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
Parliament for as to Queen Mary it is plain that at her coming to the Crown she could not be looked upon as Heir by right of blood because by the Statute of the 25 th of Henry the VIII th his Marriage with Queen Catherine her Mother was declar'd unlawful and the Crown setled upon the King and the Heirs of his Body lawfully begotten on Queen Anne Bullen and besides all this she was but Sister by the half blood to King Edward the VI th and so could not inherit as heir to him and though in the first year of her Reign the Parliament t is true took off her illegitimation and repeal'd the Acts of the 25 th and 28 th of Henry VIII whereby she was declar'd illegitimate yet in this the Parliament seems rather to provide for the honour of her descent than as you would have it to declare her Succession to be Inheritance by right of blood because the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the VIII th whereby the Crown was setled upon Prince Edward and the Heirs of his Body the remainder upon the Ladys Mary and Elizabeth and whereby the King had also power given him of disposing the Crown by Letters Patents or by Will was not at all repeal'd and for which a memorable Reason is given in both these Acts least if such Heirs should fail and no provision made in the King's Life who should Rule and Govern this Realm for lack of such Heirs that then this Realm should be destitute of a Lawful Governour whereby it seems plain that the Parliament then esteemed no Heirs to have a Right by Law farther than had been declar'd by these Statutes So likewise for Queen Elizabeth her Title was more apparently by Act of Parliament and that she looked upon her self sufficient to have succeeded by vertue of the limitation of the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the Eighth last mention'd appears in that she never procured her Mothers Marriage to be declared good and consequently her own illegitimation to be taken off so that take it which way you will it is certain that either Queen Mary's or Queen Elizabeths Title must have been only by Act of Parliament since she was born whilst Queen Catherine King Henry's first Wife was living and therefore when the Parliament you mention in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth declar'd that she was Rightly Lawfully and Lineally descended and come of the blood Royal of this Realm yet these words can only be understood of such a lineal and lawful descent as is here declar'd to be so by vertue of this as well as the former Statute and not according to any hereditary descent at Common-Law since it is very well known that as long as the Popes dispensation for King Henrys Marriage with the Princess Catherine his Brothers Wife was allowed for good as it was till the latter end of Henry the VII ths and all the first 25 years of Henry the VIII ths Reign the Princess Mary was looked upon as the only presumptive Heiress of the Crown this I tell you not to invalidate Queen Elizabeths Title but to let you see that Acts of Parliament if they declare that which is apparently false in matter of Law or Fact are not to be credited unless you will give them more power than God himself who cannot as all Divines agree make that to have been done which was never done or that not to have been done which hath once come to pass I come now in the last place to examine the Act of Recognition of King Iames the Firsts Title to the Crown which I will not dispute to have been by right of blood since none of the descendants of King Henry the VII th could have any Title before him for though it is true it was otherwise ordain'd by King Henry the VIII ths Will yet that as you your self show was not only cancell'd in Queen Marys time but was also void in it self for whereas by the Statute of the 35 th of Henry the VIII th there was a power given him to dispose of the Crown either by his Letters Parents or else by his last Will Signed with his Hand yet was this power never legally executed for those that have argued against this Will have told us that he never Sign'd it in his life time but that a stamp of his Name was put thereunto after his decease as most manifestly appeared by open declaration made in Parliament of this matter by the Lord Paget and others that King Henry did never Sign it with his own Hand as was also proved by the Pardon obtain'd for one William Clerke for puting the Stamp unto the said Will after the King was departed So that though I grant that King Iames had a very good Title to the Crown of England by Inheritance yet whether it was from King Henry the VII th alone or from Queen Elizabeth his Wife is not there declar'd only that he was lawfully descended of Lady Margaret Eldest Daughter to King Henry the VII th and Queen Elizabeth his Wife Eldest Daughter of King Edward the IV th and therefore that they are bound both by the Laws of God and Man to Recognize his Majesty as sole Heir of the blood Royal of this Realm all which is so far true if by Gods Law and Mans Law you will thereby understand such Laws as God impowers the King and Parliament to make for otherwise there is no more heed to be taken of this Declaration than that which was made before to Richard the III d which also declared him to have a good Title to the Crown by the Laws of God and Nature and the Laws and Customs of this Realm So that I see nothing in all this Act of Recognition that at all contradicts my notion that King Iames's Title is wholly derived from the Act of Settlement made on King Henry the VII th from whom he was lineally descended so that though his Pedigree be also derived from Queen Elizabeth Eldest Daughter to King Edward the IV th yet this was only ex abundanti to show that he had every way a Title to the Crown and if she her self had any Title it was wholly by vertue of those Acts of Parliament of the 39 th of Henry the VI th and 1 st of Edward the IV th which vested the Crown in Richard Duke of York and King Edward the IV th his Son and which last Act first declar'd that the three Henrys of the House of Lancaster were only Kings in deed and not of right for before that time I defie you to show me in all our Histories or Law-books any such distinction In all foregoing times he that was solemnly Annointed and Crown'd King in Deed was also looked upon so to be in point of right and therefore let those Statutes you so much insist upon talk never so much of any Kings being so by any fundamental hereditary right precedent to and independent from
it were granted him by God F. I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question by and by but in the mean time pray let me make it a little more plain to you that this Power of Life and Death which may be exercised by Masters of separate Families over their Wives and Children in some cases is not by any Power they receive from God as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families may by proved by this instance suppose a Master of a Family independant on any other as in the Indies hath neither Wife nor Children yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves for such great offences as you have mentioned in case there be no superiour Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes And to make this yet plainer suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live together with them in the Family of such a Master as I have now described yet not aâ— a Servant but as an Inmate or Boarder and whilst he so continues his Wife Kills one of her Children or one of his Sons Murders his Brother who hath right to punish this offence but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate And this follows from your own supposed for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independant Government then all those that enter themselves as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governour of it Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument That if the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature it could never be restrain'd nor taken from them without their consent that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families since I must grant this is taken away by Civil Laws And why not the other To this I reply that you do not observe the strength of these words Without their consent For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers or Masters of Families in the state of Nature without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Common-wealth upon its first Institution whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force as by Conquest or Usurpation not only over those that are not at their own disposal as Children and Servants but over their Fathers and Masters too without their consents which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason M. I see you take it for granted that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families and not as Fathers in the State of Nature But as plain as you think it since you question the Power of Life and Death which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families since there is no reason in my Opinion which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children in case they deserve it For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind that great and enormous Crimes such as Murder and Adultery should be punished and that with Death Who is more fit to inflict these punishments or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Husband himself Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death however they may deserve it without very great reluctancy since he aâ— it were thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body And therefore I cannot see any Reason why such a Married man as you describe should by coming under another Man's Rooâ— only as an Inmate or Boarder and not as a Slave which I grant would alter the Case should lose that Power of Life and Death which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board And therefore as I do not deny but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death and also of making Peace and War with other such Masters of Families nay with Princes themselves if there be occasion as we read in Genesis Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth says he and let her be burnt Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone she not being his own Daughter and his Son being then dead but as the Master of a separate Family who hath I grant power of Life and Death as he is Lord over the persons of his Children aâ— Servants and consequently over their Wives also for if he hath power over his Son he hath certainly the like over all that belong to him as long as they continue members of his Family and that he hath not thought fit to manumit or set them free But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarchâ— could exercise all these markâ— of Soveraignty especially this great Power of Life and Death unless it were derived from God at first since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's So that not only this Power of the Patriarchs but also that of all Monarchs to this day must be derived from this Divine Original F. Well then I find you 're forced to quit the power of a Father as such by Generation since it plainly appears that this power of Life and Death which you affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature is not quatenus as a Father but Lord and Master over them which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her for if she is not his Slave as certainly she is not for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased I cannot see how she her self could convey by force of the contract any such Power over her Life tho I grant indeed if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children or other Person of the Family he may proceed against her as an Enemy but not as a Subject and if it be for Adultery it self I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony Divorce or putting her away and deserting the Child born in Adultery
make a part of that great aggregate body of mankind they are in all points equal to them that is as the Parents have a right to Life Happiness and Self-preservation so have they likewise and consequentially to all necessary means thereunto such as Food Cloaths Liberty I mean from being used as Slaves which Principles if true will likewise serve for a farther proof against that absolute Property and Dominion you supposed to be conferred on Adam over the Earth and all things therein exclusive to that of his Wife and Children For if they had a right to a Being and Self-preservation whether he would or not so had they likewise to all the means necessary thereunto and he was not only obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children whilst they were unable to do it for themselves but also when they grew up to Years of Discretion they might take it without his assignment and this by Virtue of that Grant in Genesis I before quoted And God said Gen. 1. viz. to the Man and the Woman and in them to all mankind then in their Loins Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the Earth c. Behold to you it shall be for meat So that sure you were too rash in affirming with Sir R. F. That a Son a Slave and a Servant were all one at the first For I hope I have proved the Father doth not acquire any absolute Property in the person of the Son either by his begetting him or bringing him up for then I grant a Son and a Slave would be all one But if you please better to consider it you will find that Fathers were never ordained by God for perpetual Lords and Masters over their Children but rather as Tutors and Guardians till they are of Years of Discretion and able to shift for themselves God having designed the Father to beget and bring up his Child nor for his own interest or advantage only but rather for the Child's happiness and preservation which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to procure For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Action that may make his Father repent his begetting or bringing him up so on the other side the Father ought not to Treat his Son so severely as to make him weaay of his Family much less of his Life It is the Apostle's Precept Ephes. 6.4 Parents provoke not your Children to wrath which certainly he knew they were apt to do or else that precept had been needless Now pray tell me if Adam had used one of his Sons whom he loved worse than the rest so cruelly as to make him a Slave instead of a Son and when grown a Man should have put him to all the servile and hard labour imaginable with scarce Victuals enough to live upon or Cloaths to cover him What must this Son have done Born all patiently Or else do you think it had been a damnable sin if he had fled into the Land of Nod to Cain his elder Brother M. To answer your Question I think in the first place it had for I do not only take Cain to have been the first Murderer but Rebel too and in the next place this Question is needless for it can scarce be supposed that ever Adam or any Father can be so wicked and ill-natur'd as to use a Son thus cruelly without some just occasion but if he had I think he ought to have endured any thing from his Father rather than have left him without his leave since I cannot see how Children can ever set themselves free from their Father's Power whether they will or no. F. If that be the condition of Children they are then instead of Sons as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey whenever their Father pleases But you have already granted that Fathers ought not to use their Children like Slaves nor to sell them for such to others And tho I have no great kindness for Cain yet I know not what warrant you have to call him Rebel I am sure neither the Scripture nor Iosephus mention his going to the Land of Nod as an offence committed against his King and Father Adam but rather as a piece of compliance or obedience to God's Sentence who had made it part of his Curse so to do M. I shall not much trouble my self whether Cain was a Rebel or not I only tell you what some Learned men have thought of his quitting his Country but as for other Children tho I grant their Fathers ought not to use them like Slaves yet if they should happen to do so I think such Children ought to bear it as a Judgment inflicted by God for their Sins and should not by any means set themselves free tho their Fathers use them never so severely since it is God's will they should be Born and continue under the power of such severe Fathers F. But pray Sir tell me what if this Son had fallen into the power of a Stranger who would thus make a Slave of him Was he likewise bound to bear this as a punishment from God for his Sins and might he by no means set himself free Since this could not happen without God's permissive Providence at least and I think you will sâ—arce prove it more in the Case of the Father unless you will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppression M. I Grant that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force without just cause given by him may set himself free by what means he can But I deny he hath the same Liberty in respect of his Father since the Father's power over him is from God and so is not the Stranger 's F. What power of the Father do you mean That of making his Son a Slave or of using him as a Father ought to use a Son The latter of these I very well understand to be from God but not the former And if the Father hath no such power from God I cannot see how it can be any Act of disobedience in a Son to look to his own Liberty and Preservation since Cruelty and Tyranny can never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power as you your self confess M. I grant indeed a Father hath no such Power from God to treat his Son thus cruelly but if he does I say again That God having ordained the Son to be absolutely subject to his Father he must endure it let the consequence of it be what it will And I suppose you will not deny but that in case of necessity as when a Father hath not wherewithal to nourish and breed up his Children he may sell or assign his interest in them to any person who will undertake to provide for their Nourishment and Education and that the Children so sold or assigned do thereby become absolute Servants to the person to whom they were thus assigned as long as they lived and why this should be
may by his Mercenary forces then that 30 or 40000 may defend themselves if they can For when once a Prince hath thus enter'd into a State of War with his People who can tell when or where it will end or can assure himself that he shall not be the next man that shall be dâ—stroyed and it is very pleasant that you allow the Prince this Power of murdering to avoid Civil War as if there could be no War begun unless there be fighting on both Sides Whereas Mr. Hobbs himself acknowledges the very assaulting or setting upon any Man to be entring into a State of War with him And sure I think to fall upon the People without Cause and Killing 30 or 40000 of them is entring into a State of War or else nothing is And therefore you mistake the question when you argue from the Indivisibility of the Supreme Power that it must not be resisted For the Question is not here whether it be divisible or not but whether it be not absolutely dissolved by thus entering into a State of War with the People whom all Civil Magistrates are supposed to protect when they assume the Government Nor doth this give any countenance to Male factors or other single Persons to rise in Arms and defend themselves against the supreme Powers when they have offended against the Laws or that they think themselves injured by the undile execution of them Since such abuses of Power cannot suddenly or upon every slight occasion disturb the Government And in the Case of Malefactors the Supream Power is still sure to have all the People on its side for their own Security and in case of some Murders or oppressions committed by such Supream Magistrates on the Lives or Estates of some Private Persons tho' I suppose that even such private Men have a Right in the state of Nature to defend their Lives and to recover by Force what by unjust Force is taken from them yet this Right must still give place to the Publick Place and Safety of the Common-Wealth whereof they are members which must not be disturbâ—d for the sake of a few and of this the People themselves are so sensible that it is almost as impossible for a few oppressed men to disturb the Government where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned to it as for a Raâ—ing Mad-man or Heady Malecontent to overturn a well setled Staâ—e the People being as little aâ—t to follow the one as the other So on the other side when over the People are once convinced that their Governours instead of Protecting go about to destroy them it is as impossible for any Man to persuade them not to take up Arms and defend themselves against them if they are able to make Sufficient Resistances And therefore tho' I so far agree with you that some oppressions and violences may be practised in all Civil Governments whatsoever since such abuses will continue as long as Men are Men yet doth it not therefore follow that the Supream Powers must always be born withal and never resisted no not when they go about to destroy the whole Body of the People M. But pray tell me is it not a very mischievous and unjust thing that Subjects should be both Iudges and Parties too in their own Case Since they may pretend that the King goeth about to destroy them when really he does not design any such thing and would not this bring all things into Anarchy and Confusion I shewed you the fatal consequences of this at the Beginning but you have not yet thought fit to answer them F. I begg your pardon Sir I have been so taken up with answering the main Arguments that you have proposed against this Right of Resistance that I have not had time to consider this Objection which is but a Consequence thereof And therefore in the first place give me leave to ask you this Question Suppose you were Master of a separate Family in the Indies and a Neighbouring Prince or Cacich of the Indians should come to Kill you or to drive you out of your Plantation might you not defend your self because you are both Iudge and Party too in your own Case or suppose you should so far abuse this Power of self defence as to pretend this Neighbouring Prince was coming to assault you when he realy was nor and should therefore to prevent it set upon him first and Murder him and his Followers must your abuse of this Right which you have by the Law of Nature be a sufficient Argument that neither you nor any Man else in the State of Natioâ— should ever for the future exercise this Right no more will the abuse of either of these beâ— sufficient Argument against the Right of Self-defence against the supream Powers M. I grant indeed they are not in the State of Nature but it is much otherwise after People are entered into a Civil Society or Common-Wealth and that upon your own Principles For then they have given up all that Equality which you suppose between men in the State of Nature For supposing what you affirm should be true That Civil Government at first began from the whole Body or major part of the Peoples making over all their Right of Governing themselves to one Person or more upon Conditions of being Protected in their Lives and Estates they must likewise make over all their Right of Iudging for themselves what means are necessary for their Common Good and Preservation after which transferring of their Power they can never have any Right to meet again in a body either by themselves or their Representatives to Judge of these Breaches or the Transgressions of those Conditions which they at first Proposed and agreed upon with such Princes or Governours And when the People come once to multiply into a Nation it in absolutely Impossible for them ever to meet altogether again and give their Iudgment of the Good or Evil Consequence of the Monarchs actions or to come to any resolution upon them So that their opinion can never afterwards be known otherwise than by the Murmurs of particular Persons which none can certainly know neither unless they could speak with every Individual Person of that Kingdom which is impossible But if you will say this oppression needs not to be known by Words or Votes but actions viz. by the Peoples actual taking up Arm ' this must either be by the whole People altogether at once or at least the major part of them or else of some particular Bodies of Men much less than the whole or major part Now the whole or major part of a People of a Nation to rise and take up Arms all at once aâ— one Man is morally impossible And if any part less than this whole or Major part as suppose a whole Province or City every such party or Body of Men so rising must be guilty of Rebellion and disturbing the Publick Peace of the Common-Wealth as being
endure and pass by the personal Faults or Failings of Princes in consiâ—eration of that Protection and Security in their Lives and Fortunes which they do enjoy under them since it hath been found by experience with how great a Slaughter of People and how great a confusion and danger of the whole Common-Wealth Evil Princes have been resisted or turn'd out of their Thrones And therefore I grant the Private Injuries of Princes are to be past over in consideration of that great Charge they undergo and for those greater Benefits we receive from their Government but chiefly for the publick Peace of the Common Wealth or Civil Society And therefore I own it is very well said by that Master in Politicks Tacitus That the ill Humours or Dispositions of Kings are to be born withal and that often Mutations of Governments are of dangerous Consequence And he wisely introduces Ceriales speaking to this purpose to the Rebellious Treveri That they ought to bear with the Luxury and Avarice of Rulers as they do with immoderate showers and other unnatural Evils since there will be Vices whilst there are Men yet neither are these continual but are often recompensed by the Intervention of better But I will now particularize those Cases wherein I do absolutely disallow and disclaim all Resistance in Subjects against the Supream Powers 1. I deny all Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Supream Magistrates in all such Actions or Prerogatives which are absolutely necessary to the Exercise of their Supream Power viz. of Protecting and Defending their People as also against those who are Commission'd by them for the Execution of such Powers 2. I Condemn all Rebellion against Princes or States meerly on the Score of Religion or because they are not of the Religion of their People or Subjects if there be no positive Law Extant Disabling or Forbidding Princes or other Magistrates of different Religions than that of their People from being admitted to the Throne or Government 3. I look upon it as Rebellion in the People Tumultuously to rise up in Arms to alter or reform the Religion of the Nation or Kingdom already established by Law without the Consent of the Legislators 4. I Disclaim all Resistance or Self-defence in Subjects upon the account that the free or publick Exercise of that Religion they profess is not allowed them by the Legislative Power of the Kingdom or Nation provided that such Supream Powers do not forbid or hinder the People professing such a different Religion to Sell or Transport their Estates and Persons into any other Country where they please 5. I Deny Resistance to Subjects against their Princes or Governours upon Pretence of any Personal Vices as because they are wicked Atheistiâ—al Cruel Lustful or Debauched provided they generally Protect their Subjects in their Lives Liberties and Properties 6. I Deny this Right of Resistance to any particular person less than the whâ—le Body or Major part of the People or at least such a considerable Portion of a Nation as are able when Assaulted or Oppressed in their Lives Liberties or Estates to constitute a distinct and entire Kingdom or Common-Wealth of themselves 7. I look upon it as Wicked and Rebellious for any private Subjects to Assassinate Murder or Imprison their Monarch or other Supream Governour since no private Person whatever ought to lay Violent Hands upon his Prince whose person ought to be Sacred and in no wise to be Violated unless he put off the Character of a Prince and Actually make War upon his People But if in this Case he happen to be Resisted and Perish in the Attempt he falls not as a Prince but as a Common Enemy by breaking the Original Compact with his People and entring into a State of War against them As a Father who unjustly makes War upon his Children may be as I have already proved at our first conference Resisted by them in the State of Nature But as for all other Grievances or Oppressions if they are of that Nature as may Ruine the whole Common-Wealth yet not suddenly but after some time and often Repeated I cannot allow such Grievances or Oppressions as a Sufficient Cause of Resistance For as on the one hand there is no Inconvenience so small but in process of time it may turn to the Ruine of the Common-Wealth if it be often Repeated and excessively Multiplieâ— so on the other side length of time produces so great Changes that the Nature of these Encroachments or Injuries are not sufficient to justifie Resistance and the Breach of that Peace and Unity in a Common Wealth which must necessarily follow by entering into a State of War To conclude I do not in any Case whatever allow of Resistance but only in these three necessary ones When the Lives Liberties or Estates of the whole People of the greatest part of them are either actually Invaded or else taken away and when they are Reduced into so bad a Condition that a State of War is to be preferred before such a Peace aâ—d when the End of Civil Government being no longer to be obtained by it the Common-Wealth may be look't upon as Dissolved M. Tho' you have been pretty long in treating of this Matter yet I did not think it Tedious since I confess you have given me honestly enough and so far I agree with you all those Cases wherein you say it is Uâ—lawful for Subjects to take up Arms or Resist the Supream Powers But I wonder you have not added one Case more which Diverse Authors that are high enough against Non-Resistance in other things do yet allow to be a sufficieâ—s Cause of taking up Arms and Resisting their Prince And that is when he Actually hath or goeth about to Alieâ—ate or make over his Dominion and Subjects to some Forreign Prince or State F. I am not ignorant of what you say but I thought it not worth speaking ot because in absolute Monarchies which we are now treating of if such Kingdoms are Patrimonial and that the Monarch hath such an absolute Dominion over his Subjects as neither to let them enjoy any Liberty in their Persons nor Properties in their Estates but at his Pleasure I cannot see any reason why such a Prince may not alienate his Dominion over such a Kingdom and People as well as any private-Man may his Property in his Estate Nor have the People any Cause to be concerned at it since they can then likewise be but Slaves and enjoy nothing but at their Princes Pleasure as they did before so that whether He or a Stranger govern them it is all one as to their Circumstances But yet under such Governments as are absolute where the People enjoy their personal Lib rites and Properties in their Estates the Case may be much otherwise since they may not be sure that the Foreign Prince to whom their own Monarch or other Supream Powers hath assigned them will maintain their Liberties and Properties as the former did And
must confess I am somewhat staggered with those Reasons and Arguments you have now given me against those Principles which as I have always and must still esteem as sacred till I am convinced I am in an Errour and perhaps if I were to consult my own 〈◊〉 Reason and natural Inclinations I should come over to your opinion But since it hath pleased God to lay much higher restraints and stricter Rules of Obedience and Subjection on us by his Revealed Will in the Scripture beyond what can be discovered by the Light of Nature and that under the highest Penalty viz. Damnation I can see no reason why God Almighty may not grant Eternal Life upon what Conditions he pleases tho' never so hard and uneasie for Flesh and Blood to perform So that if our Saviour Iesus Christ hath commanded us to take up his Cross and follow him that is to suffer all sorts of Injuries and Afflictions nay Death it self as he himself did rather than to Resist the Supream Powers under which He lived I cannot see any Reason why he should not Propose his own Example for our Imitation And as he hath enjoined and expects from us greater Degrees of Chastity Charity and Humility than ever he did from the Iews or Pagans so I see no reason why he may not likewise exact from us a greater and more perfect Obedience and Submission without any Resistance to all Soveraign Princes and States than ever he did either by the Law of Moses or that of Nature not but that there are sufficient Proofs in the Old Testament for the absolute Power of Princes against all Rebellion or Resistance in Subjects Tho' I confess this Doctrine is more plainly proved by the Example of our Saviour and the Precepts of his Apostles in the New Testament as also from the Example of the Primitive Christians in Obedience thereunto F. I perceive you begin to distrust your Arguments drawn from Natural Reason and the Laws of Nature and when you are pressed with the absurdity of this Doctrine of yours you fly from Gods Natural to his Revealed Will and take refuge under the Covert of the Holy Scripture to impose an Opinion contrary to the Common sense and Natural Notions of Mankind not corrupted with the Prejudices of Education and therefore give me leave at present to tell you that I think I shall be able to prove that the Passive Obedience as you call it of the Primitive Christians and their sufferings for the Name of Christs will not at all contradict that Natural Right which I suppose all Freemen to have as well under Civil Government as in the State of Nature for the defence of their Lives Liberties and Properties unless where the Common good and Peace of the whole or Major part of the People require the contrary And therefore the same Reasons which oblige particular private Persons to be quiet and not to disturb the publick Peace of the whole Society for their own private Safety and Advantage when the whole Body of the People or the Major part of them is thus violently assaulted in their Lives Liberties and Estates the same considerations of the Publick good of their Country whereof every Man is a Member doth then as strongly persuade I may say enjoyn them to take up Arms and defend themselves for the Preservation of the whole People or Community whose Natural and Civil Rights being now attack't can no otherwise be restored to the same State they were in before but by that last Remedy that can be used in this Case viz. Kim vi â—topellere M. I confess that of all Commonwealth-hypotheses yours is most reasonable being coherent with it self and also most likely to be swallowed by the People because it flatters our corrupt Natures to which this Christian Doctrine of Passive Obedience is so directly opposite as also because it gives them a full Liberty I mean not only the Representative Body but the Major part of them to reassume that Power which you pretend they never parted with and so consequently all necessity of suffering except when they please to think they have justly deserved it is taken away and the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians will be rendered only a tame Madness and that St. Paul was very much overseen to enjoin this Subjection to the Romans under the Government of one of the most cruel Tyrants that ever sway'd that Scepter but we have not so learned Christs And therefore I am firmly persuaded that we ought to be strictly obedient without any Resistance to those Civil Governours that God hath been pleased to set over us let them abuse their Power never so Tyrannically F. I am beholden to you for your plain dealing with me in this matter and pleased to find that you have an Inclination to my Principles were it not for some Texts of Scripture and Citations out of the Fathers and Church History which give you a Prejudice against them which I hope when they come to be closely examined will signifie no more than the former But for the dispatching this Important Controversie I pray give me leave to propose this easie method first that you would be pleased to lay down your Authorities out of Scripture in order as they lie And afterwards to shew me that the Ancient Fathers and Primitive Church always understood those Texts in the same Sense that you do viz. that No Resistance of the Supream Powers is Lawful to be exercised in any Case whatsoever M. I approve of your Proposal and therefore I will first begin with those proofs which are expresly against all Rebellion or Resistance in the Old Testament The first Governour that God set over the Children of Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt was Moses and I think I need not prove how sacred and irresistible his Authority was This is sufficiently evident in the Rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram against Moses and Aaron when God caused the Earth to open her Mouth and swallow them up And lest this should be thought an extraordinary Case Moses and Aaron being extraordinary Persons immediately appointed by God and governed by his Immediate direction the Apostle St. Iude alledges this example against those in his days who were Turbulent and Factious who despised Dominions and spake evil of Dignities that they should Perish in the gainsaying of Core which he could not have done had not this Example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary Cases had it not been a lasting Testimony of Gods displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against Soveraign Powers But Moses was not always to rule over them and therefore God expresly provides for a succession of Soveraign Powers to which they must all submit The ordinary Soveraign Power of the Iewish Nation after Moses's Death was devolv'd either on the High-Priest or those extraordinary Persons whom God was pleas'd to raise up such as Ioshua and the several Iuâ—ges till in
hinder the Kings Officers from Heading the People and putting the first Decree for their Destruction in Execution as otherwise they would have done had it not been for this last and for that great Power which they perceived Mordecai had at Court yet doth it not therefore follow that it was before that absolutely unlawful for the whole Iewish Nation to have defended their Lives against those Officers or others who would have gone about to destroy them and have totally extirpated their Nation So that I take this Decree not to confer any new Right in the People of the Iews to defend themselves but only to be a Confirmation of that Natural Right of self-defence which all Nations and every particular Member of Mankind have to preserve themselves And tho' I grant that Particular Persons are often obliged to give up this Right for the Publick Peace and safety of the Common-Wealth yet doth not thâ— Law extend to whole Nations or such Bodies of People without which the Common Wealth cannot well subsist And therefore I leave it to any unprejudiced person to judge whether it had not been better that the Iews should have thus resisted and saved their Lives tho' without this second Decree which only discouraged the Kings Officers and others from falling upon them than that all Gods Peculiar People should have lain at the Mercy of their Enemies to be destroyed according to the first Cruel Decree But farther to convince you that the Iews after the Captivity did not think it unlawful to make use of defensive Arms against cruel and persecuting Tyrants who went about to destroy their Religion and Nation it is apparent from the Famous Example of the Priest Mattathias with Iudas Maccabeus and the rest of his Sons who successively Headed the People of the Iews in that obstinate and Noble Resistance which they made against Antiochus Epiphanes tho' then their Soveraign who when he had Prophaned the Temple and would have forced the Iews to renounce their Circumcision and to have Sacrificed to Idols under Pain of Death they joyned together and resolved to defend themselves and to stand up for their Religion and Nation then ready to be destroyed And you find by the History as it is related in the Books of the Maccabees and Iosephus that God did Bless those Arms with Success which they had taken up in their own defence against a Prince infinitely more Powerful than themselves who with his Predecessors had been their Soveraigns for above 130 years And tho' Antiochus died long before the End of the War yet did they still prosecute it against his Successors Nor did they ever make Peace with them till Ionathan Brother of Iudas who had before recovered and purified the Temple was acknowledged High-Priest by Alexander the pretended Son of Epiphanes and that they had cast off that Yoak of Subjection which they were under to the Kings of Syria and had setled the Government of their Nation upon the Princes of the Asmonaean Race in gratitude of that deliverance they so justly owed to their Piety and Courage and which continued in this Family till the Conquest of Iudea by Pompey after 106 years free enjoyment of it So that it is plain the Iews before the Coming of Christ both Priests and People did not think it unlawful to defend their Lives and Religion in Case of great Extremity and that our Saviour Christ hath any where by his Gospel Retrenched whole Nations of that liberty lies upon you to prove But to conclude as for the Text you have cited out of the Proverbs that will do you as little service For tho' I grant it is true that no Man can say to an Absolute King or Monarch What dost thou i. e. Call him to Account as his Superiour Yet doth it not therefore follow that a whole People or Nation have no Power to defend themselves in any case whatsoever against his unjust Violence or Tyranny This not being the Act of a Superiour but an equal as I have already said nor any Political but a Natural Power M. I confess this is the Notablest Example of Resistance that you have brought yet but I think it may be easily answered if we suppose with Iosepbus and other Authors that tho' Alexander the great was certainly possest of Palestine by right of Conquest and the Submission of the High-Priest Iaddus unto him Yet his Chief Captains conspiring together made such a Scambling Division of the Empire among themselves as they could every one almost seeking how he might suppress the rest and attain the whole alone for himself so as thereupon the Iews were as free from the Macedonians as any other of their Bordering Neighbours none of the said Captains having any Lawful Interest or Title to Iudah But that which turned to the benefit of some others brought a great detriment for want of Ability unto them For one of the said Captains viz. Antiochus having gotten to himself a very great Kingdom in Syria and another viz. Ptolomy in Egypt the Iews dwelling betwixt them both were miserably on every side vexed by them sometimes the Egyptians by Oppression and force brought them under their Subjection and imposed great Tributes upon them and sometimes the Syrians growing mightier than the Egyptians did likewise very greatly afflict them especially in the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most Unjust and Tyrannical He shed Innocent Blood on every side of the Sanctuary spoiled the Temple erecting in it the Abomination of the Gentiles and caused it to be named the Temple of Jupiter Olympius Not to mention the Prophanation of the Law and unspeakable Cruelties exercised upon those who refused to offer Sacrifice unto Idols until Mattathias moved with the Monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyram being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance So that after the time of Alexander the Great the Iewish Nation was Governed by their own High-Priests and Sanhedrim and lived according to their own Laws in all matters both Civil and Ecclesiastical tho' more often I own with a Subordination to the Soveraignty of the Kings of Egypt till this Invasion of their Religion and liberties by Antiochus So that they had a Legal Right to the Free exercise of their Religion which could not without the Highest Violence and injustice be taken from them F. Notwithstanding what you have now said concerning this Action I doubt not but if you will consider Iosephus better as also the two Books of the Maccabees you will find thâ—t not only Antiochus Epiphanes but also Antiochus the Great and Seleucus Philopater were true and Lawful Monarchs of Coelo-Syria and consequently of Palestine And tho' I grant there had been Wars between Antiochus the Great and Ptolemy Philopater concerning the Dominion of that Country yet it is plain out of Iosephus's Antiquities Lib. 12. That Antiochus had re-conquer'd
I do not suppose as a thing impossible it was for divers Ages exercised in the Roman Common-wealth wherein no Civil Magistrate could lay any greater punishment upon a Roman Citizen than banishment or deportation And if that Copy we have of the Laws of King William the first be authentick it is by the 67th Law in his Charter ordain'd That no English or French Subject should suffer death for any Crime whatsoever but only be punisht either by pecuniary Fines Imprisonment or else by loss of Ryes Hands Feet or Members which Law though I do not say was ever observ'd yet it shews it was then supposed to be both possible and lawful Now if this could be so there would be no necessity of supposing the Authority of the Common-wealth of Rome or of King William I. to have been deriv'd from God since they had renounced and refused the great Character thereof viz. the inflicting capital punishments but if for all that they still conâ—inued to be Lawful Civil Governments then it is evident that this power of life and death is not that which alone constitutes a Civil Power and makes it owe its Original to God But to return to what your notion concerning this power of life and death hath made me digress from pray let me â—sk you another Question After the Expulsion of King Tarquin and before the Common-wealth of Rome was form'd where was the Supream Authority lodged M. Why in the same Body it was afterwards the people of Rome comprehended under the Patritions and Plebtians that is the Nobility and Commons who yet retained the power of life and death over those of their own Children and Slaves though they communicated a great part of their power to the Senate and Consuls F. Very well Was this Authority they so conferr'd on the Senate and Consuls the same which they themselves could have exercised or was it any new Authority immediately deriv'd from God and created for that purpose M. I do not think it was any new created Authority but only a part of their former power which they so made over to the Senate and Consuls since they reserv'd one great part of it viz. the Legislative Power wholly in themselves but however this power which the Fathers of Families and Freemen among the Romans had over the lives of their Children and Slaves as also over others who were declar'd publick Enemies was deriv'd wholly from God yet there arose likewise a new power which these Fathers of Families were not invested with before viz. that of making Laws as also of War and Peace all which powers were deriv'd from God for the common good and defence of the whole People or Community F. Herein I also agree with you but then mark what follows it then plainly appears that the natural Subject of Civil Authority was the Fathers of Families and Freemen of Rome and that what share thereof was committed to the Senate and Consuls it was wholly personal and as their Representatives this being so pray answer me another Question when the Senate and People of Rome did afterwards confer their whole power upon the Roman Emperors by that Law mention'd in your Institutions Lex Regi was there then created or produc'd any new Authority from God to the first Emperor or was it the same Authority or Majesty which the Senate and People were endued with before for either it must be the same or else God must create a new parcel of this Royal Majesty or Authority wherewith to endue this first Emperor which if you suppose I can shew you a great many difficulties and absurdities that will follow from this Opinion for then I might ask you whether this Royal Majesty be like the Stoicks Anima mundi whose parts are distributed among all the Kings in the World or whether each King has his particular Majesty to himself or whether the King dying his Majesty also dies with him or whether it exist without him as the Soul do's when separated from the Body and by a certain kind of Metempsychosis is transferr'd to the new Monarch M. I shall not flick at present to affirm that this Authority or Majesty of the Roman Emperors was originally deriv'd from God though not immediately but by the mediation of the people of Rome as his Instruments especially ordain'd for the derivation of this Imperial power F. Well then I see you and I are at last agreed for I suppose all Civil power to be so deriv'd from God to the people and by them as an Instrumental Cause convey'd to the person whom they agree to make their King But if this were so in the Roman Common-wealth why are not all the rest of the Nations of the World indued with the like priviledge so that no man may justly make himself King over them without their Election or Recognition at least M. Perhaps in those Nations where the people have from the first Institution of the Government retain'd the whole Civil power in themselves or else by the Extinction of the Royal Family they became possest of it this power â—â—y afterwards by them be transferr'd or made over to one single person or more but this can by no means hold in divers other cases where God immediately bestows a Civil Power or Authority without the consent of the people as it is in the case of Kingdoms acquired by a Conquest in a Just War for as to Unjust Wars or Conquests I freely own they confer no Right at all but since you will not I suppose deny that such a Rightful Conquest confers an Absolute power on the Conqueror over the Lives and Estates of the Conquered as also an Obligation in them to submit to and obey the Conqueror hence must arise a new Civil power without any consent of the people intervening which Authority since no man can confer it upon himself must necessarily be immediately conferr'd by God since as I said before the people are only passive and have no hand at all in the conveying of it and this is the more remarkable because I suppose you will not deny but that where one Kingdom or Empire has owed its beginning to the Election or Consent of the people I could name ten that have begun from Conquest So that it is evident the people are very rarely the Efficient Causes of Civil power F. Though this Question concerning Conquest do's not immediately concern our Kings who as I have already proved do not owe their Regal Authority to Conquest but to the consent of the People Yet since the Title to a great part of our Kings Dominions begun at first from Conquest I shall now say something of it First then you grant that only Conquest in a just War can confer a Right to the Peoples obedience And therefore since the greatest part of the Governments have commenced from unjust Conquests it will therefore follow that the Right of such Princes to those Kingdoms Territories so unjustly acquired could not owe