the whole matter considering the temper the King was in ever since his last coming to Town and that as soon as he Arrived the Priests and Jesuits flocked about him as thick as ever that they and the French Envoy were his chief if not his only Cabinet Councellors I cannot see unless he had taken new measures how we could have been secure or could have relied on any thing he could have farther promised nay swore to perform since no Oath could be more Sacred than that at his Coronation when he Swore to maintain the Church that is the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Laws of the Kingdom if that be a true account of the form of it which we have in print M. At this rate of Arguing I know not what to say to you since this Argument amounts to no more than this that the King could upon no account be trusted and therefore was not any more to be Treated with if this were so to what purpose did the Prince of Orange declare that he came not to Conquer the Kingdom but only to procure a Free and Legal Parliament which could not be called without the Kings Consent and owning his Authority neither could they have done the least Act for the Amendment of our Grievances without his Majesties Consent or to what purpose did the Prince enter into a Treaty with the Kings Commissioners at Hungerford if his Royal Word and Promises were not to be believed But if his Majesty could ever be trusted I see no reason why he could not have been so as well since his last coming to Town as before since he came voluntarily and as I have great reason to believe with Real Intentions to grant and perform what ever the Nation could reasonably expect for the Redress of their Grievances and would have given any reasonable Security of his performance for the future without Devesting himself of his Royal Power of making Laws and Protecting his Subjects But as for the former part of your Speech whereby you would prove it lawful to Resist the King because you say it conduced to the Common good and Interest of the Nation both as to the Protestant Religion and Civil Liberties this is no more than the Old Common-wealths Maxim in other words which I grant is so far true as when the safety and preservation of the King or other Supream Powers of a Common-Wealth who according to your own principles are the Representatives of the people and consequently part of it are likewise comprehended and maintained as they ought to be in their due power and authority for Bishop Sanderson in his Learned Lectures hath very well proved that those cannot be separated from each other without destroying the Civil Government which is all the Security we have for our Civil Properties and Liberties and we see in those few days in which his Majesties Person was withdrawn when that there was no Civil Government exercised that there was greater infringment of them both by plundering and destroying of Houses and spoiling of Parks and Forests in three or four days time by the violence and fury of the Mob than have been committed by the most Arbitrary Kings from the Conquest to this day F. You very much mistake me if you think I maintain that there was never any time after the Princes Landing that the King might not have been Treated withal and likewise trusted with the Administration of the Government but then it must have been upon such Terms as should have secured us for the future from his Acting the like or worse things over again as in the first place he should have renounced his Dispensing Power and that of Levying Chimny mony upon small Cottages and Ovens directly contrary to Law Next he should have Disbanded his standing Army and kept up no Forces in time of Peace besides the necessary Guardâ— of his Person the Number of which should have been agreed upon by Parliament which should also have Sâ—te once every year or two years at least and lastly that in respect of the Church as long as he or his Successors continued of the Roman Catholick Religion the Nomination of all Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans with other Ecclesiastical preferments which are not in the immediate Disposal of the Lord Chancellor should have been in the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of each Province they choosing two out of
which his Majesty should have chosen one for to supply each Bishoprick c. as they became vacant And therefore for my own part I was so far from believing all agreements with the King to be unpracticable that there was no body rejoyced more than I when upon his Majesty's first return to London he so far Complied with the Desires of the whole Nation as to issue out his Proclamation for a Free Parliament and that he sent down his Commissioners to Treat with the Prince and I had then great hopes of an Accommodation but when instead of this the King had burnt the Writs for the Election of Parliament Men and had sent away the Queen and Prince together with the Great Seal that no more Writs might be issued and that before ever the Commissioners could return to London or before any Answer to the Princes Proposals was given by the King he had withdrawn himself and done all he could to get away into a Foreign Kingdom it was then and not till then that I saw all hopes of Agreement absolutely desperate and though you put a great stress upon the Kings last return to Town which you suppose was with a Design to agree with the Prince in every thing that could be in Reason demanded I can see no cause for your drawing such a Consequence from it for if he did not look upon himself as safe here before his Army was Disbanded he could not think himself more so when it was either wholly Dissolved or else was gone over to the Prince and therefore I have much greater reason to believe that his return again to Town was only to comply with the present necessity and to wait for a fitter opportunity to get away there being never a Vessel then ready to Transport him especially if that be true which I have heard that the King declared to a Person of Credit That the Queen had obtained from him a Solemn Oath on the Sacrament on the Sunday that if she went for France on Monday he would not fail to follow her on Tuesday and if this were so though he was disappointed in his intended passage yet still was he under the same obligation to the Queen nor do I see any Transaction of his with the Prince of Orange or with these of the Church of England that can perswade me to believe otherwise sinâ—e his long Consultation with the French Envoy and the Priests and Jesuits could only tend to the taking new measures for his Departure or else how he might Imbroil us further while he stayed by some faint hopes of new Treaties and Agreements But as for the other part of your Answer whereby you would confute my Notion of the lawfulness of Resistance for the defence and preservation of our Religion Established by Law as also of our Liberties and Properties I hope I shall let you see that it is not I but your self who are mistaken in this matter For 1st All Writers on this Subject and even Dr. Sanderson himself in his Lectures of the Obligation of Conscience do acknowledge that all Civil Government is principally ordained for the good and preservation of the People and that the good of the Governours is only to be considered secondarily and in order to that which if so I pray tell me whether the good and preservation of the people ought not to be considered in the first place since the end for which a thing is ordain'd is always more worthy than the means by which it is procured and therefore I shall freely grant that as long as the safety and interest of the Supream Power and that of the People are all one and can any ways consist together and that they make the happiness and preservation of the People to be the main end of their Government I so far agree with you that the good or preservation of the Prince or Supream Powers cannot nay ought not to be separated from that of the People but when they once set up a separate interest quite different from that of the People as all Princes do who turning Tyrants go about to inslave them they then cease to be the true heads of that Political Body the Common Wealth and thereupon the Community or People become free and at liberty either to oppose or remove these Artificial heads and to set up new ones in their rooms so that since similies are not Arguments your comparison between a Natural and Political Body hath only served to impose upon your Judgment in this matter and therefore I affirm that a Natural and Political Body do wholly differ in this matter for in a Natural Body the real good of the head cannot be separated from that of the Body nor the good of the Body from that of the Head nor yet can the Body alone Judge of the proper means of it's own preservation nor when it is hurt or assaulted but by the head which is the principle of sense and motion but in a Political Body it is quite otherwise for first the Supream Powers of a Common-wealth which you suppose to be Head of this Political Body do often pursue and set up an interest quite different from nay contrary to that of the Body or People and that not only to their prejudice but also sometimes to their destruction and that when they do this the Politcal Body or the People will in evident and apparent cases Judge for themselves let this Political Head say or declare what it will against it and will when they are thus destroyed opprest and inslav'd by those that they have submitted to as their Political Heads and in such cases of extremity endeavour to free themselves from the severity of their Yoke M. Notwithstanding what you have now said I am not yet convinced that the King had no real design to redress our grievances and to make a final agreement with the Prince for though I do not deny but his Majesty did converse with some Priests and others of his own persuasion as also with the French Envoy after his coming to Town yet might this be for no ill intent and he did also converse with divers reverend Bishops and Lords of our own Religion to whom he still expressed a great desire of making an end of all differences between himself the Prince and the whole Nation and this I suppose is the true reason why the Arch-bishop of Canterbury though it is true he signed the first and second Addresses to the Prince upon his Majesty's first wth-drawing himself yet has been ever since so sensible of that mistake he then committed that he has never appeared or acted in any meeting of the Peers nor yet in the Convention and that his Majesty even at Rochester did not lay aside all thoughts of Agreement and making up all breaches between himself and his People I could give you another demonstration which is not commonly known and which I had from a particular Friend viz. that the King
during his confinement there sent a Lady I could name on a message to two reverend Prelates of our Church together with an Emrauld Ring from his Finger as a Testimony of the Truth of her Commission to this effect That his Majesty being sensible of the sad condition the Church of England as well as he himself was in and that there was no way so likely for him to get out of it as by granting his Subjects and particularly the Church of England such securities for the enjoyment of their just Rights and Liberties as they could in reason demand therefore he wholly left it to the discretion of those Bishops to make to the Peers and Bishops that were then to meet suddenly whatever proposals they should think reasonable on his behalf for the satisfaction of the Church and safety of the Nation and that he would be ready to grant and ratifie them whensoever he should be required F. This is indeed more than ever I heard before and can scarce believe but did the Lady go and deliver her message And pray what answer did those Bishop give to this fair proposal M. Yes the Lady did deliver her message and these Bishops answer'd both to the same effect that they had a real duty and affection for his Majesty and a great desire to serve him but that considering the great Power of the Prince of Orange and his present aversion to any agreement with his Majesty they very much feared that the Peers would not venture to give the Prince any such advice or to interpose with him on his Majesties behalf which in my opinion was very meanly and cowardly done of them who considering their duty to him as King and also those particular obligations they owed him as their Benefactor and who had been the greatest means of their being raised to those dignities in his Brothers Reign now I desire to know if this message had received its intended effect what greater demonstration his Majesty could have given to satisfie the World that he really intended to set all things right again had he been permitted to do it F. I will not farther question the Truth of this Relation though perhaps I might have sufficient reason for it since you say you had it from a person of good credit and who was privy to this transaction nor yet will I be so inquisitive as to know the names either of the Bishops or of the Lady since you make it a secret but yet notwithstanding I do still very much question whether the King did ever really design to do what he then offer'd and did not intend to put a sham upon their Lordships to serve his present occasion and to see if he could divide the Bishops and Peers of the Church of England from the Prince of Oranges Interest and so by making them offer such Proposals as the Prince should not think fit to agree to might make them declare against his proceedings which would have created great divisions and heart-burnings between those of the high Church of England party and the Prince and thereby have involved us again in fresh disturbances of which no doubt the King and the Popish Faction were like to receive the greatest advantage for you know the old saying divide impera But to let you see that I do not speak without just grounds for my opinion let us examine every circumstance of this matter first if the King had meant really is it likely that he would have trusted a business of that high moment to a Woman When he had then the Lords of Alesbury and Arron besides other Protestant Gentlemen then waiting on him and they were much fitter to be trusted than this Lady let her be whom she will Or can any one believe if the King had meant really that he would not have sent his Proposals in Writing since he very well knew from the Princes Declaration as well as the Bishops Petition and Addresses to him what the whole Nation and the Church of England in particular required at his hands But that he must send a loose and uncertain Message which it was in his power to disown whenever he pleased by saying the foolish Woman mistook his meaning and she also might be so much his Creature as to take the fault wholly upon her self whenever it should serve the Kings turn so to do and therefore I think it was very wisely and honestly done of those reverend Prelets to refuse medling in such a ticklish affair since it is plain by his not making any such proposals to the Prince of Orange himself or the Lords about him that he was not to be made privy to it but rather it should be carried on whether he would or no and without giving him any satisfaction in his particular concern as to the Prince of Wales and lastly I desire you farther to consider whether the King might not hereafter when ever he had power have made void whatever agreements or concessions he should have then granted either to the Church of England or to the Nation by pleading afterwards that they were obtained by decrees whilst he was not sui juris but under the Power of the Prince of Orange I have but one thing more to add which I before omitted which is to make some reply to what you said concerning the mischief that the Mob has done upon Houses Forests and Praks since his Majesty's first departure and therefore granting the matter of Fact that much mischief and spoil has been committed yet I deny that it is more than has been done by the most Arbitrary Kings since the Conquest to this day as you are pleased to affirm for I believe you forget the Thirty Parish Churches and Towns which our Historian tell us your William the Conquerour and his Son Ruâ—us destroyed when they inlarged new Forrests and therein acted contrary to their Oaths like true despotick Tyrants you likewise forget the miserable spoil and waste which King Iohn and Henry the III. made upon the Houses Castles and Estates of the Barons and Gentry of England who opposed them in their unjust and illegal violations of Magna Charta besides other Tyrannical actions of the same kind committed by King Edward and Richard the II. too long here to relate but if these mischiefs were done you speak of who have we to thank for it but the King who stealing away on the sudden without leaving any orders for the Government of the Kingdom all persons in Commission either Civil or Military doubted whether their Commissions were noâ— at an end by the Kings deserting the Government as he did besides you very well know that the Common People were so enraged against the Popish Faction for so many insolent actions they had committed in King Iames's Reign and so many apparent breaches and contempts of all the Laws made against them that you cannot wonder if when they were rid of the fear of the Irish and of King Iames's Army they kept
of this Vote will prove so likewise F. Well you have made a pretty long discourse in Defence of King Iames's Actions as well as his late Desertion and I have heard you patiently because I grant you have collected together a great deal of matter in few words and I think all that can be justly urged in your Kings defence I shall therefore begin with the first false step that you say the Convention made in not inquiring after the Causes of the Kings departure whither he was gone and their not voting of an Address to the Prince to desire his return as for the first of these they were not at all obliged to do it since a great many of the Peers and Bishops who were then in Town very well knew the Causes of the Kings Departure and that he either went a way voluntarily or at least without any other necessity than what he had brought upon himself by his own evil Government or the ill Council of others which may be easily proved by several Circumstances for it is very well known that above a formight before the King went away the Lord D and Mr. Brent did not stick to declare that it was necessary that the King should withdraw himself so that it is plain the Popish Faction knew of it long before it was done and that it proceeded wholly from their advice appears further by a Letter to the King when he was at Salisbury which can be yet produced he was there told that it was the unanimous advice of all the Catholicks at London that he should come back from thence and withdraw himself out of the Kingdom and leave us in confusion assuring him that within two years or less we should be in such confusions that he might return and have his ends of us Now if the King was pleased to take such a desperate Counsellors Advice and thereupon to do all he could to quit the Kingdom the cause of his going is too evident as well as his design of returning to have his ends of us as they phrase it that is in plain English to have both our Religion Liberties and Properties wholly at his disposal nor in the next place needed they inquire where he was for every one knew he was gone into France to the greatest Enemy of our Religion and Nation as well as the Princes and therefore it had been altogether unsafe and indiscreet for them to have joined in any Address to the Prince for his return for whilst he was in such hands what hopes could we have of his returning to us with better but rather worse affections towards the Church of England and this Nation than what he carried with him But you say they refus'd to receive his Letters for my part I do not know that he ever sent any at least to the House of Commons I heard indeed that one of the Kings Ordinary Servants was at the Door of the House with such a Letter but that he was so inconsiderable that no body would receive the Letter or make any mention of it in the House and it was very strange that the King should have never a Friend there who had so much courage and kindness for him as would take the Letter and move for the reading of it though he had run the risque of being committed for his pains so that the House of Commons is not to be blamed for not receiving a Letter which was never offer'd them but as for the House of Lordâ— I have been told it was moved to be read there but it was carried in the Negative because it was not brought by a person of sufficient quality and credit and therefore it was the Kings fault if he would imploy such mean persons in a matter of that great moment and indeed if we may give credit to those Copies of these Letters which I have seen they retain'd rather a Justification of his past actions than an acknowledgement of those violations he had committed upon our Laws for as to his promising to Govern by Law there is nothing in that for he never yet own'd that he Govern'd otherwise 't is true there is in one of those Letters an expression of his amending past Errours but those are general words and may mean such Errours as he had committed in the ill management of his Designs which he would have mended when ever he was to do the like things again this may very well be the true Sence of a Letter it iâ— very likely written with the Equivocation of the Jesuits and French advice of a Cabal But you would have him sent for to return upon certain Terms I wonder you should be so undutiful as to urge it since if he is an absolute King without any Conditions what ever he ought certainly to be restored as King Charles the Second was without any Terms or Conditions at all and rather so than with them since he cannot give us greater assurances for his keeping them than he has already broke unless you can suppose he would give us the Guarranty of the Pope and the King of France for their performance the former of whom believes that there is no Faith to be kept with Hereticks and for the latter supposing the King and him to pass his word for the performance of these Conditions pray consider whether the bond of two Bankrupts can ever pass for a good Security and so much for the Letters and Address I come now in the next place to consider your exceptions against that Fundamental Vote of the House of Commons concerning King Iames's Abdication of the Government and thereupon declaring the Throne Vacant To begin with your first exception I think it is a very small one that because this Vote declares the King to have endeavour'd to Subvert the Constitution of this Kingdom that it was very unjust to declare him to have Abdicated the Government for a bare endeavour because we are ignorant of the true ends of the Actions of Princes to which I answer that in this Case a bare endeavour ought to be sufficient if it be so evident that there can be no dispute about it for if he had once actually subverted it the two Houses could never have met to have made this Vote and if in the case of Kings the very barâ— design or endeavour to destroy them be sufficient though it be never reduced into act I cannot see why by the same rule the endeavours of Kings to destroy the fundamental constitution of a mixt or limited Kingdom should not have the like construction in respect of them since according to the maxime you but now cited and which I have sufficiently justified that in all such Governments the safety and preservation of the People that is of the Government they have established is to be preferr'd before that of the King alone when acting in a direct opposition thereunto or otherwise it would be in the Kings Power to destroy the constitution whenever he pleas'd
I think it had been much better for avoiding all Disputes between the King and Parliament as also for preventing the evil use that has been made of those Presidents to advance the King's Prerogative to what height he pleased rather to have repeal'd all those obsolete Statutes than to have suffered them still to continue But to let you see that the distinction of mala in se and mala prohibita often fails I think I can prove it to you by divers undeniable Instances for there are divers things which are neither mala in se that is neither Natural nor Moral Evils either by Common or Statute Law and yet being declar'd Common Nusances are only mala Politica introducta and are no ways mala in se which the King cannot dispense with at all only because they are prohibited Thus the King cannot dispense with the least Nusance to the High-ways as by laying Dung in them or the like tho men may very well pass through them So likewise by the Statute of the 18 th of King Charles the II. the bringing over of Irish Cattel is declared a publick Nusance and therefore the King cannot dispense with it yet no man will say it was so before that Statute was made and therefore it is very well observ'd by the late Chief-Justice Vaughan in that Case of Thomas and Surrel I now mention'd that publick Nusances are not mala in se but mala Politica introducta and when a thing is said to be prohibited by the Common Law the meaning is no more but that the Ancient Record of such a Prohibition is not to be found M. I grant indeed the Author you have now cited in that Case very well restrains the Kings Prerogative as to things that concern the Right or Property of others and therefore the King cannot pardon the damage done to particular persons where the Suit is only the King 's but for the benefit and safety of a third person the King cannot dispence with the Suit but by consent and agreement of the party concerned And again Penal Laws the breach whereof are to any man's particular damage cannot be dispensed with and the Chief-Justice Herbert himself owns that the King cannot dispense with Laws which vest the least right of property in any of his Subjects F. Very well then we see the Prerogative is bounded where the interest of particular persons is concerned But doth the Law take more care of them than of the publick Interest and the concernment of the whole Nation and this Act against Papists holding of Employments was certainly made pro bono publico to prevent the danger that may happen from Popish Recusants who were before prohibited by divers Statutes to hold any Offices or Employments before they had taken the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance Therefore I cannot see how such a Dispensation can be good the breach whereof must tend so much to the danger of the Common-wealth and if according to the Rule you have laid down but now That no Law can be dispensed withal that is for the benefit and safety of a third person or where the breach thereof are to other mens particular damage Now whatsoever is prejudicial to the publick safety of the Common wealth must be also prejudicial to the safety of every private person and the breach thereof does tend to each man's particular damage in the Nation if they are once generally dispensed with M. I grant this is the most natural Objection you have made against the King's power of dispensing in this Case but my Lord Chief-Justice Vaughan in the Case already cited answers this Objection very well No offence says he against a Penal Law could be dispensed with if the reason of not dispensing were because the Offence is contra bonum publicum for all Offences against Penal Laws are such and tho such Laws are pro bono publico they are not Laws pro bono Singulorum populi which are the Laws which the King cannot dispence with but pro bono populi complicati as the King in his discretion shall think fit to order them for the good of the whole In this Nation the Estate of every Pater-â—amilius may be said to be pro bono Communi of his Family which yet is but at his discretion and management of it and they have no interest in it tho they have benefit by it And therefore it is but reasonable that as to the bonum publicum singulorum the King should not dispence because every man hath a particular interest in and they are Judges of it themselves whereas in those Acts that are pro bono populi complicati as these Acts of Sheriffs and for taking the Oaths and Tell are the King is the sole Judge in what cases they concern the publick good of the Common-wealth and where they do not F. I confess this is a subtle piece of learning but pray let us take it a little out of these Latin terms and then the meaning of it is no more than this that the King can do nothing to the prejudice of the People in their private Capacities but he can do what he will with the publick I thought indeed a Prince had been in the first place bound to regard the good of the publick and to take care of the saâ—us populi complicati as you call it that is as they are imbodied together above the private good or interest of particular men which you call bonum singulorum populi which can never be preserved but where the Laws and Statutes ordain'd for the publick benefit and security of the Common Wealth have been generally broken and violated by common and easie Dispensations and have been abused to that degree that we lately saw every Popish Lawyer that was thought any thing fit to be a Judge might sit upon the Bench upon the Lives and Estates of Protestants every Deputy Lieutenant Justice of Peace or other Officers either Civil or Military might be sure of being preferr'd if he either was a Papist or Fanatick every Minister or Parson of a Parish who would renounce the Orders of the Church of England might hold his Living without doing any of the Spiritual Functions and all this by vertue of these dispensations grounded upon the distinction of the publick good of the whole People taken together as different from that of the publick good of each particular person But it seems strange to me that our Ancestors should take such care of the Laws concerning the measures of Bread Drink and Flesh as that the King cannot dispence with them because they respect the common good of the whole People and of every particular person but yet as to the Laws which concern the publick good of the whole Nation in general they were content to leave them to the sole will and pleasure of their Prince No one that reads the History of our Ancestors and the contest they had with their
those Affairs But not to be partial to one Opinion I have faithfully recited all those Authorities and Arguments made use of by the Author of the Treatise Intituled The Hereditary Succession discuss'd as also by the Learned Dr. Brady in his exact History of the Succession of the Crown wherein those Authors endeavour to prove that the Crown of England is and hath always been Hereditary from the very beginning of our Monarchy notwithstanding the many and various Breaches that have been made upon it which Authorities and Arguments whether they prove the Matter in debate I shall leave to your better Iudgment but hope those Gentlemen will not take it ill if I cannot let all they write pass for clear Demonstration and therefore have taken upon me to cite all those Arguments and Authorities that either have been or as far as I know of may be made use of by those of the contrary Opinion in the performance of which if I have not dealt candidly with both Parties in fairly representing the utmost that they had to say I shall be obliged if any Friend to Truth will shew me my failings But tho it is true I have not gone higher in this History than the coming in of K. William I. yet I hope I may be excused looking farther back for these Reasons First because an Examination of the Succession before that time would not only be tedious by swelling this Discourse to an unreasonable Bulk but would also be superfluous since the Gentleman whom I suppose Freeman here Argues against makes K. William I. to have been an absolute Conqueror and to have altered all the former Laws in the Saxon Times and if so sure then those concerning the Succession of the Crown And I desire them to shew me any Reason if he and his Descendants held the Kingdom as Absolute Monarchs by Conquest why they might not bequeath or make it over as is justifiable in Patrimonial Kingdoms to which of their Sons Kindred or Relations they should think fit and if so what will then become of this Fundamental Right of a Lineal Hereditary Succession And besides all this it is needless upon another Account since I have already proved in the Tenth Dialogue from no less Authority than K. Alfred's Will that before the Conquest the Crown was partly Testamentary and partly Elective sometimes wholly Elective as in K. Edward the Confessor and whoever doubts of this I shall only desire them to read impartially Dr. Brady's above-mentioned History of the Succession and then I shall leave it to them to consider whether he does not grant in effect what he takes upon him to Confute viz. That there was no Lineal Descent of the Crown known or setled in those Times but what was Alterable by the Testament of those Kings But since the rest of this Discourse besides the enquiry into bare Matter of Fact is chiefly the applying those Precedents I have here made use of to the Case of their present Majesties I hope neither they nor any that wish well to their Government will resent it if I have not gone in the common Road of former Writers in supposing the Titular Prince of Wales to be an Impostor without any other proof than those bare Suspitions that have been publish'd in the Printed Pamphlets yet since however they may incline a Man to doubt they cannot make a Child Illegitimate whom his Father and Mother have hitherto bred up and owned for theirs and therefore I have rather chosen to suppose him at present to be the Lawful Son of King James and Queen Mary and yet that what the late Convention have done in passing him by without taking any notice of his Title was all that they could or were obliged to do his present Circumstances considered But if it be here made out that King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of this Realm no Man can doubt whether Allegiance may be sworn too them or not and perhaps there was no need of writing any thing farther yet since I find a great many of the Clergy as well as Laity of this Nation could not go higher than their swearing Allegiance to them as King and Queen de facto and that even this has been violently opposed by the sâ—iff Asserters of K. James's Right I have thought fit to add in the next Discourse which I promise shall be the last on this Subject all that hath been said Pro and 〈◊〉 upon that Question and to make it of the same Bulk with the rest I have for the satisfaction of those of the Church of England as well as Royal Interest endeavour'd to shew the great difference between this late Revolution and that fatal Civil War that ended with the Deposition and Murder of King Charles the First These two Questions together with an Index to all the Dialogues being dispatch'd as I hope they will be shortly shall be the last I shall trouble the World with upon these Subjects since I know nothing more that can be well added to what I shall there set down THE Twelfth Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian AND Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman M. I Am glad Sir you are come for I was wishing for you pray sit down and let us begin where we left off you may remember you promised me when we last parted that the next time I saw you you would make out to me from undeniable proofs and precedents from our Antient Histories and Laws that the present Convention had done nothing in Voting the Throne vacant and then placing the Prince and Princess of Orange therein but what may be justified by the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom for I must still believe till I am better instructed that there can be no Inter Regnum in England but that it hath been from the first Institution of the Government an Hereditary Monarchy where the next Heir by Right of Blood unless in some manifest Usurpations has always succeeded to the last Predecessor as also our best Lawyers with one consent maintain in their Books of Reports and the Learned Finch in his description of the Common Law lays it down as an undoubted Maxim That the King never dies and therefore it seems altogether new and unheard of before for the Convention thus to declare the Throne vacant for admitting that King Iames had never so justly Forfeited or Abdicated the Kingdom term it which you please yet certainly there could be no Vacancy of the Throne since the next Heir by Blood ought immediately to have been declared King or Queen and so placed therein whereas we heard in the Countrey that there was almost ten days time before the Lords and Commons could agree whether the Crown should be declar'd vacant or not and when it was so declar'd it took up almost a weeks time more before they could agree who should be placed therein whereas it was a difficulty only of their own making for sure the Prince of
carried on with great vigour and though I grant that after divers changes of fortune the Empress was at last forced to quit the Kingdom yet her Son Duke Henry did not fail to continue his claim to the Crown in right of his Mother and coming over into England renewed the War against King Stephen which was at last compos'd by an agreement between them which as Matthew Paris and Mat. Westminster relate it was thus That King Stephen acknowledged in an Assembly of Bishops and other great men of the Kingdom that Duke Henry had an Hereditary right to the Crown and the Duke thereupon as kindly granted that King Stephen should peaceably possess it during his Life so that it is certain till this agreement even by his own acknowledgment he had no right to it and though I grant that the Empress Maud for some reasons we are not able to give a true account of never took upon her the Title of Queen yet it is very certain that she acted as such during all the time she was in England receiving Homage and Fealty from those Lords and others who came over to her side and also granting Charters and conferring Honours by the Title of Anglorum Domina which shews she look'd upon her self to be the Supream Governess of the Kingdom though not under the Title of Queen so that I think you can find nothing in this transaction that can support your Notion of Vacancy F. Pray give me leave to answer what you have now said before you proceed farther first I cannot excuse neither King Stephen for taking the Crown nor the Bishops and Great men that set it on his Head from perjury and injustice since the Emperess Maud had been before in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom declared the Lawful Successor and that Fealty had been sworn to her as such All that I insist upon in this affair is this that Quod furi non debâ—t factum valet And though this ought not to have been done yet when once done did stand good and therefore if whilst the Throne was vacant King Stephen by the Election and Consent of the Bishops and Great Men of England was placed therein he was there looked upon as true and legal King as long as he lived And this was the reason why the Emperess never took upon her the Title of Queen of England no not when she had taken King Stephen prisoner and one would have thought might have justly done it as a Conqueress But yet she forbore it because that Title was not then to be taken without the consent of the Great Council of the Kingdom which I cannot find she ever held her party being not great enough to make one And though I cannot deny but that she might in some particulars exercise some prerogatives of Royal Power yet this was only upon a pretence of her being Elected and Stiled by this Title of Lady of the English in a Synod of the Clergy at Winchester by the procurement of Henry the then Bishop of that See and the Popes Legat who was now turned against his brother King Stephen For she was never generally received nor own'd as Queen nor did she ever exercise those great prerogatives of Sovereign Power viz. Calling of Great Councils making of Laws raising of Taxes or Coining Mony But whereas you represent King Stephen to have been Elected but by a very small party of the Bishops and Noblemen of England yet it is very much to be doubted whether William of Malmesbury who Dedicated his History to Robert Earl of Gloucester King Stephens greatest Enemy being no friend to his Title is to be altogether credited in this matter For Henry of Huntington who lived not long after tells us expresly that Omnes qui Sacramentum juraverant tam Praesules quam Consules Principes assensum Stephano praebutrunt hominium fecerunt And it is also as certain that the Earls of Gloucester and Chester the two greatest men of England did then likewise swear Allegiance to him and own his Title though they afterwards revolted from him again Yet could they do nothing considerable against him till his own Brother the Bishop of Winchester revolted also from him upon pretence that the King had violated the Rights of the Church And though it is true that after the Empresses departure out of England Duke Henry her Son came over and prosecuted the War against King Stephen yet could it not be in his own but his Mothers Right who was then alive Nor could the agreement you mention be made between the King and the Duke as having then a right to the Crown in his own Person since we read of no concession the Empress his Mother had made to him of it And therefore whatever Title Henry could claim thereunto Upon the death of King Stephen it was wholly due to this Kings adopting him for his Son and declaring him his Successor upon condition that he himself should enjoy the Crown during his life which agreement was solemnly confirmed and ratified and that by Oath in a full Assembly of all the Bishops Lords and great men of the Kingdom For Ordericus Vitalis in his Annals p. 989. Is very express in the manner of this great Transaction in these words Sic tamen in praesentiarum ipse Rex Caeteri Potentes Sacramento â—irmarent quod Dux post mortem Regis si tempore eum superviveret pacifice aâ—â—que contâ—adâ—ctione Regnum haberet therefore as long as the Empress Maud lived who died after her Son King Henry's coming to the Crown ' â—is plain he could have no Hereditary Right to it notwithstanding what Matthew Paris and Matthew Westminster who lived long after these Transactions have said to the contrary and therein are to be looked upon as Authors that speak their own sense rather than that of the Writers of those times M. I confess what you have urged in this matter concerning Duke Henry's being admitted as Heir of the Kingdom during the Life of his Mother the Empress Maud seems to the purpose and there could be nothing said against it but that this was done by the Concession of the Empress her self who surrender'd all her pretentions to her Son tho' we have no particular account of it or else which is more likely in my opinion that the Government of Women being then unknown in England and Normandy and consequently odious to the English and Norman Nobility and for which reason chiefly they had before set this Empress aside they thought they did in effect perform their Oath to her when they acknowledged her Title in her Son Duke Henry who is said by the Historians of those times to have succeeded Stephen Iure Haereditario which could not at all agree with your notion of his receiving his Title from the Consent or Election of the great Council But I shall pass over this and come to your next instance of the Vacancy of the Throne which you pretend
as we read Chancellor Fortescue did Prince Henry Son to Henry the VIth and I hope he will come over again to practise them in his own Country before he comes to be infected with the Arbitrary Principles of the French Government but as for those of not keeping Faith with Hereticks and a propagating his Religion by Persecution I doubt not but the King his Father will take care not to commit his Education to any of those who are infected with such Principles and I am the more inclin'd to believe it because it is very well known that his Majesty's tenderness and moderation in matters of Religion and not persecuting any body for the belief or bare profession of it as it was the greatest cause of his late Declaration of Indulgence so it was the main original of all his late Misfortunes nor can I see any reason why a King by being a Roman Catholick must necessarily be a Tyrant and a Persecutor since you cannot deny but that we have had many good and just Kings of that Religion and it is from those Princes that professed it that we derive our Magna Charta and most of the priviledges we now enjoy F. Though I would not be thought to affirm that the Romish Religion is every way worse than the Mahometan yet this much I may safely affirm that there is no Doctrine in all that Superstition so absurd and contrary to Sence and Reason as that of Transubstantiation held by the Church of Rome in which the far greatest part are certainly Idolators which can never be objectâ—d against the Turks and therefore though I will not deny but that a Man may be saved in the Communion of the Romish Church yet it is not for being a Papist but only as far as he practises Christ's Precepts and trusts in his Merits that he can ever obtain that favour from God But as for those evil Principles both in Religion and Civil Government which you cannot deny but are now commonly believed and practiced in France and which you hope King Iames will take care that the Prince his Son shall be bred to avoid I wish it may prove as you say but if you will consider the Men that are like to be his Tutors and Instructors in matters of Religion viz. his Fathers and Mothers Confessors the Jesuits and for Civil Government those Popish Lords and Gentlemen of notorious Arbitrary Principles and Practises who are gone over to King Iames you will have small reason to believe that there is ever a Fortescus now to be found among the English-men in France or who is likely to instill into him those true English Principles you mention And though I do not affirm that every Popish Prince must needs be a Persecutor yet since that wholly depends upon those Priests that have the management of their Consciences shew me a Prince in Europe who has a Jesuit for his Confessor and tell me if he hath not deserved that Character But though I am so much of your Opinion that King Iames ownes the greatest part of his Misfortunes to his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience yet was it not so much to the thing it self as to his Arbitrary manner of doing it by assuming a Dispensing Power contrary to Law and you may be very well assured by the little opposition which the late Acts met with for taking off the Penalties against Conventicles and not coming to Church in respect of all Dissenters except the Papists that King Iames might have as easily obtain'd a like Act to pass in respect of those also as to the free profession of their Religion and having Mass in their Houses which is more than the Papists will allow the Protestants in any Country in Europe And therefore I must beg your pardon if I still find great reason to doubt whether K. Iames his tenderness towards those that differ'd from him in matters of Religion and the Indulgence he gave them were purely out of consideration of tender Consciences and not rather thereby to destroy the Church of England Established by Law since the Dispute began between King Iames and his Parliament was not about Liberty of Conscience but those Offices and Commands which the King was resolved to bestow upon the Papists whether the Parliament would or not And certainly there is a great deal of difference between a Liberty for a Man to enjoy the free profession of his own Religion and the power and benefit of having all the chief Imployments of Honour and Profit in the Common-wealth But that the Indulgence of Popish Princes towards those that dissent from them in matters of Religion may not always proceed from pure Tenderness and Compassion appears from a Manuscript Treatise of F. Parsons that great Jesuit in Queen Elizabeth's time which I have been told was found in King Iames's Closet after his departure This if you can see it will shew you that the subtil Jesuite doth there direct his Popish Successor in order to the more quiet introducing the Romish-Catholick Religion to grant a general Toleration of all Religions out of a like design Thus did Iulian the Apostare long ago tolerate all the Sects and Heresies in the Christian Religion because he thereby hoped utterly to confound and destroy it But as to what you alledge concerning Magna Charta's being granted by Popish Princes and that there has been many good Kings of that persuasion As I will not deny either the one or the other so I desire you to remember with what struglling and great difficulties this Charter was at first obtain'd and afterwards preserved though it was no more than a Declaration of most of those Antient Rights and Liberties which the Nation had always enjoy'd And you may also remember that they were Popish Princes who more than once obtain'd the Pope's Dispensation to be discharged from those solemn Oaths they had taken to observe those Charters and though there hath been divers good Princes before the Reformation yet even the very best of them made the severest Laws against Protestants and were the most cruel in their Persecutions witness King Henry the IVth Henry the Vth and Queen Mary And indeed it is dangerous to rely upon the Faith of a Prince who looks upon it as a piece of Merit to destroy all Religions but his own and when he finds it cannot be done by Law will not stick to use any Arbitrary means to bring it about To conclude pray consider whether the strict observing or violation of Magna Charta and his Coronation Oath hath been the cause of King Iames's Abdication Pardon this long Discourse which your Vindication of the Opinion and Practises of Popish Princes hath drawn from me M. Pray Sir let us quit these invidious Subjects which can do no good since Princes must be own'd and submitted to let their Principles and Practice be never so Tyrannical and let us return again to the matter in hand I will therefore at present suppose
the Prince of Wales to have been either dead or justly laid aside now make it out to me how you can justifie the placing the Prince and Princess of Orange in the Throne when the Crown is really her right after the Prince of Wales and not her Husbands as also the putting the Government solely into his hands since this can no ways agree with the Act of Recognition to King Iames the First which you your self cannot deny but ought to be observed when it may be done without any apparent hazard or prejudice to the Protestant Religion and the Constitution of our Government which I think might have been as well if not better secured by letting it have gone in the right Line that by placing the Crown upon the Head of a Prince who though it is true is of the Blood-Royal by his Mother yet being a Foreigner is a meer Stranger to our Government and Laws and has been bred up in Calvinistical Principles and upon that score is not like to have any good intentions towards the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England as appears by his late agreeing to abolish Episcopacy in Scotland upon his accepting that Crown from the Presbyterian Convention F. If these be all the objections you have to make against placing King William and Queen Mary in the Throne I hope they will not be of any great moment to your self or any other considerate man for if that upon the Abdication of King Iames and the impossibity of determining your Prince of Wales's Title if it be one a Regency was impracticable and unsafe for the Nation at this conjuncture of time when we want a King to hold a Parliament as well to raise Money to defend us against the Power of France as also to make new Laws for the ease and reformation of the Kingdom all which a Regents acting without Royal Authority could never do by the constitution of this Kingdom so that if there was now a necessity of placing some body in the Throne for the Common Good and Safety of the whole Common-Wealth I think you your self cannot but acknowledge that the Princess of Orange had an Hereditary right to the Crown and if her Highness had the Prince her Husband also ought to Govern the Kingdom in her Right during her life and those who deny King Henry the VIIth to be Lawful King before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth will yet grant he was so in her Right after his Marriage and this has not been only the Custom in England but also in other Kingdoms of Europe as I can give you several Instances For upon this ground it was that Ferdinand King of Arragon by Marrying with Isabella Queen of Castile Governed that Kingdom during his Life so also Anthony Duke of Bourbon marrying with Iane Queen of Navarre did in her Right administer the Government of that part of it which was left unconquer'd by the Spaniards and here at home Philip Prince of Spain by his Marriage with Queen Mary had certainly in her Right Govern'd this Kingdom and had enjoyed something more than the bare Title of King had he not by the Articles of Marriage confirm'd by Act of Parliament been expresly debar'd from it M. Admit all this to be true yet this was only the enjoyment of a bare Matrimonial Crown and held no longer than during the Lives or Marriage with those Queens you mention But pray tell me how can the Convention according to the antient constitution of this Kingdom justifie the settlement of the Crown not only on King William during the Queens Life But for his own Life also to the prejudice not only of his own Issue if ever he have any by the Princess but also of the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs F. I doubt not but to shew you that this may be easily justified by the constitution of the Kingdom and former Precedents of what hath been done in the like cases First as to the Constitution I have already proved that upon the deposition of a King which is all one with a Forfeiture of the Crown the Great Council or Parliament hath taken upon them to Elect or Admit either the next Heir by Blood or some Prince tho' more remote of the Royal Family to the Crown thus King Henry the IVth upon the Deposition or Resignation of King Richard the Ild. was placed in the Throne by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury after the two Houses had Voted and consented he should Reign over them though I grant that by right of Blood Edmund Earl of March ought to have succeeded to it but he being then a Child was passed by unmention'd Duke Henry being then powerful and having deliver'd the Kingdom from the Tyranny and Evil Government of Richard the â—Id I shall pass by Richard the IIId because I own his Government to have begun by Unsurpation and to have been established by the Murther of his Nephews But as for Henry the VIIth I have already shew'd you that the Parliament before his Marriage with the Princess Elizabeth setled the Crown upon him and the Heirs of his Body by vertue of which he held it all his Reign whereas there is no such thing done in the present case of King William since he hath only the Crown setled upon him during his own Life with the remainder after his decease without Issue by the Queen to her and not his Right Heirs and as for such Children as he may have by her it is agreeable to reason that he should hold the Crown by that which we call the Courtesie of England during his Life and not from a King to become a Subject to his own Children in case he should desire to live here after her Majesties decease which I hope God will prevent M. I confess you have drest up a pretty plausible Title for King William but yet all that you have said amounts to no more than this that because other Kings have been Usurpers he may be so too for as to all the instances you have brought they have been only from depositions or manifest usurpations both which our Laws have condemned as absolutely unlawful as I have shew'd you hath been declar'd by two Acts of Parliament against the Title of Henry the IVth and his Descendents but since you will not insist upon the right of Richard the IIId I pass to that Act of Henry the VIIth which as I told you before so I must repeat it again that it was done upon his supposed Right by Blood as Heir to the House of Lancaster and upon that pretence he claimed the Crown as his Right in his Speech to the first Parliament he called besides the Princess Elizabeth the Queen de Iure made no claim to the Crown and so did tacitly resign it which seemed to make him de Iure as well as de Facto King and if it were done otherwise I look upon that whole Act as void in it self because made by him
before his Marriage with that Princess and whilest he was and Usurper upon her Right so that certainly it is no argument that since Parliaments have acted illegally therefore your Convention may do so too for it is a known Maxime in our Civil Law a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia therefore whatever they have done toward creating a good Title to King William in respect of the Queen his Wife and his Issue by her yet this doth no way excuse the wrong done to the Princess of Denmark and her Issue in case they survive your King F. 'T is very wonderful to me to see how ingenious some Men are in finding faults with the present settlement of things though never so much for the best if not done exactly according to suit with their Humour or Hypothesis when indeed there can no fault be justly found with it for you agree that if the Queen hath a Right King William hath so also during his Life and whether the Princess of Denmark and her issue may survive the King is yet uncertain but if either she or they should happen to survive his Majesty yet since she hath made no claim or protestation in the Convention against the Kings holding the Crown after the Decease of the Queen I cannot see why this should not pass for a tacit Resignation oâ—â—er Right as well as in the case of the Princess Elizabeth you but now mentioned But admit his present Majesty according to the late received rules of Succession hath not a Title by Descent yet according to those principles I have already laid down he certainly has not only a Right to the Crown from that inherent power which I suppose doth still remain in the Eslates of the Kingdom as Representatives of the whole Nation to bestow the Crown on every Abdication or Forfeiture thereof on such Prince of the Blood Royal as they shall think best to deserve it and upon this account I conceive there is none of the Blood that can stand in competition with his Present Majesty for Prudence Valour Moderation and all other Royal Vertues and therefore it is not at all to be wonder'd at if the Convention hath in this case exercised that Original Power which the People reserved to it self at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Island especially if we consider his present Majesty not only as a Conquerour over King Iames but as our Deliverer from his Oppression and that Arbitrary Government that we were so lately under and which was like to be much worse had his reign continued a little longer Therefore I cannot but here take occasion to vindicate his Present Majesty from those exceptions you have made against his Country and Civil as well as Religious Principles First As to his Country 't is true he is a Foreigner yet that can he no exception against his admission to the Throne since it was none against his great Grand-father King Iames and I doubt not but his Majesty may understand as much of the English Constitution and Government as his said Grand father did when he first came to the Crown But as for his principles in Religion I cannot see any reason to suspect him more inclinable to the Church Government of Holland then that of England since he was bred up under a Mother who was always firm to the Religion and Discipline of our Church and ever since he was Married to the Princess he hath always shew'd a very great respect to its Liturgy and Ceremonies by his so constant frequenting his Princesses Chappel so that besides his Majesties Interest to maintain Episcopacy as most agreeable to the Monarchy and Antient Constitution of this Kingdom it is likewise if he were able not in his power to destroy the Church of England since the main body of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of this Nation is to zealous for its preservation that if he had any such inclinations it would not be easie for him to effect it and he is too wise a Prince to let others persuade him so visibly against his own interest and having so late an example before his Eyes that it was King Iames's ruine to attempt it As for what you say of Scotland 't is true Presbitery is for the present set up there but it is uncharitable to impute this to the Kings inclinations for it is notorious that of them which call themselves Episcopal in that Kingdom a very great number did either out of prejudice to the Princes Cause or in contempt of his Power refuse to be chosen Members of the Convention or else after they were chosen did so far adhere to King Iames's interest as to desert it as did my Lord Dundee and many others and by that means gave the Presbyterian Party an advantage to carry all things as they pleas'd and this Party finding the King not well settled here and the Irish in Ireland in Arms against him took hold of that opportunity to put the abolishing of Episcopacy into the very instrument of Government and to press it upon him at a time when an unavoidable necessity and the obstinacy of too many of the Episcopal Party forced him to consent to it wherefore this no way shews his Majesties inclinations to set up Presbytery even in Scotland much less doth it prove he would set it up here where the Circumstances are quite different for here the main body of the People hate that Government and will be so far from desiring it that they will never endure it so that as to this your fears of King William are as vain as your hopes of King Iames. I shall conclude with a few words in answer to your reply against those examples wherein I have shewn you that the Crown hath always been under such a disposition as the two Mouses of Parliament should appoint to which you have nothing else to object but that their admission of Henry the IV th to the Crown was condemned as unlawful by two Acts of Parliament which I have already answer'd by showing you that those Acts were obtain'd by Richard Duke of York and Edward the IV th his Son by actual Rebellion and by as great a force upon King Henry the VI th as ever was used against King Richard the II d by Henry the IV th and as for the Statute of the first of Henry the VII th you have found out a very easie way of answering it by affirming that it was done whilst he was an Usurper and before his Marriage or that he had any right to be King But by this way of arguing no Act he ever passed would be good since It is certain he did never take upon him to Govern in right of his Queen as all those that have writ his Life do acknowledge and therefore if the Parliament would then settle the Crown upon him and his right Heirs without any respect to his Queen or her Issue or Sisters in case she should die
the Nation from his Oppression though the Prince was pleas'd to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion Laws and Liberties which he has since also confirm'd by his Coronation Oath But as to what you say that the Prince made the Kings Army desert him and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts is altogether untrue since I know of no Reports he made of the King or his Government but what are in his first Declaration and that is certainly true in every part of it and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular except that concerning the Prince of Wales which I confess is left still undecided because as I have already proved it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion as there is no such thing in his Highnesses Declaration so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge since he never gave it out as I know of yet there are certainly great presumptions and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so as I proved at our last Meeting But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion that King Iames's violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Establisht Religion and Civil Constitution but his Highnesses coming over and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion who now the Government is setled refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties But to answer what you say that the manner of Henry the IV ths and Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown doth not at all agree with this Case of King William because they claimed by right of blood which you say King William cannot do that is not so in respect of the Queen who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen and untill he can be proved so we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all so that the Convention hath done no more in setling the Crown upon the King during his Life than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus and Henry the First King Stephen King Iohn and Henry the Third And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason upâ—n their Swearing to and Fighting for those Princes after they were so Solemnlâ— Elected Crowned and Invested with the Royal Power But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness or Tyrannical Principles would have set him aside and have made his youngâ—â— Brother King a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th but as for Henry the IV th notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood I have already proved that the Paâ—liament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th of Henry the IV th which by the Crown is entail'd upon that King and his four successive Sons And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claim'd the Crown by right of Inheritance in his Speech in Parliament yet they were so far from allowing it that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement which as I have recited they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body And therefore I think I may still maintain that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne either by deposition or resignation of the King or Abdication or Forfeiture of the Crown as in the case of King Iames in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been suppos'd to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom of setling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it Thus much I have said to preserve the Antient Right of the Great Council of the Nation But to put all this out of dispute I have been credibly inform'd that the Princess of Denmark her self did by some of her Servants in both Houses as well of the Lords as Commons declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation which I think is a better Cession of her Right to his present Majesty than any you can prove that the Empress Mawd made to her Son Henry the Second or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh M. You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood which I shall prove to be a vain Notion for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved for since there is no Legal Government without a King if the Throne were really vacant and that the People might place whom they pleas'd in it yet the Convention can have no Power to do it as their Representatives since upon your suppos'd dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy Nobility and Commons in their own single Persons and not by any Council or Convention to represent them since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders are upon this suppos'd Dissolution of the Government altogether void and
no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects King William and Queen Mary are Declared That they were and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Soveraign Leige Lord and Lady and King and Queen of England c. M. Well it is late and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer since it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them What I have said was only to shew you the Folly and Weakness of such Oaths and Consequently that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us which God forgive this sinful Nation among the many crying Sins it now growns under Yet give me leave still to mind you that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time which Deprivation being uncanonically ordain'd by the meer lay power of the Convention without the authority of a Convocation or Synod such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfullness of the Bishops who are the supreme Pastors of our Church F. I forgot to say any thing of this because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust but since you desire it I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject First I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church as the Kings of Iudah and Israel had among the Jews therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon or else the King and Parliament who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation as the Kings of Iudah were to that of the Jews may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury for Example for Treason or Disobedience to the Government as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King and besides this I can shew you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperours in depriving and banishing not only Bishops but Patriarchs for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod or general Council of other Bishops if your Doctrine were true the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Seats viz. Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria but they are all nominated and put in and out at the Grand Seigniors nay Visiers Will and Pleasure as any Man who will but peâ—uâ—e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see But indeed you fall into this Errour for want of considering the original of Bishop-pricks in England and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation for pray take Notice that though Episcopacy was setled in England in the time of the Britains yet all the Seas and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm in respect of such and such Diocesses have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings and the Authority of our Great Councils which were also confirmed by the Popes Bulls and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament as were all the Bishop-pricks erected in Henry the VIII ths Reign so that let the Bishops meer Spiritual Power of Ordaining Excommunicating c. be derived immediately from Christ if you please yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See is as meer a temporal Institution as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury for Example being a Civil Institution it hath anciently belonged to Supream Powers not only to confer this Power as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum Annulum but also to take it away for Treason or Disobedience against the State since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character or Episcopal Orders but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees or Diocesses thus although the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester with the rest of the Popish Bishops were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th of Elizabeth for not taking the Oath of Supremacy the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Diocesses and therefore I doubt not but that notwithstanding this Depriviation those Bishops might if they had pleased have ordained Priests and confirmed Children and that such Ordinations and Confirmations would been good even in our Protestant Church if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants since 't is very well known that the Church of England ownes the orders of the Church of Rome to be valid which is more then we do for the ordinations of meer Presbyters coming from those Protestant Countrys where there are no Bishops at all the like I may say for their Confirmations too But pray Sir consider how upon your Principles this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it for if the Arch Bishop of Yorke for example will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind as I am credibly informed they will pray tell me how the People of that Province being a distinct Church or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury as to all Spiritual matters as having a distinct Convocation of their own can ever be involved in this Schism by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury And pray also tell me in the next place how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involv'd in this intended Schism since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York nor to any other Bishop but only to their Chancellour and the Vice-Chancellour as his Deputy who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities and therefore their Church
8. p. 580 581. W. All Burroughs that sent Members antiently held in Capite of the King D. 8. p. 557 578. W. They sent such Members by an inherent Right or at the Discretion of the Sheriffs Ib. p. 593. 604. C Cain W. he forfeited his Birth-right by the Murther of his Brother D. 2. p. 67. W. His Eldest Son was a Prince over his Brethren Ib. Canons of 1640. their validity discussed D. 4. p. 284. to 286. King Charles the Firsts pretended Commission to Sir Philim O Neal considered D. 9. p. 636 637. Great Charter of King Iohnâ— W. it was the sole Act of that King or else made by the advice and consent of all the Freemen of England D. 5. p. 324. D. 7. p. 455 456. Great Charter of Hen. the Third W. all the Copies we have now of it were his or else Edward I. his Charters Ib. 461. Children how far and how long bound to be subject to their Parents D. 1. p. 45. to 52. Christians W. as much obliged to suffer for Religion now as in the Primitive Times D. 4â— p. 230. to 234. Chester its County W. the Earl thereof could charge all his Tenants in Parliament without their consent D. 7. p. 501. Church of England W. Passive Obedience be its distinguishing Doctrine from other Churches D. 4. p. 292 293. Cities and Burroughs more numerous in the Saxon times than now D. 6. p. 379. to 400. W. They had any Representatives in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the IIId D. 5. p. 565 572. Whether Cities and Burroughs had not always had Representatives in the Parliaments of Scotland D. 7. p. 505. Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent who they were D. 7. p. 450.451 Clergy a part of the Great Council of the Kingdom in the Saxon Times and long after D. 8. p. 544 to 550. W. None of the Clergy but such as held in Capite appeared at such Councils Ibid. W. The Inferiour Clergy had their Representatives in Parliament different from the Convocation Ib. 546 to 558. Commandment Vth in what sence Princes are comprehended under it D. 2. p. 106. to 109 111. Communitas Regni W. that Phrase in ancient Records and Acts of Parliament does not often signifie the Commons as well before the 49th of Henry the Third as afterwards D. 7. p. 412 to 415. W. That Phrase does not also signifie the whole body of the Kingdom consisting of Peers and Commons D. 6. p. 416. The Drs. proofs to the contrary considered 417 to 423. W. It does also often signifie the Commons alone D. 8. p. 572. to 574. Their Declaration to the Pope in the 48th of Edward the Third D. 8. p. 581 to 582. Their Petition to Henry the Fifth Their Protestation in Parliament in Richard the Seconds time 584. Commons of Cities and great Towns had their Representatives in the Assemblies of Estates of all the Kingdoms in Europe founded by the ancient Germans and Gothes Ibid 607 to 612. Commons their request and consent when first mentioned in Old Statutes D. 5. p. 329. W. Ever summoned to Parliament from the 49th of Hen. the Third to the 18th of Edw. the First D. 7. p. 522. Commons W. part of the Great Council before the Conquest D. 5. p. 369 372. The words Commune de Commune les communes do frequently signifie the Commons before the 49th of Henry the Third D. 6. 423. D. 7. 423 to 484. Common-Council of the whole Kingdom W. different from the Common-Council of Tenants in Capite D. 7. p. 437. to 474. Communitas Scotiae W. it always signified none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. p. 505. to 508. Conquest alone W. it confers a right to a Crown D. 2. p. 128 129. W. It it gives a King a right to all the Lands and Estates of the Conquer'd Kingom D. 3. 168. to 170. W. Any Conquest of this Kingdom was made by King William the First D. 10. p. 715. to the end Constitutions of Clarendon their Title explained D. 6. p. 430 431. Contract Originel W. there were ever any such thing D. 10 p. 695 to 709. D. 12. p. 809 8â—3 Convention W. its voting King James to have abdicaâ—ed the Government be justifiable D. 11. p. 809 to 834. W. Its Declaration of King James's violations of our fundamental Rights be well grounded Ibid. p. 816 832. W. It s voting the Throne vacant can be justified from the ancient constitution of the Government D. 12. p. 839 to 883. W. Whether its placing K. W. and Q. M. on the Throne may be also justified by the said Constitution Ibid. p. 883 to 894. W. It s making an Act excluding all Roman Catholick Princes was legal Ibid. p. 894 to the end Convocation Book drawn up by Bishop Overal its validity examined D. 1. p. 6 8. Copy Holders why they to have no Votes at Elections to Parliament D. 5. p. 513. Great Councils or Convention the only Iudges of Princes Titles upon any dispute about the succession or vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 895. D. 13. p. 917. to 919 924. Council of the King in Parliament what it was anciently D. 5. p. 334. Great Council or general Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom W. legal without the Kings Summons D. 5. p. 353. D. 12. p. 894. to 898. Curia Regis what iâ— anciently was and W. it consisted of none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. 368. Crown W. it can by Law be ever forfeited D. 12. p. 833 834. D Defence of a Mans self in what case justifiable D. 3. p. 148 149. Declaration of the Convention setting forth King James's violation of the fundamental rights of the Nation W. justifiable or not D. 11. p. 816. to the end Private Divines their Opiâ—nions about Passive Obedience and Resistance of what Authority D. 4. p. 291 294. W. Many of them have not quitted the ancient Doctrine of the Church of England declaring the Pope to be Antichrist vid. Append. Dispencing Power W. justifiable by Law D. 12. p. 119 to 828. Dissolution of all Government W. it necessarily follows from the Conventions declaration of the vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 890 891. Durham W. its Bishop could lay Taxes in Parliament on the whole County Palatine without their consents D. 7. p. 501 502. E Earls of Counties their ancient Office and Institution D. 5 p. 363 to 370. King Edward the Second being deposed W. any vacancy of the Throne followed thereupon D. 12. p. 158 to 861. Queen Elizabeth W. she had any Title to the Crown but by Act of Parliament Ibid. p 872 873. England when first so called D. 5. p. 362. English-Men W. they lost all their Liberties and Estates by the Norman Conquest D. 10. p. 753. to the end English Bishops Earls and Barons W. then all deprived of their Honours and Estates Ib. 756 to 762. English Saxon Laws W. confirmed or abrogated by K. William D. 10. p. 760. Estates of the Kingdom
E. I. ib. p. 554. Rot. cl 31. Ed. III. ib. p. 555. Rot. Pat. 54 H. III. ib. 573. Rot. Wal. 11. Ed. I. ib. 574.575 Rot. cl 28. E. I. Rot. Pat. 8. Ed. II. ib. 576. Rot. Pat. 52. H. III. ib. p. 578. Bundel Brev. 5. Ed. II. Rot. Pat. 40. Ed. III. ib. p. 581. Rot. Pat. 2. H. V. ib. p. 582. Placit Parl. 18. E. I. Rot. Parl. 18. Ed. III. ib. p. 584. inter Com. brev in Scac. 34. Ed. I. Prins Par Reg. p. 26.28.30 Ed. I. ib. p. 586. Parl. Reg. 8. Ed. II. 887. Rot. cl 15. E. II. Rot. cl 2. E. III. Rot. cl 50. E. III. p. 588. Rot. Pat. 42. E. III. p. 599. Rot. Pat. 17. Ed. III. Rot. Parl. 51. E. III. p. 605. A Regency W. legal or practicable in England upon King James's departure D. 12. p. 877. Religion in what Cases we are bound to suffer for it without any resistance D. 4. p. 222. to 235. The Remedies against Tyranny the People of England can have without Resistance considered D. 4. p. 262. to 664. Resistance of Fathers Husbands and Masters by their Wives Children and Servants W. ever lawful D. 1. p. 41. to 44. to 52.60 Resistance of the Supream Powers in what cases absolutely lawful D. 3. p. 146. to 149 D. 4. p. 270. In what cases absolutely unlawful D. 3. p. 176 177. All the evil Consequences of such Resistance considered D. 4. p. 261. to 264. D. 9. p. 649 659 to 666. W. All resistance be forbidden by God in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end W. Forbidden by the word of God in the New Testament D. 4. p. 220. to 264. W. Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England Ib. p. 283. Resistance of the King and those in Commission by him W. absolutely â—orbid by the Statute of the seventh of Edward the First against bearing of Arms D. 8. p. 612. W. Contrary to the 25th of Edward the Third concerning Treasons Ib. to the end Resistance of Arbitrary Power in our Kings W. lawful both before and since the Conquest D. 9. p. 615 to 637. Such Resistance granted to be lawful by some of our Kings themselves D. 9. p. 617.620.622 Rights and Liberties of the Subject what they are D. 9. p. 666 to 669. Rolls Clause how many wanting in the Reigns of King John and Henry the Third D. 7. p. 517 518. S Sapientes its signification in Ancient Histories D. 6. p. 377. Late Schism upon the Deprivation of the Bishops W. justifiable D. 13. p. 963 to 966. Scotland W. it s ancient constitution were the same with England D. 7. p. 503. to 505. D. 8. p. 559. W. None but Tenants in Capite ever appeared at the Great Councils of the Kingdom Ib. to 510. Scutage Service W. different from a Scutage Tax D. 7. p. 439. to 440.479 to 481. Sermons for the Kings Absolute Power censured in Parliament D. 1. p. 5. Servants and Sons W. all one in the State of Nature D. 1. p. 54. Sheriffs Pardoned by Act of Parliament for holding above one year D. 12. p. 821. States General of the Vnited Provinces W. their making War upon King James the Second were justifiable D. 11. p. 781 782. Ancient Statutes W. the three Estates have not always given their Assent to them as well as the King D. 5. p. 330. to 348. Notwithstanding the different forms of Penning them Ibid. D. 7. p. 484 485.525.528 529. Statue of the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh Cap. 1. W. still in force D. 13. p. 909. to 933. Statute of the Thirteenth of Elizabeth Chap. 1. W. still in force D. 12. p. 894. to 898. All Statutes though made by Vsurpers W. they hold good till repeal'd D. 12. p. 909 911 912. Doctor Stories Case D. 13. p. 950. Subjects how different from Slaves D. 4. p. 251. to 261. W. Particular Subjects may resist the Supream Powers for satisfaction of their own private injuries D. 4. p. 252. Succession to Crowns no certain procepts to be found about it in Scripture or the Law of Nature D. 2. p. 89. to 90. Succession to the Crown of England W. always Hereditary since the Conquest without any vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 839 to 875. Sufferings of Christ how far an Example to us D. 4. p. 227. to 233. Suffering for Religion without Resistance when necessary Ib. p. 231. T Tenants in Capite W. they were all Barons D. 6. p. 399.400 W. They could anciently Tax the whole Kingdom at their pleasure as well the Lands held of them as what was not D. 7. 440.479 to 483.500 W. They or else Tenants by Knights service were anciently the only Persons who served upon Iuries D. 10. p. 741. to 746. W. They represented all their under Tenants in Parliament D. 7. p. 512. Tenants in Sâ—â—age W. they were bound by the Acts of those of whom they held their Estates D. 6. p. 420. Tenants in Demesne claimed to be discharged from the Knights Wages by prescription D. 8. p. 588 589. Tenure by Knights service W. in use before King Wil. I. D. 10. p. 750 751. A new Test Oath opposed by a great party of the Poeâ—s in the Reign of King Charles the Second D. 9. p. 659. Testaments W. valid in the meer State of Nature D. 2. p. 86 87 91. The several Texts of Scripture made use of for or against absolute Non-resistance examined viz. in the Old Testament D. 3. p. 190. to the end Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament urged for the like purpose D. 4. p. 220. to 279. Thanes the ancient signification of that Title discussed D. 6. p. 374. to 379. The divers sorts of them amongst the English Saxons D. 5. p. 370. Treason against the Kingdom anciently as well as against the King D. 5. p. 344. Trials by Combate W. in use before the Conquest D. 10. p. 758. Trust committed by the People to the Supream Powers W. unaccountable and irrevocable D. 3. p. 152.154 Insupportable Tyranny W. worse than the State of Nature Ib. 155. Tyrants W. Ordained of God D. 4. 245 246. U Vavasors or mesne Tenants W. anciently reckon'd as part of the Baronage of the Kingdom D. 6. p. 405 406. Universitas Baronagii Angliae Regni what it signified and W. the Commons were comprehended under that Title D. 6. p. 408 409 415 416. Universitas Communis the meaning of that Phrase in Matthew Paris D. 7. p. 470. W. It comprehended no more than the less Tenants in Capite Ib. 471. Primate Ushers Opinion in his Treatise of the Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject considered D. 4. p. 271 272. Vsurpers by Sir R. Filmers Principles to be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 2. p. 126 127. When Vsurpers may be obeyed before the Lawful Prince and his Heirs D. 4. p. 246. Usurpation W. it gives a rightful Title after three Generations D. 2. p. 128. Vulgus what that word signified in the
Latine Translation of the Old Coronation-Oath D. 8. p. 560. to 563. W Wales W. it s Titular Prince be really Son to King James the Second and Queen Mary D. 11. p. 784 to 789. W. He ought to have been received as the true Son and Heir of the said King D. 12. p. 875. to 877. and that let the consequences be what they will Ib. p. 879. to 881. Wardship Marriage and Relief W. wholly derived from the Normans D. 10. p. 750.751 Its advantages and inconveniencies considered Ib. A Wife W. she can ever be discharged from the Power her Husband hath over her in the state of Nature by any means but by his express consent D. 1. p. 43. King William the First why stiled the Conquerour D. 5. p. 325. W. He claimed to be King of England by Donation of King Edward the Confessor or by Conquest D. 10. p. 715.718 719. W. He was ever Elected and took the same Coronation-Oath as the English Saxon Kings had done before D. 10. p. 716.722 to 737. W. He might justly have seized all the Lands in England to his own use D. 2. p. 171. W. He gave most of the Lands of England to his followers Ibid. p. 721 to 729. and to 747. W. He alter'd any thing in the fundamental constitution of the Government D. 5. p. 320. to 322. W. He altered all the Old Laws of England or confirmed those of King Edward D. 10. p. 737. to 760. His Second Oath upon the Relicks of St. Alban Ib. 761 762. His Laws concerning all Freemens exemption from Taxes upon their finding Arms D. 6. p. 426 427. W. He and his Son William Rufus made Laws and imposed Taxes without the consent of the Great Council D 10. p. 744 755. King William the Third W. he hath any Title by Conquest over King James or else from his Marriage with the Princess and the Act of the Convention D. 12. p. 883. to 899. His Religion and Principles vindicated Ib. 886 887. Wites or Wise-Men in the English Saxon Councils the true signification of that term D. 6. p. 373. to 378. Wittena à Gemots or Great Councils among the English Saxons W. they consisted of more than the higher Nobility Ib. p. 381. Wives how far obliged to be obedient to the Commands of their Husbands D. 1. p. 40. Writ of Summons to the Commmons of the 49th of Henry the Third W it was the first of that kind D. 7. p. 519. to 521. W. Any Writs of Summons of Bishops or Lords to Parliament are to be found before that time Ib. p. 516. Writ of the 19th of Henry the Third to the Sâ—eriffs to levy two Marks Scutage upon Tenants by Knights Service holding of Tenants in Capite Ib. 445 Writ of the 24th of Henry the Third commanding all Men holding a whole Knights Fee of whatsoever Tenure to be Knighted D. 6. p. 432. Writs of Summons to Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament at Shrewsbury in the 11th of Edward the First D. 8. p. 574. Writ of Summons to Knights of Shires cited by Dr. B. in the 18th of Edward the First W. it was to a Parliament D. 7. p. 530. to 536. Writ of the 22d of Edward the First W. a Summons to Parliament D. 7. p. 533 534. Writ of the 30th of Edward the First commanding the Levying of Forty Shillings upon each Knights Fee which had been granted ever since the Eighteenth Ibid. p. 479. W. The Commons Granted that Tax Ibid. Writs of the 28th of Edward the First and 45th of Edward the Third W. of Summons to Parliaments Ib. 537. Writs for Expences to Knights of Shires how ancient D. 8. p. 589. to 591. Y Duke of York Richard his Title declared in Parliament D. 12. p. 863. Edward Duke of York Recognized by Parliament to be lawful King from the Death of his Father Richard Duke of York Ib. p. 865. Duke of York James W. he was not intirely in the French Interest and Designs before he came to the Crown D. 11. p. 802. AN APPENDIX Containing some Authorities sit to be added for farther confirmation of some things laid down in the foregoing Dialogues TO be added to Dialogue the Fourth p. 290. at the end of F s Speech after these words no particular Church can read thus And that divers of the most Eminent Divines of our Church have used the same freedom with several other Doctrines contained in these Homilies may appear from Dr. Hammonds Dr. Heylins and Dr. Taylors with several other Eminent Writers expresly denying that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or that the Pope is Antichrist tho' both these Doctrines are as plainly laid down in the Homilies as the Doctrine of Non-Resistance And yet none of these Men are ever taxed by those of the Church of England for quitting her Ancient Orthodox Doctrines and I desire you to give me a good Reason if you can why it is more lawful and excusable to part with the former of these Doctrines than the latter The like I may say also for the Doctrine of Predestination which tho expresly asserted in the 36 Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by all the Bishops and Writers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames as also the Bishops and Divines sent as Delegates from our Church to the Synod of Dort who joyned in the interpretation of that Article in the strict Calvinistical sense you find in all the determinations of that Synod against the Doctrines of the Arminians which then began to prevail yet since the time that Arch-Bishop Laud had the nominating of what Persons he thought fit to be made Bishops Deans c. not one in ten of them but have been Arminians in all those Points wherein they wholly differ from the Doctrine of Calvin which is but the same with that of our 36 Articles so interpreted yet none of the Divines of our present Church who hold these Opinions are branded with Apostacy from its Ancient Doctrine but if any well meaning Divine out of love to his Country and to prevent Popery and Slavery from breaking in upon us have but Preach'd or Publish'd any thing in derogation to these Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance he is straight branded with Apostacy from the Church in quitting its main distinguishing Character and we have lately seen Degrading nay the most cruel Whipping and Imprisonment thought too little for such a Man but one may say of some Men with truth enough Dat veniam Corvis vexat censura Columbis So Dialogue the Sixth p. 397. at the bottom after these words in those times read this But that the House of Commons were anciently often comprehended under the stile of Grantz which is the same with Magnates in Latine pray consult the Parliament Rolls of Edward the Third where you will find in the 4 th of that King this passage est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Grantz
in pleyn Parliament that is in full Parliament where both Lords and Commons were present that the Proceedings of the Lords against those that were no Peers should not be drawn into Example c. Now pray see the Commentaries of the most Learned and Reverend Author of the Grand Question upon these words in this Record This hath all the formality of an Act of Parliament and therefore all the Estates were present so likewise in the same year in the next Roll but one Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy son Counsell in Plein Parliament which was an Act of Parliament concerning those that had followed the Earl of Lancaster So in the 5 th of this King we have the particular mention of the Bishops as some of those who make a full Parliament Accorde est per nostre Seigneur le Roy Prelates Counts Barons autres Grands de Roiaâ—me in pleyn Parliament So in the 6 th of Edward the Ill d the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Oration in pleyn Parliament which is thus explained en le presence nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Prelats autres Grantz And in another Roll si est accorde assentu per tous in pleyn Parliament and who these were we are told in the same Roll viz. les Prelats Counts Barons tous les autres Summons à misme Parliament Now this is the clearest explication of these words in full Parliament viz. in the presence of all those who were Summon'd so that if the Commons were then Summon'd to this Parliament as certainly they were they must have given their Assents under the Title of Grantz since the Prelats Earls and Barons were particularly mention'd before To Dialogue the 10 th p. 706. after these words be Reformed by them or not read thus And that King Iames the First himself was satisfied of this Original Contract may appear by his own words in a Speech to both Houses of Parliament 1609. where he expresly tells them that the King binds himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom Tacitly as being a King and so bound to Protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation so as every King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing the Government as agreeable thereunto according to that paction which God made with Noah after the Deluge c. To Dialogue 12. p. 874. after their Successors add this So that all the Modern Acts of Parliament for intailing the Crown being made and ordained by the Counsel and Assent of the Lords and Commons are so many plain declarations and evident Recognitions what the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government was in that grand Point To Dialogue the 12 th p. 898. after the words of the said Parish read thus and that not only all the Private Acts of that Parliament but some Publick ones also tho' never confirmed in the following Parliament of the 13th of Charles the Second are yet held good in Law appears by these that follow viz. 1. An Act for Continuance of Process and Iudicial Proceedings Continu'd By which all Writs Pleas Indictments c. then depending were ordered to stand and proceeded on notwithstanding want of Authority in the late Usurpers and therein it was farther ordained that Process and Proceedings in Courts of Justice should be in the English Tongue and the generall Issue be Pleaded till August 1. 1660. as if the Acts made during the Usurpation for that purpose had been good and effectual Laws And upon this foot only stand many Fines Recoveries Judgments and other Proceedings at Law had and passed between April 25 1660 and August 1. 1660. 2. An Act for Conforming and Restoring of Ministers This Act is usually to this day set forth and pleaded in Quare impedits tho' it was said to be refused upon debate to be confirmed in the House of Commons 13th of Car. II. when divers other Acts of the same time were confirmed yet both these Acts having no other Authority but from that Convention as you call it have been Judged and Constantly allowed to be good Laws for above these 30 years To Dialogue the 13 th p. 966. after these words were still alive read this And to shew you that the King and Parliament have deprived even Bishops of their own Communion and that such deprivations have been held good and that the King hath nominated new Bishops upon the vacancy you may see in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and in the Appendix to it where you will find a memorable Act of Parliament of the 25 th of Henry the VIII before his departure from his obedience to the See of Rome whereby Cardinal Campegio and Hieronimo de Ghinicci were deprived of the Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester which they had held for near 20 years and Campegio had without doubt been installed in it when he was in England The Act it self being so remarkable I shall give you some passages out of it verbatim first the Preamble sets forth that whereas before this time the Church of England by the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobles of the same hath been founded ordained and establish'd in the Estate and degree of Prelacy Dignities and other Promotions Spiritual c. which sufficiently confirms what I but now asserted that all the Bishopricks were founded by our Kings with the consent of their Grand Councils or Parliaments and then it proceeds to recite that whereas all Persons promoted to Ecclesiastical Benefices ought to reside within the Realm for Preaching the Laws of Almighty God and keeping hospitality and since these Prelates had not observed these things but lived at Rome and carried the Revenues of their Bishopricks out of the Kingdom contrary to the intention of the Founders and to the great prejudice of the Realm c. in consideration whereof it is Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that the said two Sees and Bishopricks of Salisbury and Worcester and either of them henceforth shall be taken reputed and accounted in the Law to be void vacant and utterly destitute of any Incumbent or Prelate and then follows a Clause enabling the King his Heirs and Successors to nominate and appoint Successors being the Natives of this Realm to the said Sees and the King did nominate Successors according to the said Act. A Table of ERRATA THE Authors Occasions not permitting 〈…〉 Town whilst most of these Dialogue were in the Press begs pardon for the many Erratas in some of them and desires you to Correct such gross ones that alter or disturb the sense viz. Dial. 1. p. â—0 l 24. for Author r. Authority p. 52. l. 37. for 4th r. 5th p. 36. l. 38. for Rights r. Rites Dial. 2. p. 80. l. 25. del hundred r thousand p. 80 l. 22. d. Greek p. 84.