the Apostle to Sons but to Servants or Slaves whose lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolue disposal being those whom the Apostle Paul calls Servants under the yoke and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one which you have already denyed this precept doth not at all concern them And as for Example of Isaac that will make as little for your advantage for first as to Abraham he could not but know that to kill his Son without any just cause was as much murder in him as in any other Man Now what could be a juster or a higher cause than Gods particular Command So that as this act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission therefore it is most reasonable to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him to be about nineteen or twenty years of age and of years of discretion to ask where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering was also instructed by his Father before he came to be offered of the reason of his dealing thus with him and then the Submission was not payed to his Fathers but to Gods will from whom he miraculously received his being But if any Man doubt wheter resistance in such a Case were Lawful I leave it to his own conscience to consider whether if his Father had him alone in a place where he could neither run away nor yet call for help he would suffer his Father to cut his Troat without any resistance only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it Not but that I so far agree with you likewise as to limit such a resistance only to the holding his Fathers Hands or warding off his blows but not to the taking away his life but of the two rather to lose his own than to kill him for the reasons you have given and which I will not deny but yet if the Father be mad I much doubt whether the Son is boâ—nd to let him kill him rather than take away his life since such a Father's life is no way useful to the good of the Family So that thô I should grant that Paternal Power is from God and consequently irresissible yet doth it not follow that all the unjust force or violence which a Father as a Man may use against his Sons life or fortune is such part of a Paternal Power as God hath commanded us not to resist since your self must grant that he doth not thus act in going about to kill his Son as a father but a violent and wicked Man So that where the father hath no Right to take away his Sons life I think in all such Cases the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place And if a Man may resist or bind his Father when he is Mad or Drunk and in such fits goeth about to kill him I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the same thing when his Father is transported by a sudden rage or unreasonable malice since both of them do take away the use of natural Reason as much the one as the other according to that saying of the Poet Ira furor brevis est Anger is but a short madness Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Sons life and safety with Drunkenness and Madness nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power but only his Brutish force and violence So that if Sons when grown to years of discretion have not a right to defend their lives in the State of Nature against all Persons whatsoever who go about to take it away without any just Cause every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him when ever being transported by madness drunkenness or sudden passion he hath will so to do which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature of propagating and preserving the species of Mankind if a Father should have any unreasonable unlimitted Power I 'll leave it to your self or any other reasonable Man to consider nor doth it follow that because a Son can in no wise be Superiour to his Father he ought not therefore to resist him since thô I grant punishment is a Right of Superiours over their Inferiours yet so is not resistance since every one knows that resistance is exercised between equals as I have already proved Sons are to their Fathers in all the Rights of life and self-preservation and conseqently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded M. I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature viz. of preserving or prosecuting the common good of Mankind that Fathers should have an absolute irreâ—istible Power over the Lives and Fortunes of their Children let them use it how they will or else that Children should have a Right to resist them in some cases when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause for thô I own that if the former Principle be true Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their Childrens Lives or Estates without any just Cause so on the other side if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives or Estates it will I doubt lay a foundation for horrid confusions and divisions in Families since if Children are under a constant subjection to their Fathers they ought then to be absolutely Subject to them in the State of Nature and therefore ought not to be resisted For if all Fathers and Masters of Families are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife Children and Servants of the Family as your self cannot deny then no resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the peace and tranquility of that Family without the diminution or total destruction of that absolute Power with which they are intrusted And thô I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves not to take away either their Lives or Goods without great and sufficient Cause yet of these Causes Fathers in the state of Nature must be the only and uncontrolable Judges since if Children whom I still consider as Subjects thô not as Slaves in the State as long as they continue members of their Fathers Family should once have a Right to resist when they thought their Lives or Estates were unjustly invaded they might also oftentimes through undutifulness or false suggestions pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad drunk or in a passion and went about to take away their Lives when really they intend no such thing but only to give them due correction Which would give Children an unnatural power of resisting or perhaps of killing their Fathers upon false surmises or flight occasions And as
have already given you an example of the Negroes in Africa and which of these two inconveniencies are most likely to happen between Children and Parents in the State of Nature I should leave is to any indifferent Man to judge between us And therefore I think it more conduces to the good and peace of Families and consequently the happiness and preservation of Mankind which are the end of all Laws that Children should be allowed these Rights I have alâ—erdy laid down of asserting this Natural Liberty from Slavery and defending their Lives and those of their Wives and Children from the unjust violence of their Fathers than that they should be left wholly at disposal to be maimed killed or ruined when over this coveteousness passion or malice may prompt them to it Sence if all Fathers were satisfied that their Children have a Right thus to defend themselves in these Cases against their unjust violence it would be a means to make them act more catiously and to behave themselves with greater tenderness and moderation towards them So than to conclude I utterly deny that these Principles I have here laid down do at all rend to countenance Rebellion or raising disturbances in Civil Governments since I cannot allow you have proved Parents to be Princes or Monarchs in the State of Nature or that Families and Kingdoms or Commonwealths are all one Or if I should grant them to be so yet would it not therefore follow that every private Subject in a Civil State hath the same Right to defend his life or that of his Wife and Children against the violence or injustice of the Supream Powers as a Son may have in the State of Nature to defend his life c. against his Fathers rage or violence since I grant no particular Subject can contradict or resist the Supream Power of the Lawfull Magistrate however unjustly exercised by force without disturbing or at least endangering the quiet and happiness of the whole Community and perhaps the dissolution of the Government it self which is against the duty not only of a good Subject but also of an honest Moral Man who will not disturb the publick tranquility for his own private security or revenge But in private Families the Case is otherwise and Children may resist their Father in the Cases already put without introducing either Anarchy or Civil War in the Family since it can scarce be presumed that either their Mother Brothers or Sisters will take part with a Son or Brother against their Husband and Father unless it ware that they might thereby hinder him from committing murder by defending their Son or Brothers life when thus violently and without cause assaulted and if it should sometimes happen otherwise yet this would be a much less mischief then that out of this fear the Lives and Liberties of an innocent Wife and Children should suffer without cause by his drunkenness or passion But as for the resistance which Sons may make in the State of Nature and when separated from their Fathers Families it is of a much larger extent since they may then not only defend their own Lives but also those of their Wives and Children with their Estates against their Fathers unjust violence Thò I do here likewise restrain this self-defence only to cases of actual invasion or asault of such Fathers upon the Lives and Estates of his Children in which cases I also absolutely condemn all actions and proceedings done by way of prevention before such violence or assault is actually begun to be made upon them much less do I allow of any revenge or return of evil for evil by such Children when the danger is over since however such revenge may be Lawful between Persons in the State of Nature no ways related or oblieged to each other yet do I by no means allow the same Priviledge to Children against their Parents since I look upon the obligation they have to them to be of so high a Nature that it can never totally be cancelled thô in those cases of self-preservation and defence they may be suspended for a time As if I owed my life and all that I have to some great Person who hath either saved the one or bestowed the other upon me thô I should be very undutiful and ungratful too if upon his becoming my Enemy thô without any just cause I should go about to return his injuries in the same kind yet were I not therefore obliged to give up that Life and Estate he had before bestowed upon me when ever he thought fit without any just occasion to take them away and I am confident that Resistance in these cases and with these restrictions doth neither derogate from that Gratitude and Piety which Children always ought to pay their Fathers nor yet can tend to encourage either Anarchy or Rebellion since such Sons when once married and are become Masters or Heads of Families themselves they then cease to be under their Fathers Subjection as they were before tho I confess they are always to honour and reverence him according to Gods Command in all cases when they will deal with them as Fathers and not as Enemies M. I shall no longer dispute this Right of Resistance in Children in the Cases you have put since I see it is to little purpose to argue longer with you about it but this much I think is still true that all Supream Powers whatever cannot without Rebellion and absolute dissolution of the Government be risisted by the Subject so that if the Government of Fathers or Heads of Families be Supream as you seem to grant that cannot be resisted neither without bringing all things therein to Anarchy and confusion F. Pray give me leave Sir to interrupt you a little I desire you to remember that I do not allow the Power of Fathers or Masters of Families to be any more then Oeconomical and not Civil Power and I have already shewed you how Resistance of such a Power when violently and unjustly exercised may be resisted without any Anarchy or confusion in the Family but as for Resistance of Civil Powers in some Cases it is not the Subject of this discourse and therefore I desire you would now mind the Subject in Hand and not pass off to any other till we have dispatcht this so that I would rather if you have any fresh objections to make that you would now do it because it groweth late M. I must confess ingeniously your Arguments have much sâ—aggered me since I see great inconveniencies may happen on either side for if the Father or Master may be the sole Judg when and how he may exercise this absolute Power I grant all those mischiefs may sometimes fall out which you have here set forth so on the other side if the Children may be Judges in their own case those evils may often happen which I have already alledged And therefore pray pardon me if I am not too hasty in altering my opinion in
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
that he will give his People any sufficient Testimony of his amendment and sincerity by giving up such evil Ministers to punishment that put him upon such desperate courses I do then readily grant that the People ought to lay down their Arms and be again reconciled to their King and submit themselves to him as before according to that Clause in King Iohn's Magna Charta I have already cited wherein there is a Power left for the Barons in case of any Breach of it to take Arms and constrain the King by taking of his Castles Lands and Possessions to amend those transgressions and when all was thus amended the Charter says Tunc cum fuerit emendatum then and not before interdent nobis sicut prius fecerunt they shall be subject to us as they were before but what followed upon this the King not only refused to observe this Charter but procured the Pope's Dispensation to be absolved from the Oath he had taken to observe it and also did all he could to bring in Foreigners into this Kingdom to support his Tyranny and raised what Forces he could of his own Subjects to that end whereupon the Barons at last were forced to renounce all Allegiance to him and to declare he had forfeited all Right to the Crown by his Tyranny and Perjury towards his People as Mat. Paris and other Authors shew us at large Now what the Barons did in the case of King Iohn may be also done by the People of this Kingdom in all succeeding Times or otherwise the King will be in a better condition after he has done the worst he can by force of Arms against the People than he was before for if as I have already proved he may be resisted till he give the Kingdom satisfaction that he will surcease from such Tyrannical courses and that such Resistance is really a Suspension of Allegiance for the time it lasts it will likewise follow that if the King will still persist in these wicked courses he must at last forfeit his Crown and discharge his Subjects of all Allegiance to him or else he would be in a better condition by his wilful persisting in his Tyranny than he could by quitting it and reconciling himself to his People For whereas by this Method the best he can expect is to return to the exercise of the same Limited Power â—e before enjoyed If he push things to the utmost extremity he may perhaps get the better of his People and then he may set up for an Absolute King by Conquest or if he fail in that and be beaten or taken Prisoner by them he can still lose nothing since by your Principles he still continues an Absolute Sovereign Prince as he was before and must be immediately put in the same state and ability of destroying the Government and enslaving the Nation but your Civil as well as our Common Law has a very good Maxim Nemo ex proprio Delicto beneficium câ—piat no man may take advantage of his own wrong and therefore such a Prince ought certainly to lose and not to get by his own Illegal and Tyrannical Actions and therefore I grant that the King is not tyed to observe any new things that he was not before he was Crowned bound to do only there is the higher obligation of an Oath added thereunto so if the King be a Limited Prince whose Authority depends upon the right exercise of it and that he can claim no Allegiance of his Subjects but upon that condition if such a Prince wilfully breaks all those conditions and aâ—solutely refuses to amend he must at last forfeit his Crown and lose all Allegiance from his Subjects or else all their Resistance would signifie just nothing and they would after all be in a much worse condition than they were before Now if this be so all your Quotations out of Bracton and Fleta will signifie nothing for as Pufendorf very well observes a Supreme Power may reside in a Limited King in respect of all his particular Subjects yet they may have a right to disobey him in those things to which his Power does not extend for says he it does not follow that because I am not bound to obey him in all things therefore I must be his Equal or Superiour or because I cannot in any wise command him therefore he may enjoyn me what he pleases for Supreme and Absolute are by no means one and the same for the former denotes the absence of a Superiour or an Equal in the same order but the latter a faculty of exercising all the Rights of Government according to his own Judgment and Will and therefore this Author in the next Chapter says very rationally concerning resisting of Tyrants in extreme cases that their scruple is nothing who will not admit any Liberty of resisting the most cruel Tyranny of Rulers because there cannot be supposed any lawful Call of Subjects taking Arms against the Supreme Power since no Jurisdiction can belong to any Subject toward such a Power as if says he that Self-defence were an Effect of Jurisdiction or that there is required any peculiar Call or Precept for Men in case of extream necessity to defend themselves and to repulse any unjust force from taking away their Lives or Estates any more than there is for those who are like to starve to allay their hunger by eating tho' it may be the Meal they eat is not their own but another Man's so far he and if this be lawful even in Absolute Monarchies in case of defence of Life the same I say may be exercised in Limited Kingdoms when the King goes about by force to take away the Religion Lives Estates or Liberties of the People contrary to Law since they both act upon the same Principle that a King by destroying the Fundamental Laws and Conditions by which he is to Govern renounces the Government and indeed so far dissolves it that he ceases to be King And tho' I grant Bracton and Fleta and other old Lawyers have noâ— in express words taught this Doctrine yet they do it in effect since the former tells us Non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex that is he is not a King when his own Will and not the Law governs And in another place Rex est dum bene Regit Tyrannus dum Populum sibi creditum violentâ oppriâ—it dominationâ— and in the very same place as you have also observed he tells us exercere debet Rex potestatem Iuris ut Vicarius Minister Dei potestas autem injuriae Diaboli est non Dei cum declinat ad injuriam Rex Diaboli Minister est Now if what Bracton says be true then the King when he does injury is the Devil's Minister and not God's I cannot see how he can then act as God's Lieutenant or why it is not as lawful to resist the Devil's Minister as the Devil himself And as to what you alledge out
a generous Prince a Nephew and a Son-in-law and one who was bound in Conscience and Honour to consult the lasting Peace and Happiness of the Nation more than his own private interest or the ambition of wearing a Crown F. You have made the utmost defence that I suppose can be brought for the King 's first going away yet if it be better consider'd I doubt it will not serve the turn I see you are forc'd to lay the whole fault of the Kings departure in the midst of the Treaty with the Prince and his refusing to call a Parliament according to his own Promise and Proclamation upon his want of security for himself the Queen and Prince if he had stay'd by reason of the want of fidelity in his Army the general prejudice of the Nation against him and the great firmness and resolution there was in the Princes Army to adhere to him Now I shall shew you that every one of these were but pretences and that the real cause of his departure was because he fear'd to leave the inquiry into the Birth of the Prince of Wales and the free examination and redress of our grievances and those violations he had committed upon the fundamental constitution of the Government to the impartial judgment of a free Parliament For in the first place as to want of fidelity in his Army that can be no just excuse for his deserting and disbanding them as he did without any pay since he himself in his said Letter to the Earl of Feversham expresly owns that there were a great many brave men both Officers and Souldiers among them and therefore if he was satisfied of this he ought to have first sent for all his Officers both Collonels and Captains and have examin'd them how far they would stand by him in the Defence of his Person and Cause against the Prince of Orange and he might have also order'd those Officers to have examin'd every Regiment Troop and Company in his whole Army how far they would engage in his defence and if he had proceeded thus at Salisbury before he fled away in that confusion to London I have been credibly inform'd by divers Officers of that Army that the King might have found above Twenty Thousand men that would have stood by him to the last man in his Quarrel against the Prince and therefore I impute his going away as he did from Salisbury to some strange pannick fear that God had cast upon him and all the Popish Faction about him since he has been known not to want sufficient courage upon other occasions but though he had omitted it there yet he certainly ought to have tryed this last experiment after he came to London rather than have quitted the Kingdom so dishonourably as he then did and thereby giving the P. of Orange's Friends an opportunity of seizing or getting delivered into their power all the Garisons and strong places in England besides Portsmouth in those three or four days time that he was not heard of besides great part of the Army that was not disbanded had in that time gone in to the Prince in hopes of their pay and future preferment now that the King might with safety have resided with his Army somewhere about London he himself grants in his Proposals to the Prince to this effect That in the mean time till all matters were adjusted concerning the freedom of Elections and a security of their sitting the respective Armies may be retained within such Limits and at such distance from London as may prevent all apprehensions that the Parliament may be in any kind disturbed which Proposals being made not long after the Kings arrival at London we may reasonably suppose that he was then well enough satisfied with the fidelity of the greatest part at least of his own Army to him and if he were not he might have been better satisfied if he pleased but as for the next difficulty the Nations being poisoned and prepossessed against him admit it were so as long as he had a sufficient Army about him as I suppose he might have had he need not have feared any thing the People could do but indeed this was a needless fear for before the Parliament could sit it was not the Peoples Interest to hinder it or to fall upon the King or his Army when matters were in a fair way of accommodation so after the Parliament sate there would have been less cause of fear since the reverence of that Court would have kept them in awe but as to the firmness and resolution of the Princes Army the fear of that was also as needless as long as the Kings Army continued as firm to him and if the Princes Army had been the first Agressors I doubt not but the People would have taken part with the King against them but after all it was certainly and you must grant it so much more safe and honourable for the King to have treated with the Prince and held a Parliament with an Army about him than to have yielded the same things as you suppose him willing to have done after his return to Town when his Army was disbanded and London had received the Prince and had joined with him and when almost all the strong places of England were in the Princes power so that upon the whole matter it evidently appears that the King chose to trust his own Person together with that of the Queen and Prince to a Foreign Monarch rather than he would relye upon the justice or fidelity of his own Nation You say in the next place that nothing the King has done in all these exorbitances he committed that can in any wise amount to a Forfeiture or Abdication of the Government not to the former because the King redress'd all our Grievances before he went away 't is true I grant he redressed some of them by putting divers things in the same State they were before yet for all this the greatest still remained unredressed viz. the Raising of Mony contrary to Law and the Dispensing Power both which as I have already shewed you at our last meeting he never Disclaimed neither took any sufficient course by Calling a Parliament to prevent its being exercised for the future besides his going away without giving the Prince and Nation any further Satisfaction about the Birth of the Prince of Wales all which not being done I must still affirm that this wrought a forfeiture of the Crown or an Abdication of it at least by his refusal to Hold and Govern it according to the Fundamental Laws thereof for he that destroys the Law or Conditions by which he holds an Estate does Tacitly Renounce his Title to it As I shewed you in the Case of Tenant for Life altering in Fee So that this being considered as also that the City of London and the whole Nation had Surrendred themselves to the Prince of Orange and that even the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York
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
the Chineses and the Inhabitants of Formosa at this day all which either did or now do destroy their Children as soon as they are brought forth or else in the Womb afore they are born if they please so to do And as for some of these Nations you have instanced in and particularly the Muscovites who can â—ell their Children but four times it is apparent it is only a Municipal Law for if the Property of the Father over the Sons Persons were by them looked upon as perpetual he might not only sell him four times but forty if it were possible But on the other side I have against this Custom of your Nâ—tions the Examples of divers altogether as Wise and Civiliz'd who did not permit Fathers to exercise this absolute Power over their Children and therefore against your Example of the Jews I set that of the Egyptians who did not Permit Parents to put their Children to Death nor yet to sell them unless in case of great necessity and when they could not otherwise maintain them and then I grant it may be necessary So likewise against your Roman Law I set that of all the Greek Nations none of whom permitted Fathers to put their Children to Death except the Spartans and that was only in one case and that was only in one case and that with the judgment and consent of the eldest Men of the Family yet when their new born Infants were so weak or ill shaped as to be thougt not worth the rearing So likewise against your examples of the Antient Gauls I set that of the Germans a Nation altogether as wise and civilized as the other to whom I could likewise add the Antient Britains Spaniards and divers others and to the more Modern examples of the Eastern Nations where this custom is permitted of selling or killing their Children I shall oppose the Turks and Persians amongst whom it is forbidden as also amongst all the Nations of Europe who believe Christianity and if we go over to America we shall find that they are there so indulgent to their Children that no fault whatsoever tho' never so great shall make them put them to Death And to let you see that this is most suitable to Reason the two greatest Philosophers amongst the Greeks Plato and Aristotle have condemned it The former in his Laws where he expresly forbids it supposing that in no case whatever a Father ought to put off all Piety and Humanity towards his Son and that a Son should be rather led by Nature than driven by force to obey his Father especially since his Power is sufficiently established by the Law and the appointing of publick Judges and Aristotle in his Morals to Nicomachus Lib. 8. cap. 12. accuses the Jus Patrium in use among the Persians as Tyrannical and Grotius tells you he makes use of these examples of the Romans and Persians only that we might distinguish Civil Rights from natural From whence it appears that the putting of Children to death by Parents was lookt upon as an odius thing amongst the wisest of the Antients and therefore neither the Lex Regia nor the Law of the XII Tables nor the Julian Law de Adulteriis all which left Fathers a Power over the Lives of their Sons and Daughters yet would extend this Power by Interpretation to the Grand Father towards his Grand-Son or Grand-Daughter M. Yet for all this I think all the wisest and most Civilized Nations were of my opinion and it is from them that we ought to take this Law of Nations rather than the others and therefore I think the Romans were a great deal wiser and better People than the Greeks and the Antient Gauls than the Germans Nor does your argument against this power of Life and Death in Fathers by the Law of Nature seem cogent that if it were so it could never be taken away or restrained by any Civil Law since this argument will make vâ— much against that power of Life and Death with which you invest your Fathers of Families in the state of Nature since if they have it by the Law of Nature it could no more he restrained or taken away by Civil Laws than any Paternal Power in the like case F. I pray Sir hold if this controversie is to be decided by the Wisdom and the Civility of Nations we shall never have done For in the first place who shall judge of this consent of the most Civilized People and that no account is to be made of those whom you call Barbarous for what Nation will acknowledge it self to be so or can arrogate so much to it self as that it may require all others to conform themselves to their Laws and Customs and that all Nations must be barbarous that act otherwise Antiently the arrogance of the Greeks made them look upon all other Nations as Barbarous and then the Romans succeeded in this foolish conceit of themselves and at this day we People of Europe who are but a few in comparison of the rest of the World do suppose our selves to exceed all others in Knowledge And yet on the other side there are diverse Nations who prefer themselves far before us and I have read that the Chineses have a saying that the Europeans see with one Eye themselves with two but that all the rest of the World are stark blind and yet this Nation maintains a Power of selling and exposing their Children which we Europeans abhor Now pray tell me if there is not some common rule to be drawn from reason or the common good of Mankind how shall we judge which is in the right So that notwithstanding all that hath been said on this subject I think I may safely conclude with the Judgment of the Learned Pufendorf in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where speaking of the Paternal Power he says thus But neither thâ— same Power as such seems to extend it self to that of Life and Death by reason of any fault but only to a moderate chastisement For since this authority is employed about an Age that iâ— weak and tender and in which such incorrigible crimes can hardly be committed which nothing but Life can expiate it is much better that a Father should turn out of Doors a Son who doth willfully refuse through obstinacy and wickedness all due correction So that Abdication and Disinheriting seems to be the utmost punishment which can be inflicted by a Father on a Son considered as such M. I see it is to no purpose to spend longer time about this question but since your self have all along allowed that the Father of a separate Family in the state of Nature hath a Power to put his Wife or Children to Death in case they have committed any heinous sins or offences against the Laws of God or Nature but you have not yet told me and I doubt cannot how Adam or any other Master of a Family could be endued with this Power of Life and Death unless
it were granted him by God F. I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question by and by but in the mean time pray let me make it a little more plain to you that this Power of Life and Death which may be exercised by Masters of separate Families over their Wives and Children in some cases is not by any Power they receive from God as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families may by proved by this instance suppose a Master of a Family independant on any other as in the Indies hath neither Wife nor Children yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves for such great offences as you have mentioned in case there be no superiour Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes And to make this yet plainer suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live together with them in the Family of such a Master as I have now described yet not aâ— a Servant but as an Inmate or Boarder and whilst he so continues his Wife Kills one of her Children or one of his Sons Murders his Brother who hath right to punish this offence but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate And this follows from your own supposed for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independant Government then all those that enter themselves as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governour of it Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument That if the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature it could never be restrain'd nor taken from them without their consent that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families since I must grant this is taken away by Civil Laws And why not the other To this I reply that you do not observe the strength of these words Without their consent For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers or Masters of Families in the state of Nature without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Common-wealth upon its first Institution whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force as by Conquest or Usurpation not only over those that are not at their own disposal as Children and Servants but over their Fathers and Masters too without their consents which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason M. I see you take it for granted that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families and not as Fathers in the State of Nature But as plain as you think it since you question the Power of Life and Death which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families since there is no reason in my Opinion which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children in case they deserve it For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind that great and enormous Crimes such as Murder and Adultery should be punished and that with Death Who is more fit to inflict these punishments or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Husband himself Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death however they may deserve it without very great reluctancy since he aâ— it were thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body And therefore I cannot see any Reason why such a Married man as you describe should by coming under another Man's Rooâ— only as an Inmate or Boarder and not as a Slave which I grant would alter the Case should lose that Power of Life and Death which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board And therefore as I do not deny but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death and also of making Peace and War with other such Masters of Families nay with Princes themselves if there be occasion as we read in Genesis Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth says he and let her be burnt Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone she not being his own Daughter and his Son being then dead but as the Master of a separate Family who hath I grant power of Life and Death as he is Lord over the persons of his Children aâ— Servants and consequently over their Wives also for if he hath power over his Son he hath certainly the like over all that belong to him as long as they continue members of his Family and that he hath not thought fit to manumit or set them free But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarchâ— could exercise all these markâ— of Soveraignty especially this great Power of Life and Death unless it were derived from God at first since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's So that not only this Power of the Patriarchs but also that of all Monarchs to this day must be derived from this Divine Original F. Well then I find you 're forced to quit the power of a Father as such by Generation since it plainly appears that this power of Life and Death which you affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature is not quatenus as a Father but Lord and Master over them which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her for if she is not his Slave as certainly she is not for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased I cannot see how she her self could convey by force of the contract any such Power over her Life tho I grant indeed if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children or other Person of the Family he may proceed against her as an Enemy but not as a Subject and if it be for Adultery it self I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony Divorce or putting her away and deserting the Child born in Adultery
was even among the Romans look'd upon as a sufficient punishment But as for the Power of Parents over their Children I do not deny but that a Father may have the like power over his Children whilst they are part of his Family as over his Slaves or Servants in Case of such great and enormous Crimes as you have already mentioned but that this is not as a Father but Master of a Family your self have already granted in your Instances of Abraham and Judah tho if you will consider the last a little better you will find that Judah did not proceed thus against Thamar as her Father or Master but by some other Right For if you please to look upon the 11th Verse of that Chap. of Genesis from whence you cite this Example you will find that Thamar after the Death of Onan her Husband went with Judah's leave and dwelt in her own Father's House and she was then a Member of his Family and consequently according to your Hypothesis not under Judah's Power when she was thus got with Child by him and therefore not he but her own Father ought to have condemned her if this Judgment had belonged to him as to the Master of the Family And therefore some of the Rabbins suppose that when Judah gave this Judgment against Thamar he did not act either as a Father or Master of the Family for he was then under the Power of the Cananites who certainly had some Civil Government among them at that time and therefore they suppose that he acted thus as a Civil Judge appointed by the supreme Magistrate of that Nation But to defend the Instance I have given you of a Father of a Family losing his power of Life and Death upon his becoming a part or Member of another Family you your self have already yielded me as much as I can reasonably desire for the defence of my Assertion since you allow this power of Life and Death to Fathers not as such but as Lords and Masters over their Children as over their Slaves and if so I desire to know who can challenge this Power but the Master of the Family with whom he â—ives unless you can suppose two distinct Heads or Masters in the same House and then they will not be one Family but two under distinct Heads each of them still retaining their distinct Rights But you will say that this Boarder or Inmate is not a Servant or Slave to the Master with whom he lives and therefore hath not forfeited or given up his Right or Power of Life and Death over his own Children to him but it is no matter whether he did or not since by making himself a Member of the others Family he ceased to be Master of his own and concequently must lose all the Natural Rights or Prerogatives belonging to it of which I grant this of Life and Death to be the chief for if Families in the state of Nature are like so many distin Commonweatâ—â— independant upon each other it will likewise follow that the Heads of those Families must be in all things necessary for the Good and Preservation of the Family like so many distinct Civil Soveraigns and consequently must have a power of Life and Death and also of making Laws with Punishments annexed to them in all Cases where the good and peace of the Family require it If therefore in a Civil State or Monarchy and aâ—solute Prince come into the Dominions or Teritories of another it is acknowledg'd by all Writets on this Subject That such a Prince loses that power of Life and Death which he had before and cannot exercise it as long as he is in the other Princes Dominions So by the same Reason if the Masters of Families in the State of Nature are like so many Civil Soveraigns it will follow that they must cease to be such when they become members of anothers Family unless you will fall into the absurdity of supposing to absolute independant Heads or Masters in one and the same House which what a confusion it would bring I leave to your self to judge M. I shall not much dispute this Power of Life and Death with you as belonging to Masters of seperate Families But pray shew me how they can exercise this Power over the Lives of those that are under their Jurisdiction unless it were granted them by God by virtue of that Original Power given to Adam not only as a Father but Prince of his Posterity F I do not doubt but I shall give you a satisfactory Answer to this important Demand without supposing any extraordinary Divine Commission from God to Adam For as for your Instance of Abraham's making War Leagues or Covemants with other Princes it iâ— no more than what any Master of a seperatâ— Family may do for his own and their defence and what if you or I were Masters of a Family in the Inâ—ies where their is no Power above us we might do as well as Abraham and all this without any other Commission from God than the great Right of Nature Self-preservation and the Well performance of that trust which God hath put into our hands of defending and providing for our selves and our Families since if God hath ordained the End he hath likewise ordained all means necessary thereunto and therefore there is no such great Mystery in this as you suppose M. If there were no more in it than a meer Right of Self defence for which I grant Reâ—aliation or Revenge may be also necessary you would have a great dâ—â—l of Reason on your side But pray shew me how a Father or Master of a Family can Condâ—mn either his Wife Child or Servant to Death as a Punishment for any enormous Crime such as I have mentioned and you agreed to without such a Divine Commâ—ssion as I suppose Adam had Since I own Revenge or Reâ—allaâ—ion may â—e used by private men in the State of Nature by the Right of Self defence 〈…〉 grant may be exercised between equals But since all punishments properly taken are the Acts of Superiors towards their Inferiors I cannot conceive how any Father or Master of a Family can inflict so great a Punishment as Death upon any Member of it unless he derived this Power immediately from God by virtue of the Divine Charter committed by him to Adam and and from thence to be derived to all Masters of Families or civil Soveraigns who could never derive this Power from the Joynt Compacts or consent of Fathers of Masters of Families since no man could convey that to another which he had not himself And I have already I think with a great deal of Truth Asserted That no man hath power over his own Life to take it away when he pleases and therefore cannot have it over another man's much less can convey any such Right to others except it were granted at first by God in the manner I have supposed which I conceive may easily be made out
give why God endowed Adam with it viz. because without such a Power they could not have been enabled to Govern their Children and Families as long as they lived So that Adam's being created by God or called his Son gave him not a joâ— more power over his Children and his Descendents than what as a Master or Head of a Family he would have had by the Law of Nature however and it is all one in this Case whether you suppose Mankind to have been created by God or to have existed from all Eternity provided you hold the being of a God according to the Hypothesis of the more modern Platonists who tho they held the Eternity of the World yet likewise owned all things to be governed by God's Providence And therefore if on this Supposition Mankind could not be well governed nor preserved without inflicting of Capital Punishments for great Crimes and that they are necessary for its peace and preservation it is likewise as necessary that there should be some Judge appointed by God to inflict them which in the State of Nature can be only the Head or Master of a Family as after Civil Government is once instituted it belongs to the Civil Sovereign or Commonwealth And this I hope will serve to answer your Scruple how Adam or any other Master of a separate Family may very well be endued with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature without supposing any Charter granted him for it by Divine Revelation or else depending upon his Childrens consent for his exercise of it But before I farther consider whether this Power of Adam or of any other Father or Master be perpetual or not and extends any farther than his own Family give me leave to examine Whether or no Children when grown to years of Discretion and even whilst they continue Members of their Father's Family may not in some Cases chop Logick with him as you call it and not only question but judge whether their Commands be reasonable or lawful or not or else Abraham for example mut have sacrificed to Idols because his Father bid him Whereas Josephus tells us He rather chose to quit his Country and his Father's house than to sin against God And therefore I think you cannot deny but if Husbands or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing that is morally unlawful or contrary to the Laws of God or Nature they may lawfully nay are obliged not to obey such unlawful Commands M. I shall so far agree with you That if the thing commanded be apparently contrary to the Laws of God and Nature that they are not obliged to obey their Commands but they must be evidently and apparently so before they thus take upon them to refuse obedience to them otherwise I deny that their Conscience however misguided ought to be any excuse or just ground of their disobedience For if their Conscience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God or Nature that will excuse them but if it be not Conscience without such a Law can never do it And yet this non-performance of the unlawful Commands of the Husband or Father may very well consist without any Anarchy or disorder in the Family since the Wife and Children must always yield him an active-obedience in performing all his Commands or else a passive one in submitting to whatever harsh usage or punishment such a Husband or Father shall please to exercise or inflict upon them for their non performance of them tho never so unlawful But yet certainly in all possible and indifferent things Children are bounâ— yeild not only a passive but an active obedience to their Father's commands For if his Children should have a liberty to judge of his commands whether they are reasonable or not what can ensue but Anarchy and Confusion in all Families F. Well I am glad we are so far agreed that a Wife and Children in the state of Nature have liberty to Judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands whether they are lawful or not and also to disobey them when they are not so And I think I may carry this a little farther and affirm That such Wife and Children ought not to obey the Commands of such a Husband or Father though they are not really contrary to such Divine or Moral Laws but only erroneously supposed so by them and therefore most Casuists agree That even an erroneous Conscience does oblige as long as a man lies under that mistake For St. Paul tells us Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14. Nay farther Such an erroneous Conscience may excuse a man before God if his ignorance was not wilful but invincible and not proceeding from his own fault but of this no man can Judge but God alone and the Party whose Conscience it is and therefore such a Husband or Father can have no Right or Authority to compel their Wives and Children to perform such Commands because the Will ought always to follow the Dictates of the Understanding and therefore they should not be forced to do that which they Judge contrary to God's Moral or Divine Law since Conscience may be instructed but can never be forced Neither will your distinction of an Active and Passive Obedience help you in this matter For Active Obedience I understand well enough but as for Passive Obedience I think it is next door to that we call a Bull or Nonsense And to prove this I shall give you this plain instance Suppose you had a Iew to your Servant and should command him to do you some work or other on a Saturday which he judged a Breach of the Fourth Commandment that forbids him to work on the Seventh Day or Sabbath and you being very angry should cudgel him soundly for this refusal whereupon he tells you That you may beat him as long as you please he would not resist but yield a passive Obedience but yet could not perform your Commands I ask you now Whether you would rest satisfied that this Iewish Servant had sufficiently performed what you bad him by submitting to your cudgelling And whether your Dinner or Horse would not be as much undress'd after this sort of passive Obedience as it was before M. Perhaps indeed this Phrase of Passive Obedience may be somewhat improper and may be more properly termed an absolute Subjection or Submission but it is all one what we call it as long as you understand what we mean since such Submission doth sufficiently avoid that Anarchy and confusion which would necessarily follow in case it were lawful for Wives or Children in any case whatsoever to resist their Husbands or Fathers though for the defence of life it self since no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed have a right to resist their Superiors or Governors in any case F. I grant indeed that no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed resist their Superiours or Governors in the due exercise of their
happen sometimes to abuse yet I suppose no person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the Execution of it much less to call him to an account or punish him for the Male-administration of his Power And you have granted that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a power of life and death over his Wife if she murthers her Children or commits any other abominable sin against Nature and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family and punish'd as an Enemy to Mankind and so certainly may his Children too But what need I say any more of this Subject when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments concerning the absoluteness and perpetuiry of this Conjugal Subjection and that which will likewise follow from it the constant service and subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature Therefore pray Sir let us return again to that Head and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it F. I beg your pardon Sir if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done but you may thank your self for it who brought me off from what I was going farther to say on that Head by your discourse of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death conferred by God on Adam as a Husband and a Father But first give me leave farther to prove that this subjection of the Wife is neither absolute nor irrevocable For proof of which I shall lay down these Principles 1. That the Wife in the State of Nature when she submits her self to the power of her Husband does it to live as happily as she did before oâ— rather to enjoy more of the comforts of life than in a single State 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own happiness or Self-preservation 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judg of the means that may conduce to these ends for if this were so let him use her never so cruelly or severely she could have no cause to censure him or complain in the least against him 4. If she have not so absolutely given up her Will to his she is still Judge when she is well used by him or else so cruelly that it is no longer to be endured And therefore if such a Husband will not allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment and other necessaries or that he uses her cruelly by beating or other punishments or hath endeavoured to take away her Life in all these cases in the State of Nature and where there is no Superior Power to complain or appeal to she may certainly quit him and I think she is not bound to return to co-habit with him again until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her and is resolved to make amends for the future But whether this Repentance be real or not she only can be Judge since she can only Judge of her own happiness and the means of her preservation And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness and help to each other if he have broke his part of the Compact she is then so far discharged from hers and consequently in the meer state of Nature which is that we are now talking of the Vinculum Matrimonii as you Civilians term it will be likewise dissolved So likewise such a Husband for no just cause or crime in the Wife but only to be rid of her should endeavour to take away her life as suppose to strangle her in her sleep or the like no doubt but she may notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection resist him by force and save her life until she can call in her Children or Family for her rescue and assistance who sure may also notwithstanding this absolute Daspotick Power you place in their Father or Master rescure her from his rage and malice whether he will or not Nay they are bound to do it unless they will be Accessaries to her Murther M. These are doubtful Cases at best and do very seldom happen and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked as to hate and destroy his own Flesh and therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen F. Rarely happen I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bayly nor at our Countrey Assizes where if you please to come you may often hear of Cases of this Nature and I wonder you that are a Civilian and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts brought by Wives for Separation propter Saevitiam c. Should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so ill that it is not to be endured But if the Wife have these Privileges pray tell me why the Children shall not have the same according to your own Maxime of partus Sequitur Ventrem since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles of the same natere with that of the Mother and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of M. Yet I hope you will not affirm but that Children are under higher obligations of Duty and Obedience to their Father than a Wife is to her Husband with whom perhaps she may in some cases be upon equal terms but Children can never be so in respect of their Father to whom they are always inferior and ought to be absolutely Subject in the state of Nature that is before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power F. I thank you Sir for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to and I agree with you in your other Maxim of Quicquid ex me â—xore mea nascitur in potestate mea est yet not in your sense For iâ— I should grant that the Father's Power over the Child commences from his Power over the Mother by her becoming his Wife and submitting her self and consequently all the issue that should be begotten of her to her Husband's Power yet as I have proved already in case of the Wife so I think I may affirm the same in that of the Children That they are not deliver'd by God so absolutely to the Father's Will or disposal as that they have no Right when they attain to years of Discretion to seek their own happiness and preservation in another place in case the Father uses them as Slaves or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause since when Children are at those years I think they are by the Laws of Nature sufficient Judges of their own happiness or misery that is whether they are well or ill used and whether their Lives are in danger or not by their Father's Cruelty For tho' I grant that Children considered as such are always inferior to their Parents yet I must likewise affirm that in another respect as they are men and
Son do what you can and so consequently you will still owe him Subjection For it is a maxime not only of the Civil Law but that of Nature too and this most of all in the State of Nature that is before Civil Laws had restrained thaâ— Paternal Power Iura Sanguinis nullo delicto dirimi possunt and lastly from the fourth Commandment of Honour the Father c. Now no Man can tender honour to him whom he goeth about to resist and so may also destroy F. I consists you have urged this Argument as home as the thing will bear but yet I think I can shew you that the Son is so far from acting against the Law of Nature in thus resisting his Father that I think he would rather transgress it if he acted otherwise But first to answer your Arguments I deny that either Generation or Education do confer so great a benefit that a Man is obliged to Sacrifice himself his Wife and Children and all he hath in return for it First for Generation I suppose you will not much insist on that since you must grant that a Father doth not act in that matter as a voluntary but Natural Agent neither is it in his Power to hinder the Child that he gets from being conceived or born neither did he get him so much to propagate his Speâ—ies as to gratify his own present natural appetite Then for Education which I grant is much the greater obligation since by the former I am only born an irrational helpless Creature but by the other I am made a reasonable Man able to help and provide for my self and knowing my duty to God and other Men yet even these obligations are not great enough to make me Sacrifice my self and all that I have to his fury or humour I grant indeed that if it were to save a kind Father's life a Son may be obliged to venture nay lay down his life to perform it but I deny that even for such a Father he hath a Right to give up the lives of others which are not at his disposal as those of his Wife and Children are not in this case For this were not only to return more than was first given but also to pay debts with that which is not my own and to give up their lives and let my Father take them away is all one if I can hinder it qui non prohibet facit Then as for the Relation of a Father which you say no fault of his can obliterate or destroy you must grant that it may be suspended for a time as when a Man binds or resists his mad or druken Father who would kill him or his Wife or Children he doth not do it to the Father but to the mad Man or Drunkard and so likwise in this Case he doth not resist his Father but a furious unreasonable Creature who is so far from behaving himself as becomes a Father that he doth not act like a Man Nor doth your Maxime hold true in all Cases and therefore is no Law of Nature for Iura Sanguinis aliquo delicto dirimi possunt or else a Father could never put his Son to death for any crime whatever which you have affirmed he may but certainly when he acts thus it is not as a Father nor doth he destroy him as a Son but an Enemy or Malefactor Now I desire you or any indifferent Man to consider since the common good of Mankind is the sum of all the the Laws of Nature and the great rule by which they are to be tryed which rule is to be preferred and conduces more thereunto when they cannot consist at once or together That a Father who by your own confession comes to do an unlawful wicked action viz. to ruine and destroy his Son with his Wife and Children should be resisted and consequently one Mans life put in hazard than that many innocent Persons should be ruined and perhaps starved to death for want of food and shelter And as for the fifth Commandment that extends no more to the Father than to the Mother thô you are pleased to leave her out because it makes against your opinion and therefore if by Honour is meant Thou shalt no resist then no Man should resist his Mother any more than his Father if she went about to kill him and yet not the Mother but the Father is by your Hypothesis the natural Monarch that hath this Power of Life and Death over the Son But let us pursue this point no farther if you will not be convinced I cannot help it But pray tell me now what a Son must do if his Father transported by fury and malice should go about to kill him with a Sword or other Weapon and that he hath no other way left to save his life neither by intreaty nor flight which I grant ought to be done if possible whether he may resist his Father with what next comes to hand or suffer himself to be killed M. I am much better satisfyed in this Case than in the other that he ought rather to let his Father take away his life than resist him since here is but one life to be lost whereas I confess the other Case was harder because there were more lives concerned than the Sons and I am of this opinion partly for the same reasons as before and partly because 't is more suitable both to Reason and the Law of Nature as also to Holy Scripture Preceps and Examples For iâ— St. Peter command Servants to be Subject to their Masters c. Not only to thâ— good and gentle but also to the froward And if Servants much more Sons who owe their Fathers a higher duty and obedience than Servants can owe their Masters and Isaac was so far convinced that his Father Abraham had Power over his life that thô he was a lusty young Man and could carry Wood enough to consume a Burnt-offering yet do we not find that he offered in the least to resist his Father when he was about to bind him to be Sacrificed For he very well knew that his Father could not be resisted without endangering his life if not taking it away in the scuffle and sure you will grant that a Son ought rather of the two to let his Father kill him than he take away his life by whose means he received his own especially since Abraham was the Master of a great Family and in whose life and well being not only his Mother but all the Family had an interest as necessary for their well being and happiness Nor can I think that Abraham would have so readily assented to God's Command for the doing of it had he not been already satisfyed that he had an unaccountable power of Life and Death over his Son by the Laws of God and Nature F. In the first place to answer your authorities from Scripture as for that place of St Peter you have cited iâ— is not a precept given by
this would introduce great mischief and confusion in privte Families so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever if Subjects who are the same thing in a Kingdom that Children are in a Family in the State of Nature should take upon them to resist their Prince when ever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend that their Lives Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded when indeed they are not and Likewise upon the least hardship or injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject either by the Prince or his Ministers which abuses and violences do often happen even under the Best Governments any such private Person who shall think himself thus injured may upon this principle take up Arms and endeavour to right or defend himself against such violence by which means under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates whole Kingdoms if such Persons can find follows enough may be cast into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed F. I must confess the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common good and peace of mankind But I hope I shall make it plain to you that no such terrible consequences will follow from the Principles I have already laid down and therefore I must first take notice that you have in your answer confounded two Powers together which ought to be distingishued in the State of Nature viz. The Power which Fathers as Masters or Heads of Families may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants whilst they remain Members of their Family and that reverence and duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own In the first State I have already allowed that such Fathers as Masters of Families may Lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children whilst they are members of their Family than they can when they are seperated from it yet is not this Power in all Cases absolute or irresistible as I have already proved and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self-defence only to such Cases where a Father would take away a Sons life in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden passion without any crime committed or just cause given which I also limit to a bare self defence without injuring or taking away the life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided and in this Case if the Son who is like to suffer this violence may not judge when his life is really in danger to be destroyed because he may pretend so when really it is not This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self Preservation since if this were a sufficient objection it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the lives of others only to preserve their own when indeed it was altogether false and needless and they only killed them to satisfy their own malice or passion And therefore as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self-defence by any Man whatsoever So likewise neither ought the like abuse hereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at all by others who are never so unjustly assaulted and in danger of their Lives from their Fathers violence If the first principle be true on which this is founded that a Son may excercise this Right of self-defence in such Cases without any intrenchment upon his Fathers Paternal Authority or that Filial duty and respect which he must always owe him when ever he returns to himself and will behave himself towards him as becomes a Father and not like an Enemy or Cut-throat And as for the quarrels and confusions which you alledge may happen in Families between Fathers and Children in case such a liberty should be allowed those inconveniencies will prove very inconsiderable if you please to take Notice That first I do not allow this Right of resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion Secondly that after they have attained to these years no resistance ought to be made against a Father whilst they remain part of their Fathers Family but only in defence of their own their Mothers Wives and Childrens Lives since I grant that a Son as long as he continues a member of his Fathers Family ought to bestow all his own labour for his Fathers profit and cannot acquire any property either in Lands or Goods without his Fathers consent And since you conceive this Right of self-defence if allowed to Children would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families if Children should have no Right to judge when their Fathers abused their power over them let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen for if you please but to look into the World and survey the Nature of Fathers and Children and set the faults of the one against the other you will find that as I confess it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Fathers Commands and that most young people hate restraint and love too much liberty and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harsh or severe to them when really they are not yet doth such false surmises and disobedient actions seldom end either in absolute resistance or taking away their Fathers lives by force or if they do so it is really done for their own defence or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives or those of their Children but is commonly acted privately to satisfie their own revenge or malice which I hold to be utterly unlawful so likewise let us consider on the other side those temptations that Fathers lye under of injuring their Children or taking away their Lives or uâ—ing them like Slaves without any just Cause you 'll find that they by reason of their age natural temper or infirmities may be easily transported to that degree of passion that not considering the follies of Youth they may oftentimes in their passion either beat them so cruelly as utterly to disable or maime them or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause And besides Fathers being often covetous and ill-natured which are the vices of old age may where there is no power over them to restrain them from it either keep them as Slaves themselves or else sell them to others for that purpose as I
this point without better consideration but methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments to prove the Power of Life and Death to proceed from God alone and therefore must have been conferred as first on Adam since no Man hath a Power over his own life as I said before and therefore cannot have it over that of others F. I thought I had already as good as answered this doughty objection when I had yielded to you that neither private Men nor Masters of Families have any Right to defend their own lives much less to take away those of others but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature in order to the procuring the great end of it viz. the happiness and propagation of Mankind which I own could not in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are in long subsist without such a Power Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved that we have no need to recur to I know not what divine Charter granted by God to Adam or Noah and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates that ever have been or shall be in the World the consequence of which would be that no Sentence of Death could be justly given against any Man but in such Kingdoms or Common-wealths who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah from which they must deride their Title to it Now I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Common-wealths there are in the World who ever heard of much less owned this Divine Charter this fine notion yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island But be it as it will the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true that no Man in any case whatsoever hath power over his own life and therefore neither is your consequence for I suppose that for the same End for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's life viz. in order to the greater good of Mankind of which my Religion or Countrey is a part I am likewise Master of my own and may lay it down or expose it when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single life can amount to And therefore the Example of Codrus the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of for Exposing himself to certain death to gain his Citizens the Victory the loss of which would have been the ruin of the State And in the first Book of Maccabees Chap. 6.43 which thâ— it be not Canonical Scripture yet is allowed to be Read in our Churches as containing Examples of good manners you may Read that Eleazar the younger Brother of Iudas Maccabeus is there highly commended for his valour in killing the Elephant on which the supposed King Antiochus was mounted that he might thereby destroy him likewise tho he might be assured of his own death by the Elephants falling upon him And the zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great that we may read in Tertullian and divers Ecclesiastical Historians of whole Troops of Martyrs who tho unaccused yet offered up their lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom and farther Eusebius himself doth not condemn but rather commends some Primitive Christians that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors cast themselves down head long from the top of their Houses esteeming as he their tells us a certain Death as an advantage because they thereby avoided the cruelty and malice of their Persecutors I could likewise give you if it were not two tedious several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs who have given up themselves to certain Death to save the Lives of some of their friends or else of Christian Bishops whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves and which St. Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful when he tells the Romans That the scarcely for a Righteous Man would one dye yet per adventure for a good Man somâ— would even dare to dye that is a Man highly beneficial to others And the same Apostle in the last Chapter of this Epistle returns thanks to Priscilla and Aquila not only on his own behalf but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles because they had for his Life laid down their own Necks that is hazarded their lives to save his and where ever they might have thus exposed them surely they might have lost them too And therefore I think I may with reason affirm that in most Cases where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Countrey he hath power likewise to do it of his own accord without any such command the Obligation proceeding not only from the orders of his Superiour but from that zeal and affection which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for his Religion and Country even beyond the preservation of his own Life M. Well I confess that this that you have now said carries some colour of reason with it and is more than I had considered before But pray resolve me one difficulty more which still lies upon my mind By what Authority less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture do Supream Powers take upon them to make Lawâ— And that under no less penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death such as Theft Counterfiting the publick Coyn with divers other offences needless here to be reckoned up And if a Father as you will not allow him hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power more than his Wife or any other of the Family and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder to be in any that will take it upon them and therefore you see Cain said whoever meets me will slay me And God tells Noah whoever sheddeth Mans Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed without restraining it to any Man particularly who is to do it F. This Objection is easily answered if you please to consider what you your self did a good whâ—â—â— since urge to me that God endowed Adam with so much Authority as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived which I readily granted you and I only differed in the manner of its derivation you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God and I maintaining that both he and every other Master of a separate Family derive it only from Gods Natural and not Revealed Law which if it be well proved such Masters of Families as also all Civil Powers whom I suppose to be endued
is not only without all ground of reason but above common apprehensions M. You have made a long Speech in answer to my Hypothesis which since you are not satisfied with I can likewise shew you another very good reason why the People should love and reverence their Princes and that is those great Liberties and Concessions that all the Monarchs of Europe have granted their Subjects which are now past into the settled Laws and Customs of those Kingdoms with which the People ought to be very well contented nor ought they to rebel or resist tho' they may sometimes out of wantonness and necessity infringe or intrench upon those Priviledges which they or their Ancestors have conferred upon them since they can never forseit that Power they have originally over them F. I do not very well understand what you mean for I have hitherto supposed that all Subjects have a Property in their Estates and a Freedom for their Persons by the Laws of Nature and which no Civil Power whatever could deprive them of without their Consent And therefore I desire you would shew me that if Children Subjects and Slaves were all one at the first how we in this side of the World came to be in a better condition than those in Asia and Africa Or that we English-men can claim a Property in our Estates and a Right to our Lives which the Prince cannot take away but according to some known Laws M. I think I can easily do this not only in Relation to England but any other Kingdom which is now governed by known Laws and that upon Sir R. F's Hypothesis which I shall do as near as I can remember in the words of that excellent person the late Earl of Clarendon in his Survey of Mr. Hobbs Leviathan who supposeâ— according to this Hypothesis That some one of Noah 's Descendants was an Absolute Monarch at first over all his Posterity which might continue in his Line for some Ages till at last their Relation by Blood to their Subjects was removed at so great a distance that the Account of their Kindred or Relation to each other was scarce remembred whereby they who had the Soveraign Power still exprest less Paternal Affection in their Government looking upon those they Governed as meer Subjects and not as their Kinsmen or Allies till by degrees according to the Custom of Exorbitant Power they considering only the extent of their own Iurisdiction and what they might rather than what they should do treated them who were under them not as Subjects but as Slaves who having no Right to any thing but what they permitted them they would allow them to possess nothing but what they had no occasion to take away Estates they had none that they could call their own because when their Prince called for them they were his their Persons were at his command when he had either occasion or appetite to make use of them and their Children inherited nothing but their Fathers Subjection so that they were happy or miserable as he who had the Power over them pleased to exercise it with more or less Rigour or Indulgence yet they submitted alike to both acknowledging his Dominion to be naturally as absolute as their Subjection and Obedience These Princes might for some Ages have pleased themselves with this Exorbitant Exercise of their Power which tho' it had been always the same yet the exercise of it had been very moderate whilst there remained the tenderness or memory of any Relation But these Princes began at lest to discern and be convinced that the great strength they seemed to be possest of would in a short time degenerate into weakness and the Riches they seemed to enjoy would end in want and necessity as well in themselves as in their Subjects since no Man would build a good House that his Children could not inherit nor cultivate their Land with any good husbandry and expence since the profit thereof might be given to another Man And that if the Subjects did not enjoy the Conveniences of Life they could not be sure of their help and affection whenever they should have War with another Prince as absolute as themselves but they would rather chuse to be subject to him under whose Government they might live with greater Liberty and Satisfaction And lastly That if they ingrost all the Wealth and Power into their own hands they should find none who would defend them in the possession of it And that there was a great difference between that Subjection which Love and Duty pays and that which results only from Fear and Force since Despair often puts an End to that Duty which Reason and it may be Conscience would otherwise have perswaded them still to continue And therefore that it was necessary that their Subjects should find ease and profit in Obeying as well as Kings pleasure in Commanding these wise and wholesom Reflections might prevail with Princes for their own as well as Subjects benefit to restrain their Power and to make it less absolute that it might be more useful and to give their Subjects such a Property in their Goods and Lands as should not be invaded but in such cases and on such occasions as the necessities of the Government really required But as they found the benefit arising from these Condescensions highly tend to the Improvement of the Riches and Civillity of their Subjects with all those additions of pleasure and industry which render Man's Life as well as the Government easie and pleasant they still in several Generations enlarged these Graces and Concessions to their Subjects yet reserving all in themselves that they did not part with by their voluntary Grants or Concessions And if we take a View of the several Kingdoms of the World we shall see another face of things both of Power and Riches in those Governments where these Condâ—scensions and Concessions have been best observed than in those Kingdoms where the Soveraigns either retain or resume to themselves all those Rights or Prerogatives which are invested in them from the Original Nature of Government so that there still remains enough in the Princes hands to be made use of for the preservation of his own Power and the defence of his Subjects for whose benefit it was intrusted with him by God So far the late great Chancellor And these Priviledges and Condescensions being once past into constant and standing â—aws by the Princes that gave them and also solemnly sworn to by their Coronation Oaths do for the future bind not only those Princes that granted them but also their Successors to their observation And I then look upon them bound under pain of Damnation not to break or infringe them without very great necessity But however if they shall happen so to do since they were matters of meer Grace and Favour at the first and not of Right the Princes that thus transgress them are only accountable to God and punishable by him and not by
subsist without it the People or such a considerable part of them may not in Case their Lives Liberties and Persons are unjustly assaulted and oppress 't by the Officers or standing Armies of the Prince or other Supream Powers for their own defence take up Arms to defend their Lives Liberties and Estates against such an armed force and violence Where by the way I desire you to take notice that I do here asolutely disclaim all Resistance of or Self defence against Civil Authority or the Officers Commissioned by it by any private single Person whether such Power be exerted according to Law or not or else abused in some cases to the hurt or destruction of such single Person only So that I suppose this Resistance to be lawful only in case of a general Destruction or intolerable oppression of the whole People or at least a very considerable part of them and those that are in the chiefest places of the Administration M. I confess the Doctrine of Resistance as you have put it seems at first somewhat plausible and to tend to the Common Good and preservation of the People or Civil Society But let me tell you I am of opinion that when ever it comes to be put in practice it proves like the other Speculations of Commonwealths-men more hurtful than beneficial to the Common Safety and Preservation of the People and consequently more destructive to the main ends of Government than conducive to the Good and Happiness of Mankind and last of all that such Resistance cannot well be maintained or executed without the deposing or absolute Destruction of the Prince or other Supream Magistrates whatever may be pretended to the contrary And indeed it is almost impossible to suppose that any Monarch or Supream Magistrates should ever unless they were stark mad purposely go about to kill or destroy their Subjects in the Multitude and Safety of whom consists his chief Strength and Riches And you may as well tell me that a Shepherd whilst he is in his right Wits should go about to kill or destroy his Flock as that a Monarch should wilfully intend to kill or destroy his People To conclude since the People must be in all Cases of Tyranny or Oppression their own Iudges and Executioners too there is no Rebellion so rank and wicked that this pretence of a Self-defence of Men's Lives Estates and Liberties may not justifie whereas indeed it is contrary to all Natural and Civil Justice for the injured party to be his own Judge and Executioner too For then the other side may pretend to the like Right and the Tryal must be referred to Force and Arms in which Contention if the People are overcome they are certainly reduced to a worse Condition than they were before But if the Prince or Supream Magistrates have the worst on 't the Civil Power then in being is absolutely ruined So that whether the People or Magistrate overcome the state of both of them is very deplorable besides divers other evil Consequences of this Doctrine which I shall defer till I hear what you can say to what I have now urged against your Opinion F. You have made a very plausible Speech in setting forth the dreadful Consequence of this Doctrine of Resistance in any Case whatsoever and I confess if what you lay down be true viz. that such Resistance always brings along with it greater Misery upon a People than what the utmost Violence and Oppression of Princes can produce then your Consequence would be also true that such Resistance is never to be practised upon any account whatsoever So on the other side if that be not true neither will your consequence signifie anything I suppose you will not deny but that there may be such a thing as a Tyrant and that that part of Mankind who live under him may be sensible of his Tyranny or else the Definition which King Iames I gives us of a Tyrant in a Speech which he made to the Parliament in 1603 would be altogether in vain But the words are so fit for this purpose that I will read them to you out of his Works I do acknowledge that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a Rightful King and an Usurping Tyrant is this That whereas the Proud and Ambitious Tyrant doth think his Kingdom and People are only ordained for the satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable Appetites the Righteous and Iust King doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the Wealth and Prosperity of his People And so likewise in another Speech he made to the Parliament he hath this memorable passage That a King governing in a settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he ceases to rule according to the Law So that since it is plain that the People may judge when they have a Tyrant instead of a King to rule over them and that under such a Tyrant the Condition of the People may be very deplorable the Question still remains what is best for them to do in this Case Whether it be better for them or they be obliged by the Laws of Reason and Nature patiently to submit to it or else if they can either by their own force or the Assistance of a Forreign Prince to cast off the Yoke And I think I may still maintain that they may do it notwithstanding what you have yet urged to the contrary In the first place therefore tho' you count it an almost impossible thing to suppose that a Prince or Monarch would ever go about to murder or destroy his Subjects yet as incredible as it is I can give you several examples out of History both Ancient and Modern that some Tyrants have been so bruitish as not only to endeavour it but actually to put it in practice Of the first kind is that of Caligula whom Suetonius mentions to have wisht that all the People of Rome had but one Neck that he might cut it off at once The other is of Nero in the same Author as also in Tacitus who set the City of Rome on fire and consequently would have burnt all the People in it to please his humour and that he might sing his Ballad of the Destruction of Troy the more naturally whilst it burnt A third example I find related in Mocquet's Travels into the East-Indies of a certain King of Pegu about an hundred years ago who by the perswasion of some of his Diabolical Priests or Magicians took such an aversion to his Subjects that he was resolved to destroy them and therefore forbid them to sow their Lands for two or three Years by which means a great part of them died of Famine or were forced to devour each other And in such Cases as these I suppose the Laws of Nature and Reason will justifie Self-defence in the People and sure it had been Lawful for the People of Rome to have resisted
but private single Persons which you your self granted and condemned as unlawful And therefore I desire to know who shall Judge when this Body or Major part of the People are thus assaulted so that they may justly defend themselves But indeed this Licence of taking up Arms is not only unpracticable but unreasonable too For it supposes that after the People have given up all the Power they had of Iudging what was bad or good for the Publick they have this Power still left in them which would make them at once both Subjects and Soveraigns which is a Contradiction F. Had you been pleased but better to have observed what I said the last time I spoke a great part of this Objection had been saved For I there expresly asserted that the Security of mens Lives Liberties and Estates being the Main Ends for which men entered at first into Civil Society and likewise desired to continue in it as being the only means why Civil Government is to be preferred before the State of Nature the People neither did nor can give up their Right of Iudging when these are invaded or taken from them And therefore you are very much mistaken to believe that at the Institution of Civil Society Men must have given up their Common senses and reason too of Iudging when they are like to be murdered or made Slaves of or their Fortunes unjustly taken from them by those whom they have ordained to be their Governours and I suppose you will not say that they thereby acquire a Power of altering the Nature of things or of making War Slavery or Beggery the means of procuring the Welfare and Happiness of the People any more than they can enact that hunger or diseases should conduce to the preservation of any mans life And therefore as the Judgment of these things was obvious and natural to every mans senses and understanding in the State of Nature so it is as plain they never intended wholly to give up all their Right of Judging concerning their own Preservation and Happiness and all means necessarily tending thereunto but only in such Cases and concerning such matters as are beyond the Power or above the Knowledge of every ordinary private subject thus in a disease tho' I give up my self to the skill and Judgment of a Physician yet I do it not so absolutely but that I still reserve to my self a Right of Iudging whether he gives me Poyson instead of a Purge and if Princes or Supream Magistrates were thus absolutely invested with an Arbitrary Power of doing whatsoever they pleased with the Lives Liberties and Estates of the People they would then be in a much worse condition under Civil Government than they were in the State of Nature as I have already proved And therefore there is no need of any such general Meetings or Assembâ—ies of the whole Body or Representatives of the People to Iudge when these Fundamental Conditions of all Government are notoriously violated and broken Since it will be apparent to every mans sense and reason that is thus assaulted or injured And as for the other part of your Objection how the People can know when the whole Body or Major part of them is thus assaulted or opprest and being so assaulted or opprest what number are necessary to justifie this Resistance To this important Question I thus answer that if such a War or assault be made upon such a considerable part of the People as may justifie their Resistance to be much better for the Good of the Common-VVealth than that so many People should be destroyed Resistance certainly is then Lawful And the reason why every particular person when unjustly assaulted by his Princes Order or his Estate taken away by his unjust Edicts or Decrees ought not to make any publick disturbance only to save the one or recover the other I have given you before viz. because the publick peace is to be preferred before that of any private Person Yet even then such a private Person may very well defend himself if unjustly assaulted by Assassinates whom the Prince or other Supream Magistrates shall send to take away his Life without any just Cause or Legal Tryal tho' I grant he may not sollicit others to rise with him and take his part or help him to defend his Life or Estate Yet as a Reverend Dignitary of our Church very well observed No Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away But much more when this assault or oppression is either made upon the whole People in general or upon so considerable a Part or Member thereof as the Common-Wealth could not well subsist without if it were destroyed in all such cases I suppose the People thus assaulted or opprest have a sufficient Right to defend their Lives and free themselves from that slavery and oppression they lye under and thus the People of Rome might very well have justified their Resistance of Nero's Incendiaries when he sent to Burn the City tho' they had been his own Guards We read likewise in the Hist. August that the Emperour Caracalla the People happening to laugh at him for his Folly in playing the Gladiator in his Circus Maximus sent his Guards to kill them So likewise in Herodian that upon another supposed affront he sent his Pretorian Bands to Murder most of the Inhabitants of Alexandria who came out to meet him with a Solemn Procession And I suppose no rational Man will deny but that if the Citizens of Rome or Alexandria had had Arms in their hands they might have Lawfully defended their Lives against these Murdering Guards For I think it was much better that those should be destroyed who were the Aggressors than that so vast a Body of Innocent People should be made Sacrifices to the undreasonable Passion or Revenge of a Cruel Tyrant So that when the oppression or Violence to Mens Liberties and Properties is general and notorious and affect the whole Body of the People I do then suppose that any Part of them that are sufficient to defend themselves may do it till they can find Assistance either from the rest of the People or else from some Forreign Prince or State who will vindicate their cause and come in to their Assistance And thus we read the Town of Brill in Zealand under the Conduct of the Count of Mark first revolted from the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva which example was afterwards tho' not immediately followed by most of the Cities of Holland and Zealand and the Courage and Resolution of this Count as also of the Citizens of this Town is highly commended by the Historians of that time for so nobly venturing their Lives and Fortunes to â—â—diem their Coâ—utry from that slavery it then lay under till at last they were relieved and assisted by Queen Elizabeth to whom the Vnited Provinces owe that Freedom they now enjoy M. I shall not now dispute with
you what Right the States of the Vnited Provinces might have to resist the Tyranny of the Duke of Alva then Governour for the King of Spain since Grotius and most Writers which are not of the Spanish Faction suppose that King to have had a Conditional Right of Governing those Provinces according to their own Laws and Priviledges from the very first Institution of the Government And therefore not being an absolute Monarch over them he might well be resisted upon the Breach of those Conditionâ— But this is not the Case now in hand since we are now discoursing of absolute Monarchies or Common-Wealths who being invested with the Supream Power by the Consent of the People as you suppose And therefore may have by their Consents whether forced or Voluntary it matters not according to your own Principles a Supream Vnaccountable Power over them And in the first place I can shew you how a Man may make over all the Power he hath in his own Person irrevocably to another As when a Man sells or grants himself for a Slave to another by his own Consent who when he hath once put himself into this Condition his Master hath an absolute Property in his Person and an indefesible Right for ever to his Service So that notwithstanding all the Cruel Harsh and unreasonable Usage he may meet with from his Master he can never regain his Freedom without the Consent of his Lord. And this I take to be an uncontested Truth agreed on by the Law of Nations and established by the Law of God Thus St. Peter chargeth those who are in this State of Servitude To be subject to their Masters with all Fear not only to the Good and Gentle but also to the Froward So likewise St. Paul in both his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians Commands Servants to be obedient to them that are their Masters according to the Flesh c. And that this particularly respects Slaves appears by the 8. verse of the 6. Chapter of the former of these Epistles So that if a Man may thus make himself a Slave or perpetual Servant to another by his own consent I cannot see any Reason why a whole Nation may not do the same and deliver themselves up to one Man or more to be Governed and treated both for their Lives Liberties and Fortunes at his or their Discretion So that tho' he may perhaps abuse this Power to the severest Tyranny or Oppression Yet have they no Right to shake off this Yoak or to resist him since their Lives and Fortunes are wholly at his disposal by their own Act and Consent And that whole Nations may justly surrender themselves for Slaves or absolute Subjects I can give you two Examples approved of by God in the Scriptures The first is that of the Egyptians who when they had sold all their Goods and Lands to Pharaoh for Bread to keep themselves alive in the seven years of Famine we read of in Genesis You 'll find they were afterwards such absolute Servants or Slaves to Pharaoh That as for the People he removed them to Cities from one end of the Borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof only the Land of the Priests bought he not c. The other is that of the Gibeonites of whom we read that they accepted of their Lives from Ioshua and the Elders of Israel Tho' on the Condition of the greatest slavery rather than they would venture to be destroyed So that if absolute Monarchy were not Lawful but contrary to God's Will and Institution most of the greatest Kingdoms in the World would be governed contrary to the Laws of God and Nature and the Subjects of all the Kingdoms from France to China not reckoning those of Africa might immediately if they were able rebel against their Monarchs and set up what sort of Government they thought fit Since none of the Subjects in those Kingdoms hold their Lives Liberties or Estates by any other Tenure than the Good Will or Pleasure of the Monarch who may take away all or any of them as often as he pleases to do it and that without any right of Resistance in all or any of their Subjects let them use them never so severely F. I cannot deny but what you say is so far true that one Man or many together may grant or sell themselves for Slaves by their own Consent and that the Persons who thus make over themselves have afterwards no Right or Property in any thing more than a bare Subsistence yet that servitude is not by the Law of Nature but only brought in by Custom or the Law of Nations as all Writers agree and is so far lawful because it tends to the Good and Preservation of Mankind that Prisoners taken in War should rather be kept as Slaves than immediately slain or that Men compelled by extream necessity should sell themselves or their Children rather than both should perish and therefore it is no wonder that the Apostles who were not sent to aâ—ter the State of things in the World or to entrench upon any Man 's civil Righâ—s should command Servants or Slaves to be Subject to their Masters tho' unbelievers Yet doth it not therefore follow that when men are forced to give themselves thus up to the Power of another they likewise give him an absolute Right over their Lives so as that their Masters may take them away whenever they please for that was more than they ever had over themselves Nor doth God confer any such Power upon Masters and therefore if the Master hath no such absolute Right or Property in the Persons of his Slaves as he hath in his Sheep or Cattle I see no reason why even Slaves if their Masters go about to take away their Lives for no other Cause but to satisfie their own humour or passion may not if they cannot otherwise escape resist their Masters and save their Lives if they can For all Writers agree that if a Master doth so inhumanely abuse his Slave that he can no longer endure it without danger of his Life he may in that Case Lawfully run away and escape from him and why he may not as well resist him to save his Life when his Master goeth about thus unjustly and without any Cause to take it away I can see no reason to the contrary Since it was only for the saving his Life that such a Man could ever be supposed to yield himself a Slave to another and which Condition being broken on the Masters part the Servant is again in the State of Nature and the relation of Master and Servant so far ceases or is at least suspended during that Violence This being the state of particular Men I cannot think that God hath put whole Nations in a worse Condition nor can I ever imagine that any whole Nation unless urged by some extream necessity would ever give up themselves so absolutely for Slaves as not to have any Right
to defend their own Lives or a Property in any thing they can enjoy and if ever they could be supposed to have done so I think I may boldly affirm that such a Nation are not Subjects but Slaves and the Prince not a Monarch or Civil Governour but only a Lord of a Great Family or Master of a publick Work-house For I take the difference betwixt Subjects or Slaves and Princes and Masters of Families to consist in this that the Power of a Prince is chiefly ordained for the Good and Preservation of his Subjects tho' I grant his own may likewise be included in it as an Encouragement and Reward for his Labour yet not as the principal End of his Institution Whereas in a Family of Slaves they are chiefly ordained for his profit or Benefit that maintains them but their Happiness and Preservation is only accidental and as it may conduce to that The main End also of Civil Government is to institute and maintain a distinct Property in men's Estates and which the Prince or Common-wealth can have no Right to take away And therefore tho' I grant that in those Despotiâ—k Monarchies you mention the Monarchs do exercise an Absolute Arbitrary Power over the Lives Liberties and Estates of their Subjects Yet that this is by Divine Right or Institution I utterly deny or that it was always so in all of them from the beginning for most of those Empires you mention can no otherwise subsist than by a Constant maintaining vast standing Armies or Guards to keep their Subjects in Obedience Nor can any Governments be of Divine Institution which are exercised with a sole Respect to the personal Power and Grandeur of the Prince rather than the Good and Preservation of the People So that if you will but survey the accounts that Travellers give us of those Eastern Parts of the World you will find that there are no known setled Laws or Properties in those Countries except at the Arbitrary Will of the Monarch or his Viceroys and thus all those rich and fruitful Countries of Egypt and Asia which formerly flourished in all Arts Knowledge and Civility and abounded in Multitudes of People are now in most places reduced to meer Deserts and do not breed a Tenth part of that number of People as they did in former Ages Which proceeds from no other cause but the Cruelty and Injustice of the Government quite different from what it was in the time of the Roman Emperours who tho' I confess they were in some sence absolute too yet governed by and were obliged to observe Known Laws and the People had a settled Property in their Estates which the Prince had no Right to take away I shall not enquire how all these Monarchs came to be so Arbitrary at first and thus to abuse their Power But the Generality or Antiquity of this abuse can be no more a Plea for its Right than that because Idolatry was generally practised throughout the World within three or four hundred Years after the Flood till three or above four hundred Years after Christ therefore Idolatry was the True and Ancient Religion of the World Now tho' I will not condemn this sort of Government where the Subjects enjoy no setled Property in Lands or Goods as absolutely unlawful and directly contrary to the Laws of God or Nature Yet in those Kingdoms and Common-wealths where Civil or Hereditary Property is once introduced I think it is not Lawful nor indeed in the Power of the Prince or Common-wealth to destroy or take it away And therefore if the Roman Emperours should have endeavoured by any Laws or Edicts of their own making to have dâ—stroyed all Civil or Hereditary Property in Lands and Goods and to have reduced all the Estates of their Subjects into their own Possession I think they might have been Lawfully disobeyed and resisted by the People since they went about to destroy one great End of Civil Government viz. the Instituting and Maintaining of Civil Property To conclude I freely grant that in all Countries which are governed either by absolute Monarchies or Common-wealths the Soveraignty is so fully in one Person or Body of Men that it hath no other Bounds or Limits under God but it s own Will or Commands Provided they do not apparently tend to the absolute Ruine and Destruction of the People for that being inconsistent with the Notion or End of governing them they are and ever will be Iudges of it And therefore even amongst the Turks and Tartars themselves if they should once find their Prince go about wilâ—ully to destroy them or sell them for Slaves you would soon find notwithstanding this servile Subjection That they would quickly be rid of them as the Ianisaries have served their Emperours of late Years for far less faults M. I cannot deny but you have spoken reasonably enough on this Subject and perhaps if you had restrained this Power of Resistance only to such Cases where the Prince or Monarch makes open War upon his People or doth otherwise actually go about to destroy them it might have been a tolerable doctrine that they may lawfully resist the Forces he shall send against them but this is a Case that so seldom happens if ever at all that it can never be supposed and no Prince unless he were Mad can be guilty of it and therefore when ever he Acts thus I think he may not only be Lawfully resisted but tyed up for a Madman But this is seldom or never the Case between Monarchs and their People for most of the Rebellions and Insurrections that I have ever read of or observed in the World have not proceeded from any necessity that the People had to rise up in Arms and Rebel against their Supream Magistrates because their Lives or Estates were assaulted or in danger to be taken away but for the most part they arose either from the too Great Cruelty or severity of the Supream Power towards some particular Private Men who by themselves and their Friends and Relations have gone about to revenge those Injuries that they supposed had been done them And of this all Histories are to full that I need give no particular Instances of them all which abuses may be reduced to these Heads First when a Prince doth commonly himself violate the Chastities of the Wives or Daughters of the Subjects which tho' it hath been the ruine of divers Princes yet is he able to do this only to some few particular Persons and tho' if he should permit his Soldiers or Officers generally to do this without any Punishment yet even this can hardly if ever extend to all the Wives Daughters or Women in a whole Countrey And therefore both these Cases are to be born withal according to your own Principles since it doth not tend to the Slavery or Destruction of the People I mean as to their whole complexed Body A Second is when an absolute Prince or Monarch goeth about to alter the
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
to the Word of God and what not and yet you see that from the ill use of this Liberty have sprung all the Different Sects and Heresies in the World Does it therefore follow that Men must not make use of this Liberty because they may abuse it So likewise must Subjects judge in no Case whatsoever when the Supream Power Tyrannizes over them beyond what they are able to bear and must they never resist or endeavour to cast off this insupportable Yoak because they may happen one time or other to be wanton and believe themselves oppress 't when indeed they are not M. I grant your Parallel would have some what in it were the Consequences of every Mans judging for himself in Matters of Religion as fatal to the Peace and Happiness of Mankind as your Doctrine of the Subjects judging when it is fit for them to resist the Supream Powers for I do not at all debar them from the Right of Iudging when they are oppress 't or ill used by them for that may very well consist with the Publick Peace but I utterly disallow all manner of Resistance by Force because it tends not only to dissolve all Civil Government but to disturb the Common Peace and safety of Mankind F. Notwithstanding your Distinction the Parallel with hold in both Cases for are not differences in Religion as fatal to the Peace and Unity of the Church as the Subjects judging when they are oppress 't and thereupon taking up defensive Arms can be to that of a Civil State And do not more Wars and Quarrels arise about Mens differences in Religion than from any other Cause you can Name So that if the Peace of the Church were a sufficient Cause for supposing a certain or Infallible Iudge in Religion there would be the same Reason to suppose it in Civil Matters too And therefore your Argument from the abuse of this Liberty of the Subjects judging when they may resist is of no more force in one Case than the other for I grant it may so happen in a Civil State as well as in an Ecclesiastical that the Subjects may rise up and resist their Civil as well as Spiritual Governours without any just Cause doth it therefore follow that God hath wholly delivered up Mankind to the domineering humours of Men in Power let them abuse it never so grosly And therefore we must not be wiser than God Almighty himself and when he hath not appointed any certain and Infallible Iudges either in Civil or Spiritual matters without any Contradiction or Resistance we ought not to suppose a necessity of such Judges meerly because of some Inconveniences which may perhaps often happen from the abuse of that Christian Liberty he hath given us For then I doubt you will find the Remedy would be much worse than the Disease as if to avoid Heresies we should set up the Pope for an Infallible Iudge So would it be likewise if to avoid Civil Wars and Rebellions we should set up the Supream Magistrate as Mr. Hobbs hath done for a certain and Irresistible Iudge of whatsoever Means are necessary for the People's Quiet and Preservation since I have already proved that an Insupportable Tyranny is not Civil Government and that the Supream Powers can no more alter the Nature of things but their own Laws or Edicts than they can ordain Poyson to be used in stead of wholesom Food by the People M. I confess what you have now said carries some weight with it and my own Carnal Reason doth very much incline me to your Opinion were it not for two things the one as I said is the Horrid Rebellions that have and may again arise in these Kingdoms from this Principle which hath made God so strictly forbid all Resistance of the Higher Powers upon any account whatsoever And therefore you are much mistaken when you assert that Resistance tho' for Self defence is one of the Liberties that God hath left us since certainly he would never so severely have forbidden it but that he not only knew how prone Men's Corrupt Natures were to Rebellion but also foresaw the fatal Consequence of it F. If God's Commands in Scripture be the greatest Argument you have against all Resistance whatever I doubt not but to shew you when We come to it that you as well as others are mistaken in that Strict Interpretation of those places of Scripture and as for the Evil Consequences you suppose may follow from this Doctrine I doubt not likewise but to convince you that much worse will follow from the Irresistible Tyranny of the Supream Powers than ever have happen'd from the Dreadfullest Rebellions And therefore I desire you to take Notice that what I have now said is not out of any design to Iustifie so Horrid a Crime as I grant Rebellion to be or to incite Subjects to be Guilty of it but only to hinder Civil Government from being destroyed and Mankind from being made Miserable For I have first Asserted that no Resistance whatever is to be made in Absolute Governments but in those Cases in which the main Ends of Civil Government are Visibly destroyed or so near it that there is no other means left but Resistance to prevent it And then when things are once brought to this Pass it is not the People that make this War but the Governours who by their Tyranny have brought the Common-Wealth into this Anarchy and Confusion you so mâ—ch Dread so that it is not the People but they that are the Aggressors And as for the ill use that may be made of this Doctrine to stir up the People to Rebellion when they have no just or sufficient Provocation to Reâ—â—st This will not prove of that Dangerous Consequence you imagine if you will but consider that I do not allow this Resistance in any Case but when the Violence or Oppression of the Governors is so Evident and Insupportable to all the People that groan under it that no indifferent Man in his Senses will be able to deny it for as long as there remains any Disputableness whether or no the People are sufficiently Opprest in their Liberties or Estates the Trust Reposed in the Supream Magistrates makes them the Sole Iudges of the Necessity of such Exorbitant Actions as being Intrusted by the People as Men supposed to be both Wise and Good and themselves Ignorant in Diverse Cases of the true means of their own Preservation and the Supream Powers remain the Sole Iudges as long as the Case is Doubtful or Uncertain But since you have already acknowledged that the People might Iudge if such a Case should happen whether the Prince or other Supream Magistrate makes Actual War upon them I would very fain know why the People cannot as plainly distinguish when he sends his Guards or Dragoons to take away their Lives and Liberties or to turn them out of their Estates And 〈◊〉 this be done and the Tyranny so evident and general and
the People may sometimes happen to abuse this Natural Right of Iudging and resisting by exerting it when there is no real and absolute necessity so on the other side if they are wholy debarred from it because they may happen sometimes to abuse it the Freest People in the World viz. our selves for Example may easily be reduced into a Condition of absolute Slavery and Beggery and that without all Remedy by any Humane means that I can think of and which is the worst mischief of these two I leave to your self or any indifferent Man to Iudge M. If you will have my Opinion in this pointâ— I must freely tell you that it is a hard matter to find out a mischief so destructive to the People and which they should exchange for this miserable State of War which you suppose may prove so beneficial to them and yet I doubt if it be throughly lookt into not only the Doctrine it self but also the lasting Wars and miseries it may produce would sufficiently prove the contrary since the cruellest Tyranny Slavery and loss of Estates or any thing else almost may be better born with in Peace and Unity than a Civil War with the greatest Liberty and Plenty seeing all such comforts would quickly be devoured like Pharaoh's Fat Kine by such a Cruel Mâ—nster feeding in their bowels And therefore since Civil War is one of the greatest Calamities and Punishments that God uses to send upon a Nation it seems evident to me that the Wellfare of any State or People requires them to be Obedient unto the Supream Powers tho' they be never so great Oppressors or Cruel Tyrants For when once they enter into this dismal State of War who can tell whether it will have an End without almost the total destruction of the Nation or at least by bringing them into a far worse Condition of Slavery and Suffering than they were before since the State of Princes or other Supream Powers can never be so mean and inconsiderable in the World as not to find when like to be Opprest by such insurrections and Rebellions of their Subjects sufficient assistance from Neighbouring Princes or States who making the Cause of such a Prince their own will be sure to assist him to the utmost of their Power it being found true by experience as Tully long ago observed That the afflicted State of Kings do easily draw the help and Pity of many others especially of those who are either Kings themselves or do live in a Kingdom the Regal Name being by them esteemed to be great and Sacred And farther how ready a way it is to subvert the State of any such distractâ—d Kingdom and to bring it under the Subjection of Foreigners we need not seek a plainer Proof than by an Example no farther off than Ireland where Dermâ—t King of Leinster being forced by his Rebellious Subjects to â—rave the Aid of King Henry the II. for his Restoration to his Kingdom his assistance to recover his Right produced that effect which we now see viz. That the Irish lost their Domiâ—ion and became Subject to the Crown of England even to this day And supposing that the Subjects might likewise be assisted by some Foreign Prince who would undertake their deliverance they would not be in a much bâ—ttâ—r condition since if he were an Absolute Monarch himself he would be 〈◊〉 for example sake as well as for their own security to carry as strict a hard over tâ—em and use them more severely than their own Prince had done before and I doubt not but if Lewis Prince of France had been Crowned King of this Kingdom as he was very near it toward the latter end of King Iohn's Reign but that he would have been more cruel and Tyrannical than ever King Iohn had been before So that they would have got nothing by the bargain but a change of Masters and a heavier Yoke imposed upon them by a Foreigner And so much the Viscount Melun confessed upon his Death bed to many of the English nobility which was the reason of their returning again to their Allegiance to Henry the third So that I think it had been much better for the Barons and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred or Rebell'd at all against their Lawful Prince F. You seem so in Love with slavery and all the Consequences of it that it is an hundred pities but that you should feel the smart of it a little while provided no body was to suffer by it but your self and those of your Opinion But could you see the miserable Condition those poor People are in who live under Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government I doubt not but you would be of another mind and preferr a War tho' never so Violent before such a Peace for when Men are once reduced to so desperate a Condition as neither to be secured of their Lives Liberties or Estates they may have some hope to redress themselves by Resistance but need not fear to be reduced to a worse Condition than they were before and therefore I cannot understand how all the Comforts of a Civil Life would then be lost by a Civil Waâ— when I have already put-it as a chief part of the Case that Subjects are never to make such a Resistance but when the Supream Powers are just about to begin or else have actually entered into a State of War against their Subjects For what can any foreign Enemy do more if he Conquers them than take away their Lives Liberties and Estates So that this is so far from being a State of Peace that indeed the People are already exposed to all the Calamities of War but a War which you suppose may be made without any resistance whilst the Subjects forsooth are bound to keep the Peace but much such another Peace as would be in a House unto which Thieves having broken and the Inhabitants retiring into some upper Rooms there stand upon their Guard and make Resistance whilst the Thieves having Seized upon all they have below one of them should make such a speech as this I pray Sirs come down and submit your selves to us for we assure you we intend not to Kill you but only to Bind you and take away all you have And is not slavery and loss of Goods better with Peace and safety than by assaulting us to provoke us to fire the House and Kill you all for if you once enter into a State of War with us it is very likely to end with your total destruction For if you continue to resist us or think to call in Company to your Assistance we can likewise call in many more of our Party to come and help us and then eâ—pâ—â—t no mercy Now pray tell me would not this be a very rational Argument to move these People to come down and surrender themselves to these Thieves and partake of the benefits of this excellent Peace they propos'd and whether they would not tell
and irresistible the Persons and Authority of Kings were under the Iewish Government and there cannot be a plainer Example of this than in the Case of David He was himself anointed to be King after Sauls death but in the mean time he was grievously persecuted by Saul who pursued him from one place to another with a design to take away his Life How now doth David behave himself in this Extremity What Course doth he take to secure himself from Saul Why he takes the only Course that is left to a Subject he flies for it and hides himself from Saul in the Mountains and Caves of the Wilderness and when he found he was discovered in one place he removes to another He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his Motions not that he might meet him to give him Batâ—le or to take him at an Advantage but that he might keep out of his way and not fall unawares into his hands Well but this was no thanks to David you 'll say because he could not do otherwise He was too weak for Saul and not able to stand against him and therefore had no other Remedy but flight But yet we must consider that David was a Man of War he slew Goliah and fought the Battles of Israel with great success he was an admired and beloved Captain which made Saul so Jealous of him the Eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King and how easily might he have raised a Potent and formidable Rebellion against Saul But he was so far from this that he invites no Man to his Assistance and when some came uninvited he made no use of them in an Offensive or Defensive War against Saul Nay when God delivered Saul twice into David's hands that he could as easily have killed him as have Cut off the Skirts of his Garment at Engedi or as have taken That Spear away which stuck on the Ground as his Bolster as he did in the Hill of Hachilâ—h yet he would neither touch Saul himself nor suffer any of the People that were with him to do it tho' they were very importunate with him to let them kill Saul nay tho' they urged him with an Argument from Providence that it was a plain Evidence that it was the Will of God that he should kill him Because God had now delivered his Enemy into his Hands according to the Promise he had made to David we know what use some Men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a Mind to act But David it seems did not think that an opportunity of doing evil gave him a License and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and a Murderer too No man can do any wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into Mens hands might justifie the wickedness they commit no Man can be chargeable with any Guilt whatever he does and certainly Opportunity will as soon justifie any other Sin as Rebellion and the Murder of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence At least this must be a settled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids And therefore notwithstanding this Opportunity which God has put into his hands to destroy his Enemy and to take the Crown for his Reward David considers his Duty remembers that tho' Saul were his Enemy and that very unjustly yet he was still the Lords anointed The Lord forbid says he That I should do this unto my Master the Lords anointed to stretch forth any Hand against him seeing he is the Lords anointed Nay he was so far from taking away his Life that his Heart smote him for cutting off the Skirt of his Garment And we ought to observe the Reason David gives why he durst not hurt Saul because he was the Lords anointed which is the very Reason the Apostle gives in the Romans because the Powers that are are ordained of God and he that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God For to be anointed of God signifies no more than that he was made King or ordained by God For this external Unction was only a Visible Sign of Gods Designation of them to such an Office And it is certain they were as much Gods Anointed without this Visible Unction as with it Cyrus is called Gods Anointed tho' he never was Anointed by any Prophet but only designed for his Kingdom by Prophecy And we never read in Scripture that any Kings had this external Vnction who succeeded in the Kingdom by Right of Inheritance unless the Title and succession were doubtful and yet they were the Lords Anointed too that is were plac'd in the Throne by him So that this is an Eternal Reason against râ—sistiâ—g Soveraign Princes that they are Set up by God and invested with his Authority and therefore their Persons and their Authority are Sacred F. I am so far from differing with you in what you have said concerning this Example of David towards Saul tho' his Enemy that I think it ought to be a Pattern to every single Private Man tho never so great in a Kingdom or Common-Wealth how to comport himself towards the Supream Powers if he himself alone be unjustly persecuted by them either in his Life or Estate that is to fly if he can tho' with the loss of all his Estate rather than resist tho' there are some Circumstances in this Story of David that make it evident that he did not think a Defensive War against those Cut-throats that Saul might send to Kill him unlawful and so much Dr. Fearn himself in his first Discourse call'd resolving of Conscience c. against Resistance of the Higher Powers acknowledges For David when he fled from Saul made himself Captain of four hundred Men which number soon encreased to six hundred And still every day grew more by Additions Now why should he entertain those Men but to defend himself against the Forces of Saul that is to make a Defensive War when ever he was assaulted by him M. I think I can give you a sufficient answer to this and therefore you must observe that David invited none of these Men in to him but they came as Volunteers after a Beloved Captain and General which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself when such Numbers resorted to him of their own Accord When he had them he never used them for any Hostile Acts against Saul or any of his Forces he never stood his Ground when he heard Saul was coming but always fled and his Men with him Men who never were us'd to fly and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself would he have permitted them And I suppose you will not call it a defensive War to fly before an Enemy and to hide
of the City whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives and pray to the Lord for it for in the Peace thereof you shall have Peace Which made it a necessary duty to be Subject to these Powers under whose government they lived And accordingly we find that Mordecai discovered the Treason of Bigthana and Teresh two of the Kings Chamberlains the Keepers of the Door who sought to lay hand on the King Ahasuerus And how numerous and Powerful the Iews were at this time and what great disturbance they could have given to the Empire appears evidently from the Book of Esther King Ahasuerus upon the suggestions of Haman had granted a Decree for the Destruction of the whole People of the Iews which was sent into all the Provinces Written and Seal'd with the Kings Ring This Decree could never be reversed again for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Persians And therefore when Esther had found Favour with the King all that could be done for the Iews was to grant another Decree for them to defend themselves which accordingly was done and the effect of it was That the Jews at Shusan slew 300 Men and the Jews of the other Provinces slew 75000 and rested from their Enemies Without this Decree Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist which yet was a Case of as great extremity and Barbarous Cruelty as could ever happen which made him put Esther upon so hazardous an Attempt as to venture into the Kings Presence without being called which was Death by their Law unless the King should graciously hold out the Golden Scepter to them yet when they had obtained this Decree they were able to defend themselves and to destroy their Enemies which is as famous an Example of Passive Obedience as can be met with in any History And pray see here what the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belteshazzar The most High God gave Nebucadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People Nations and Languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would be slew and whom he would be kept alive and whom he would be set up and whom he would â—e pulled down And if these Heathen Kings received such a Power from God as the Prophet here affirms St. Paul has made the Application of it that he that resisteth resisteth the Ordinance of God And I think these Examples may serve out of the Old Testament and therefore I shall conclude with the saying of the Wise Man who was both a Prophet and a King Where the Word of a King is there is Power and who may say unto him What doest thou F. Tho' this last proof be the stongest you have yet brought yet I think it will not reach the Point in Question to prove that no Resistance whatsoever tho' for saving the Lives of a whole Nation can be Lawful I grant indeed that the Command of the Prophet Ieremiah of Praying for the Peace of the City whither they were carried away Captives was to be obeyed being obliged to do it not only by the Laws of Nature and in Regard of those Benefits of Protection and injoying the Free exercise of their Religion and Liberties without being made Slaves tho' they had been carryed Captives which was no more than removing them out of one Country and setling them in another according to the Custom of the Eastern Princes of those times when they would by removing of the best and greatest of the People out of a Conquered Countrey prevent their Rebelling against them as they had done before but that they enjoyed a Property in their Lands and Estates after their Captivity is certain by the Prophets commanding them to Build and Plant Vineyards in the Country of Babylon during the 70 years Captivity foretold by him from God So likewise I grant it to be a necessary Duty in Subjects tho' strangers to be Faithful and Obedient to those Princes and States under whose Governments they live and therefore Mordecai no doubt performed his Duty when he discovered the Treason of the Kings Chamberlains that thought to kill him But to come to your main Argument that it was unlawful for the whole Nation of the Iews to resist those who were impowered by the Decree of King Ahasuerâ—â— to Massacre and Destroy them I shall not dispute with you about the Matter of Fact as you have related it but only in this particular that whereas you suppose till the King had Issued out a second Decree wherein he granted the Iews which were in every City to gather themselves together and to stand for their Lives to destroy to slay and Cause to Perish all the Power of the People and Province that should assault them c. and to take the spoil of them for a Prey without which Decree you suppose Mordecai did not think it Lawful to resist tho' it was a Case of as great extremity as could ever happen and that therefore Esther was put upon so Hazardous an Attempt as to venture to Obtain this Decree tho' with the Peril of her Life but that when they had once obtained it they were then and not before enabled to defend themselves and destroy their Enemies In answer to which I must needs tell you that you do not fairly represent the latter part of this story for it no where appears in the Text tho' you are pleased to add it that Mordecai did not think it Lawful for the Iews to resist till this Decree was obtained for it is only there said That he sent Esther to the King and as soon as she came into his presence she fell down at his feet and besought him with Tears to put away the Mischief of Haman the Agagite Pray read the words And she said If it pleases the King and if I have found favour in his fight and the thing seems right before the King and I be pleasing in his Eyes let it be written to reverse the Letters devised by Haman the Son of Hammedatha the Agagite which he wrote to destroy the Jews which are in all the Kings Provinces By which you may see that Esthers Request was not for a Liberty to defend themselves as you suppose but only to try if she could get the King to reverse the first decree obtained by Haman to destroy them but because the Kings Decree when once Issued out was not to be reversed therefore He Issued this second Decree to give the Iews a Legal or Civil Power to gather themselves together and stand upon their defence against all that should assault them which was so far obeyed that the Rulers of the Provinces and other Officers of the King instead of destroying helped the Iews because says the Text the fear of Mordecai fell upon them So that tho' I own this Decree gave them a Legal Power to stand upon their defence and did likewise
about to make himself King of the Iews in Opposition to Caesar and therefore whilst they lay under this Mistake they were under as high an Obligation as an Erroneous Conscience could lay upon them of Seizing him and bringing him before the High-Priest and the Governour For if they had believed him to be the true Messiah and consequently the King of their Nation it had been impossible that they should ever have gone about to put him to Death Which likewise our Saviour himself acknowledges when Praying for them that Crucified him he said Father forgive them for they know not what they do I speak not this to excuse the Priests or Sanâ—edrim for condemning our Saviour to Death or for using all the Power they had with Pilate to have him executed Since I grant their Ignorance being in great part Wilful at least not Invincible they had no just excuse not to believe on him after so many Miracles he had wrought in the sight of all the World But only to prove that which I suppose you will not deny i. e. that Magistrates even whilst they Act unjustly are not to be resisted in the Execution of Publick Iustice no not to rescue an Innocent Man by force from the Hand of Iustice after he is Condemned Since the false or unjust Sentences of Iudges against particular Persons are to be taken for just in common Acceptation till they be Repealed according to that Maxime in your Civil Law Proetor dum iniquum decernit Ius dicit and therefore our Saviour coming to fulfil all Righteousness and to be the exact Patern of Divine and Moral Actions could not do less than rebuke St. Peter for making use of the Sword against a Lawful Authority but what is this to the Cases that I have put of the Resistance of whole Nations or Bodies of Men against an unjust force and destructive Violence upon their Persons and Estates by those who pretend to Act as the Supream Powers tho contrary to all Laws Natural and Divine and who have no Pretence to Act as they do but only their unjust and Arbitrary Wills back't by Power Aâ—d that there is a great difference in these two I will clearly shew you from your own Concession that no man wanteth Authority to defend his Life against him that hath no Authority to take it away and therefore I suppose St. Paul might only with the Help of those that were with Him not only have defended his Life against those whom we find in the 25 th of the Acts who were by Order of the High-Priest and Chief of the Iews to have lain â—n wait to kill Paul by the way but also against any that Festus the Governour himself should have sent for the same End Since He there decâ—ares That it is not the manner i. e. Law of the Romans to deliver any Man to dye before that he that is accused have the Accuâ—â—rs face to face and have License to Answer for himself concerning the Crime laid against him And therefore as Caesar could give Festus no Commission to Murder Men so neither did God bestow on the Emperour any Authority to commit murder or to Authorise others to do it and if a single Person might do this certainly much more a whole Nation Country or City may justifie such a Resistance where their Lives Liberties and Estates lye at Stake from the Violence or Tyranny of the Supream Powers and therefore I do not see but that I may very well grant the Instance you have put to be conclusive against this Resistance made by St. Peter on our Saviours behalf so that your Instance doth not reach the Case in hand that all Resistance of Supream Powers is unlawful And you your self have already granted as much as I can in Reason desire that no Man wants Authority to defend his Life against Him who hath no Authority to take it away So that unless Princes and their Inferiour Officers receive Authority from God to commit Murders every Man may defend himself against them when they go about to take away their Lives by Violence contrary to Law And therefore I see no Reason from any thing that you have hitherto said to believe that Christ did not allow this Distinction between the Person and Authority of the Prince to be good in some Cases or that tho' his Person should be sacred yet that his Ministers who Act not by his Regal Authority but his Personal and Tyrannical Will may be opposed nor can I find any Consequence from what you say that he is a Mock Prince whose Authority is confined to his own Person who can do nothing more than what he can do with his own Hands Since no Man in his Wits asserts any such thing for I grant that an Absolute Prince hath Power to make Laws and to Command them to be put in Execution which do not contradict the Laws of God and Nature and a Limited Prince hath likewise a Right to Command in all things that do not expresly contradict Gods Natural and reveal'd Laws and also those Positive Laws of his Country which he is not the sole maker of that do not contradict the former and if he can do this I think he is endued with an Authority sufficient to Answer all the Ends of Government without supposing that he must needs have an irresistible Power and without which he cannot Answer those Ends to Murder and Enslave whomsoever he will I grant indeed a Prince is not meerly a Natural but a Political Person but certainly his Personal Authority as King doth not reach as far as his Commission or that he who resists those who Act by his Commission may be said in all Cases to resist his Regal Authority Since at this rate the poor Protestants in Ireland at the beginning of the last Irish Rebellion had been in a very woful Condition if it had happened which was not impossible that King Charles the first should really have granted a Commission to Sir Phelim Onâ—al to destroy them which no man could then certainly tell but that he had since Sir Phelim publickly shewed such a Commission and still asserted the Truth of it till he came upon the Gallows but this is only by the by and in answer to what you have now said to this Matter So that there is no need of supposing what our Saviour thought one way or other in this matter Since he did not rebuke St. Peter for resisting the Inferiour Officers because they offered an unjust and illegal Violence but because he resisted those who acted by a true and Legal Commission from the High-Priest and Sanhedrim who supposed our Saviour to be a false Prophet M. If this Distinction of yours were true it would render the Example of Christ's suffering in obedience to the Supream Powers tho' unjustly yet without Resistance of no effect to us whereas I am firmly perswaded that Christ took such a mean and suffering a Person upon him
seizing their Estates as the French King hath exercised upon his Protestant Subjects Can any reasonable Man believe that we lye under the same Obligation thus to suffer in a Country where the People are all Christians as we were if we had happened to be converted in a Country where almost all or the greater part of them were Mahometans or Heathens and where the Mahometan or Pagan Religion hath been for many Ages the Established Religion of that Nation and Government For in our Case there is no farther occasion to bear witness to the Truth by patient Suffering for it Nor yet of Propagating it by our Martyrdom since all the People amongst whom we live are sufficiently convinced of the Truth of it Nor can it be reasonable that our Saviour should give up whole Nations to be thus destroyed at the Will of one or a few Men only to do that of which there is no need For then Iesus Christ had delivered us up to be meer Slaves and Vassals to the Will and Humour of every wicked Tyrant which you seem to disapprove without performing any of those great Ends for which He at first enjoyned this Submission And though I grant that the Afflictions and Sufferings of Christians on the Account of Religion are as particularly ordered and determined by God as those of Christ himself yet it is only as they may be subservient to higher Ends viz. The propagation of his Religion and the Good and Peace of Mankind which I think cannot be well promoted by supposing an irresistible Power in the Prince or State of rooting Christianity quite out of a Nation or Country after it is setled by Law and become the National Religion thereof and of inslaving all the People of it when ever he pleases And though I take this to be the true bounds and limits of our Submission to the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion But supposing not granting at present that Christ hath laid any more strict Commands of Submission upon us in those matters yet since he came not into the World to put us into a more miserable Condition in other things than we were before his Coming nor to take away or abridge us of any of those Natural or Civil Rights that we enjoy as Men or Subjects therefore if the People had a Right before Christ to defend their Lives Liberties or Properties against the violent Assaults and Oppressions of Princes or States they have still the same Liberty left entire in all Cases which remain not excepted by the express Precepts or Example of Christ since it is a general rule in all positive Laws that whatever is not excepted or altered by a subsequent Law remains the same as it was before in all other Cases which are not so particularly excepted and therefore though I should grant that it were now unlawful in any case to resist the supream Powers who persecute or put Men to death for bearing witness to Christ's true Religion yet doth it not therefore follow that it were unlawful to resist in any other Case whatsoever though it were in the defence of our Lives Liberties or Properties since such defence was lawful as I have already proved before Christ's coming and is not expresly forbidden by any Place of Scripture or express Command of Christ or his Apostles And without the Considerations of these great Ends that Jesus Christ had to enjoyn his Followers an absolute Submission to the supream Powers in some Cases tho' not in all were to suppose that instead of a merciful Saviour he had only come into the World to patronize Tyranny and to render the Condition of Mankind much more miserable than it was under the Law of Moses or in the State of Nature and seems to suppose that instead of Commiserating Men's sufferings he only took delight to make them miserable nor will it be any comfort or security to Christians when they are once made Slaves under an Arbitrary Tyrannical Power That they are safe in God's hand and that all the Powers of Mâ—n or Devils can't touch them till God by a Positive Decree appoint and order their Sufferings For if this were a good Argument against all Resistance it would be so likewise against resisting Pirates or Robbers since whatever we suffer from them is by God's positive Decree who thus orders all our sufferings even from them and 〈◊〉 I think since men are not now to be saved by Miracles he hath like wise also ordain'd Resistance as the only human means to prevent their Malice and Violence or escape out of their hands when we fall under them nor are the same ends unlawful against any other humane Powers but what God himself hath ordained And therefore it is a very crude Assertion to say that though there could not be more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperours yet than they had no Power against the meanest Christian but by an express Commission from Heaven whereas I never knew as yet and I would be very glad you could shew it me where this express Commission is to be found whereby Princes or other Supream Powers are Authoriz'd to persecute enslave or take away the Lives of the meanest Christians barely for matters of Opinion or faults that do not immediately concern the publick quiet and safety and as you have talk't a great deal of the great security it is to the World that no evil can happen to us but what God permits and that he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wise and good Ends and that God may permit a great many evils to befall us in his Anger and Displeasure and that whatever Evils be appoints for us they are certainly for our good and that therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Non-resistance as some Men imagine because sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it since they shall suffer nothing more or less than what God appoints them to suffer All these Arguments might as well be used for not resisting Pirates or Thieves or not endeavouring to divert or oppose a River that had run beyond its Banks but to let it go where it lists to the destruction of a whole Country because forsooth sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it for they can suffer nothing more nor less than God aâ—points them to suffer indeed a wondrous use of Consolation And therefore unless you can prove that all Tyranny is ordained by God for our good and that therefore we are obliged under pain of everlâ—sting Damnation to submit to it all that you have spoken concerning the Example and sufferings of Christ signifie just nothing so that I think the absurdity still lyes at your door since if Christ has not expresly forbidden all resistance of the unjust violence of Princes as I do not find he has by any of the Texts you have yet brought every man may defend his Life against him who you grant hath no Authority to take it away and as for its
being forbidden by the Laws of our Country I shall answer that when you urge those Laws to me M. I hope I shall be able to prove that by and by but in the mean time give me leave to observe that it seems very strange to me that you should own Christ hath obliged his Disciples to submit without any resistance in some Cases to the Supreme Powers when they persecute them and put them to death for Religion and that they might not take up Arms in their own defence and that of their Religion which is the greatest concern that men ought to have in this World and yet that they might do it for much less considerable Matters viz. their Lives Liberties or Estates which sure ought to be of much less importance than the Glory of God which is chiefly maintained by his true Worship but I see you have found a Salvo for this and will not allow Princes the irresistible Power of Persecution when the Religion is once setled by Law that is when the Christians were strong enough to resist which certainly would be no thanks at all for their Submission since Men who are weak and unable to resist must needs obey and suffer which were matter of force and not of Duty whereas we find by Tertullian and all the Ecclesiastical Historians that though the Christians were strong and numerous enough in the Roman Empire yet they chose rather to dye than to resist as I shall shew you more particularly anon when I come to those Quotations but I will if you please now proceed to the two last Texts I have to cite to you out of St. Paul and St. Peter F. That we may not confound things one with another I pray give me leave now to answer what you have objected against what I said last before you proceed to any fresh places of Scripture for though in the first place I doubt whether the Non-Resistance which Tertullian and other Primitive Fathers so strictly preached up was sounded upon any express Command of our Saviour or his Apostles yet granting at present that Christ and his Apostles enjoyn'd it both by their Example and Precept yet this does not reach the case now before us for there may be very good Reasons why our Saviour might enjoyn an absolute Submission to the 〈◊〉 Powers without any Resistance though they persecute us nay put us to 〈◊〉 for Matters of Religion and yet he may allow us greater Liberty for the defence of our Lives Liberties and Estates when assaulted by the unjust violence of the supreme Powers For First our Saviour ordaineth his Religion to be suitable to his Person viz. a meek humble Suffering Messiah to be an Example of a meek and suffering Religion Secondly Religion is a thing that no Power in the World can take from us Persecution indeed may encrease it and render it more fervent but can never diminish it if it be real And God hath expresly promis'd so great a Reward in another Life for our sufferings for it in this that it will infinitely outweigh all that ever we can suffer on that Account and Lastly our Saviour Christ was pleased to ordain his Doctrine to be propagated by Miracles and Sufferings to distinguish it from all the false Religions that had been in the World before his or that should be set up in opposition to it afterwards since neither the Pagan nor Mahometan Superstitions nor yet the Iewish Religion can shew the like to subsist nay encrease for above three hundred years under such great and cruel Persecutions nor yet is the Glory of God at all diminish'd but rather encreas'd under Persecution since none are then firm to it but such as are really perswaded of its Truth and that they ought to suffer the worst that can befall them rather than forsake it And certainly nothing can tend more to the Glory of God than to see it subsist and encrease under a cruel and bloody Persecution nor is it the same reason that we should suffer Persecution after Religion is become the setled Constitution of a Nation because then every man hath the same Right to it as he hath to his Property or Freedom And though a man may part with either the one or the other yet is he not obliged to give them up by force and whether he will or no so likewise neither that Right which he hath to enjoy his Religion according to the Laws of his Country And therefore I do not resolve the Obligation to Non-Resistance in matters of Religion into the being the major party in a Kingdom as you suppose for if the Government of England were Popish that is the Legislative part of it and the Major part of the Common People were Protestants perhaps in that Case they were under all the Obligations of enduring Persecution without resistance as they were under the Heathen Emperours but indeed the Primitive Christians were obliged to Non-resistance because they lived under a Government in which Christianity was forbid and Paganism established by Law And though it is true Constantine made several Laws enjoyning the free Exercise of the Christian Religion and forbidding the Heathen Sacrifices and that the Pagan Temples should be shut up yet was not the Christian Religion for all that the sole Religion of the State the Senators of Rome and the Major part of the Common People continuing Pagans still So that it seems the Christian Religion was all this while rather established together with Heathenism than that this was wholly forbid since all Civil Offices and Preferments were equally conferred upon Pagans as well as Christians if they deserved them and therefore it was no hard matter for Iulian the Apostate to revoke so many of those Edicts his Uncle had made in Favour of Christianity and to abrogate those which had been publish't against the publick Sacrifices to the Heathen Gods and shutting up their Temples so that no wonder if they were now again under the same Obligations to suffer as they were before Constantine's Time since the Christian Religion was never the only One establish't by Law so as to exclude the open Profession of any other till the Time of Theodosius after which as also before according as the Christian Religion encreas'd and as they got greater Priviledges from the Emperours so were they more stout and bold in standing up for and defending the just Rights of their Religion when ever they thought them invaded by the Arian or other Heretical Emperours as I shall shew you by several Instances out of Church-History when we come to it but you may now if you please proceed to the rest of those places of Scripture which you have to produce against this Doctrine of Resistance in those Cases I have put M. I have many things still to object against your last Discourse but since it grows late I shall now continue my self to the Doctrine of the Apostles concerning Non-resistance not as if the Authority and Example of
for the Person endued with this Authority I have also shewn you that when they degenerate into intolerable Tyrants they lose their Character and may be resisted as well as Madmen and Fools So much in respect of the Powers themselves and now to come to the People I think I have given very good Reasons already why a whole People or Nation or the Major part thereof may have a Right to resist the Supream Powers and yet that I need not allow particular private Persons the same Liberty and one great Reason is because they cannot and the other because they ought not to do it The first you your self do acknowledge since you say A private Person when he makes such Resistance doth it at his own peril when he hath only his own single self to oppose against his Prince And that single Persons don't use to resist nor is there any great Danger to the publick if they do to which I shall likewise add a much better Reason which I have also given you before why private Subjects ought not in a Civil State to make publick disturbances to avoid any Violence that may be done to their Particular Persons or Estates because every private Subject ought to prefer the Peace and Happiness of the Common-wealth whereof he is a Member before his own private Interest which being a Dictate of the Law of Nature or Right Reason cannot extend to the whole Nation or Civil Society Since it is as much against the Law of Nature for that to be destroyed beggar'd and enslaved as it is that God should ordain all Mankind to be so And therefore our Saviour and St. Paul never intending to alter any of those great Laws of Nature it cannot be believed that they would tye Mankind to such strict and severe Rules of Non-Resistance and Subjection as should expose them to Beggary and Slavery and Ruine with all the Miseries of this Life Nor do I find that our Saviour or his Apostles have either promised Eternal Life for such slavish Subjection nor threatned Damnation for such Resistance M. To answer what you have now said I must in the first place take notice that tho' I grant St. Chrysostome for fear of making Tyrants and wicked Princes to be ordained by God gives that Interpretation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have now done yet he owns the Doctrine of Non-Resistance because the Power is from God as you may here see in these Quotations out of him which the Learned Primate hath made use of in the second part of his Treatise of the Power of the Prince which you may if you please read with me and compare the Greek in the Margin For it is the pleasure of God that the Magistrate whom he hath stamped with his own Image should have also his own Power And he that obeyeth not him makes War in a sort with God who hath appointed these things Let us not therefore invert this Order nor Fight with God demonstrating by our deeds that saying of the Apostle Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God So likewise in another place If we reverence and fear those Magistrates that are elected by the King altho' they be Wicked altho' they be Thieves altho' they be Robbers altho' they be unjust or whatever they be not despising them for their wickedness but standing in awe of them for the Dignity of them that did Elect them much more ought we thus to do in the Case of God But it is no matter in what Sense this or any other Father takes these Words so long as the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is secure But it seems very strange that you cannot find that our Saviour and his Apostles have neither promised Eternal Life for slavish Subjection nor threatned Damnation for Resistance for as sure as the Words are that they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation so sure it will likewise follow that they that do the Contrary and are Patiently Subject shall receive Eternal Life I beg your pardon for this Interruption therefore pray go on with the rest of your reply And let me see how you can avoid Damnation if the Words of the Apostle are true F. The Question is still the same as it was before notwithstanding what you have now said for it is not whether some Resistance be not unlawful but whether all Resistance whatsoever be that Resistance forbidden by the Apostle And to let you see that you do not put such a strict Interpretation upon other places of Scripture pray tell me the Reason why when our Saviour expresly commands us Not to resist the Evil that is the Evil Doer but whosoever shall smite thee on thy Right check turn to him the other also And if any Man will sue thee at the Law and take away thy coat let him have thy Cloak also And whosoever shall compel thee to go a 〈◊〉 go with him twain Give to him that asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away Or yet those more severe commands of pulling out the Right Eye and cutting off the Right Hand if they offend us of making our selves Eunuch◠for the Kingdom of Heavens sake and that be that can receive it let him receive it What is the Reason I say why those places of Scripture which taken literally are as strict as this you now quote That they that resist shall receive Damnation yet that most of the Fathers as well as the more modern Commentators put a Figurative and not a Literal Sense upon these Texts pray tell me your Reason why they do so M. I think the Reason is very plain because to understand them in a literal Sense were utterly unpracticable and contradictory to the common Sense and Notions of Mankind and those Natural Dictates of self Preservation which St. Paul approves of when he says No man yet hated his own Flesh and it was altogether unsuitable to the Doctrine of Christ which was intended for the perfection of human Nature that is of Men's Souls and natural Reasons and for the Quiet and Happiness not Hurt and Destruction of their Bodies F. I grant your Reasons are very good and self-evident but pray tell me is it not as much against the Common Sense and Notions of Mankind that God should give any Civil Soveraign an Arbitrary Irresistible Power to Murder Destroy and Ruine their People if they should think fit so to do or that Iesus Christ who you say came into the World for the Perfection of our Human Nature and not for the Destruction of our Bodies should give the Supream Powers an Authority to do the same things with Murderers and Thieves and that it was unlawful for men to defend themselves against their Violence if they could So that I can see no Reason why this Precept against Non-Resistance may not be taken in a Limited or Rational Sense as well as Swear not at all which tho'
Sculpture which takes it quite away I think I may very well maintain that it is still left entire to us and is not abrogated by the Law of the Gospel and that it was lawful before our Saviour's coming into the World I have proved by those defensive Arms made use of by David and the Maccabers And as for the Testimonies of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Christians of which the Reverend Primate hath made so ample a Collection in that Treatise you know shew me I thank you for your kind offer of it but I do not now need it for since I began to consider this Controversie with you I have carefully read over that Treatise and I cannot find that this vast Collection out of Prophane as well as Ecclesiastical Writers will prove any more than those Principles which I own to be true and yet will not impugne this Principle I here defend In the first part of this Discourse it is proved by Scripture as well as other Testimonies that the Authority of all Soveraign Powers is from God which I also allow yet doth it not hinder but that the Consent and Submission of the People is a necessary means or Condition of conveying this Authority when God doth not please to make or Nominate Kings himself 2 dly That the Persons as well as Power of Soveraign tho' wicked Princes is also Sacred and Irresistible yet this is to be understood whilst they continue to act towards their whole People as the Ordinance of God and by vertue of that Divine Commission which they have received from him In the second Part of this Discourse it is proved from Scripture Testimonies of the Fathers and other Authors that particular Subjects are bound to obey the Supream Powers in all lawful and indifferent things or else to submit and suffer the punishment in case of their unlawful Laws or Commands As also to bear with any Violence and Injury that may be offered to them rather than to disturb the publick Peace and Civil Government of the Common wealth 2 ly That in the time of the Primitive Church and before the Christian Religion was settled By Law and become part of the Civil Constitution of whole Kingdoms and States It was unlawful to Resist the Supream Powers in case of Persecution tho' to death it self for the Testimony of Christian Religion which I have also allowed through this whole Conversation Yet none of these Quotations as I can see do reach the matter in Controversie between us and assert it expresly to be absolutely unlawful for the whole People of any Kingdom or Nation to make use of defensive Arms and Resist the Intolerable Violence and Tyranny of the Supream Powers if they shall happen to make War upon their People and go about to take away and subvert the main Ends of all Government viz. the Preservation of Mens Lives Liberties and Civil Properties Neither do they any where assert that in limited oâ— mixt Governments such as most of those now in Europe where the People by the fundamental Constitutions of the Government or the aster Concessions of Princes restraining their own absolute Power enjoy divers Priviledges and Liberties unknown to those who live under absolute Monarchies That the People may not upon the manifest Invasion of such Legal Right by force Resist and defend themselves and their just Right against the violent Invasion of the Prince M. I cannot deny but you have fairly enough represented the Chief Heads or Principles which the Reverend Primate â—ndertakes to prove in this Excellent Treatise And I think you have your self granted enough to confute all you have already said For in the first place if it be unlawful for every particular private Subject to Resist the Supream Powers it will likewise follow that it will be also unlawful for a whole Nation For a whole Nation is only a Systeme or Collection of particular Persons and Universals have no real Being in Nature but only in our Ideas So that if it be unlawful for every particular Person to Resist and defend himself in case he is injured and opprest it must be also unlawful for a whole People which consists of individuals to make such Resistance and it is a Rule in Logick that nothing can be affirmed of Individuals which may not also be affirmed of the whole Species So likewise if you grant That the Primitive Christians ought not to have Resisted the Supream Powers in case of Persecution for Religion I think it will likewise as well prove that they ought not to Resist upon any account whatsoever since certainly there cannot be greater Wrongs or Violences committed in the World by Supream Powers than to allow them an Irresistible Power of putting those to death that bear witness to the Truth of the Gospel since a whole Nation may be as well thereby destroyed if they prove firm to the Christian Religion and that the Prince continue obstinately Cruel And you might as well argue that Patient Suffering without Resistance ought not to be exercised in this Case because it is destructive to Mankind and the Quiet of a Civil Society as to argue from the same Reason that a whole Nation is not obliged to suffer without any Resistance when their Lives Liberties and Properties are invaded by the Supream Powers So that if the Primitive Christians might not Resist the Roman Emperours when they made so great a part of the People and were so vast a multitude in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertuliian as that he tells the Emperour Severâ—â— in his Apology for the Christians to this effect That had they a mind to profess open Hostility and to practice secret Revâ—nge could they want numbers of Men or sorce of Armâ— Are the Moors the Marcomans or the Parthians themselves or any one particular Nation whatsoever more in number than they who are spread oâ—er the whole World They are indeed not of your way and yet they have silled all you have your Cities Islands Castlâ—s Towns Assemblies your very Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Pallace Senate and Place of Judgment Nor need I to mention at large the famous Story of the Thâ—baean Legion who all of them suffered Death rather than they would either Sacrifice to Idols or Resist the Emperour â—s Forces tho' they were between six or seven thousand Men and might have sold their Lives dear enough And if an Emperour may murder so many thousands without any Resistance I see no Reason why he may not put a whole Nation of Christians to death by the same Reason Nor will one of your Reasons which you bring for it signifie any thing that the Christians were to suffer without Resistance beâ—ause Paganism was then the Religion Established by the Law of the Empire for if a Municipal Law as this was ought to be over-ruled by the Natural Law or self-defence when they happen to Clash then the Christians who lived under the Heathen Emperours might
the mentioning of them since I grant that about the End of the Fourth Century when these things happen'd not only the common People but also the Clergy began to grow very corrupt in their Manners And therefore I cannot much value any Precedents that you can bring in that time to justifie Resistance in Christians unless you could have shewn me any before the time of Constantine which I am sure you are not able to do much less any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers which justifieth Resistance of the Supream Powers upon any account whatsoever F. 'T is a very hard matter to satisfie you by Quotations for before the time of Constantine it is evident the Christians were not only weak dispersed and disarmed but had also the Laws of the Empire against them And I have already granted That Self-defence against Persecution upon account of Religion was unlawful but when in the time of Constantine's Son and Successor the People having the Law on their side stood upon their defence against those that would have taken away their Lives as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabitants of Paphlagonia then the Instances come too late and the Age is grown so corrupt that they are no longer Primitive Christians than they observe your Doctrines But as for express Precepts or Testimonies out of the Scriptures and Fathers to justifie Resistance I think it is very needless to bring any for the great Mr. Hooker shews us very well that it is the intent of the Scripture to deliver us all the Credenda and Agenda necessary to Salvation but in other Matters within the compass of our Reason it is enough if we have evident Reason for them Scripturâ non contradicente and if the Scripture doth not forbid such Resistance for Self-defence as I hope I have now proved to be Lawful I do not value whether there be any Express Authority to be quoted out of the Fathers for it or not For whatever the Scripture leaves free I think the Fathers have no Power to forbid M. I see it is to no purpose to argue longer with you from Primitive Examples or Testimonies And therefore I come now to the last thing I proposed which is to shew you that the Doctrine of our Church of England as it is contained in the 39 Articles Canons and Book of Homilies is as expresly for passive Obedience and against All Resistance of the Supream Powâ—rs as the Primitive Church it self And therefore I shall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the VIII For there I begin the Restoration of Religion to its Purity in this Kingdom F. I pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you for I must tell you I will not be concluded by any thing that the King or Church in those times did publish concerning matters of Faith or Practice since unless it were in that one Political rather than Religioâ—s Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Church in all other Speculative and Practical Doctrines was as much infected with Popâ—ry as it was before And therefore if you will have me to be converted by your Authorities I pray begin with the Purer Times of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth M. I shall comply with your desires since you will have it so And therefore I shall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England where in the 37 Article as they were past under Queen Elizabeth Anno 1562 you may find it runs thus The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of all the Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction It is true this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it First Because if the Pope who pretended by a Divine Right had no Power over Kings much less have the People any such Power who pretend to an Inferiour Right that of Compact Secondly Because the Article makes no distinction but excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope And in truth the Plea is the same on either side the Pope says as long as the Prince Governs according to the Laws of God and the Church of which He is the Interpreter so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him and say the People as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land and of the meaning of those Laws they themselves will be the Interpreters so long are they bound to be obedient but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope then he is deservedly say the Romanists excommunicated deposed and murdered and when he usurâ—s upon the Peoples Liberties then he ought to be deposed by the People The Arguments on either side are the same and for the most part the Authorities F. I must confess this is the first time that ever I knew any Man go about to prove Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance out of the 39 Articles and indeed I should have thought you might have deduced any thing else from these Articles as well as that But let us see how what I have saiâ— in this Discourse can come within the Contents of this Article which only says that the King or Queen of England is Supream Governour over all Persons as also in all Causes whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and is not subject to any foreign Iurisdiction from whence you raise this Argument that if the Pope who claims by a Divine Right hath no Power over our Kings much less have the People who can pretend to no such Right as he does but only that by Compact Now pray tell me whether this be conclusive I assert that the People have by the Law of God and Nature a Right to defend themselves against the Supream Powers in case they are violently Assaulted in their Lives Liberties or Estates Now I would very fain have you prove to me how Resistance for Self-defence doth subjâ—ct a Prince to any Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick and whether the People can have no Right to Resist such Violence unless they have also an Authoritative Power over them M. It is not worth while to dispute this any longer with you to so little purpose And therefore I shall come to the Canons of the Church and in particular those of the year 1640 which I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of our Church in this Point where you may see in the first Canon these two plain Propositions among others First That the most Sacred Order of Kings is of Divine Right being the Ordinance of God himself founded in the Prime Laws of Nature and clearly Established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments Secondly For Subjects to bear
and to render Obedience to Governours altho' they be wicked and wrong doers and in no Case to resist and stand against them Subjects are bound to obey them i. e. Governours as Gods Ministers altho' they be evil not only for fear but also for Conscience sake and here good People let us mark diligently that it is not Lawful for Inferiours and Subjects in any Case to resist and stand against the Superiour Powers for St. Paul's words are plain that whoso withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation Our Saviour Christ and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the unfaithful and wicked men in Authority yet we never read that they or any of them caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority we read often that they patiently suffered all Troubles Vexations Slanders Pangs Pains and Death it self obediently without Tumult or Resistance Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore it is not Lawful for their Subjects to withstand them altho' they abuse their Power Let us believe undoubtedly good Christian People that we may not obey Kings if they command us any thing contrary to Gods Commandments in such a Case we ought to say as the Apostle We must rather obey God than Man but nevertheless in that Case we must not in any wise withstand violently or Rebâ—l against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his appointed Officers but we must in such a Case patiently suffer all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God And see part the third of the same Homily Ye have heard before of this Sermon of good order and Obedience manifestly proved both by Scriptures and Examples That all Subjects are bound to obey their Magistrates and for no cause to resist or withstand or rebel or make any Sedition against them yea altho' they be wicked men I could find many more such places in our Homilies but I shall trouble you but with one other Passage out of the second Book of Homilies compiled in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth in which Book the Homily against Willful Rebellion is full to this Purpose In reading the Holy Scriptures we shall find in very many and almost infinite places as well of the Old Testament as of the New that Kings and Princes as well the Evil as the Good do Reign by Gods Ordinance and that Subjects are bound to obey them The farther and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government the greater Plague he is of Gods Wrath and Punishment by God's Justice unto the Country and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governour What shall Subjects do then What a perillous thing were it to commit to Subject 〈◊〉 Iudgment which Prince is wise and Godly and his Govern◠〈◊〉 good and which otherwise as tho' the Foot must judge of the â—ead a◠〈◊〉 very heinous and which must needs breed Rebâ—â—â—â—â—â— and is not â—â—â—â—llion the greatest of all miscâ—iefâ— A Rebel is worse than the 〈◊〉 Princepunc and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been If we will have an Evil Prince when God shall send one taken away and a good one in his Place let us take away our wickedness which provoketh God to place such a one over us Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved Punishment to give them an undiscreet and Evil Prince and also Râ—bel against him and withal against God who for the Punishment of their Sins did give them such a Prince And this Doctrine is more strictly inforced in the second part of that Homily from the Example of King David in his Carriage towards Saul from which it will appear that they did not suppose David to have used so much as defensive Arms against him as you may see by this Passage in it That when for his most painful true and faithful Service King Saul yet rewarded him not only with great unkindness but also sought his Destruction and Death by all means possible David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by flight and hiding himself from the Kings sight From all which Passages out of the Homilies I think we may draw these plain Conclusions 1. That as well Evil as Good Governours are to be obeyed as God's Ordinance 2. That therefore they are not to be resisted for any cause tho' they abuse their Power never so Tyrannically 3. That the People are not to judge when the Prince thus abuses this Power so as thereby to make any disturbance 4. That not only Offensive but also Defensive Arms if made use of against him are utterly unlawful and also against God's express Command F. I grant these Homilies seem to be very strictly penned against all Resistance and ought to be like all discourses of this Nature Positive and General and perhaps if I were to preach a Sermon to the Common People on this Subject it should be much to the same Purpose and yet for all that I might not believe that it was absolutely unlawful for a whole Nation to defend themselves in Case of such extream Violence or Oppression as I have already supposed for when Preachers speak to Vulgar Auditors they are not bound like Casuists to tell them all the reserved Cases in which they may be dispensed with in their Duty lest they might use this Christian Liberty for a Clos't of Maliciousnâ—ss as the Apostle tells us Thus if a good Preacher makes a Sermon against Stealing or Murder he may very justly tell the People aâ— the Authors of these Homilies do that they ought not in any wise or for any Cause to commit Theft or Murder without telling them all those Cases of meer Necessity in which it may be Lawful to make use of the Goods of another and also to commit Homicide as when a Man is forced to take Victuals tho' without the owners consent for meer Preservation of Life or to kill a Thief or any other Man that assaults him to save his own Life So tho' the Authors of these Books of Homilies do say that we may not in any wise and for no Cause withstand Violently or Resist the Supream Powâ—rs but that we must suffer patiently all Wrongs and Injuries referring the Iudgment only to God yet since they have not particularly put the Case as I have now done viz. what is to be done in Case a whole Nation or People are about to be destroyed ruined or enslaved and made Heathens or Papists by the unjust nay illegal Violence of the Supream Powâ—rs we may rationally suppose that since they were good Men and never intended to urge these things further than what the Scripture and Fathers have already done that they never really intended that a
Lords or Peers of Parliament and that the rest being the lesser or lower Tenants in capite sometimes stiled Barones minores were for some time before this summoned by general Writs directed to the Sheriffs or Bayliffs as appears by King Iohn's Magna Charta Now whether these men were ever really Peers or not I have reason to doubt since I do not find but it was they alone who for some years after the Conquest served upon Juries in County Courts and dispatched all the publick business of the Country which was then as at this day a drudgery beneath the Peers to perform and therefore I shall not insist upon it But thus much I think is certain That they were a sort of persons much above any other Lay-men of the Kingdom since they held their Estates immediately from the King and were so considerable as that by the Constitutions of Clarendon they were not to be Excommunicated without the King's leave and so were then in some sort of the same Order ratione Tenurae with the great Barons or Peers being commonly stiled Barones and made up but one Estate or Order of Lay-men in Parliament And from thence I suppose proceeds that common Error of Sir Ed. Coke that the Lords and Commons did anciently sit together and made but one House Now if you have any thing to object against this Notion pray let me hear it F. I think you and I are come pretty near an issue in this question for you confess that these lesser Tenents in capite and whom you comprise under the word Barones were not truly and properly Barons and so far you are in the Right but yet you will have them to be somewhat more than mere Commoners as if there had been some Degree or Order of men in England in those times who were neither Lords nor Commons but an Amphibious Race between both But to prove that they were indeed no more than Commoners and not Lords nor Peeâ—s at all nor equal with them we need go no farther than their way of Trial in cases of Treason or Felony which was by mere Commoners who were not Tenants in capite as well as those that were so that a person who was no Tenant in Capite and might serve upon a Jury of Life and Death upon them and as well as the Dr. in his Answer to Mr. P. as you asserted that they only served in the Country upon all Iuries and that before the time of King Iohn So after all this noise of none but Lords and Tenants in capite appearing for the whole Commons of England we find by your own showing that three parts in four of the Lay Members of that Council were as meer Commoners as our Knights of Shires and Barons of the Five Ports at this day nor can I see any reason why these latter might not be as well comprehended under the Word Barones as the former who were meer Commoners likewise if we consider that it was neither Nobility nor Birth nor the King's Writs of Summons but only the meer Tenure of their Lands that gave them a particular right to a Place in that Assembly in those Ages or if a meer Citizen could get Money enough to purchase such an Estate in capite he was as good a Member of Parllament as the best of them all So that the Question then amounts to no more than this Whether the Commons of England were then represented by Tenants in Capite or by Knights of Shires and others as they are now But since you will have none Commoners but Tenants in capite to have had places therein pray tell me whether you allow that Priviledge to all who held in capite or not M. Yes I allow it to all who held in capite by Knights Service and who also enjoyed a whole Knight's Fee or so much as was sufficient to render them able to sustain the Dignity of that Place not but that the King had also a prerogative of summoning or omitting whom of them he pleased to his Great Council or Parliament till the Less Tenants in capite thinking it a wrong to them it was provided by King Iohn's Charter that all of them should be summoned by one General Writ of Summons directed to the Sheriff But I exclude from this Concil all Tenants by Petit Serjeanty who tho 't is true held of the King in capite yet was it not by Knights Service So likewise I exclude all Cities and Towns tho the Citizens or Burgesses of divers of them held their Lands and Tenements by that Tenure since being neither noble by Blood nor having Estates sufficient to maintain the Port of a Gentleman or Knight they had no Right to appear there in Person among the other Tenants who were owners of one or more Knights Fees Yet do I not affirm that the Commons were not after some sort represented in Parliament by their Superior Lords tho not as Commoners since the Bishops Abbots and other Barons did then make Laws and give Taxes not only for themselves but their Feudatory Tenents also tho of never so great Estates and Tenure in capite was then looked upon as the only true Freehold of the Kingdom and the Tenents by it as the only true Freeholders F. I shall shew you by and by the falsity of this Notion but in the mean time pray tell me when a Great Council or Parliament was called who represented those Persons who you say did not appear there and made General Laws and granted General Taxes for themselves and the whole Kingdom when there was occasion For I see you shut out the greater part even of these your true Freeholders from this Assembly M. As for the Tenents in Petit Serjeanty I at present conceive tho I am not sure of it that many of them might hold Lands and perhaps divers Knights Fees by Grand Serjeanty or Knights Service also since those Estates which were given by the Conqueror to his Servants to be held of him by such and such Petit Services might in process of time fall by Purchase or Descent into the hands of such Great Tenents in capite as had sufficient Estates to maintain that Dignity and as for the rest they might for ought as I know before the Statute de Tallagio non concedendo have been taxed by the Kings Writs according to the proportion of the Knights Fees or parts of Knights Fees which they then held and according to the Rate of the Sums imposed in Parliament either by way of Aids upon every Knights Fee or else by way of Subsidy by so much a yard or Plow Land throughout all England which has been the only way of taxing ever since that of Knights Fees hath been disused F. Then I find after all you have said that scarce half your Tenents in capite had any Votes in Prrliament either by themselves or their Representatives and so having Laws made for them and being taxed at the King's Will were as
England and Scotland there was no difference in Point of Priviledges as to being taxed or having Voices in the great Council of the Kingdom between the higher Nobility such as had the Titles of Dukes Marquesses and Counts and simple Gentlemen whereas in England it has been always otherwise at least since the Conquest and the Earls and Barons had by 〈◊〉 Tenures Places as Lords or Peers in the great Council of the Kingdom and so made a distinct Body from the rest of the People whereas in other Countreys the higher Nobility and Gentry are reckon'd as all one Estate and therefore it was but Reason that the rest of the Inferior Nobility or Gentry should have their Representatives in this great Council or Parliament or otherwise they would have been as very Vassals as to their Estates to the great Barons and Tenants in Capite as the Boors in Germany or the Paisants in France were to their Lords by whom they were taxed aâ— their Pleasures which they never were in England as we can find either from History or Records So that tho I grant that it is the municipal Laws of each Kingdom or Nation that must determine what are the governing part of the People in those Countreys yet tho that was not absolutely the same in all of them as it is in England yet we find it so in the main and the Representatives of the Cities and Towns do sufficiently assert the Right of the Plebians or Common People who make the 3d Estate in those great Councils But I must here except Sweden in which it is certain that the meer Rusticks or Boors had always their own Deputies in their Dyets as well as the Cities and Towns and if Sweden had this priviledge I cannot see why the English Gentry and Yeomanry who make but one body of Commons might not have had the like till you can shew me more sufficient proofs to the contrary M Well Siâ— I shall consider of what you say but since it grows late that we may wind up this Conversation as fast as we can give me leave to tell you that tho' I should admit all that you have hitherto averred for truth and that we should grant the Commons of England to have been as ancient a part of the great Council or Parliaments as any of the other two what is that to the main Point in question between us viz that of Non-resisâ—ance of the King upon any account whatsoever or how can you justsfie those of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of the Church of England for taking up Arms against the King and contributing so much as they have done to the driving him away and in bringing things to this confusion they are now in since let your Constitution of great Councils and Parliaments be never so ancient let us also for once suppose them as you do to have a share in the Legislative Power of the Nation yet how can this authorize them much less any private persons out of Parliament to take up Arms against the King or those commissioned by him since the whole current both of Common as well as Statute-Law runs directly against you and all with one consent assert that the disposal of the Militia or Military Force of the Kingdom has been even so absolutely in the King's power and at his disposal that no man can without being guilty of Treason take up Arms whether offensive or defensive without his Commission to authorize him to do it so that no Government in the World is more averse to all forcible Resistance than our own the King having been even from your time beyond memory so fully possest of the whole Militia or power of raising offensive or defensive Arms in this Kingdom that it is expresly forbid by the Statute of the 7th Ed. I. against coming to Parliaments and Treatises with force of Arms in which the King sets forth That in the last Parliament the Prelates Earls Barons and the Commonalry in Latine Communitas or Body of the Realm have said that to us i e. to the King it belongeth and our part it is through our Royal Seignâ—ury to defend that is in old French to forbid force of Armour and all other force against our Peace at all times when it shall please us and to punish them according to our Laws and Vsages of our Realm and hereunto they are bound to Aid us as their Soveraign Lord as oft as need shall be From whence you may observe that it is the King's Prerogative to forbid all manner of Arms or Armed force within the Realm so that no man can lawfully Arm himself without his Authority And this is further confirm'd by the Statute of 25 Ed. the Third concerning Treasons wherein it is declared without any excepted Cases to the contrary That to Levy War against our Lord the King in this Realm or to be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm giving them Aid or Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere is Treason And Sir Edward Coke upon this Statute saith thus That this was High Treason before by the Common Law for no Subject can Levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King and if any man Levy War to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prisons to remove wicked Councellors or against any Statute or to any other End pretending Reformation on their own heads without Warrant this is Levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority From which Statute as also from your own Oracles Sir Ed. Coke 's Interpretation of it you may observe that it is not only Treasâ—n to make War against the King's Person but to take Arms to make any Reformation or Alteration in Church or State without the King's Authority nor can any Subject of England justifie the taking Arms upon any account whatsoever unless it be by the King's Commission and therefore all the Judges of England in the Case of Dr. Story who was Executed for Treason in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth did with one consent agree that the very Consultation concerning making War against the Queen shall be interpreted a making War against her Person and supposes a design against her Life So that nothing seems plainer to me than that by the Ancient as well as Modern Laws of England all defensive as well as offensive Arms are expresly forbidden and condemned F. I think I shall be able to make out notwithstanding what you have now said that all Resistance of the King or those commissioned by â—im is so far from being Treason as you suppose that it is every mans duty to oppose him in case he goes about to set up instead of a Legal Monarchy a Tyrannical Arbitrary Power in this Nation since this is but to preserve the Original Constitution of Parliaments which in some cases cannot be maintained without such a Resistance be allowed But to proceed to the Authorities you bring from our Statutes as for the first you urge
any Legal Power all which could never have happened had not that War been not only begun but continued to the very last by a Standing Army which could give what Laws they pleased even to those that pretended to command them So that why the Abuse of this Right once in a Thousand years should be made any just Argument against the ever using it at all I can see no reason in the World for it As to the rest of your Discourse against making any War about Religion that is also as fallacious for tho' I grant that true Religion is not to be propagated yet I think it may lawfully be defended by the Sword especially where it is the received Establish'd Religion of a Nation or else the defence of Religion against Infidels would be no Argument at all to fight against a Turkish or Popish Prince that unjustly invaded us For tho' it is true that Religion cannot be taken away from any Man without his consent yet a Man may be taken from his Religion and when the Professors are destroyed either by Martyrdom or violent Persecution as bad or worse than death what will become of the Church and Religion Establisht by Law when all the Persons that constitute that Church are driven away destroyed or made to renounce it And for this we need go no farther than over the Water to our next Neighbour It is likewise as fallacious what 〈◊〉 urge of the great Corruption of Manners by Civil Wars which if it be any Argument at all is so against all Standing Armies whatever whether raised by lawful or unlawful Powers And I think there was much more debauchery in the King 's late Camp at Hounslow-heath as also in all places where they quartered than was lately at York or Nottingham among those that took up Arms in defence of their Religion or Civil Liberties unjustly invaded by the King and his Ministers nor does it always happen that Armies raised for defence of Religion and Civil Liberty must prove debaucht since we may remember that the Parliament Army to its praise be it spoken was infinitely more sober and outwardly religious than the King 's but if you will say that this proceeded from their Principles as well as good Discipline I know no reason why Men who fight in defence of their Religion and Civil Liberties may not upon Church of England Principles as to Church-Government and Common-Prayer and also by a strict Discipline be as little debaucht as any Standing Armies the most lawful Monarch can maintain who if they lye idle as ours have done all this King's Reign till now of late are more likely to fall into all the wickedness that attend a loose Discipline and want of Imployment and consequently may also corrupt the Places where they Quarter by their ill example M. I shall not longer argue this point since I see it is to no purpose But you have not yet told me what these fundamental Rights and Liberties are that you suppose the People may take up Arms to defend nor yet what number of the Nation may thus judge for themselves and take up Arms when they please for it may so happen that the whole Nation may be divided as to their opinions concerning these things And the South part of England for example may think their Religion and Liberties in great danger and that it is very necessary to take up Arms for it when the North parts are not under those apprehensions but lye still as was lately seen in the riseings for the Prince of Orange F. As to the first of these queries I think I can easily give you satisfaction and such as you can have nothing material to reply to And as for the other though I do not say I can give you such an answer as will bear no exception or reply yet I doubt not but it will be that which may very well be defended and may serve to satisfie any indifferent and unprejudiced person And which if not allowed will draw much worse consequences along with it And therefore as for the just Rights and Liberties we contend for they are only such as are contained in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right and are no more than the immemorial Rights and Liberties of this Kingdom and that first In respect of the safety of mens lives and the liberties of their persons aly The security of their Estates and Civil Properties And 3ly The enjoyment of their Religion as it is established by the common consent of the whole Nation All which I will reduce to these plain Propositions 1. That no Freeman of England ought to be imprisoned or arrested contrary to Law without specifying the cause of his commitment in the warrant or mittimus whereby he is sent to prison And he ought not to be sent out of the body of the Country or Jurisdiction where the crime was supposed to be committed unless he be removed by due course of Law neither ought he by the Law of England to be detained in Prison without Trial only for a punishment but ought to be Tried the next Assizes or Goal-delivery or within some reasonable time to be allowed of by the Court. And this was Common-Law many Ages before the Act of Habeas Corpus made in the 31st of King Charles the Second which does but ascertain that Law concerning bailing men for all manner of Crimes in case no Prosecution come in against them much less can the King or any Court below the whole Parliament banish any man the Kingdom in any case unless by some known Law already made whereby he is bound to abjure it upon a lawful Trial by his Peers and conviction by his own Confession 2. Nor can the King nor any Courts of Justice condemn a man to loss of Life or Members without due Trial by his Peers and Legal Judgment given thereupon And for proof of this I need go no farther than Magna Charta and the Petition of Right which are both but declaratory of the Common-Law of England◠see therefore Magna Charta cap. 29. Whereby it is declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken and imprisoned or be disseised of his freehold or Liberties or his free customs or be Outlawed or exiled or in any manner destroyed but by the lawful Judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the land which is also farther confirmed and explained by these Statutes viz. the 37 38 42. of Edward III. and 17. of Richard the II. all which are summed up and more particularly declared against contrary to the fundamental Laws of the land in the Petition of Right exhibited to King Charles the I. in Parliament in the thirtieth of his Reign wherein the late imprisonment of the Kings Subjects without any cause shewed and the denial of Habeas Corpus are expresly resented as also putting Souldiers and Mariners to death by Martial Law in time of peace And the King's answer to this Petition is remarkable
place as to the dispensing Power which the King has lately assumed to himself in matters of Religion and thereby putting into Offices and Commands persons uncapable by Law of bearing them without taking the Test as I shall not now dispute the Legality or Illegality of the Kings Declaration concerning it so as to that part of it that concerns Liberty of Conscience or dispensing with the Papists and Dissenters to meet in Assemblies for their Religious Worship notwithstanding all the Acts made against Mass and Conventicles it was no more than what King Charles the IId had done before with the Advice of his Privy-Council in which if it had been Rebellion to have opposed him sure it is the same crime in the Reign of his Brother 2. As for the Commission for causes Ecclesiastical F. Since I foresee your discourse upon this Subject is like to be long and to consist of many more heads than I doubt my memory will serve to bear away pray give me leave to answer all your instances one after another as you propose them First then as to the late Declaration concerning the Dispensing Power it was so far from being done by Law or so much as the Colour of it that besides its being against divers express Acts of Parliament which tye up the Kings hands from dispensing with the Act against publick Mass and Conventicles as also that disable all Persons whatever to act in any publick Imployments till they have taken the Test appointed by the said Act in which all non obstances are expresly barred But this Declaration was never so much as shewn to the Privy Council till it was ready to be published and then indeed the King caused it to be read in Council declaring that he would have it issued forth tho' without ever Putting it to the Vote or so much as asking the consents of the Privy Councellours there present though I grant the Title of it sets forth that it was done by his Majesty in Council to impose upon the Nation that stale cheat whereby this King as well as the last would have had us believe that their Declarations had been issued by the consent of the Council when God knows there was no such thing And as for any judgment or opinion of the Judges to support it and make it pass by colour of Law it was never as I can hear of so much as propos'd to them in their judicial capacities though perhaps it might be propos'd to the Lord Chancellor and some of the Judges who were of the Cabal which is nothing to the purpose all that I ever heard to have been brought judicially before them was the Case of Sir Edward Hales taking a Commission for a Collonel of a Regiment after he had openly declared himself a Papist in which great point though I grant the Major part of the Judges gave their opinion for the dispensing Power yet was it only in the case of Military commissions as several of them afterwards declared and not of all sorts of Imployments as well Civil as Military much less for Popish heads of Colledges Parsons and Bishops to hold their Livings Headships and Bishopricks if they pleased to turn to the Romish Religion or that the King should please to bestow them upon Popish Priests it would have been as legal in the one case as in the other Since as for Popish Heads of Colledges and Parsons we have had too many instances of it and if we had none for Bishops we must thank either the constancy of most or the timorousness of some of them if they have not openly declared for the Romish Religion and yet might have kept their Bishopricks notwithstanding but I do not at all doubt but that such a general dispensation for professed Papists to take and hold all sorts of Offices and places of Trust not only Military but Ecclesiastical and Civil would have in a little time brought all Offices and Imployments into their hands Nor is this dispensing power in matters of Religion the sole thing aimed at by this Declaration as appears by the very words and whole purport of it which is not confined to matters of Religion only but claims an unlimited power of dispensing with all sorts of Statutes in all cases whatever none excepted and if so pray tell me what Magna Charta or the Statute de Tallagio non concidendo or any other Law will signifie whenever the King pleases to dispense with them either as to raising Money or taking away mens Lives or Liberties or Estates contrary to Law nay the Papists already give out and that in Print that all Laws for taking away Religious Orders and Suppressures of Monasteries are against Magna Charta by which holy Church that is the Popish Religion then in being is to injoy all her ancient Rights and Liberties and the Abbots and Priors do thereby as well as the Bishops and Lay Lords reserve to themselves all their Ancient Rights and free Customs now whether this unbounded Prerogative would not quickly have destroyed not only the Ecclesiastical but Civil constitution of this Kingdom as they now stand establisht by Law and would have soon introduced both Popery and Arbitrary Government on this Nation I leave it to your self or any indifferent person to consider And though I do not say that the bare giving of Papists or Protestant Dissenters a Liberty of Religious Meetings or Assemblies for Mass or Preaching is an infringment of the free exercise of our Religion establisht by Law yet pray take one thing along with you which is a matter of great moment both to the Dissenters and to our selves that if the King can thus by his Prerogative give both Papists and Fanaticks a Liberty to meet publickly contrary to Law let the latter look to it for he may by the same Prerogative whenever he pleases dispense only with the Papists and keep the Laws still on foot against the Dissenters nay he may by the same unbounded Prerogative dispense with all the Laws for the publick exercise of our Religion and under pretence of dispensing with them only in some particular cases shut up our Church Doors one after another beginning with the Cathedrals and so proceeding by degrees to Parish Churches and though I grant King Charles the IId did assume a power of dispensing with all Statutes concerning Religious Meetings contrary to Law yet the Nation had not then any sufficient reason to rise in Arms against this Declaration since it did not extend the Kings Prerogative beyond those Acts concerning Religious Worship and farther the Nation was not out of all hopes of having it redressed by the next Parliament and so was not in that desperate condition in which it was lately before the Prince of Oranges coming over And you may remember that the Late King upon the joint Address of the Lords and Commons against that Declaration was forced to call it in and cancel it which certainly ought to have been better considered
open to him was too timorous then to have put in any Magistrates into Corporations but such as were for the Protestant Religion as it stands by Law establisht and such however angry they might be with those they call'd Whigs in respect of their opposing the Dukes succession to the Crown yet I believe most of them would never have given up the freedom of Elections of Parliament men or have done any thing to bring in Popery among us so that as long as things remained in this State there were some hopes still lest of a redress of our grievances whenever a Parliament had met and that the Nation was grown more cool and had come to it self again after those heats which had risen in the late Parliaments about the succession and other things whereas now the case was far otherwise in this Kings Reign wherein we found not only our Religion but the fundamental Rights and Priviledges of the Nation struck at by the Kings dispensing power and the Arbitrary proceedings of the Judges and not only the freedom of Elections of Knights of Shires but of Cittizens and Burgesses endeavour'd to be taken from us either by threatning the Electors or else by open force as I shall prove by and by when I shall have occasion to speak farther upon that head so that unless a great part of the Nation had declared for the Prince of Orange he had been repuls'd with shame and ruine and our Chains tyed faster upon us than ever they were before M. I shall forbear replying further to what you have now said till I come to conclude but in the mean time I cannot omit another material grievance set down in the Princes Declaration viz. the turning out and disarming the English Protestant Magistrates Officers and Souldiers in Ireland and putting of Irish Papists in their Rooms as also the late Declaration of Indulgence in Scotland but as I will not defend the Justice or Prudence of those Councils so I think none of them could give any sufficient cause for the people of this Kingdom to rise in Arms for sure it is enough if not too much for them to concern themselves with the grievances and miscarriages of their own Country without taking upon them to take up Arms to reform those of their Neighbours since they are not only ignorant of the Laws and Constitutions of those Kingdoms but may also mistake the true reasons and grounds on which those alterations were made F. I see you can as little defend what has been illegally acted in Scotland as in Ireland only you would sain put me off by telling me that the people of this Nation have nothing to do to take notice of what is done in other Kingdoms and you may as well tell me that a man ought not to take any warning as to defend himself against Thieves though he see 's another man robb'd by them before his Eyes or that the Protestants of England should not take warning by the sad example of those in France from ever suffering a Popish King from having the same power here as the French King has in France for fear of the like fatal effects since I never found Papists give Protestants the least forbearance or shew them any mercy longer than whilst it was not in their Power to hurt them But to come to the matter in hand we cannot but concern our selves with what has been so lately done in Scotland and Ireland for the introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government in those Kingdoms since the latter is notoriously known to be govern'd by the same Laws as England and it is as much against the Laws of that Kingdom as it is of ours for the Irish Papists to be put in Arms and the Protestant Militia disarmed and for Popish Judges and Justices of Peace to be put in Commission as hath been practised under the Government of the Lord Tyrconnel and if English Protestants in Ireland cannot enjoy their Estates and Liberties without being turned out of them by the Papists how could we in England expect better treatment whenever they shall think themselves strong enough and as for Scotland tho' it be not wholy governed by the same Laws as England yet the fundamental constitution of the Government is the same in both Kingdoms and the King can no more make abrogate or dispense with Laws in Scotland without the Parliament than he can here and therefore for the King not only to issue out such a Declaration of Indulgence and suspension of all the Penal Laws in Scotland against Papists but also therein to declare that he expected an obedience to all his commands without reserve whether legal or not was so bold a stroke that we could not but expect the like in England tho' his Majesty thought it not fit at present to discover his Mind so plainly to us M. I shall not any longer dispute these points with you but own that the abuses you mention were indeed of great concern both to the Protestant Religion and our Civil Liberties yet however besides the Laws of the Land which I still suppose do expresly forbid all resistance of the King upon any account whatsoever I think there ought to have been no such thing done by any Subject of this Nation even upon your own principles which seem not to allow of such resistance but in case of an actual and violent assault upon mens Religion Lives and Properties and that by open force of Armes now I desire you to shew me whom it is that the King has ever yet Dragoon'd or persecuted till they would become of his Religion or whose Life his Majesty hath taken away even of the most notorious Traytors but by due Trial and course of Law nay he has pardon'd divers several after they were condemn'd meerly because he was inform'd they were not really guilty of the Crimes whereof they stood Condemn'd and as for mens civil properties I defie you to shew me any persons Estate that has been taken from him without due course of Law or any Taxes that have been Assessed upon the Nation but what have been granted by Parliament or else raised by the opinion of the Judges by whom if his Majesty hath been misinform'd they only ought to answer for it in the next Parliament who are the only proper Judges of their Miscarriages without having any course to Force which the Laws of this Kingdom so much abhor and therefore make the worst of it you can all these Greivances already mentioned were no more than some breaches upon the outward Splendour of our Church Religion or some of our civil liberties whilst the main Essential parts of both continu'd untouch'd since God be thanked we have hitherto enjoy'd the Free publick profession of our Religion together with our lives Liberties and Estates in perfect peace and undisturb'd by any outward Force or Violence from the King or any Commission'd by him and as for those Grievances you mention viz. The turning
of this necessity as certainly he is in the intervals of Parliament it can never be supposed that the first Prince or his Successors that first parted with these Priviledges to the People ever intended to be so straitly tied to them as that in no case whatever tho' never so pressing they should not depart from them much less that he should forfeit his Crown if he should wholly break them nay should persist so to do and resolve to turn this limited into an absolute despotick Monarchy since the observation of these Laws being but concessions of his own or his Predecessors can never be looked upon as conditions of his holding the Crown nor of the Subjects Allegiance to it there being as you your self confess no such clause exprest in either part neither in the Kings Coronation Oath nor yet in their Allegiance to him as you your self cannot but acknowledge and tho' it is true the King swears at his Coronation to keep and maintain the Laws yet Grotius tells us Lib. 1. cap. 3. that an Empire does not cease to be Absolute altho' he who is to rule promise some things to God or to his Subjects even such which may appertain to the manner of the Empire and that not only concerning the observation of the natural or divine Law but of certain Rules to which without a promise he were not obliged So that in all Promises of this kind the manner of the obligation is not reciprocal or of the same sort on both sides as for example it is only moral in respect of the King and it is lefâ— wholly to God to judge between the King and his Subjects and to punish him when he breaks his part but to the King as God's Lieutenant on Earth it belongs not only to judge of his Subjects breach of their Oath and Contract but also to punish them for so doing and compel them to the performance of it and of this Judgment are all the Modern Civilians as for Bodin I have given you his opinion in the chapter I last cited concerning this matter and he as well as Grotius is clearly of opinion that Absolute Monarchs such as he reckons the King of England to be are not to be called in question or destroyed let their breach of Laws and Tyranny be never so notorious much less can they forfeit their Royal Dignity for such male-administration and tho' Grotius is of opinion that in cases of great and evident danger of Life Subjects may have a right of resistance against absolute Princes and those commissioned by them what is this to the case in hand viz. a resistance against an Absolute Monarch for violation of those Priviledges and Liberties that were granted by himself or his Ancestors and without which Subjects may very well live and subsist as we see they do under the most Absolute Despotick Monarchies where they enjoy no such thing tho' perhaps they do not live so well and freely as we do nay Pufendorf the Author you so much make use of in his seventh Book will not allow Subjects to take up Arms or resist Absolute Princes nor for too great cruelty in punishment nor for imposing too immoderate Taxes since the presumption of Justice and necessity for the doing of these things is always on the Princes side nay if his Promises are not kept or priviledges formerly granted are taken away if the Prince be Absolute and will pretend any fault necessity or remarkable benefit thereby to the common-wealth he shall be deemed to have acted by a right of which the faculty of judging is wholly wanting to the Subjects since all Priviledges have this exception unless the welfare or necessity of the Common weal forbid them to be observed F. Since your last Discourse consists of two parts matter of Fact and matter of right deducible from that fact I shall speak to each of them in order first as to the matter of Fact it is a great mistake in you and Dr. Brady to maintain that K. William I. was really a Conqueror and by his Sword without any other Title obtain'd such an entire Victory over K. Harold and the whole English Nation as gave him an Hereditary Right for himself and his Heirs to the Absolute Allegiance of the whole English Nation without any reserve or conditions whatever so that all our Ancient Liberties and Priviledges being thereby lost and forfeited this Nation can claim nothing of that kind but from the grants and concessions of that King or his Successors every one of which Propositions contain so many notorious mistakes in matter of Fact for in the first place King William never claim'd the Crown by Conquest but by the adoption and Testament of King Edward the Confessor and I desie you to shew me any Ancient Law or Charter either of his own or any of his immediate descendants wherein he is stiled Conqueror 't is true in his Charter to the Abby of Westminster he says in one that by the Edge of the Sword he obtain'd the Kingdom by the Conquest of Harold and his accomplices yet does not found his Right in that Victory alone but on the donation of King Edward his Cozen the words are remarkable in ore gladii adeptus sum Regnum Anglorum devicto Haraldo Rege cum suis complicibus qui mihi Regnum divinâ providentiâ destinatum beneficio concessionis Domini Cognati mei gloriosi Regis Edwardi concessum conati sunt auferre And this donation he calls an Hereditary Right in divers other Charters as particularly in one also recorded by inspeximinus beginning thus In nomine Patris Filii spiritus sancti Amâ—n Ego Willielâ—us Rex Anglorum haereditatio Iure factus So likewise his Son K. Henry I. in his Charter to the Abbot of Ely creating him a Bishop calls himself the Son of William the Great not the Conqueror Qui Edwardo Regi Haereditario jure successit in Regnum And in vertue of this Donation he was after his Victory against Harold by publick and full consent of the whole Nation or People of England as also of the Normans he brought with him Elected and Crowned King and at his Coronation took the same Oath at the High-Altar at Westminster which his Predecessors the Saxon Kings had taken before him with this one Clause farther which was very necessary to be done at that time viz. quod aquo Iure Anglos Francos tractaâ—t so that let his Title by Conquest have been what it would it was either by a just right of War to recover his due or by none at all if the former he could only succeed to such Rights as K. Edward the Confessor before exercised and enjoyed since he came hither only to take the Crown that was so bequeathed to him and to hold it under that Title but if he had no Title at all but his Sword he then could obtain no just right to the Crown of England either for himself or
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
since according to your doctrine the bare endeavouring it would be nothing and after he had once brought it to pass it would be then too late to retrieve it But that the King did really endeavour thus to subvert the fundamental constitution appears not only by his closeting and threatning Members to turn them out of their places if they would not submit to his Will in taking off the Penal Laws about Religion whereby all freedom of Voting would have been quite taken away But when the King saw this would not do he then fell a new modelling of Corporations and by bringing Quo Warranto's against their Charters to get it into his own power to nominate or approve of all Mayors Aldermen and Common Council men who in those Corporations having the sole Elections of Parliament men he would thereby have had the naming of them also in his power your next exception is against their declaring him to have broke the Original Contract between the King and the People for that you are not yet persuaded there was any such thing because we cannot shew it you in any Common Law or Statute Book written in express words as for the Statute Law I grant that there is no such express Contract to be found in any Statute yet doth it not therefore follow that there is no such Contract by the Antient Common Law of the Kingdom Now that our Fundamental Laws are not all to be found in writing is no wonder since it is a maxime of our Common Law that it was not a Law because it was Written but it was Written because it was a Law for it was a Law when it was only in the Breast and Heads of the King and People of this Nation without any writing at all and you your self must grant that if the Hereditary Succession to the Crown be a Fundamental Constitution it is notwithstanding no where to be found in Writings as I know of but the contrary asserted by divers Acts of Parliament but that there is such a thing as an Original Contract I shall prove from such a necessary consequence as I think cannot be denied for as that Statute of King Iames. I. sets forth which I have now cited and your self have already acknowledged there are such things as Fundamental Laws that is Laws that are as antient as the constitution of the Government there must have been also an implicit Fundamental Covenant or Contract on the Kings part that he would maintain them without any violation and this is that we mean by an Original Contract and if it were not so it had been the most foolish and unreasonable thing in the World to require every King to swear before he was Crown'd that he would maintain the Rights of the Church and the Antient Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and that this was Antiently looked upon as a renewal of this Original Contract appears by all our antient Historians who till the Reign of King Ed. I. never give the next Heir the Title of King but of Duke of Normandy till he was actually Crown'd and had taken his Coronation Oath and for this I desire you would consult all our antient Histoâ—ians since your Conquest beginning with Inguâ—â— and Eadmerus ending with Thom. Walsingham But as for your exception against his violating of the Fundamental Laws is yet more trivial for you cannot deny that there are such things and if so surely a King may violate them if he pleases and therefore your excuse for the Kings breach of them because they are not to be found together in any one place but are to be pick'd up here and there from Magna Charta and other Statutes makes nothing against the validity or the possibility of his knowing them for as before they were reduced to Writing by those Statutes which only declare and confirm the Antient Common Laws and Liberties of England they existed as I said but now in the Heads and Hearts of the King and People so when divers Kings of England by their Tyrannical and Illegal practices had made divers violations of these Fundamental Rights and Priviledges there then grew a necessity of new granting and confirming those Liberties and consequently of reducing them into Writing which there was not before and that is the true reason why Magna Charta and other Statutes made in the time of Henry the III. Ed. the I. and divers others of their Successors were made either for their explanation or ratification according as occasion requir'd and as several Princes had more or less violated these fundamental Laws of the Government for before they had so done there was no need of the Parliaments making or declaring any law about it But if the King would have but read and considered the Articles exhibited in Parliament against Edward and Richard the II. he might easily have seen the Laws altogether that will make a Prince to be declared by his Subjects to have forfeited his Crown But that King Iames had before his desertion endeavour'd to extirpate the Protestant Religion the Laws and Liberties of the Nation appears by those several Articles the Convention has given us in their late Declaration which they presented to King William upon their declaring him and his Princess K. and Queen of England to which I shall refer you since it is commonly to be had you know it consists in the recital of divers things the violation of which has been always counted in all Kings Reigns a breach of the Original Contract I come now to the last Clause save one you except against viz. That having withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom hath Abdicated the Government Now your main argument against it is that the Kings desertion of the Government being only for fear of his life or of being depos'd from his Royal Dignity could not by his going away be said to Abdicate or renounce the Crown since he went away with an intention to return and repossess it as soon as with safety he might to which before I make any answer I must freely own that were this the case as you have put it I think there would be no great dispute in it since I grant that a King who is thus forc'd to fly for fear of his life ought not to have any such injustice put upon him but if you please better to consider it the case was quite otherwise for I have already proved that when King Iames I. went away he had then an Army about him was free and in his own Pallace and was at that time in actual Treaty with the Prince nor had London nor any considerable strong place in England then surrender'd it self to the Prince so that if there was any necessity for his departure but what he had brought upon himself by his refusing to call a Parliament burning the Writs and sending away the Queen and Child together with the main instrument of Government the Great Seal of England this must certainly be looked upon
Act are declared absolutely void yet the said Lord Chief Justice likewise proves that this Clause of Non-obstante is void and he makes this out not only from constant practice in other Statutes of like nature but also from the opinions of Plowden and the said Lord Cook first as to the Statutes there is a Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. that no man shall be Sheriff for above a year 2. That all Letters Patents made for Years or Lives shall be void 3. That no Non-obstante shall make them good which shews that the Parliament thought the King could otherwise have dispenc'd with this act by a Non obstante there is likewise in this Act a Penalty of 200 l. and the party is also disabled from bearing the Office of Sheriff in any County of England and also every Pardon for such Offence shall be void so that in all respects this Statute answers that of King Charles the II. now in dispute only in this the Penalty to the Prosecutor is higher viz. 500 l. and the disability is not only from holding that Office but any other whatsoever for the future And yet it was resolved by all the Judges of England in the second of Henry the VII in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Kings Power of Dispensing with this Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. that the Kings Dispensation with that Statute was good and so it hath been held ever since for it is very well known that the King hath not only exercised this Prerogative of Dispensing with this Statute for divers Sheriffs holding more than a year but hath also granted this Office for Life aâ— appears by the same case cited by Plowden in his Commentaries between Grendon and the Bishop of Lincoln where he expresly says That notwithstanding this Statute of Henry the VI. the Kings Grant to the Earl of Northumberland to be Sheriff during Life ought to have a Clause of Non-obstante because of the precise words of the Statute before mentioned and with such a Clause of Non-obstante the Patent to the Earl was good But yet my Lord Cook is more express in his opinion concerning these Dispensations for in his twelfth Report he has these words No act can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseparable to his Person but that he may Dispence with it by a Non-obstante as a Sovereign Power to command any of his Subjects to serve him for the publick Weal and this solely and inseparably is annext to his person and this Royal Power cannot be restrained by any Act of Parliament neither in Thesâ— nor in Hypothesi but that the King by his Royal Prerogative may Dispence with it for upon the commandment of the King and obedience of the Subject do's his Government consist and therefore for this reason he allows this Judgment of all the Justices in England in the second of Henry the VII to have been according to Law that Judg'd the Kings Dispensation with this Statute of Henry the VI. to be good and he also instances in another Statute in the fourth of Henry IV. in which it is ordain'd That no Welshman should be Justice Chamberlain c. nor any other Officer whatsoever in any part of Walts notwithstanding any Patent made to the contrary with Clause of Non-obstante licet sit Wallicus natus and yet without question the King may grant those now Offices to Welshmen with a Non obstante and the said Lord Cook in Calvin's case tells us That the same was resolved by all the Judges of England viz. in 2. of Hen. VII that every Subject is by his natural Allegiance bound to serve and obey his sovereign c. and he then proceeds to recite the Statute of the 23. of Henry the VI. and the opinion of the Judges above mentioned and gives us this reason for it for that the act could not barr the King of the service of his Subject which the Law of Nature did give unto him This is there reported as the sense of all the Judges of England in King Iames his time and therefore since this has been ever the opinion of the Judges and a constant Prerogative exercis'd by the King ever since I desire you would shew me any difference why the Kings Dispensation to a Sheriff should be good for the holding of his Office for above a year norwithstanding the Statute of Henry the VI. and yet a Dispensation for the taking or holding any Office or Command Civil or Military without taking the Oaths and Tests appointed by the 25. of Charles the II. should be declar'd a breach of our Fundamental Laws for I can see no manner of difference between them since their preambles set forth the designs of the Law much to the same purpose viz. That of making the Statute of Henry the VI. is the insupportable damage of the King and his People Perjury Man-slaughter and great Oppression and in the Statute of King Charles the II. the mischiefs recited are of a much less nature viz. for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants and quieting the minds of his Majesties good Subjects So that the Subject of neither of these Acts being Mala in se but only Mala prohibita if the King might Dispence with the one he may certainly do as much with the other for the same reasons Therefore if this be so I need not say much against the second Article in the Declaration of the Convention against the Kings proceedings viz. His committing and prosecuting divers worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed Power for if by the opinion of all or most part of the then Judges the Kings Power of Dispensing with this Statute of King Charles the II. was good it was certainly much more lawful in Dispensing with all other Statutes against Papists and Non-conformists since they are no more than bire Penal Statutes without any Clauses of Non-obstante and though I grant that King Charles's Declaration giving a Toleration to Papists and Dissenters by Dispensing with all the Acts against Masses and Conventicles were declared Illegal by the House of Commons in the year 1672. and that the King to get a good lump of Money did recal that Declaration yet was it never declared by him to be Illegal only that it should not be drawn into consequence for the future and you know an Address or Declaration of the House of Commons alone was never looked upon as a Declaration of Parliament and the opinion of the Judges hath ever been that no Statute or Judgment of Parliament can bar the King of his Lawful Prerogatives of which this of Dispensing with such Penal Laws is one so that it was certainly very undutifully done of the Bishops not only to deny distributing his Majesties Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience in their several Diocesses but also to have the confidence to give him a Petition wherein they desir'd
the Nation from his Oppression though the Prince was pleas'd to accept it upon those terms expressed in the late Declaration of the Convention and upon his free promise to preserve preserve our Religion Laws and Liberties which he has since also confirm'd by his Coronation Oath But as to what you say that the Prince made the Kings Army desert him and wrought the People into hatred of his Person by lying Stories and mean Arts is altogether untrue since I know of no Reports he made of the King or his Government but what are in his first Declaration and that is certainly true in every part of it and as has been justified by the express Declaration of the Convention in every particular except that concerning the Prince of Wales which I confess is left still undecided because as I have already proved it is impossible to give any certain judgement in it unless the Witnesses as well as the Infant himself could be brought over hither nor doth the Prince in his said Declaration say any more concerning that business than that there are violent suspicions that the pretended Prince of Wales was not Born of the Queen but for the report of the Secret League with France for the extirpation of the Protestant Religion as there is no such thing in his Highnesses Declaration so the spreading of it cannot be laid to his charge since he never gave it out as I know of yet there are certainly great presumptions and too much cause of suspicion that it may be so as I proved at our last Meeting But though you will not allow the Prince the Title of our Deliverer yet I am sure the greatest part both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England were once of Opinion that King Iames's violations both upon our Religion and Laws were so great that nothing could preserve the Kingdom from a total Subversion in its Establisht Religion and Civil Constitution but his Highnesses coming over and most of the Bishops were of that Opinion who now the Government is setled refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties But to answer what you say that the manner of Henry the IV ths and Henry the VII ths coming to the Crown doth not at all agree with this Case of King William because they claimed by right of blood which you say King William cannot do that is not so in respect of the Queen who has certainly a right to succeed her Father by right of blood in case the Prince off Wales be not the true Son of the Queen and untill he can be proved so we must at present look upon him as if he were not so at all so that the Convention hath done no more in setling the Crown upon the King during his Life than what the Great Council of the Kingdom have frequently done before upon other vacancies of the Throne as I have proved from the Examples of William Rufus and Henry the First King Stephen King Iohn and Henry the Third And it is very hard to suppose the whole Nation to have been guilty of Perjury and Treason upâ—n their Swearing to and Fighting for those Princes after they were so Solemnlâ— Elected Crowned and Invested with the Royal Power But as for Edward III. his first and best Title was from the election of the Great Council of the Kingdom who I doubt not but if they had found him unworthy of the Royal Dignity by reason of folly or madness or Tyrannical Principles would have set him aside and have made his youngâ—â— Brother King a Protector to govern in the King's Name with Royal Power having never been known in England till the Reign of Henry the VI th but as for Henry the IV th notwithstanding his claim by right of Blood I have already proved that the Paâ—liament by their placing him in the Throne did not at all allow it nor is any such Right recited in the Act of the 7 th of Henry the IV th which by the Crown is entail'd upon that King and his four successive Sons And though it is true Henry the Seventh also claim'd the Crown by right of Inheritance in his Speech in Parliament yet they were so far from allowing it that they do not so much as mention it in that Act of Setlement which as I have recited they made of it upon that and the Heirs of his Body And therefore I think I may still maintain that the Convention hath done nothing in the present Setlement of the Crown but what hath been formerly done upon every vacancy of the Throne either by deposition or resignation of the King or Abdication or Forfeiture of the Crown as in the case of King Iames in which the Convention have done no more than exercised that Power which has always been suppos'd to reside in the great Council of the Kingdom of setling the Crown upon such a Prince of the Blood-Royal as they shall think best to deserve it Thus much I have said to preserve the Antient Right of the Great Council of the Nation But to put all this out of dispute I have been credibly inform'd that the Princess of Denmark her self did by some of her Servants in both Houses as well of the Lords as Commons declare upon a great Debate that arose about securing her Highnesses Right to the Crown immediately after her Sister the Queen that her Highness had desired them to assure the Convention that she was willing to acquiesce in whatever they should determine concerning the Succession of the Crown since it might tend to the present setlement and safety of the Nation which I think is a better Cession of her Right to his present Majesty than any you can prove that the Empress Mawd made to her Son Henry the Second or than the Countess of Richmond ever made to her Son Henry the Seventh M. You have often talked of this forfeiture and extravagant Power of your Convention by whom you suppose they are not obliged to place the Crown upon the head of the next Heir by Blood which I shall prove to be a vain Notion for if there be an absolute forfeiture of the Crown the Government would have been absolutely Dissolved for since there is no Legal Government without a King if the Throne were really vacant and that the People might place whom they pleas'd in it yet the Convention can have no Power to do it as their Representatives since upon your suppos'd dissolution of the Original Contract between the King and the People there was an end of all Conventions and Parliaments too And therefore if a King could have been chosen at all it ought to have been by the Votes of the whole body of the Clergy Nobility and Commons in their own single Persons and not by any Council or Convention to represent them since the Laws for restraining the Election of Parliament-men only to Freeholders are upon this suppos'd Dissolution of the Government altogether void and
mistaken in this Great Point and may have also given occasion to divers others of his profession to fall into the same Errour F. I doubt not but my Lord Coke and others of his profession who maintain the same Opinion may very well be defended as well from that Statute as other Authorities but to pass by that at present I shall first discourse with you upon this point of the lawfulness of taking this Oath to their present Majesties King William and Queen Mary and therefore you misunderstand me if you believe that I think this Oath doth require from you the performance of all those duties of Allegiance and Subjection which I my self am oblig'd to who am fully satisfied of their Title and therefore must venture my Life and Fortune in their quarrel to the utmost of my power against all Persons whatsoever but all that I think can be required of you is that whereas King William and Queen Mary are actually in possession of the Regal Power so long as they continue thus possessed of it you may I think Swear that you will be so far true and faithful to them as not to enterprize any thing against them but that you will pay them that obedience and submission which may be lawfully paid to an actual Sovereign not engaging hereby to uphold them in the possession of the Throne against King Iames and without debarring your self from exerting that Allegiance you have sworn to him upon any emergent safe opportunity for the recovery of his Right M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot assent to take this Oath in this low and qualified sence that you would now put upon it since besides the signification of the words themselves I am very well satisfied that the imposers of this Oath do intend something more than a bare negative obedience to the present Power since it is the only Oath which is required from those who take Imployments either Civil or Military and from whom certainly not only a passive Obedience or Submission but also an active obedience and assistance is required in defending the Crown and Dignity of the present King and Queen de facto with their Lives and Fortunes against all Persons whatsoever or else how could the present Government ever trust them and all this cannot be sworn to without a breach of that Oath they had formerly taken to King Iames and therefore if I should take it in this sense as the Oath itself seems to imploy I should be perjur'd besides by these words of being true and faithfull I should look upon my self as oblig'd to reveal all Plots and Conspiracies which I may any ways happen to know of against King William and Queen Mary which I think would be derogatory to my Allegiance to his Majesty since I should thereby discover and accuse such of his good Subjects as endeavour'd to restore him and should thereby hinder him as much as in me lay from being restor'd again to the Throne But if we consider the word Allegiance it is yet more strict and if I should Perform it to King William and Queen Mary according to the true intent and legal sence of that word I think it could no ways consist with that Oath of Allegiance I have already taken since Allegiance is thus explained in the next following words of the Oath I have already taken and him and them viz. the King and his Heirs I will defend to the utmost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignities Now what kind of assistance is here meant by the word defend may be understood from all the Writers of our feudal Laws who expound the jus defensorium by telling us that the word protegere implies a necessity of defending by Arms as due from the Supream Lord or Sovereign and further that Subjects are in the same sence reciprocally bound to defend the Honour and Dignity of their Sovereign and these words Allegiance and the defence that follows it may be likewise understood from our feudal Laws whereby the Vassals were bound by their Oath of Allegiance as also by vertue of the tenure of their Lands to a military defence of their Supream Lord the King from whom all the Lands in England are held and this is according to Glanvil and all our old Lawyers and though I grant that military tenures are all now taken away by a late Statute yet am I still obliged to the like defence of the King and his heirs not only from the words of this Oath but from the municipal Laws of this Kingdom also which oblige all the Subjects that are capable to take up Arms for the King when need shall require Which my be thus further proved first from the Antient Laws of Edward the Confessor and William the Conquerour by both which all the People or Freemen of the Kingdom were to affirm upon their Faith and Oath within the whole Kingdom and without that they will be faithful to to their Sovereign Lord King William and every where preserve his Lands and Honours with all fidelity and with him will defend them against all his Enemies To this succeeded that which the Lord Coke calls legal Ligeance or the Common-Law-Oath of Allegiance which he cites out of Britton who wrote under Edward I. which all the Subjects were oblig'd to take at twelve years of age at the Sheriffs-Court and at the Leete and without the taking of which they had no warrant to abide in the Kingdom and the form of it was this effect You shall Swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and truth and faith shall bear of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or dammage which you shall not defend that is oppose to the utmost of your power And my Lord Coke also here informs us that five things were observed by all the Judges from this Oath in the debate of Calvin's Case First that for the time of its obligation it is indefinite and without limit Secondly two excellent qualities were required that is to be true and faithful Thirdly to whom to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs Fourthly in what manner and saith and troth shall bear of life and member that is untill the letting out the last drop of our dearest heart blood Fifthly where and in what place in all places whatsoever for you shall neither know nor hear of any ill which you shall not defend such is the Ligeance which the Law has prescribed in that antient Oath which is still in force it is neither circumscribed by time nor place it is unconditionate and unreserved it is not a lazy passive Allegiance requiring nothing but pure submission but an active and vigorous Loyalty exacting all that is in the sphere of moral possibility and engaging us to
Act of Parliament and therefore I must still tell you that you go upon a wrong ground when you suppose that there can be now any dispute who is rightful King of England since I have often told you that he can neither abdicate or forfeit his Right to the Crown and that no Parliament whatever much less a Convention could have any power to declare he had abdicated the Government and that thereby the Throne was become vacant for though I grant the judgement of the Estates of the Kingdom when legally assembled ought to be received with great submission and respect yet must it be only in such matters which they have a legal cognizance of and which they are impower'd by the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom to determine but since their Voting him whom you your self cannot deny to have been their lawful King to have abdicated the Throne when indeed he had not and then not only to declare the Throne vacant but also to place those therein whom you your self dare not affirm to be the next Heirs by blood are things quite out of their Element and beyond the Sphere of their Authority and though I grant that they may sometimes judge concerning the Succession of the Crown and who is next heir to it yet is this only to be understood as far as they judge according to the Common Laws of the Succession already laid down at our last Meeting and not when they go quite contrary to them and therefore though I own the Parliament might justly declare Henry the VIth to be an Usurper and consequently might be deposed yet doth it not therefore follow that they had a like right to declare Edward the IVth an Usurper and to pass an Act of Attainder against him as I confess they did after that Prince had held the Crown for ten years together since that was beyond their power to enact or declare by the fundamental constitution of the Government F. I am sorry your answer can afford nothing new but only the repetitions of the same false Principles and Arguments that have been already so often answered in our former Conversations for in the first place I have sufficiently proved that neither the Laws of God nor Nature have ordain'd any such thing as a lineal Succession of Kings or any irresistible or unforfeitable power in them which they can never fall from let them act never so tyrannically for I think I have sufficiently prov'd that not only in absolute Monarchies but also in limited Kingdoms where the King has not the sole Supream power a King may not only be resisted but may be also declar'd to have abdicated or forfeited his right to Govern in case of any apparent obstinate violations of the fundamental Constitution in those great points that make that Government to differ from a despotick Monarchy and that if they had not this right all their liberties will signifie nothing and their Lives Liberties and Estates would lie wholly at the Kings mercy to be invaded and taken away when ever he pleas'd I am forced to repeat this to remind you of the Reasons upon which those Principles are founded and therefore you do but fall into your old mistake when you affirm that by the fundamental constitution of the Government the Great Council of the Nation which was but the same with our late Convention had no power to declare the King to have broken the Original Contract between him and his People Therefore what you say concerning the want of Authority in this Great Council to declare the Throne vacant is altogether precarious unless you could also prove that it is against the fundamental constitution so to do whereas I have so far proved the contrary that the Throne has been declared vacant no less than eight times since the Conquest which makes up almost a third part of the Successions of all the Kings and Queens that have Reigned since that time so that if the custom and practice of Great Councils or Conventions and those not condemn'd by any subsequent Statutes can be the only Rule or Guide for the Consciences of all the Subjects of this Nation we have certainly had that as solemnly declar'd now as in any other Great Council or Convention that has been ever held in this Kingdom but as to what you say concerning the want of power in those Councils to declare or recognize who are the right Heirs to the Crown but not to make them so is very pleasant since that were all one as if two Men who contended for an Estate should bring the matter before the House of Peers and when that was done and the Case solemnly heard by Council on both sides that party who had lost the Cause should declare that this Court tho' the highest in the Kingdom had no power to judge in prejudice of himself who had an undoubted right to the Estate which were only to give the Lords power to give judgment only for one side and why the other Party if the judgment had been given against him should not have made the like Plea I cannot understand So that such a Judgement would be altogether in vain Therefore to apply this to our purpose though the Parliament being prevail'd upon by the strength and faction of the Duke of York did as I granted at our last Meeting declare that his Title could in no wise be defeated yet Henry the VIth being then in the Throne they might have certainly given a contrary judgement if they had pleased and then I suppose the Title of the House of York might have been so defeated as that the Nation had never been troubled with it again and so also when by the power of Edward the IVth a Parliament met and declared him to be lawful King from the time of his Fathers death yet when the said King was driven out of the Kingdom by the Earl of Warwick and King Henry the VIth restored to the Throne a Parliament was summon'd in the 49th of this King wherein Edward the IVth was declared an Usurper and himself attainted and to which Parliament the Duke of Clarence Brother to King Edward the IVth is first Summoned as well as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury with all the other Bishops Temporal Lords and Judges of whom Littleton the Authour of the Book of Tenures was one so likewise upon King Edwards recovery of the Crown the year following King Henry was again deposed and a Parliament called wherein all the Dukes Earls and Barons with the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York and most of the rest of the Bishops Swore to Prince Edward after called Edward the Vth as Right Heir of the Crown Now I desire to know what other Law or Rule there was then for the Subjects Allegiance but the solemn judgement or declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom assembled in Parliament since their Acts and Judgements were in this dispute directly contradictory to each other so that it is evident
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.
them that by shooting they would also call in the Neighbouring Town who might be too strong for all their Fellow Thieves Now if you will but take these honest People of the next Town for such Neighbouring Princes or States who may Joyn in the Assistance of such an Opprest People this Simile will fully answer your Argument of those Neighbouring Princes that may take Part with an Oppressing Tyrant And as for the Consequence of such Assistance on the one side or the other that it may happen to bring them into a worse Condition than they were before viz. a Subjection to Foreigners as I have put the Case it can be no cause to detâ—r the People from Resisting for if they were as I suppose reduc'd to a Condition of slavery before and had lost all their Liberties and Properties how can we Imagine them in a worse Case than they are already And it is all one to such a People whether their own or a strange Prince did Tyrannize over and oppress them Nay were I to take my Choice I had much rather be Tyrannized over and opprest by a Foreigner than from my own Natural Prince since the former conâ—ing in by force and without any precedent Promise or Compact I lye wholly at his Mercy who hath no Obligation upon him I had much rather if I were to be â— slave be so to a Stranger than to my own Father if I were assured that both the one and the other would use me with like severity And to answer your Instance of your Irish King I think that Nation hath been so far from losing any thing by their Subjection to the English Government that they have gained far greater Priviledges and Liberties both for their Persons and Estates than ever they enjoyed under their own Princes So that they are rather the better than the worse by the Change And as for your other Example of Prince Lewis it is uncertain whether the Condition of the English Nation would have been either better or worse under a French King but thus much I am sure of that had King Iohn Proceeded in that Tyrannical Course against his Barons and the rest of his Subjects they could scarce have been in a worse Condition under the French nay the Moors themselves haâ— King Iohn actually surrendered his Crown to the Sarracâ—n Emperour as the Historians of those times relate he offered to do Nor can I be of your Opinion that iâ— had been much better for the Barons and Nobility of this Kingdom never to have stirred or resisted the King at all since if they had not they had never obtained the GREAT CHARTER of our Liberties from him and if they had not as Vigorously defended it when they had once got it I doubt not but the People of England had been long before this time in the same Condition at to their Liberties and Properties as some of our Neighbouring Nations all which is sufficient I think to prove that Resistance in desperate and unavoidable Cases is not attended with those mischiefs and Inconveniencies you suppose M. I shall not say much more in answer to your lost discourse since it would be to little purpose but only take Notice that Similes are not Arguments and therefore your Comparison between Thieves and Honest Men doth not hold as to Princes and Subjects since sure there is a great deal of difference between those that are to be Obeyed as the Ordinance of God and those who are Obliged in Conscience to be subject to them and Thieves who act directly contrary to Gods Will and Honest Men who having no obligation to them may justly resist them So that if that be false the rest of the Comparison will signifie nothing And as for what you say concerning MAGNA CHARTA I think it is not much for its credit to have been extorted by Force and afterwards defended by Rebellion tho' I will not go about to Impeach the Validity of it since so many of our Succeeding Kings have so solemnly and voluntarily confirmed it only pray take notice that it is wholly derived from the Grace and Bounty of our Monarchs and therefore we are not to resist tho' it may happen to be sometimes and in some Particular Cases broken and infringed by the King for some great Occasions or Necessities of which we are not competâ—â—t Iudges But to come to the rest of those evil Consequences that may attend your Doctrine of Resistance I think the Benefits would be much greater to the People by strictly adhering to those Doctrines of Absolute Subjection and Non-resistance than by propagating yours of Rebellion For if the former were constantly taught and inculcated as most beneficial for them and if they were once really persuaded of the Truth of it and would both constantly profess and practise it it would make all Princes much more Gentle and mild to their Subjects than otherwise at some times they are For now they are still fearful that they will take the first opportunity they can to take up Arms against them And upon the least Grievance or Mis-Government to resist their Authority for then Princes not needing to keep any such constant Guards and standing Armies might afford to lay much easier Taxes and impositions upon them for the maintenance and support of the Government than now they do and in short would have much fewer Temptations to Tyranny and Oppression could they be once assured of their Subjects absolute Obedience and Subjection Whereas when they are under those constant fears and suspitions of Insurrections and Rebellions against them upon the least occasion it is no wonder if they are tempted sometimes to abuse this Power for their own Security And therefore we read in our Histories that William the Conquerour never thought himself secure from the English whom he had newly Conquered till such time as he had turned most of the Nobility and Gentry out of their Offices and Estates lest they should have any Power left either in his Life time or after his Death to turn him or his Posterity out of the Throne as they did the Heir of the Danish King Cnute who with his Danes had before Conquered England as King William did afterwards with his Normans So that upon the whole matter it seems to me much more to conduce to the main design of Civil Government viz. The Happiness and Peace of Mankind in General that Princes and other Supream Magistrates should be suffered I will not say authorized by God sometimes to abuse their Power to the general oppression and enslaving of the People without any Resistanâ—e on their side expecting their dâ—liverance WHOLY from him who can bring it about in his good time and by such means as shall seem most meet to him than that Subjects should take upon them to be both Iudges and Executioners too in their own Case and thereby introduce not only all the Mischiefs of Civil War and all those cruel Revenges which the Wrath
of an Incensed Prince may justly inflict upon such Rebels in this Life but also the Wrath of God and those Punishments that he hath denounced in the Holy Scriptures in the Life to come against such Rebellious Subjects as dare resist the Supream Powers ordained by God F. Before I answer the main part of your last discourse give me leave first to justifie my Simile for tho' I grant Similes are no Arguments yet they often serve to expose the absurdity of several things which either the â—alse colours of Eloquence or the too great Authority of learned men might otherwise have hid from our Eyes and therefore if the Supream Powers have no Authority from the Revealed Will of God or the Law of Nature nor by the Municipal Laws of any Countrey to invade their Subjects Lives Liberties or Estates they may be so far compared to Thieves and Robbers when they do nor are such violent Actions of theirs to be submitted to as the Ordinance of God And I suppose you will not deny but that a Prince or State that does thus Acts as directly contrary to Gods Will as Thieves themselves and consequently all honest men or Subjects having so far no obligation to suffer or obey may justly Resist them So that if this be true all the rest of the Comparison currit quatuor pedibus But as for your reflections upon MAGNA CHARTA it is you your self not I that asserted it to have been extorted by force and dâ—fended by Rebellion for it is very well known to those who are at all Conveâ—sant in our English Histories and Laws that there was nothing granted in that CHARTER which was not the Birth-right of the Clergy Nobility and People long before the Conquest and were comprised under the Title of King Edwards Laws and which were after confirmed by William the first as also more expresly by the Grants of his Son Henry the first and King Stephen as appears by their Charters still to be seen And therefore these fundamental Rights and Priviledges were not extorted by force from King Iohn as you suppose The War commencing between him and his Barons was not because he would not grant them fresh Priviledges which they had not before but because he had not kept nor observed the Fundamental Laws of the Land and those Rights and Priviledges which before belonged to the Clergy Nobility and People as well by the Common Law of the Land as the Grants of former Kings And therefore if King Iohn by his apparent breach of them forced the Nobility and People to defend them it was no Rebellion for so doing nor was it ever declared to be so by any Law now extant But to come to the main force of your Argument I confess it were an admirable expedient not only against Rebellion but also the Tyranny of Princes to PREACH that they should not oppress their People nor yet that the People should rebel against them but the preaching of these Doctrines or getting as many as you can to believe them will no more make Princes leave keeping standing Armies or laying great Taxes upon their People than Constant Preaching against Robbery or Murder will take away the necessary use of Gallows out of the Nation Since we know very well that as long as the Corruption of humane Nature continues so long must likewise all Powerful Remedies against it And therefore your Instance of William the Conqueror will signifie very little for I believe had all those learned Divines who have of late so much Written and Preached for Passive Obedience and Non-resistance been then alive and had exerted the utmost of their Reason and Eloquence to prove them necessary nay farther I do not believe tho' all the People of England should have given it under their hands that they would not have Resisted or Rebelled against King William that yet he would have trusted them the more for all that or have kept one Soldier the less for it nor have remitted one Denier of those great Taxes he imposed for he was too cunning and Politick a Prince not to understand humane Nature which cannot willingly endure great and intolerable Slavery and Oppression without Resistance if men are able and therefore he very well knew that after the forcible taking away of so many of the English Nobilities Estates there was no way but force to keep them in Obedience And as Princes can never be satisfied that their Subjects have been throughly paced in these difficult Doctrines so they can never be secure that they will not play the Iades and Kick and fling their Riders when they spur them too severely and press too hard upon them And therefore I doubt such Princes whose Government is severe will always find it necessary to Ride this Beast as you call it the People with strong Curbs and Cavessons But besides all this there is likewise another infirmity in the Nature of Mankind and of which Princes may as well be Guilty as other men that they are more apt to oppress and insult over those whose Principles or Natural Tempers may be against all Resistance and for this I appeal to your Example of the Primitive Christians who were not one jot the better used by the Roman Emperours tho' they expresly disclaimed all Resistance of those Emperours for Persecution in matters of Religion and tho' some neighbouring Princes are thought to have their Subjects in more perfect Subjection and that either their Religion or Natural Tempers makes them less apt to resist the Violence and Oppression of their Monarchs than the English or other Nations Yet I desire you to enquire whether Taxes and all other oppressions do not Reign as much under those Governments however sensible the Princes may be of their Subjects Loyalty and Obedience Therefore to conclude I shall freely leave it to your Judgment or that of any indifferent Person which is most agreeable to the main Ends of Civil Government viz the Common good of Mankind and the Happiness and Safety of each particular Kingdom or Commonwealth that the Violence and Tyranny of Princes should be sometimes Resisted than that the People under the Pretence of this irresistible Power should be liable to be made beggars and Slaves whenever any Prince or State had a Mind to it And I appeal to your own Conscience if the supposed belief of the Passive Obedience of some of our Church was not one of the greatest encouragements which the King and the Iesuited Fâ—ction had to bring in the Popish Religion under the Colour of the dispensing Power Ecclesiastical Commissioners and force of a standing Army from which Unavoidable mischiefs nothing under God but this wonderful Revolution could have rescued us And therefore I think it becomes any honest man to thank God for it and join with his Highness the Prince of Oriâ—â—ge as the only means now miracles are ceased which God hath been plâ—ased to ordain by the course of his Providence for our Deliverance M. I
before his Marriage with that Princess and whilest he was and Usurper upon her Right so that certainly it is no argument that since Parliaments have acted illegally therefore your Convention may do so too for it is a known Maxime in our Civil Law a facto ad Ius non valet consequentia therefore whatever they have done toward creating a good Title to King William in respect of the Queen his Wife and his Issue by her yet this doth no way excuse the wrong done to the Princess of Denmark and her Issue in case they survive your King F. 'T is very wonderful to me to see how ingenious some Men are in finding faults with the present settlement of things though never so much for the best if not done exactly according to suit with their Humour or Hypothesis when indeed there can no fault be justly found with it for you agree that if the Queen hath a Right King William hath so also during his Life and whether the Princess of Denmark and her issue may survive the King is yet uncertain but if either she or they should happen to survive his Majesty yet since she hath made no claim or protestation in the Convention against the Kings holding the Crown after the Decease of the Queen I cannot see why this should not pass for a tacit Resignation oâ—â—er Right as well as in the case of the Princess Elizabeth you but now mentioned But admit his present Majesty according to the late received rules of Succession hath not a Title by Descent yet according to those principles I have already laid down he certainly has not only a Right to the Crown from that inherent power which I suppose doth still remain in the Eslates of the Kingdom as Representatives of the whole Nation to bestow the Crown on every Abdication or Forfeiture thereof on such Prince of the Blood Royal as they shall think best to deserve it and upon this account I conceive there is none of the Blood that can stand in competition with his Present Majesty for Prudence Valour Moderation and all other Royal Vertues and therefore it is not at all to be wonder'd at if the Convention hath in this case exercised that Original Power which the People reserved to it self at the first institution of Kingly Government in this Island especially if we consider his present Majesty not only as a Conquerour over King Iames but as our Deliverer from his Oppression and that Arbitrary Government that we were so lately under and which was like to be much worse had his reign continued a little longer Therefore I cannot but here take occasion to vindicate his Present Majesty from those exceptions you have made against his Country and Civil as well as Religious Principles First As to his Country 't is true he is a Foreigner yet that can he no exception against his admission to the Throne since it was none against his great Grand-father King Iames and I doubt not but his Majesty may understand as much of the English Constitution and Government as his said Grand father did when he first came to the Crown But as for his principles in Religion I cannot see any reason to suspect him more inclinable to the Church Government of Holland then that of England since he was bred up under a Mother who was always firm to the Religion and Discipline of our Church and ever since he was Married to the Princess he hath always shew'd a very great respect to its Liturgy and Ceremonies by his so constant frequenting his Princesses Chappel so that besides his Majesties Interest to maintain Episcopacy as most agreeable to the Monarchy and Antient Constitution of this Kingdom it is likewise if he were able not in his power to destroy the Church of England since the main body of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of this Nation is to zealous for its preservation that if he had any such inclinations it would not be easie for him to effect it and he is too wise a Prince to let others persuade him so visibly against his own interest and having so late an example before his Eyes that it was King Iames's ruine to attempt it As for what you say of Scotland 't is true Presbitery is for the present set up there but it is uncharitable to impute this to the Kings inclinations for it is notorious that of them which call themselves Episcopal in that Kingdom a very great number did either out of prejudice to the Princes Cause or in contempt of his Power refuse to be chosen Members of the Convention or else after they were chosen did so far adhere to King Iames's interest as to desert it as did my Lord Dundee and many others and by that means gave the Presbyterian Party an advantage to carry all things as they pleas'd and this Party finding the King not well settled here and the Irish in Ireland in Arms against him took hold of that opportunity to put the abolishing of Episcopacy into the very instrument of Government and to press it upon him at a time when an unavoidable necessity and the obstinacy of too many of the Episcopal Party forced him to consent to it wherefore this no way shews his Majesties inclinations to set up Presbytery even in Scotland much less doth it prove he would set it up here where the Circumstances are quite different for here the main body of the People hate that Government and will be so far from desiring it that they will never endure it so that as to this your fears of King William are as vain as your hopes of King Iames. I shall conclude with a few words in answer to your reply against those examples wherein I have shewn you that the Crown hath always been under such a disposition as the two Mouses of Parliament should appoint to which you have nothing else to object but that their admission of Henry the IV th to the Crown was condemned as unlawful by two Acts of Parliament which I have already answer'd by showing you that those Acts were obtain'd by Richard Duke of York and Edward the IV th his Son by actual Rebellion and by as great a force upon King Henry the VI th as ever was used against King Richard the II d by Henry the IV th and as for the Statute of the first of Henry the VII th you have found out a very easie way of answering it by affirming that it was done whilst he was an Usurper and before his Marriage or that he had any right to be King But by this way of arguing no Act he ever passed would be good since It is certain he did never take upon him to Govern in right of his Queen as all those that have writ his Life do acknowledge and therefore if the Parliament would then settle the Crown upon him and his right Heirs without any respect to his Queen or her Issue or Sisters in case she should die
Childless I cannot see why the Convention may not as well now settle the Crown upon King William and Queen Mary and their issue with remainder to himself for Life especially since he hath also another Title of his own to confirm it viz. that of a Conqueror over King Iames and our Deliverer from his Arbitrary Government M. I shall not go about to derogate from King Williams Personal Vertues which you so highly extoll only I wish I may not prove too true a Prophet since that is not the main question between us I shall only take upon me to answer in the first place what you have urged on the behalf of King William's pretence to the Crown as a Conquerour over King Iames and Deliverer of the Nation for whatsoever he may pretend to in respect of the latter I am sure he cannot justly pretend to the former since sure he can never have any right by Conquest who expresly sets forth in his first Declaration that he only came to obtain a Free Parliament and to Redress our Grievances Much less can he be properly call'd a Conquerour who never overcame his Enemy in any pitched Battle but by false Stories made the King's Army desert him and then when this was done having forced the King to leave the Kingdom for fear he has in the day of his power by these means obtain'd the Crown and as for a Deliverer you must pardon me if I cannot think him so since I am not yet satisfied that the worst of King Iames's Oppressions ever deserved that the Prince of Orange should take the pains to come over to redress them And therefore your paralell between your King's Title and that of Henry the IV th and Henry the VII th doth not at all agree since both of them claimed not so much by Conquest or force of Arms as by a pretended right of inheritance as you may see by both their Claims And as for Henry the IV th 't is plain he looked upon his Title by descent of blood having been allow'd in Parliament to be so good that for the first seven years of his Reign he never thought it worth while to pass an Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon himself and his Issue but for Richard the III d and Henry the VII th they were so far from owning their Titles to any Act or Declaration of Parliament that they first clap'd the Crown upon their own heads and after they had done it they immediately call'd their Parliaments which tho' they recogniz'd their Titles yet did not make them Kings but found them so whereas the Convention has by their sole Authority made the Prince of Orange and Princess King and Queen of England to the prejudice of the right Heirs of the Crown F. I doubt not but what I have already said may very well be desended notwithstanding the utmost you have now argued against it In the first place as to what you say against King William's Title as a Conquerour over King Iames is very trivial for though it is true the Prince declar'd before he came over that his coming was for no other end but to obtain a Free Parliament Redress Grievances and to remove Evil Councellors from King Iames yet that is still to be understood that the King would agree to those reasonable demands the Prince then â—aâ—e for if by his own obstinacy he would bring things to that pass as that instead of redressing those violations he had made upon our fundamental Laws he raised an Army to support himself in them and when he thought this Army would not sight in his so bad a Cause he then disbanded it and by that as well as the desertion of the Throne owned himself vanquish'd Can any body deny the Prince of Orange a right of making what advantage he could of his Successes And therefore I doubt not but that the Prince might if he pleas'd have taken upon him the Title of King immediately upon King Iames's first departure and have summon'd a Parliament to recognize his Title as Henry the VII th did after his Victory at Bosworth Field nor would this have made him a Conquerour over the Kingdom since he never made War against it but came to deliver it from Tyranny and Oppression Nor did William the Corquerour himself by his Victory over King Harold ever pretend to a right by Conquest over the whole Kingdom but only over the Estates and Persons of those who had fought against him as I have fully proved at our Tenth Meeting nor did Henry the VII th in the first Speech he made to the Parliament after his taking upon him the Crown claim a right to it by Conquest over the Kingdom as his own words were in that Speech you mention to this first Parliament but only that by the just judgment of God in giving him the Victory over his Enemy in the Field and he then farther declar'd that all his Subjects of whatsoever State and Condition should enjoy their Lands and Goods to them and their Heirs as they did before except such Persons who were to be attainted by Act of Parliament Nor is it any objection against his right by Conquest that he obtained no Victory in a pitch'd Battle since I never heard or read that to make a Prince a Conquerour it is necessary that so many thousand Men should be kill'd upon the spot for admit the adverse Prince against whom he fights will through Cowardise desert his Army or that his Army will desert him either through fear or a sence of the greater justice of the adverse Princes Cause or an affection to his Person so that it never come to a Battle yet it has been in all Ages looked upon as all one with a Victory as I can show you from several examples in History and particularly in Plutarch concerning Pyrrhus King of Epyrus who making War against Demetrius then King of Macedon and both Armies being encamped near each other the Army of the latter forsook him and went over to Pyrrhus as well out of hatred to him as esteem for his Enemy so that Demetrius being forced to steal away in disguise Pyrrhus thereupon was immediately in the Field Proclaimed King of Macedon And I doubt not but the Prince of Orange might have done the same had it not been for his great moderation and least it might give his Adversaries occasion to traduce him that he came over for no other end but to drive the King out of his Kingdom and therefore he chose rather to owe the Crown to the free Act of the Nation than to his right by Conquest over King Iames but yet I do not think he hath at all lost that right though he doth not think fit for fear of giving offence to insist upon it and therefore certainly the Convention might very well justifie the setling the Crown upon his Highness during his Life not only as a Conquerour over K. Iames but a Deliverer of