which will scarce be able to hold long together without falling into perpetual quarrels and disputes about the Encroachments upon each other's Power and Priviledges But it appears as well by the whole Tenor of our Laws as also by divers Express Statutes that the King is the Sole Supream or consequently the Sole Legislative Power The first of these I shall prove from the common Indictments of Treason Murder Felony c. Which run always Encounter la Corone la dignitie de Roy and the Process against such Offences are called the Pleas of the Crown because they are against the Crown and Dignity of the King So that it is not the Dignity and Authority of the Lords and Commons which is Violated but the Dignity and Authority of the King In the next place this Opinion is contrary to the express Declaration of divers of those very Parliaments which you pretend have Exercised a Share in the Legislative For you cannot deny that many of our Ancient as well as Modern Statutes were made and drawn up in the Form of a Petition from the Lords and Commons or both of them to the King And it is very strange that one Fellow in the Supream Power should so humbly Petition the other But 2. Though time hath altered the Form of Petitioning into Bills yet both Lords and Commons have bin often used to call the King Our Dread Soveraign Our Soveraign Lord Our Liege Lord and the like and to Stile themselves We your Majesty's most Humble and Faithful Subjects or most Dutiful and Obedient Subjects and in that Humble Stile to beseech him to Enact such and such things which sure they could have done alone had they bin Co-ordinate with him in Law-making Lastly if they were Co-partners with him in the Supream Power how came they to declare as they did in the Preamble to the Statute of the 25th Hen. 8. which you your self have quoted that the Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supream Head and King unto whom the Body Politick of the Nation Compacted of several Sorts and Degrees of People divided in Terms of Temporality and Spirituality owe and bear next unto God a Natural and Humble Obedience Now how came they here farther to declare this Supream Head of the Clergy and Laity to be furnished with Plenary Whole and Enâ—ire Power by the Goodness and Sufferance of Almighty God Certainly they can have no share in it if it be Plenary Wholy and Entirely in him or how came they in the 1st Statute of Queen Eliz. c. 7. being a Recognition of the Queens Sâ—premacy to acknowledge that all Power Temporal and Spiritual was Deducted from her as the Supream Head and that they were her most Faithful and Obedient Subjects and that they did in Parliament Represent the Three Estates of this Realm and that She was the only Supream Governour thereof Which was pursuant to a Statute to the same purpose in the 2d Ed. 6. c. 2. wherein it is declared That all Authority of Iurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is divided and Deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms Not to mention the Oath of Supremacy it self That the King or Queen's Highness is the only Supream Governour of this Realm Which these Statutes would never have acknowledged had it not bin Consonant to our Ancient Common Law by which it is expresly declared in that Old Law-Book written as it is supposed by Bishop Breâ—ton in the very first Leaf whereof it is thus expressed in the Name of King Edw. 1st himself We Will that our Iurisdiction be above all other Iurisdictions which had been spoken in vain if all other Powers had not bin Derived from and so Subordinate to the Kings Besides I could prove this farther from History and matter of Fact F. I thank you Sir and I desire I may answer what you have now said before you pass to another Head for I doubt the time will not give us leave to Discourse much further on this Subject to Night In the first place therefore I must tell you that the main Foundation of your last Arguments is founded upon a Supposition which I altogether disown viz. Co-ordination or Division of the Soveraign Power between the King and the Two Houses For I have always supposed that the King continues still Supream and that as the Modus tenendi Parliamentum declares He is Principium Caput Finis Parliamenti that is he can call and Dissolve Parliaments when he pleases and likewise that the Executivâ— part of the Government rests solely in Him as also the Power of making War and Peace And even in the Legislative it self that the King hath more eminently though together with the Parliament a Supream Enacting Power without which it cannot be a Law This being considered you will find that here is no Division of the Legislative Power Since neither the King nor the Two Houses have it Solely and Compleatly in themselves but it is joyntly Executed by them all three as one Entire Politick Body or Person So that neither can they make any Law without him nor He Enact any without their Consent and he by giving his Consent last gives it the Force and Sanction of a Law and he is therein the Supream i. e. the Last or Vltimate Power in the true Sense of that word nay the only Supream Power unless you could suppose two Supreams that is two Highest Powers at once in the same Kingdom But that for all this the Two Houses are not Subject to the King in matters relating to Legislature may hence farther appear that the King cannot Command them to give him what Mony or to pass what Laws he pleases Since if he should go about to do so they might as I suppose you your self will grant Lawfully Disobey him which they could not do without Apparent Disloyalty and High Disobedience were they in this as they are in other indifferent things Subject to his Commands when Legally issued But to return you a more particular Answer to what you have said to prove the King to have the Sole Legislative Power As to what you pretended I have quoted out of Glanville if you please better to consider of it you will not find that he gives the King any more than an Enacting Power together with his Great Council For though he tells us quod Principi placet Legis habet vigorem yet mark what follows eas Scilicet quas super dubijs in consilio definiendis Procerum quidem consilio Principis antecedente Aâ—thoritate constaâ— esse promulgatas Where by the last consilio is meant some what more than meer Advice as I have already proved But as for Bracton it is true he agrees with Glanville in making the Kings Authority necessary to the Essence of a Law Yet he is more express than the other in making the Advice and Consent of the Great Council or Common-wealth also necessary to its being as
you may remember by these words Cum Legis vigorem habeat quicquid de Câ—nsilio de consensu Magnatum Reipublicae communi Sponsione Authoritate Principis praecedente juste fueriâ— definitum But further to let you see how much you are out in your Argument whereby you would prove from the Form of our Indictments of Treason c. That the King hath the Sole Legislative Power of the Kingdom I shall shew you that all our Ancient Laws as well Common as Statute do declare the contrary Since divers Aâ—ts of Parliament have expresly affirmed that such and such Offences were Treaâ—on not only against the King but against the King and the whole Realm too Pray take these instances see the Statute 1 Edw. 3. c. 1. Wherein Hugh de Spencer both the Father and Son are by the King and Parliament declared Traitors and Enemies of the King and of his Realm See likewise 28 Hen. 8. c. 7. Wherein the Crown is setled by Act of Parliament on the Heirs of his Body begotten on Queen Jane or by any other after Marriage and that the Offenders that shall interrupt such Heirs in their Peaceable Succession they with their Abbeâ—tors Maintainers c. shall be declared and adjudged High Traytors to the Realm And therefore divers Ancient Indictments in Stanfords Pleas of the Crown are laid contra pacem Regis Regni And that the Parliament hath reserved to it self a Power by the Statute of the 25th of Edw. 3d. to Determine what Crime shall be Adjudged Treason besides Conspiring to kill the King and those other Offences specified in the same Statute you may Consult the Statute at large But that these Offences can be no other than an endeavour to alter the Government or Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom I think is evident since all Offences relating to the Lives or Honour of the King Queen and their Eldest Son are there particularly specified and it was by Virtue of this Statute that the Late unfortunate Earl of Strafford was first impeached by the Commons and afterwards Attainted by Act of Parliamenâ— in the Year 1641. but whether justly or not it is not my Business now to determine it is sufficient that it was then granted by the King himself that if the Earl was really Guilty of Destroying the Government and Introducing an Arbitrary Power he might have bin deservedly Condemned But that the Power of Making and Dispensing with Laws is particularly applyed not only to the King but to the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons pray remember the Preamble of the Statute I have already cited of the 25th Hen. 8. c. 21. wherein it is so expresly declared as also by the 24th of this King Chap. 12. the Preface of which Statute runs thus And whereas the Kings most Noble Progenitors and the Nobility and Commons of the said Realm at divers anâ— sundry Parliaments as well in the time of King Edward 1st Edward 3d. Richard 2d Henry 4th c. made sundry Ordinances Laws Statutes and Provisions for the entire and sure Conservation of the Prerogatives Liberties and Preheminences of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm c. where pray note that the making of all these Statutes is ascribed to the Lords and Commons as well as to the King Which is also farther acknowledged by the said King Henry when in a Set Speech to the Parliament Reported by Crompton in the Case of Errours he said these words We being informed by our Iudges that We at no time stand so highly in our Estate Royal as in the time of Parliament wherein we as Head and you as Members are Conjoyned and knit together into one Body Politick And sure then if the King's Simile be true whatsoever Functions are performed by the whole Body must be done by the Members as well as by the Head I shall Sum up all I have said into this Syllogism That Power which cannot make or Enact any new Law without the Advice and Consent of two other Bodies is not the Sole Legislative Power But the King is that Power which cannot c. Ergo the King is not the Sole Legislative Power M. I shall not longer Dispute this Question with you Since I own the two Houses have Claimed for some Ages past a Share in the Legislative tho' in a large and improper Sense as you your self do partly grant And though for the more just and equal Course our Kings have for a long time admitted the 3 Estates viz. the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons into a seeming Share of the Legislative Power Yet this was not by Constraint nor by any Fundamental Constitution of the Government as you suppose but only from their own meer Grace and Favour to make Laws by the Consent of the whole Realm because that no one part thereof should have any Cause to complain of partiality And though I grant the King is bound to observe these Laws when made by vertue of his Coronation-Oath so as that he cannot alter them without their Consent yet is he still above the Law by Virtue of his Absolute Monarchical Power and is not Subordinate to it or so bound by it as to be Responsible to the People for any Breach committed by him upon it for that were Derogatory to the Soveraign Power and inconsistent with the Nature of Monarchy and were to set up the Law which is but a Creature of the Prince's making above his Soveraign Authority And this would make our Monarchy a Kind of Government which would neither be Monarchical nor yet a Republic but some Mungrel thing made up of both So that I take the Notion of a mixt Monarchy to be a Contradiction in adjecto A limited Monarchy I confess there may be either by the Monarch's own Voluntary Grant or Consent as in this Kingdom or else on Conditions imposed upon a Prince by others either by a Foreign Power as in Tributary and Feudatary Kingdoms or else by the Natives of the same Country as in some Elective Kingdoms and Principalities but then such Limitations of Monarchical Power represent a Prince as it were fettered and who cannot Act as he would and ought for the Advantage and Wellfare of his People if he had his Liberty and the full Exercise of his Soveraign Power And therefore in most Governments limited after this manner the Soveraignty still remains in the Senate or Pâ—ople that Elected him which makes me think it Solecism in Politicks to affirm that a Monarch properly so called and still continuing so could be thus limited by Laws or Fundamental Constitutions as you call them at the first Institution of the Government For if he were thus limited that Power that could thus limit him must be either Superior or Inferior to him Superior it could not be because both the Prince and the People that could put those Conditions or Limitations upon him could not be his Superiors in the State of Nature before they made him King neither could they be
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
Popish Faction instead of suffering the Elections for Parliament-Men to proceed as he had promised and as was hoped for by us all on a sudden he order'd the rest of the Writs for Elections that were not sent down to be burnt and a Caveat to be entred against the making use of those that were sent already into the Country and at the same time he sent Order to the Earl of Feversham to disband the Army and dismiss all the Souldiers with their Arms. But I had forgot to put you in mind that just before this the King had sent away the Queen with the Prince into France and that she carried the Great Seal of England along with her whereby it was plain the King intended to put it wholly out of his power to Issue out any Writs or Pass any publick Act wherein the Great Seal should be used and that this Seal was carried away appears by its being not long since drawn up out of the Thames by a Fisherman's Net near Lambeth Bridge where it 's supposed to have been thrown in by the Queen or some of Her Attendance in Her passage over the Water and farther that the King was resolved wholly to quit the Government of this Kingdom at least for the present appears by his so speedy following of the Queen within three days after stealing from his Pallace by Night in a Boat to Gravesend and from thence in a small Vessel to Feversham where how he was seis'd by the Mob of that Town and afterwards return'd to London as you have set forth I need take no further notice Now this being a true and fair Narrative of the whole Matter I shall only offer two or three questions to your consideration and desire you would give me a fair and satisfactory answer to them First pray tell me whether it was not the Kings fault that it was rendered impossible for Parliament-Men to be elected by burning of the Writs and sending away the Great Seal Secondly whether the King by first stealing away did not plainly confess himself conquer'd by the Prince and did thereby Abdicate the Government also by his obstinate refusal to redress the Grievances of the Nation hath forfeited his Crown and all Allegiance from his Subjects and was not after this to be own'd as King of England either by the Prince of Orange or any body else and therefore whatever treatment he after this received from the Prince it was not to be looked upon as done to a Lawful King but a Conquered Prince and his Highness might not only justly refuse to treat with him any more as a Crowned Head but might also have justified not only the taking him Prisoner but sending him into Holland if he had pleas'd but instead of this the Prince only desir'd his removal out of Town from that conflux of Papists that flocked to him and by securing his Person to put it out of their power to play an after-Game and rally the late disbanded Army of whom there was at least twenty thousand of the Scotch Irish and English who would have stood by the King till the last and therefore the English as well as the Dutch Counsel about the Prince did not think it safe for him to come to Town as long as the King had his Guards about him at White-hall since they might have been increased to an Army whenever he pleased And though I grant good breeding and manners especially to Kings as also respect from a Son-in-law to a Father are duties incumbent upon Princes as well as private Men yet when these lesser things stand in competition with their own welfare and safety as also of the whole Nation for which the Prince was now engaged if he might for these ends justly require the removing and securing the Kings Person it was no great matter what time of night he had notice to remove though this was not done neither with any design to affront or surprise him but happen'd indeed through pure accident for when it was resolved that the Princes Guards should March to London and secure White-hall it was also resolved that the King should have notice to remove and since it was not thought fit to let him know it till the Posts were all secur'd the ways being very deep and dirty between Windsor and London the Dutch Guards commanded by Count Solms could not reach the Town till past ten at night and after that it was near twelve before the English Guards about White-hall could be drawn off without fighting and till that was done it was not thought at all proper or safe to deliver to the King the Princes message for his departure so that indeed it was not of any design that either the Prince and his Counsel who ordered it or of these Lords who very well understand good breeding thus to deliver their message to him at that time of Night But tho he was in Bed yet that he was not a sleep is very probable since he had not been above half an hour in Bed and it is not very likely he should be a sleep when he very well knew before of the arrival of the Princes Troops about White-hall and therefore could not be without too much concern about it presently to compose himself to sleep But as for his removal from London it is plain that his Highness was so far from owning or receiving the King in the same capacity he was in before his departure that as soon as ever he heard he was at the Earl of Winchelsea's and about to return to London he sent away Monsieur Zulestein with a Letter to let him know that he desired him not as yet to come to London but to stay at Rochester till he himself should come to Town but Monsieur Zulestein missing of the King by the way he came to White-hall yet could not but know that his being there was not with the Princes consent since the same Gentleman followed him thither and there delivered him the Princes Letters so that this second Message by these Lords could be no new thing or surprise to him yet that his Highness never intended or acted the least violence towards the Kings Person may appear by this that he left it to the Kings choice what place he would go to as also what Guards or other Attendance he would take with him and the King refused to take his English Guards with him though they were offer'd him and indeed these Dutch Guards that attended him might in his Majesties judgment be very well trusted they being as well as their Officers for the most part Papists but that the Prince did not intend either to detain his Majesties Person as a Prisoner may appear in this that whilst he remain'd at Rochester none that would were debarr'd from access to him and that the Officers and Souldiers of the Guards were order'd to be under his command and every Night to take the Word from him and had it not been for the Kings
then time enough and not till then for the Nation to have call'd in the Prince of Orange and His Dutc-hmen to their Deliverance so that till this Parliament had been try'd you could not say that matters were altogether desperate F. I see you do all you can to prove that the Kings Raising an Army wherein he had Listed so many Popish Officers and Souldiers and which were like to be daily increas'd upon us was no making War upon the Nation because they had not yet actually robb'd or murder'd People and you may with as much reason tell me that a Thief upon the High-way do's not use any Violence upon the party he robbs if he should only clap a cok'd Pistol to his breast without asking him to deliver his Money Now I suppose you will not deny but that the Passinger would quickly understand the meaning of that sign and wo'd soon deliver his Purse for fear of loosing his life apply this to the Chimney Money that has been rais'd upon the poor part of the Nation and the taking away the Charters from the Corporations merely through the Terrour of this standing Army and see if the Similitude do's not exactly fit and for what you say concerning the presuming upon the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and so might have done the same Arbitrary things whether he had raised an Army or not tho' I am very glad you confess that those Doctrines encouraged the Kings Arbitrary proceedings yet I must Beg your Pardon if I cannot beleive the rest whatever thoughts the King might have of the Major part of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry Yet certainly he had no such good Opinion of the Ordinary People who compos'd the Militia and indeed are the Hands of the Kingdom since you confess the King did not look upon them as sufficiently Loyal and therefore was forc'd to maintain a Standing Army for fear of them So that it seems the Nation was not yet thorough pac'd in your Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as you would have had them but that even this Standing Army when it was to Fight against the Religion and Liberties of their own Country it was not to be trusted the King himself was convinc'd of when he so lately ran away from them at Salisbury and because some of them deserted him he feared the rest wo'd not Fight in so unjust a Quarrell But as for the rest of Tour Speech that the People sho'd have â—arried till matters had become altogether desperate and that a Parliament had actually given us our Religion Civil Liberties and Properties to the Kings Arbitrary will that had been indeed intalling Slavery upon us by a Law and would have made good the Proverb of shuâ—â—ing the Stable Door after the Horse is Stolen and puts me in mind of a Story I have heard of a Gentleman whose House being beset by Thieves who were actually breaking in at a Window and that he was about to shoot at them his over scrupulous Chaplain who I suppose had nicely study'd your Doctrine of Nonresistance desired his Patron to forbear because the Thieves had not as yet sufficiently declar'd their wicked intentions by assaulting or robbing any Body in the House But I suppose the Gentleman was not such a Fool as to take his Chaplains advice and a great part of the Nation was too sensible of the dangers they saw hang over their Heads than to follow your Opinion M. I see you are very free in your Comparisons in making the Kings Late Army little better then Thieves and then what Opinion you have of the King himself who headed 'em I leave it to your self to consider but since Similitudes are no Arguments I shall not trouble my self to argue this point any longer with you since I see it is to little purpose but yet let your right of Resistance be what it will in desperate cases yet I am sure that diverse Lords and Gentlemen of your Opinion can no way justify their renouncing all Allegiance to his Majesty by adhering to a Foreign Prince and by their Late advising the same Prince to call a Free Parliament without taking any notice of the King or making any more Addresses to him about it than if he had never been their Anointed Soveraign and indeed it was a burning shame as well as a crying Sin for the Nobility Gentry and People in and about this great and populous City to let their King be hurryed away Prisoner by a handful of Dutch-men though his Majesty hath had since the good Fortune to escape out of their hands when he saw there was no other means to fail him F. In answer to what you have now said I must freely tell you that if the resistance that hath been made against the Army Commission'd by the King was Lawfull so has all that has been done in pursuance of that resistance been alike Lawfull and necessary and therefore what if I tell you that the King by breaking the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom and by twice going away without ever offering to repair those breaches and give the Nation any sufficient satisfaction for the same has not only put himself in a state of War against the People but has also thereby ceas'd to be King or if you will have it more plainly has lost and forfeited his right to the Crown M. This is rare Commonwealth Doctrine and of the same batch with that of Bradshaws and Cooks Speeches against King Charles the First but I thank God I have learn'd Loyaler Principles and do firmly believe that a King of England cannot for any Tyrrany or breach of Laws whatsoever forfeit his Crown or Royal Dignity as you suppose But since this is a new Doctrine I shall not be unwilling to hear what you have to say upon this Subject another time since it is now too late to pursue this Argument any further F. Before I make any reply to what you have now said I desire not to be misunderstood as if I call all the Kings Late Army Thieves or himself the Captain of them since in Similes it is sufficient if they agree in some common propertie without being the same things to which they are compar'd tho this much I may safely say that those that take Free Quarter without consent of the owners in time of Peace and those who support 'em in it are no better than Thieves but since you desire to hear my reasons for this opinion I have now given you I desire that we may have another meeting to debate this weighty question and then I will likewise hear whatever you have to say against it but I must tell you by the way that you are very much out in making my opinion of the same batch with that of the Regicides for it appears plainly by the Printed Tryal of the King that they acknowledged him for King of England at the same time when they read his Indictment to him whereas I affirm the contrary and
M. OH Are you come at last I have looked for you these two Nights and now began to fear you were not well or else had distrusted your cause and declined another Conference F. I beg your Pardon for disappointing you which yet I had not done had noâ— some Business hindred me but however to let you see I do not decline another Conference with you upon this Subject pray let us go on where we left off and tell me freely your sense of my Notion of the Kings forfeiture or Abdication of the Government by his violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and refusal to repair those Breaches when he might have done it M. In answer to your demand I will deal freely with you and must tell you that I have perused all Writers that have Writ any thing considerable concerning the Laws of Government or of Nations and cannot find in any of them any thing to countenance your Notion of forfeiture or Abdication of an absolute Sovereign Prince aâ— I must still take ours to be notwithstanding all you yet said to the contrary unless what you have cited at our third meeting out of Barclays third Book contra Monarches where he allows the Subjects to resist their Prince in case he go about to destroy the Body of the People or Common wealth whereof he is the Head To which I may also add another Case which you have omitted viz. if the Prince make over his Kingdom to another without the Consent of his People And I confess that both Grotius and Pufendorf agree with Barclay in this Notion Because they look upon both these Cases as their plain downright Renunciations of their Civil Authority over those whom they were obliged to Govern But indeed the first of these Cases is so improbable nay almost impossible to happen that were it not for the over-great niceness of these Writers it need not to have been so much as mentioned since none but a Mad-man can ever go about to destroy his whole People and therefore as a Man out of his Wits such a Prince may be Resisted and lockt up if ever it should so fall out as you your self have confessed it hath very rarely for a Nation to be so unhappy as to have such a Prince but as for the Second viz. the making over their Supream Power to a Foreign Prince that likewise so very rarely happens That it is scarce worth the while to make any dispute about it But in all other Cases they held the Supream Power of every Nation to be absolutely Irresistible in any case whatsoever and if irresistible then certainly uncapable of forfeiting their Right to govern by any pretended or real Violation of the Liberties and Priviledges of the People And Bodin in his first Book de Republica tho' he grant that absolute Princes are obliged in Conscience to keep and maintain all such Priviledges which have been granted to the People by either themselves or Predecessors which are for the good of the Common-wealth yet since the Prince is sole Judge whether these Priviledges are consistent with his Supream Right to Govern and Protect his People he may therefore have occasion sometimes not only to Detract from them or dispense with them in some Cases but may wholy break and lay them aside by turning Tyrant Yet nevertheless in all these Cases People are still bound not to resist them And that he looked upon the King of England as such an Absolute Monarch as well as others he there mentions pray read me the place I now Cited where after he has allowed Resistance to be lawful against those Princes who were not properly Monarchs as enjoying but a share of the Supream Power and among which he reckons the German Emperor and the Kings of Denmark Sweden and Poland But then when he comes to speak of Real and Absolute Monarchies his Sense is quite different as you may see by these words Quod si Monarchia quaedam est summâ unius potestate constituta qualis est Francorum Hispanorum Anglorum Scotorum c. I shall slip all the rest because not to our purpose ubi Reges sine controversia jura omnia Majestatis habent per se nec singulis civibus nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam famam Fortunas in discrimen vocare seu vi feu Iudice constituto id fiat etiamsi omnium scelerum ac Flagitiorum quae in Tyrannis convenire antea diximus turpitudine infamis esset where you may observe that Force or Resistance by which such an absolute Princes Life or Regal Power here called Fortunas are as much forbid as calling him in question by appointing Judges to sit upon him And he there gives us a very good reason for it because all Subjects of what degree soever cannot pretend to any Coercive Power over the Person of a Sovereign Prince F. We have discoursed enough concerning the Resistance of Absolute Monarchs at our third and fourth meeting and therefore I desire we may not fall into that Subject which can produce nothing but needless Repetitions and I have already proved at our 5th Conversation that the King is not an Absolute Despotick Monarch but is limited and tied up by the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom from making of Laws or raising Taxes without the consent of his People in Parliament and that our Government is mixed and made up of Monarchy with an allay of Aristocracy and Democracy in the constitution the former in the House of Lords the latter in the House of Commons as K. Charles the First himself confesses in his Answer to the Parliaments 19 Propositions and I have farther inforced this from divers Authorities out of our Anâ—ient as well as Modern Lawyers viz. Glanvill Bracton Fortescue and Sir Edward Coke So that since we have such clear proof for our Constitution from our own Histories and Authors nay from the King himself besides the whole purporâ— and style of the very Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom I do not value the Authority of Bodin a Foreigner whose business it is to set up the Authority of the French King to the highest pitch he could and therefore being sensible that antiently the Government of France and England were much the same he could not with any face make his own an Absolute Despotick Monarchy unless he had made ours so too But this is not the only Errour he has been guilty of in our History and Constitution as I can shew you when there is occasion But Arnisaeus who as well as Bodin is so much for Absolute Monarchs yet does in his Treatise of Government called his confess that a Tyrant in an Hereditary Monarchy who violates all the Laws of Justice and Equity to the endangering the Ruine of the Common-wealth doth ixcidere Iure haereditario fall from or forfeit his Hereditary Right But pray make it out by some convincing proofs either from History or Law that our Kings are
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
the only Iudges of all Disputes about the Succession of the Crown D. 2. p. 891 to 892. D. 12. p. 893. D. 13. p. 917 to 919 921. Eve W. by being subject to Adam all her Posterity became so likewise D. 1. p. 14. to 25. F Fathers W. by right of generation or of education Lords over their Children in the state of Nature D. 1 p. 13 14. W. Any such power was given by Divine Grant to Adam and in him to all other Fathers Ib. p. 26 30 to 36. W. Fathers of Families have power of life and death over their Children by the Law of Nature Ib. 19. to 26. W. They may sell their Children Ib. 26. to 31. W. They may be resisted by their Children in case of any violent assaults upon their lives Ib. p. 41. W. Perpetual Masters over their Children as long as they live Ib p. 45. to 51. Fideles the signification of the word before the Conquest D. 6. p. 390 391. D. 7. p. 448. to 451. Sir R. Filmers Principles W. they do not rather encourage Tyranny than Fatherly affection in Princes towards their Subjects D. 2. p. 118. W. They do not also favour Vsurpers Ib. 125. to 128. G Common Good of Mankind the main design of all Government D. 1. p. 55. to 61. Civil Government the end of its Institution D. 1. p. 11. 19. 21. W. There had been any necessity of it if Man had never sinned Ib. p. 11. What it is and its Prerogative D. 3. p. 173. W. it can be setled without liberty and property in Estates Ib. 174. Government of Families and Kingdoms its Original and Necessity D. 1. p. 10. to 12. Supream Governours in what cases they cease to be Gods Ordinance D. 1. p. 41. Government among the ancient Germans and Saxons always by Common Councils D. 5. p. 365. to 369. Grands or Grants in Parliaments what those words signifie in ancient Statutes and Records W. The Lords alone or the Commons also D. 6. p. 369. vid. Append. Guards of the King when when first set up D. 9. p. 639. H K. Harold W. William of Normandy had a just cause of making War upon him D. 10 p. 718. What Title he had to the Crown Ib. p. 720. Haereditamentum its derivation Ib. p. 721. Hengist and all the rest of the Kings who founded the Saxon Heptarchy W. so by Election or Conquest D. 5. p. 357. to 362. King Henry the IVth W. his Title to the Crown were by right of blood or Election of the Estates in Parliament D. 12. p. 861. to 863. King Henry the VI. W. his Son were not unjustly disinherited by the Duke of York and himself unjustly deposed by Edward the IVth Ib. p. 863. to 867. King Henry the VIIth W. he had any Title to the Crown by right of Inheritance Ib. p. 868. to 870. King Henry the VIIIth W. the several alterations he made as to the the Succession were legal D. 12. p. 871 872. Homage W. it rendred the Prince or Lord irresistible D. 10. p. 727.728 Homines Liberi its signification in English Histories D. 6. p. 428. to 430. Homilies of our Church the the chief passages therein against all manner of Resistance of Governours considered D. 4. p. 287.288 W. It be Heresie or Schism to deny their Authority in any point there laid down Ib. 289.290 vid. Append. Mr. Hookers Opinion concerning the Original of Civil Government D. 12. p. 129.130 W. The two Houses of Parliament or the whole People of England have any coercive Power ove the King D. 9. p. 634. W. The Two Houses have on the behalf of the whole People renounced all right of self-defence in any case whatsoever Ib. p. 636. to 658. I King James the Firsts Speech in Parliament against Tyranny D. 3. p. 148. The Act of Recognition of K. James's Hereditary Right how far it obliges Posterity D. 12. p. 871 to 874. King James II. W. he violatid the fundamental constitution of the Government before his desertion D. 9. p. 673. to 685. Or W. he had amended all those violations before his departure p. 685. to 689. W. His setting up a standing Army and puting in Popish Officers and Souldiers were an actual making War upon the Nation Ib. p. 683.687 W. He abdicated the Government by his breach of the Original contract or else by his deserting it D. 11. p. 790. to 799. W. He might have been again safely restored to the Government upon reasonable terms Ib. p. 801. to 807. W. He really intended to redress all the violations he had made upon it p. 805. to 807. W. He resumed the Government upon his return to London from Feversham Ib. 802. to 806. Iesus Christ did not alter Civil Government neither by taking away the Prerogative of Princes nor yet by abridging the Civil Liberties of Subjects D. 4. p. 216. to 220. Jews often rebelled and sometimes killed their Kings D. 3. p. 203 to 205. Their resistance of Antiochus considered Ibid. p. 208. to the end Jewish Government before Saul W. Aristocratical or Monarchical D. p. 93. to 101. Judah and Thamar the History considered D. 1. p. 33. Iudges over Israel their Power W. Monarchical D. 2. p. 95 96. W. Some of them were not Iudges of some particular Tribes p. 96 97. Iudgements Divine W. they may be removed by humane means or force D. 4. p. 259 260. K Kings W. to be reputed Fathers of their People as the Heirs or Representatives of those who were once so D. 2. p. 65. W. They derive their Power from God or from the People and Laws D. 11. p. 773. to 780. D. 12. p. 936 to 938. Saxon Kings of England W. absolute or limited Princes D. 5. p. 349. W. They were endued with the sole Legislative Power Ib. p. 338 to 345. Kings of the English Saxons Elected and often deposed by the Great Council Ibid. p. 365. The same done also in other Kingdoms of the Gothic Model Ib. p. 365. Kings of England ever since King William I. W. they derive their Title to the Crown from Conquest or some other Title D. 10. p. 713. Their Concessions to Subjects do no ways derogate from Royal Prerogative D. 10. p. 715.716 Kings of the Roman Catholick Religion W. many of them have not observed Magna Charta and their Coronation Oath D. 12.882.888 King by Sir R. Filmer's Principles above all Laws and alone makes them D. 2. p. 123.124 In what sence he is head of the Politick Body of the Common-wealth D. 11. p. 803. to 805. W. He could have anciently by his Prerogative Taxed all the Tenants in Capite at his discretion D. 7. p. 495. to 499. W. He could call or omit to summon to Parliament what Earls Lords and Tenants he pleased Ibid. p. 505 to 511.523 W. He could also summon those Knights of Shires who served befere without any new Election Ib. 537. W. He could by his Prerogative discharge what Knights of Shires he pleased after they were chosen Ibid.